Not Quite Killing It: Black Hole Evaporation, Global Energy, and De-Idealization

Eugene Y. S. Chua

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 15 references

Not Quite Killing It: Black Hole Evaporation, Global Energy, and De-Idealization

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read A family of arguments that black holes evaporate because Hawking radiation carries away globally conserved energy does not yet justify evaporation of realistic black holes, because the required symmetries are idealizations with no…

desk verdict A genuinely useful philosophical paper on why the global-energy argument for black hole evaporation lacks a de-idealization story, but its central negative claim about approximate Killing fields is softer than the abstract suggests and may face a simple Vaidya counterexample. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11142 v2 pith:HMOSW4M7 submitted 2025-01-19 physics.hist-ph gr-qc

Eugene Y. S. Chua This is my paper · ORCID

classification physics.hist-phgr-qc

keywords blackholesholeevaporationglobalconservationofenergyde-idealizationidealizationapproximationsymmetriesapproximateKillingfields

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper targets the widespread inference that Hawking radiation makes black holes evaporate. Many derivations of that conclusion rely on global conservation of energy, which in general relativity exists only when spacetime has a global or asymptotic symmetry: a time-like Killing field in stationary spacetimes, or flatness at infinity in asymptotically flat ones. Realistic evaporating black holes are neither stationary nor located in an asymptotically flat universe, so the usual move is to treat them as quasi-stationary or as approximately asymptotically flat. The paper argues that these idealizations cannot be de-idealized, because no existing notion of approximate Killing fields supplies a physical measure of closeness to symmetry. The precise conclusion is not that black holes fail to evaporate, but that this family of arguments currently gives no justification that realistic black holes evaporate.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Killing vector field, the generator of an isometry of spacetime, together with its proposed substitute, the approximate Killing field. A global time-like Killing field underwrites global conservation of energy; an asymptotic time-like Killing field at spatial infinity underwrites the conserved ADM mass. The paper's argument turns on showing that approximate Killing fields cannot play the de-idealization role: they are defined as solutions to generalized equations or extremal conditions, but no procedure provides a canonical measure of how close a given vector field is to a true Killing field, no available construction guarantees the approximate field is time-like, and the known constructions require assumptions (compactness, asymptotic flatness) that fail for realistic evaporating black holes. Quasi-stationarity and asymptotic flatness are the two idealizations whose de-idealization would have to run through approximate Killing fields, and that is precisely where the paper locates the gap.

What would settle it

A concrete inverse test: construct a family of slowly evaporating black hole spacetimes (for example Vaidya or scalar-field back-reaction models with a positive cosmological constant) and exhibit an explicit vector field whose deviation from Killing's equation is bounded by a parameter that vanishes as the evaporation rate goes to zero, together with a demonstration that a mass quantity derived from that field approaches the ADM mass in the same limit; such a construction would provide exactly the de-idealization the paper says is missing.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the conservation-law route from Hawking radiation to black hole evaporation is hostage to two idealizations—quasi-stationarity and asymptotic flatness—and that neither can be de-idealized in the sense required to transfer conclusions from idealized models to real black holes. Quasi-stationarity requires regarding a time-dependent evaporating black hole as a sequence of stationary solutions, but stationary solutions are precisely the ones that cannot change; the idealization is contradictory unless understood as a limit of processes that never reach it. Asymptotic flatness fails for the actual universe, which is better modeled by asymptotically de Sitter spacetime with a positive cosmological constant, and the lambda-to-zero limit is discontinuous. Attempts to rescue either idealization by appealing to approximate Killing fields fail, the paper argues, because extant constructions (solving generalized Killing equations, extremizing error terms, or using almost-Killing equations) give no physical meaning to 'closeness' to a Killing field, offer no guarantee of a time-like approximate Killing field, and often rely on unrealistic assumptions such as compactness or asymptotic flatness. The upshot is that arguments for black hole evaporation built on global conservation of energy remain unjustified for realistic black holes, pending a workable de-idealization procedure.

Load-bearing premise

The argument depends on the normative premise that an idealization justifies claims about a real system only if a de-idealization procedure shows how the idealized properties approximately survive when the idealization is removed; if a more permissive account of idealization is correct, the conclusion that evaporation arguments are unjustified does not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If the paper is right, physicists who cite global conservation of energy to conclude that Hawking radiation shrinks a realistic black hole are drawing a conclusion that their idealizations do not support.
The failure of de-idealization is local, not global: the paper explicitly quarantines the argument from standard uses of asymptotically flat metrics, such as gravitational lensing and perihelion precession, whose predictions can be recovered in more realistic spacetimes without the limit property.
Arguments from local quantities, such as vacuum-polarization treatments of the expected stress-energy tensor near the horizon, are not touched by this critique and may offer a more promising route to evaporation.
The paper also flags that quasi-local definitions of energy, such as the Brown-York approach, may inherit the same de-idealization problem, since they too require Killing or approximate Killing fields.
The conclusion is conditional: a future rigorous de-idealization procedure, or a more permissive theory of idealization, would revive the justification.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

An extension the paper does not pursue: one can test its challenge directly by searching for a norm on the deviation tensor from Killing's equation, normalized by curvature scales, and asking whether slowly evaporating black hole spacetimes admit vector fields with arbitrarily small norm as the evaporation rate decreases.
The paper's standard suggests a broader methodological lesson: in any theory where symmetries generate conserved quantities and realistic systems lack those symmetries, the burden is on the modeler to exhibit approximate symmetry in a metric sense, not merely to assert it.
If a more permissive account of idealization is developed, the evaporation conclusion might be reinstated without a literal de-idealization; that would not refute the paper's analysis, but would bypass its normative premise.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

This paper is worth reading. It's the first to bring Norton's idealization/de-idealization distinction to bear on the global-energy arguments for black hole evaporation, and it does that with care. The three-problem taxonomy for approximate Killing fields (closest does not mean close, no timelike guarantee, overly strong assumptions) is a real contribution, and the quarantine section showing that asymptotically flat metrics remain fine for lensing, perihelion precession, and accretion is a responsible boundary-drawing move. The author is also admirably honest: §5.4 explicitly disclaims any proof of a negative existential, and the conclusion is a burden-of-proof claim about current justification, not a denial of evaporation. That restraint is genuine.

Now the soft spots. The load-bearing premise is the de-idealization norm itself, introduced in §5.3 and defended only briefly. If a more permissive account of idealization is right, the conclusion doesn't follow. The author concedes this in §7, so it's not hidden, but it is still the hinge of the paper.

More seriously, the stress-test's Vaidya example lands harder than the reader's report suggests. The simple ε-Killing field ξ = ∂_u has Killing residual -2m'(u)/r, which at the horizon is ~ℏ/m^3, a fraction ~ℏ/m of the curvature scale. That is precisely the controlled, dimensionless smallness parameter the paper claims is missing. There is a technical wrinkle—the residual has only a uu component, and du is null, so the standard metric norm vanishes unless you use a positive-definite frame norm or an auxiliary foliation—but that doesn't rescue the paper's broad survey claim. The extant procedures may indeed fail, but the paper does not rule out the possibility that a simple covariant definition works, and its own hedge in §5.4 leaves that door wide open. The abstract's language about "significant challenges" and "undermining" is stronger than the body's carefully hedged conclusion.

Who benefits? Philosophers of physics working on idealization, semiclassical gravity, or energy in GR. Physicists will find the framing clear but may reasonably think the missing de-idealization is just a technical exercise.

Recommendation: send it to referees. It deserves serious engagement, but the author should be asked to (1) address the Vaidya-style ε-Killing definition head-on, and (2) reframe the abstract and conclusion to match the actual burden-of-proof claim. With those revisions, this is a solid contribution.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper examines a family of arguments for black hole evaporation that infer mass loss from Hawking radiation via global energy conservation. It argues that such arguments rely on stationarity, through quasi-stationarity, or on asymptotic flatness, and that both are idealizations that cannot be de-idealized because no suitable notion of approximate Killing fields is available. The paper therefore concludes that, on a prominent de-idealization norm, these arguments do not currently justify the claim that realistic black holes evaporate, while quarantining the worry from other uses of asymptotic flatness in general relativity.

Significance. If the conclusion were established, the paper would make an important contribution to philosophy of physics by showing that a central black-hole inference rests on non-de-idealizable idealizations. The paper is careful and well structured: it distinguishes approximation from idealization, explicitly concedes the absence of a negative existential proof, and offers a useful quarantine argument showing that gravitational lensing and accretion do not inherit the problem. However, the omission of residual-based approximate Killing fields means the central negative claim is currently too strong; the paper's conditional and hedged claims are the defensible ones.

major comments (3)

[§5.4; Eq. (11)] The paper's central negative claim—that there is no suitable notion of approximate Killing fields that can do the work required—is not established, because the survey in §5.4 omits the obvious residual-based definition. For a vector field ξ, define it as an ε-Killing field when ‖£_ξ g‖ ≤ ε in a dimensionless norm normalized by the local curvature scale. In the Vaidya metric (Eq. (11)), ξ = ∂_u is timelike outside the horizon, and £_ξ g = −2m'(u)/r du², so at the horizon the residual is of order ℏ/m³ while the curvature scale is of order 1/m²; the dimensionless error is ~ℏ/m. This gives exactly the controlled, physically meaningful smallness parameter that the paper claims is missing, and it avoids the compactness and asymptotic-flatness assumptions criticized as Problems 2 and 3. Because the argument in §5.4 rules out this definition only by not considering it, the conclusion that quasi-stationarity cannot be de-idealized does not follow.
[§7] The concluding formulation 'we are still left with the naïve dilemma' overstates the preceding argument. The author explicitly concedes in §5.4 that no negative existential proof has been given and in §7 that the conclusion is conditional on a stringent de-idealization norm. What the paper actually establishes is that the surveyed proposals fail and that, under one prominent normative standard, justification is currently lacking. The manuscript should be revised so that the abstract and introduction state this weaker, conditional conclusion rather than claiming that no suitable notion exists.
[§5.3 and §7] The load-bearing normative premise—that de-idealization is required for justified inference from an idealization—is introduced with citations but not defended against more permissive alternatives. The author concedes in §7 that this is a highly stringent standard and that no more permissive account currently exists. Since the central conclusion is false under any account that permits inference without de-idealization, the paper should either provide a direct defense of the standard or explicitly present the conclusion as conditional on it. The current text does acknowledge the conditional in §7, but the abstract and introduction do not carry this caveat.

minor comments (4)

[§5.2] Figure 1 is referenced in the text but does not appear in the manuscript; either include the figure or remove the reference.
[Eq. (23)] The ADM integral would benefit from a one-sentence clarification at first use that the surface element is evaluated at spatial infinity and that the indices are spatial; the text explains this later, but an early clarification would improve readability.
[§6.4] The citation to Ashtekar et al. (2016, 2–3) for discontinuities in the energy term as Λ → 0 is somewhat broad; a more specific reference to the particular result or equation would aid verification.
[References] There is an inconsistent spelling between 'Abramovicz' in §5.1 and 'Abramowicz' in the reference list; the spelling should be standardized to match the published names.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper is a conditional philosophical critique whose conclusion does not reduce to its own premises or to self-citation.

full rationale

The paper does not attempt a mathematical derivation or an empirical prediction; it presents a conditional philosophical argument. Its central claim is that, if a de-idealization standard of the kind defended by McMullin, Earman, Norton, and Fletcher is accepted, then the quasi-stationarity and asymptotic-flatness routes to a global conservation law cannot currently be de-idealized because extant approximate-Killing-field constructions lack a well-defined notion of closeness. This is not circular by construction: the paper explicitly leaves open alternative de-idealization strategies, stating that it leaves it open that there may be other means of de-idealizing or approximately understanding symmetries and conserved quantities, and it carefully hedges the negative claim about approximate Killing fields, conceding that it has not proven a negative existential claim. The conclusion is therefore that evaporation arguments are currently lacking justification, not that evaporation is impossible or that the absence of approximate Killing fields is established as a theorem. The normative premise is external to the paper, is acknowledged to be stringent, and is supported from the philosophy-of-science literature rather than from the paper's own prior results. The two citations to Chua & Callender (2021) are ancillary: they support a general point about the need for a metric to make sense of closeness and about the need for physical justification of approximations, but the central argument is carried by the surveyed physics literature (Matzner, Cook & Whiting, Bona et al., Feng et al.) and by the independent idealization literature. Even if the survey of approximate Killing fields is incomplete or contestable, that would be a substantive scientific objection to the paper's premises, not a circularity in its reasoning. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction, no result is imported solely from the authors' own uniqueness theorems, and no known empirical pattern is merely relabeled. The paper is therefore self-contained as a conditional philosophical argument and exhibits no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper contributes a philosophical argument, not a derivation, so it has no fitted parameters and no invented entities. Its load-bearing axioms are the standard Noether and Killing correspondence from GR, the empirical claim that our universe is asymptotically de Sitter with positive cosmological constant, the interpretative claim that Hawking radiation is a global process requiring global structure, and the normative de-idealization requirement adopted from the philosophy of science literature. The last of these is the most fragile and is explicitly acknowledged by the author as a stringent, not fully defended, standard.

assumptions (4)

standard math Global conservation of energy in GR requires a global time-like Killing field or appropriate asymptotic symmetries, per Noether's theorem and Killing's equation.
Invoked in §2 (eqs. 3-6) and throughout; standard result cited to Hawking & Ellis (1973), Misner, Thorne & Wheeler (1973), and Noether (1918).
domain assumption Justified use of an idealization to draw conclusions about a real system requires a de-idealization procedure showing idealized properties approximately survive when the idealization is removed.
Adopted in §5.3 from McMullin (1985), Earman (2004), Norton (2012), and Fletcher (2020); the author concedes in §7 this is a high standard and does not defend it against more permissive accounts.
domain assumption Realistic black hole evaporation is non-stationary, and the actual universe is not asymptotically flat but is modeled as asymptotically de Sitter with a positive cosmological constant.
Used in §4 and §6.3 to argue that exact global time-like Killing fields and ADM mass are unavailable for realistic systems; based on standard FLRW cosmology and cited to Witten (2001) and Ashtekar et al (2016).
domain assumption The Hawking radiation derivation under discussion is a global process that assumes stationarity or asymptotic flatness, and the relevant notion of approximate symmetry must be understood in terms of approximate Killing fields.
Invoked in §3, §5.4 (fn. 29), and §6; the author notes this is one natural way to de-idealize conserved quantities and leaves open other approaches.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Not Quite Killing It: Black Hole Evaporation, Global Energy, and De-Idealization." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/HMOSW4M7

@misc{pith2026250111142,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Not Quite Killing It: Black Hole Evaporation, Global Energy, and De-Idealization},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/HMOSW4M7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11142}
}

read the original abstract

A family of arguments for black hole evaporation relies on conservation laws, defined through symmetries represented by Killing vector fields which exist globally or asymptotically. However, these symmetries often rely on the idealizations of stationarity and asymptotic flatness, respectively. In non-stationary or non-asymptotically-flat spacetimes where realistic black holes evaporate, the requisite Killing fields typically do not exist. Can we 'de-idealize' these idealizations, and subsequently the associated arguments for black hole evaporation? Here, I critically examine the strategy of using 'approximately Killing' fields to de-idealize black hole spacetimes and approximately extend conservation laws to non-idealized cases. I argue that this approach encounters significant challenges, undermining the use of these idealizations to justify the evaporation of realistic -- rather than idealized -- black holes, and raising questions about the justified use of such idealizations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11142 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The typical Carnot cycle. In these cases, we are modeling target systems that are really time-dependent using these idealized quasi-static processes. Typical thermodynamic objects change over time: our cup of coffee cool down – and our mug of beer warms up – over time. Nevertheless, if changes to these objects are slow and small enough, the system can be approximated with quasi-static processes, such that we can tre… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

15 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

Abramowicz, M. A., B. Czerny, J. P. Lasota, and E. Szuszkiewicz (1988). Slim Accretion Disks. The Astrophysical Journal 332 , 646–658. Abramowicz, M. A. and P. C. Fragile (2013). Foundations of Black Hole Accretion Disk Theory. Living Reviews in Relativity 16 (1),

work page 1988
[2]

Abramowicz, M. A. and O. Straub (2014). Accretion Discs. Scholarpedia 9(8),

work page 2014
[4]

Vranas, P. B. M. (1998). Epsilon-Ergodicity and the Success of Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 65 (4), 688–708. 50 Wald, R. M. (2001). The Thermodynamics of Black Holes. Living Reviews in Relativity 4 (6). Wall, A. C. (2009). Ten Proofs of the Generalized Second Law. Journal of High Energy Physics 2009 (06),

work page 1998
[21]

Wallace, D. (2018). The Case for Black Hole Thermodynamics Part I: Phenomenological Thermodynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 64 , 52–67. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy 104 (12), 639–659. Will, C. M. (2015). The 1919 Measurement of the D...

arXiv 2018
[76]

Schoen, R. and S. T. Yau (1981). Proof of the Positive Mass Theorem. II. Communications in Mathematical Physics 79 (2), 231 –

work page 1981
[233]

Pitts, J. B. (2010). Gauge-Invariant Localization of Infinitely Many Gravitational Energies From All Possible Auxiliary Structures. Gen Relativ Gravit 42 , 601–622. Podolsk´y, J. and O. Sv´ıtek (2005). Radiative Spacetimes Approaching The Vaidya Metric. Phys. Rev. D 71, 124001. Read, J. (2020). Functional Gravitational Energy. The British Journal for the ...

arXiv 2010
[257]

Tavel, Reprinted from ”Transport Theory and Statistical Mechanics” 1(3), 183-207 (1971)

English translation by M.A. Tavel, Reprinted from ”Transport Theory and Statistical Mechanics” 1(3), 183-207 (1971). Norton, J. D. (2012). Approximation and Idealization: Why The Difference Matters. Philosophy of Science 79 (2), 207–232. Norton, J. D. (2016). The Impossible Process: Thermodynamic Reversibility. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science...

work page 1971
[260]

Schwarzschild, K. (1916). On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point According to Einstein’s Theory. Sitzungsber.Preuss.Akad.Wiss.Berlin (Math.Phys.), 189–196. Translated by S. Antoni and A. Loinger (1999). Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030. Shibata, M., K. Nakao, T. Nakamura, and K. Maeda (1994). Dynamical Evolution of Gravitational Wave...

arXiv 1916

Show all 15 references

[316]

Chua, E. Y. S. and C. Callender (2021). No time for time from no-time.Philosophy of Science 88(5), 1172–1184. Cook, G. B. and B. F. Whiting (2007). Approximate Killing Vectors on S2. Phys. Rev. D 76 , 041501. Curiel, E. (2019a). The Many Definitions of a Black Hole. Nature Ast...

2021 arXiv
[386]

Carlip, S. (2014). Black Hole Thermodynamics. International Journal of Modern Physics D 23 (11), 1430023. Carroll, S. M. (2019). Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity . Cambridge University Press. Cartwright, N., J. Hardie, E. Montuschi, M. Soleiman, an...

2014
[474]

Lam, V. (2011). Gravitational and Nongravitational Energy: The Need for Background Struc- tures. Philosophy of Science 78 (5), 1012–1024. Lovelace, G., R. Owen, H. P. Pfeiffer, and T. Chu (2008). Binary-Black-Hole Initial Data with Nearly Extremal Spins. Phys. Rev. D 78, 08401...

2011 arXiv
[923]

Press release

Nobel Prize Committee (1993). Press release. https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1993/press- release. Noether, E. (1918). Invariante Variationsprobleme. Nachr. v. d. Ges. d. Wiss. zu G ¨ottingen, 235–

1993
[2021]

Okon, and D

48 Maudlin, T., E. Okon, and D. Sudarsky (2020). On the Status of Conservation Laws in Physics: Implications for Semiclassical Gravity. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 69 , 67–81. McGrath, P. L., R. J. Ep...

2020
[2024]

Saw, V.-L. (2016). Mass-loss of an isolated gravitating system due to energy carried away by gravitational waves with a cosmological constant. Phys. Rev. D 94, 104004. Schoen, R. and S. T. Yau (1979). On the Proof of the Positive Mass Conjecture in General Relativity. Communic...

2016
[2408]

Arnowitt, R

Revision #145813. Arnowitt, R. L., S. Deser, and C. W. Misner (1962). The Dynamics of General Relativity. Gen. Rel. Grav. 40, 1997–2027. 44 Ashtekar, A. (2017). Implications of a Positive Cosmological Constant for General Relativity. Rept.Prog.Phys. 80(10), 102901. Ashtekar, A...

1962

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Abramowicz, M. A., B. Czerny, J. P. Lasota, and E. Szuszkiewicz (1988). Slim Accretion Disks. The Astrophysical Journal 332 , 646–658. Abramowicz, M. A. and P. C. Fragile (2013). Foundations of Black Hole Accretion Disk Theory. Living Reviews in Relativity 16 (1),

work page 1988

[2] [2]

Abramowicz, M. A. and O. Straub (2014). Accretion Discs. Scholarpedia 9(8),

work page 2014

[3] [4]

Vranas, P. B. M. (1998). Epsilon-Ergodicity and the Success of Equilibrium Statistical Mechanics. Philosophy of Science 65 (4), 688–708. 50 Wald, R. M. (2001). The Thermodynamics of Black Holes. Living Reviews in Relativity 4 (6). Wall, A. C. (2009). Ten Proofs of the Generalized Second Law. Journal of High Energy Physics 2009 (06),

work page 1998

[4] [21]

Wallace, D. (2018). The Case for Black Hole Thermodynamics Part I: Phenomenological Thermodynamics. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 64 , 52–67. Weisberg, M. (2007). Three kinds of idealization. Journal of Philosophy 104 (12), 639–659. Will, C. M. (2015). The 1919 Measurement of the D...

arXiv 2018

[5] [76]

Schoen, R. and S. T. Yau (1981). Proof of the Positive Mass Theorem. II. Communications in Mathematical Physics 79 (2), 231 –

work page 1981

[6] [233]

Pitts, J. B. (2010). Gauge-Invariant Localization of Infinitely Many Gravitational Energies From All Possible Auxiliary Structures. Gen Relativ Gravit 42 , 601–622. Podolsk´y, J. and O. Sv´ıtek (2005). Radiative Spacetimes Approaching The Vaidya Metric. Phys. Rev. D 71, 124001. Read, J. (2020). Functional Gravitational Energy. The British Journal for the ...

arXiv 2010

[7] [257]

Tavel, Reprinted from ”Transport Theory and Statistical Mechanics” 1(3), 183-207 (1971)

English translation by M.A. Tavel, Reprinted from ”Transport Theory and Statistical Mechanics” 1(3), 183-207 (1971). Norton, J. D. (2012). Approximation and Idealization: Why The Difference Matters. Philosophy of Science 79 (2), 207–232. Norton, J. D. (2016). The Impossible Process: Thermodynamic Reversibility. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science...

work page 1971

[8] [260]

Schwarzschild, K. (1916). On the Gravitational Field of a Mass Point According to Einstein’s Theory. Sitzungsber.Preuss.Akad.Wiss.Berlin (Math.Phys.), 189–196. Translated by S. Antoni and A. Loinger (1999). Available at https://arxiv.org/abs/physics/9905030. Shibata, M., K. Nakao, T. Nakamura, and K. Maeda (1994). Dynamical Evolution of Gravitational Wave...

arXiv 1916