Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

A note on Strong Cosmic Censorship and its violation in Reissner-Nordstr\"om de Sitter black hole space-times

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 The paper claims that in the Reissner-Nordström de Sitter black hole, near-extremal charges and masses produce a quasinormal-mode ratio $\beta > 1/2$, so the Christodoulou formulation of Strong Cosmic Censorship fails and the metric…

desk verdict A clear pedagogical review of SCC in RNdS whose small original scan is suggestive but not established, since the WKB method is used at ℓ=1 outside its stated validity range. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.12968 v1 pith:IF2SNLVO submitted 2025-01-22 gr-qc hep-th

Anna Chrysostomou , Alan S. Cornell , Aldo Deandrea , Seong Chan Park This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5783C75 PACS 04.70.-s
keywords StrongCosmicCensorshipReissner-NordströmdeSitterquasinormalmodesCauchyhorizoncosmologicalconstantWKBapproximationblackholedeterminismscalarfield
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

This note argues that Strong Cosmic Censorship, in its Christodoulou form, can fail inside Reissner-Nordström de Sitter (RNdS) black holes. The authors compute the least-damped quasinormal mode of a charged, massive scalar test field and compare its decay rate with the surface gravity of the Cauchy horizon. When the ratio $\beta = -\mathrm{Im}\{\omega_{n=0}\}/|\kappa_-|$ exceeds $1/2$, the scalar perturbation is regular enough to extend across the Cauchy horizon, and by the proxy argument the metric can extend as a weak solution, breaking deterministic evolution. They find such violations in a finite region of the $(M,Q)$ phase diagram near extremality, especially around $M \sim Q \sim 0.089$, and identify a critical scalar mass $\mu_{\rm crit} \sim 1.7$ on the extremal line.

What carries the argument

The central object is the dimensionless ratio $\beta = -\mathrm{Im}\{\omega_{n=0}\}/|\kappa_-|$, which pits the exponential decay rate of the least-damped quasinormal mode against the blue-shift instability measured by the Cauchy horizon surface gravity. The threshold $\beta = 1/2$ separates the Christodoulou-preserving regime, where the perturbation fails to be $H^1_{\rm loc}$ across the Cauchy horizon, from the violating regime, where the extension is weak. The frequencies are obtained from a WKB series expansion $\omega = \sum_k \omega_k L^{-k}$ with $L = \sqrt{\ell(\ell+1)}$; the method evaluates the potential and its derivatives at the peak of the barrier in tortoise coordinates, and it is this computation that generates the specific $\beta$ values and the critical-mass curve.

What would settle it

Compute the same $\beta$ with a fully numerical quasinormal-mode solver at parameters such as $M \approx 0.089$, $Q \approx 0.089$, $\mu=0.1$, $q=0.1$, $\ell=1$; if the resulting ratio is below $1/2$, the shaded violation regions in the figures are an artefact of the WKB approximation. Alternatively, evolve the scalar field and check directly whether the $H^1_{\rm loc}$ norm of its first derivative blows up at the Cauchy horizon for those parameters.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Christodoulou formulation of Strong Cosmic Censorship is violated for a range of subextremal and extremal RNdS black holes with a charged massive scalar perturbation. Using the WKB method, the authors compute the two charge-dependent families of quasinormal frequencies, $\omega_+$ and $\omega_c$, for $\ell = 1$, and form the ratio $\beta = -\mathrm{Im}\{\omega_{n=0}\}/|\kappa_-|$. They report that $\beta > 1/2$ within the shaded OEU (cold, $Q>M$) region of the sharkfin and on points of the extremal OU line, with the violation region growing when the scalar charge is increased to $q=1$. By the extension criterion, this means the scalar field, and the metric if the linear proxy is faithful, can be continued past the Cauchy horizon with locally square-integrable Christoffel symbols, so the maximal future Cauchy development is not inextendible in the weak sense required by the Christodoulou conjecture.

Load-bearing premise

The WKB method returns accurate quasinormal frequencies at $\ell = 1$ for the charges and masses used, even though it is most reliable at large $\ell$ and small $Q$ and $q$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For parameter points with $\beta > 1/2$, the Christodoulou formulation of Strong Cosmic Censorship fails, so the RNdS metric admits a weak extension past the Cauchy horizon with locally square-integrable Christoffel symbols.
  • The violation is not confined to isolated points: a finite area of the cold OEU region and the extremal OU line in the $(M,Q)$ phase diagram satisfy the violation condition.
  • Increasing the scalar field charge from $q=0.1$ to $q=1$ substantially enlarges the violation region, so the effect is sensitive to charged matter content.
  • On the extremal line the damping rate inverts its $\ell$ dependence below a critical mass $\mu_{\rm crit} \sim 1.7$, which is the same region where the SCC condition is violated.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The authors' criterion assumes a linear scalar proxy; the natural next step is to include backreaction and check whether nonlinear effects restore inextendibility, since the scalar's stress-energy could change the Cauchy horizon structure.
  • If the WKB result survives more accurate methods, it implies near-extremal RNdS black holes with light charged fields are not deterministic in the weak-solution sense, which could place constraints on allowed charge-to-mass ratios in any theory that insists on cosmic censorship.
  • The $\mu_{\rm crit}$ inversion invites a perturbative check at higher $\ell$: the claim that damping decreases with $\ell$ for light fields should be visible in time-domain evolutions and would constitute a direct test.
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.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This note reviews the status of Strong Cosmic Censorship (SCC) for Reissner-Nordström de Sitter (RNdS) black holes and presents a numerical study of the Christodoulou-type SCC criterion β = -Im{ω_{n=0}}/|κ_-| < 1/2. The authors compute quasinormal frequencies of a charged, massive scalar field using a WKB-based method, and identify regions of the (M,Q) phase space, chiefly the 'colder' OEU region and parts of the OU line, where β > 1/2, which they interpret as evidence for SCC violation in the Christodoulou sense. The paper also provides a pedagogical review of the C^0, Christodoulou, and C^2 formulations of SCC and of the blue-shift/red-shift competition in asymptotically de Sitter black holes.

Significance. If the numerical evidence is correct, the paper would add a useful, compact illustration of the known result that a positive cosmological constant can violate the Christodoulou formulation of SCC for RNdS black holes, complementing the analytical theorems of Refs. [42,43] and the numerical studies in Refs. [48-50]. The review sections are clearly written and largely accurate: the definitions of the three SCC formulations are carefully distinguished, the role of the surface gravity κ_- and of the least-damped quasinormal mode is correctly identified, and the threshold β < 1/2 is taken from an external theorem rather than fitted. The manuscript does not suffer from circularity: the criterion and the phase-space structure are imported from prior work, and the self-citations [10,19] do not enter the β computation. However, the paper's central numerical claim currently rests on a single approximate method used outside its stated reliability range, with no independent benchmark, error estimate, or convergence study; this is the main reason the paper cannot be accepted as it stands.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section 2.3 and Section 4, Figs. 5-7] The WKB method is used at ℓ=1 with scalar charge q up to 1 and black hole charge Q up to about 0.3, but Section 2.3 explicitly states that the method is 'most reliable in the large-ℓ regime, and for small values of Q and q'. For ℓ=1 the expansion parameter is L^{-1}=1/sqrt(ℓ(ℓ+1)) ≈ 0.707, which is not small, and near extremality the potential barrier can be broad or asymmetric, undermining the peak-expansion ansatz in Eqs. (2.3.13)-(2.3.16). The claimed violations are not marginal by a large margin: Fig. 7 shows β values near 0.584-0.586, only about 17% above the threshold 1/2, so a modest error in Im{ω} can move the boundary. The authors should benchmark the WKB results against an independent method (e.g., direct integration, spectral methods, or the approaches used in Refs. [48-50]) and provide error estimates or convergence checks in the WKB order before the violation regions in Figs. 5-7 can be regarded as established.
  2. [Section 3.3 and Section 4] The criterion in Eq. (3.3.1) is stated in the text as applying to 'massive and neutral scalar fields', yet Section 4 computes β for charged scalar fields with q = 0.1 and q = 1. The charged scalar couples to A_t through the potential in Eq. (2.3.10), so the decay estimate of Ref. [42] and the threshold β < 1/2 cannot be applied without an argument that the theorem extends to the charged case. The manuscript should either justify this extension explicitly or restrict the SCC-violation claim to the parameter ranges covered by the theorem.
  3. [Section 4, OU-line discussion and Fig. 7] The claim of SCC violation 'on certain points on the OU line' concerns degenerate horizons with r_- = r_+, where κ_- → 0 and the ratio β = -Im{ω}/|κ_-| is singular. The theorem quoted in Section 3.3 is for non-degenerate RNdS black holes, so applying Eq. (3.3.1) on or at the extremal limit requires an additional limiting argument. The OEU-region evidence is the better-supported part of the claim; the OU-line part should either be rephrased as a near-extremal limit with a careful treatment of κ_- -> 0 or removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 2.3, Eq. (2.3.13)] The function U in Eq. (2.3.14) is written as U(V^{(2)}, V^{(3)}, V^{(4)}, V^{(5)}, V^{(6)}) but its explicit form is not given; please include the explicit expression or a precise pointer to the equation in Ref. [29].
  2. [Section 4, Figs. 5-7] The figures show shaded regions but do not give the resolution of the (M,Q) scans or the number of WKB orders used; stating the grid spacing and the WKB order would improve reproducibility.
  3. [Section 3.3, Eq. (3.3.1)] The statement 'for small mass m > 0' is not quantified; please specify the sense in which m is small and whether the inequality applies uniformly in the mass range used in Section 4.
  4. [Section 2.1] The notation m_BH and q_BH is introduced but the remainder of the paper uses M and Q; please either define both consistently or avoid introducing the intermediate notation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the SCC threshold and QNF method are external, and the self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

The central derivation is not circular. Section 3.3 imports the criterion β = -Im{ω_{n=0}}/|κ_-| < 1/2 from the external theorems of Hintz-Vasy [42] and Costa-Franzen [43], and Section 4 applies it to quasinormal frequencies computed with the WKB technique of Ref. [29]. The threshold 1/2 is an external result, not fitted to the data, and β is not defined using the SCC-violation regions it is used to identify. The surface gravity κ_- is obtained directly from the metric via Eq. (2.2.4), and Im{ω_{n=0}} is obtained by solving the radial eigenvalue problem (2.3.11) with boundary conditions (2.3.12); neither quantity is calibrated to produce β > 1/2. The self-citations [10,19] support only the phase-space diagram and background conventions (Sections 2.1-2.2), and do not enter the β computation. The paper's own caveat in Section 2.3 that the WKB method is 'most reliable in the large-ℓ regime, and for small values of Q and q' highlights a potential accuracy limitation for the ℓ=1, q≲1 computations in Section 4, but that is a numerical-reliability concern, not a circular reduction. No equation in the paper makes the predicted SCC violation equivalent to an input by construction, and no load-bearing premise rests solely on the authors' prior work.

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

The central claim rests on standard GR background, an external theorem (Hintz-Vasy criterion), and two computational assumptions (WKB accuracy and fundamental-mode dominance) that are not independently verified here. No new entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The linear massive charged scalar field is an adequate proxy for the full nonlinear Einstein-Maxwell system in determining SCC (in)extendibility at the Cauchy horizon.
    Stated in the Introduction and Section 2.3. The SCC criterion (Eq. 3.3.1) is derived for linear scalar perturbations in Refs [42,43], and the paper applies it to infer SCC violation in the full theory.
  • standard math The Christodoulou formulation of SCC is violated if and only if β ≡ -Im{ω_{n=0}}/|κ_-| > 1/2.
    Cited from Refs [42,43] in Section 3.3. The threshold is an external theorem and not re-derived here.
  • domain assumption The WKB expansion of Ref [29] yields accurate QNFs for the parameter ranges scanned in Section 4.
    The paper notes in Section 2.3 that the method is 'most reliable in the large-ℓ regime, and for small values of Q and q', but applies it at ℓ=1 with q up to 1 and Q up to about 0.3.
  • domain assumption The n=0 fundamental mode is the least-damped QNM for the massive charged scalar field.
    Section 2.3 states this without proof for the massive charged case. The least-damped mode determines the decay rate in Eq. (3.3.1) and hence β.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A note on Strong Cosmic Censorship and its violation in Reissner-Nordstr\"om de Sitter black hole space-times." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IF2SNLVO

@misc{pith2026250112968,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A note on Strong Cosmic Censorship and its violation in Reissner-Nordstr\"om de Sitter black hole space-times},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IF2SNLVO}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.12968}
}
read the original abstract

Penrose's Strong Cosmic Censorship conjecture safeguards determinism in General Relativity. Within the initial value approach to General Relativity, proof of Strong Cosmic Censorship preservation is predicated on the unique evolution of the metric. For the Kerr-Newman family of black hole solutions, this requires the inextendability of the metric past the Cauchy horizon, due to the development of a "blue-shift" instability. Attempts to provide a rigorous mathematical proof of Strong Cosmic Censorship has led to the formulation of several Strong Cosmic Censorship conjectures of varying strengths, which seem to be discussed rarely outside of the mathematical relativity literature. In this note, we review some of the arguments for and against Strong Cosmic Censorship preservation, with a focus on the Reissner-Nordstr\"om de Sitter context, where the positive cosmological constant invites a "red-shift" effect that competes against the "blue-shift". We study the consequent role of quasinormal mode behaviour and illustrate the parameter space for which we consistently observe violations of the Strong Cosmic Censorship conjecture within Reissner-Nordstr\"om de Sitter black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.12968 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The conformal diagram for the extended RNdS space-time. Shading indicates the black hole interior (Region II) and the accessible universe (Region I) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. A two-dimensional projection of the parameter space for H2 = Λ/3 = 1 for the 4D RNdS black hole. Dark (light) shading corresponds to cold (warm) black holes. Diagram originally sketched in Ref. [10], inspired by Ref. [21]. With this subsection in place, we have established a convenient frame of reference based on the black hole space-time parameters. This provides the necessary formalism needed to address the SCC co… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Conformal diagram for the extended RN black hole space-time, with Cauchy surface Σ. gravitational time dilation. For observer B, the wavelength of the incoming signal appears to be compressed or “blue-shifted”. By this logic, the frequency of an oscillating scalar field Φ entering the black hole appears to increase infinitely as it reaches the Cauchy horizon. This corresponds to an infinite amplification of the ener… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: From the RNdS Penrose diagram of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: With L 2 dS = 1 and for µ = ℓ = 1 and q = 0.1, we shade the parameter space in which ω+ (blue), ωc (orange), and both families (magenta) violate the condition for SCC preservation. of Φ lie in the Sobolev space H(β+ 1 2 )−ϵ ∀ϵ > 0. To satisfy the C 2 formulation of the…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: With L 2 dS = 1 and for µ = 0.1, q = 1, and ℓ = 1, we shade the parameter space in which ω+ (blue), ωc (orange), and both families (magenta) violate the condition for SCC preservation. amplification of perturbations in the interior region through a “blue-shift” mechani…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: For L 2 dS = 1, M = 0.157, and Q = 0.158, we plot the critical mass µcrit ∼ 1.7 corresponding to a violation of the condition for SCC preservation. parameter space is violated, extending from the extremal r− ∼ r+ regime. Finally, we note with interest that for a very s…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Scalar perturbations and strong cosmic censorship in a regular ABGB-de Sitter black hole spacetime

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In regular ABGB-de Sitter black holes, near-extremal scalar perturbations decay fast enough (β>1/2) to violate strong cosmic censorship, and adding scalar mass can push the regularity parameter past β=1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [51]

    Lagos M, Ferreira P G and Tattersall O J 2020Phys. Rev. D 101 084018 (Preprint 2002.01897)

    arXiv 2002

  2. [42]

    Hintz P and Vasy A 2017 J. Math. Phys. 58 081509 (Preprint 1512.08004)

    work page Pith review arXiv 2017

  3. [1]

    Oppenheimer J R and Snyder H 1939 Phys. Rev. 56 455–459 REFERENCES 27 Table B1: Notation for asymptotic regions depicted in a standard conformal space-time diagram. Region Symbol Coordinates Schwarzschild Eddington -F inkelstein Past horizon H − t → −∞, r∗ → −∞ v → −∞, finite u Future horizon H + t → +∞, r∗ → −∞ finite v, u → +∞ Past null infinity I − t →...

    work page 1939

  4. [2]

    Landsman K 2022 Gen. Rel. Grav. 54 115 (Preprint 2205.01680)

    arXiv 2022

  5. [3]

    Penrose R 1965 Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 57–59

    work page 1965

  6. [4]

    Nuovo Cim

    Penrose R 1969 Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1 252–276

    work page 1969

  7. [5]

    Penrose R 1999 Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 20 233–248

    work page 1999

  8. [6]

    Simpson M and Penrose R 1973 Int. J. Theor. Phys. 7 183–197

    work page 1973

Show all 61 references
  1. [7]

    Crisford T, Horowitz G T and Santos J E 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 066005 (Preprint 1709.07880)

    2018 arXiv

  2. [8]

    Henri Poincar´ e(Preprint 2309.14420)

    Rossetti F 2023 Ann. Henri Poincar´ e(Preprint 2309.14420)

    2023 arXiv

  3. [9]

    Sbierski J 2018 J. Diff. Geom. 108 319–378 (Preprint 1507.00601)

    2018 arXiv

  4. [10]

    Chrysostomou A, Cornell A, Deandrea A, Noshad H and Park S C 2025 PoS ICHEP2024 782

    2025

  5. [11]

    Israel W 1968 Commun. Math. Phys. 8 245–260 REFERENCES 28

    1968

  6. [12]

    Stephani H, Kramer D, MacCallum M, Hoenselaers C and Herlt E 2003 Exact Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations 2nd ed Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    2003

  7. [13]

    Antoniadis I and Benakli K 2020 Fortschritte der Physik 68 2000054 ( Preprint 2006.12512)

    2020 arXiv

  8. [14]

    Hawking S W 1974 Nature 248 30–31

    1974

  9. [15]

    Brady P R, Moss I G and Myers R C 1998Phys. Rev. Lett. 80 3432–3435 (Preprint gr-qc/9801032)

    arXiv

  10. [16]

    Gibbons G W and Hawking S W 1977 Phys. Rev. D 15 2738–2751

    1977

  11. [17]

    Romans L J 1992 Nucl. Phys. B 383 395–415 (Preprint hep-th/9203018)

    1992 arXiv

  12. [18]

    Dias O J C, Reall H S and Santos J E 2019 Class. Quant. Grav. 36 045005 (Preprint 1808.04832)

    2019 arXiv

  13. [19]

    Chrysostomou A, Cornell A S, Deandrea A, Noshad H and Park S C 2023 (Preprint 2310.07311)

    2023 arXiv

  14. [20]

    Bousso R 1997 Phys. Rev. D 55 3614–3621 (Preprint gr-qc/9608053)

    1997 arXiv

  15. [21]

    Montero M, Van Riet T and Venken G 2020JHEP 01 039 (Preprint 1910.01648)

    1910 arXiv

  16. [22]

    Brill D R and Hayward S A 1994 Class. Quant. Grav. 11 359–370 ( Preprint gr-qc/9304007)

    1994 arXiv

  17. [23]

    Mann R B and Ross S F 1995 Phys. Rev. D 52 2254–2265 ( Preprint gr-qc/ 9504015)

    1995

  18. [24]

    Bousso R 1999 Phys. Rev. D 60 063503 (Preprint hep-th/9902183)

    1999 arXiv

  19. [25]

    Hawking S W and Ellis G F R 1973 The Large Scale Structure of Space- Time Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

    1973

  20. [26]

    Brito R, Cardoso V and Pani P 2020 Superradiance (Springer International Publishing) (Preprint 1501.06570)

    2020 arXiv

  21. [27]

    Berti E, Cardoso V and Starinets A O 2009 Class. Quant. Grav. 26 163001 (Preprint 0905.2975)

    2009 arXiv

  22. [28]

    Konoplya R A and Zhidenko A 2014 Phys. Rev. D 90 064048 ( Preprint 1406. 0019)

    2014

  23. [29]

    Gonz´ alez P A, Papantonopoulos E, Saavedra J and V´ asquez Y 2022 JHEP 06 150 (Preprint 2204.01570)

    2022 arXiv

  24. [30]

    Wald R M 1984 General Relativity (Chicago, USA: Chicago Univ. Pr.)

    1984

  25. [31]

    Hawking S 2014 Eur. Phys. J. H 39 403–411

    2014

  26. [32]

    Penrose R 1973 Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci. 224 125–134

    1973

  27. [33]

    Dafermos M 2014 Commun. Math. Phys. 332 729–757 (Preprint 1201.1797)

    2014 arXiv

  28. [34]

    Dafermos M and Shlapentokh-Rothman Y 2018 Class. Quant. Grav. 35 195010 (Preprint 1805.08764) REFERENCES 29

    2018 arXiv

  29. [35]

    Christodoulou D 2008 The formation of black holes in general relativity 12th Marcel Grossmann Meeting on General Relativity pp 24–34 (Preprint 0805.3880)

    2008 arXiv

  30. [36]

    Misner C W, Thorne K S and Wheeler J A 1973 Gravitation (San Francisco: W. H. Freeman) ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0

    1973

  31. [37]

    Dafermos M and Luk J 2017 ( Preprint 1710.01722)

    2017

  32. [38]

    Dafermos M, Rodnianski I and Shlapentokh-Rothman Y 2014 ( Preprint 1412. 8379)

    2014

  33. [39]

    Teukolsky S A 1973 Astrophys. J. 185 635–647

    1973

  34. [40]

    Press W H and Teukolsky S A 1973 Astrophys. J. 185 649–674

    1973

  35. [41]

    Luk J and Oh S J 2017 Duke Math. J. 166 437–493 (Preprint 1501.04598)

    2017 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Costa J L and Franzen A T 2017 Annales Henri Poincare 18 3371–3398 (Preprint 1607.01018)

    2017 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Franzen A T 2016 Commun. Math. Phys. 343 601–650 (Preprint 1407.7093)

    2016 arXiv

  38. [45]

    Dafermos M and Rodnianski I 2005 Invent. Math. 162 381–457 ( Preprint gr-qc/0309115)

    2005 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Ishibashi A and Kodama H 2011 Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 189 165–209 (Preprint 1103.6148)

    2011 arXiv

  40. [47]

    Dafermos M and Rodnianski I 2007 ( Preprint 0709.2766)

    2007 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Cardoso V, Costa J L, Destounis K, Hintz P and Jansen A 2018 Phys. Rev. D 98 104007 (Preprint 1808.03631)

    2018 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Dias O J C, Eperon F C, Reall H S and Santos J E 2018 Phys. Rev. D 97 104060 (Preprint 1801.09694)

    2018 arXiv

  43. [50]

    Dias O J C, Reall H S and Santos J E 2018 JHEP 10 001 (Preprint 1808.02895)

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Hod S 2023 Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 32 2341004 (Preprint 2305.08918)

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Wiley & Sons New York)

    Laplace P S 1902 A Philosophical Essay on Probabilities (New York: J. Wiley & Sons New York)

    1902

  46. [54]

    Timpe K, Griffith M and Levy N (eds) 2017 Routledge Companion to Free Will (New York: Routledge)

    2017

  47. [55]

    Pure Appl

    Dafermos M 2005 Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 58 0445–0504 ( Preprint gr-qc/ 0307013)

    2005

  48. [56]

    Smeenk C and Wuthrich C 2021 Phil. Sci. 88 638–664 (Preprint 2009.07555)

    2021 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Evans L C 2022 Partial Differential Equations (Rhode Island: American Mathematical Society)

    2022

  50. [58]

    3 27–34 (Preprint 1808.01507) REFERENCES 30

    Curiel E 2019 Nature Astron. 3 27–34 (Preprint 1808.01507) REFERENCES 30

    2019 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Wald R M 1995 Quantum Field Theory in Curved Space-Time and Black Hole Thermodynamics Chicago Lectures in Physics (Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press) ISBN 978-0-226-87027-4

    1995

  52. [60]

    Carter B 1973 Black holes equilibrium states Les Houches Summer School of Theoretical Physics: Black Holes pp 57–214

    1973

  53. [61]

    Horowitz G T 2012 Black holes in four dimensions Black Holes in Higher Dimensions ed Horowitz G T (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press) pp 3–20 1st ed

    2012

Pith tools

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