Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 3 minor 56 references

Regular Spacetimes in the Effective Metric Description

T0 review · 3 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper derives explicit coefficient conditions on the two deformation functions of the Effective Metric Description that are necessary and sufficient for all curvature scalars to remain finite, plus a horizon-coincidence requirement…

desk verdict A useful EMD translation of known regularity results, but the sufficiency theorem needs a smoothness hypothesis before it can be taken at face value. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.12620 v1 pith:F5PR5ERE submitted 2025-06-14 gr-qc hep-phhep-th

Mattia Damia Paciarini , Miko{l}aj Myszkowski , Francesco Sannino , Vania Vellucci This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-phhep-th MSC 83C5783C75 PACS 04.20.-q04.70.-s
keywords EffectiveMetricDescriptionregularblackholesKretschmannscalargeodesiccompletenessproperdistancesphericallysymmetricspacetimesholecorescurvaturesingularities
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

Working inside the Effective Metric Description, the paper tries to answer when a static, spherically symmetric black-hole metric is genuinely regular, meaning no curvature blow-up and no geodesic that stops after finite affine time. It derives explicit coefficient conditions on the two deformation functions $\Phi(d)$ and $\Psi(d)$ that are claimed to be necessary and sufficient for the Kretschmann scalar and all curvature scalars to stay finite everywhere, including at the core. It then shows that geodesic completeness forces every point where $f(r)=0$ to also be a point where $h(r)=0$, so the two metric functions must vanish at the same surfaces. If these conditions are right, regularity of a proposed compact-object metric can be checked by reading off a handful of Taylor coefficients, without constructing a global analysis.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing machinery is the local expansion of the proper-distance equation $\partial_r d=|1-\frac{2M}{r}\Phi(d)|^{-1/2}$ in three regimes: generic points with $f(r_P)\neq 0$, the origin $d=0$, and horizons where $f(r_P)=0$. The expansion determines which powers of $\delta r=r-r_P$ appear in $d(r)$ and therefore which coefficients of $\Phi,\Psi$ enter the metric at each order. Feeding those expansions into the Kretschmann scalar turns regularity into algebraic conditions on the coefficients; feeding them into the geodesic effective potential turns extendibility into the horizon-coincidence condition.

What would settle it

Take a metric whose coefficients satisfy the entire table except $\Phi^{(2)}_0=0$ at the origin, and compute the Kretschmann scalar near $r=0$; the paper predicts a divergence, so a finite value would refute the necessity claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that for a static, spherically symmetric metric written as $h(r)=1-\frac{2M}{r}\Psi(d)$, $f(r)=1-\frac{2M}{r}\Phi(d)$, where $d$ is the proper radial distance from the origin, the Kretschmann scalar (and hence every scalar polynomial built from the Riemann tensor) is finite everywhere if and only if the Taylor coefficients of $\Phi(d)$ and $\Psi(d)$ obey a fixed table: away from the origin and horizons the only demand is $h(r_P)\neq 0$; at the origin, $\Phi^{(0)}_0=\Phi^{(1)}_0=\Phi^{(2)}_0=0$, $\Psi^{(0)}_0=\Psi^{(2)}_0=0$, and $\Psi^{(1)}_0\neq \frac{1}{2M}$; and at every simple horizon with $f(r_P)=0$, $\Phi^{(1)}_P=0$ plus higher-order relations that depend on the sign of $f'(r)$ through the horizon. It further claims that geodesic completeness forces the zeros of $f$ and $h$ to coincide, $\Phi^{(0)}_P=\frac{r_P}{2M}\iff\Psi^{(0)}_P=\frac{r_P}{2M}$, and that this condition automatically enforces the origin requirement. Applied to the classical Schwarzschild metric and two known regular models, the table reproduces the expected singular, dS-core, and Minkowski-core verdicts.

Load-bearing premise

The derivations assume the deformation functions $\Phi(d)$ and $\Psi(d)$ admit Taylor expansions around the origin and around each horizon to the orders used; for cores where $f(r)-1$ behaves as a non-integer power of $r$, those expansions are only asymptotic, so the necessary-and-sufficient verdict is not established there.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any static, spherically symmetric metric that satisfies the coefficient table has finite Kretschmann scalar and therefore finite curvature polynomial scalars everywhere, so singularity structure is decided by local coefficients alone.
  • A regular spacetime in this class must have an even number of Killing horizons, because finiteness forces $f(0)>0$ and each horizon is a simple zero; this reproduces an earlier geometric conclusion in the EMD language.
  • The core classification gives a direct way to label proposed models as Minkowski, de Sitter, anti-de Sitter, or mixed, with the effective cosmological constant of pure cores equal to $M\Phi^{(3)}_0$.
  • For geodesic completeness, the coincidence of $f$-horizons and $h$-horizons is necessary, so models with a horizon of $f$ that is not a horizon of $h$ are excluded as geodesically incomplete even if their curvature scalars are finite.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A natural next step is to run the coefficient table on other proposed regular metrics, such as Bardeen- or Hayward-type families, to see whether regularity imposes strong tuning or holds generically.
  • Because the derivation assumes Taylor expansions to fixed order, metrics whose cores approach $f(r)-1\sim r^\alpha$ with non-integer $\alpha$ are not covered by the necessary-and-sufficient statement; a separate small-$\alpha$ analysis would be needed.
  • The geodesic-completeness condition is left as necessary rather than sufficient, since extension through inner horizons is not treated; tightening it to sufficiency could change which of the four core types are compatible with geodesic completeness.
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 / 3 minor

Summary. The paper extends the Effective Metric Description (EMD) framework for static, spherically symmetric spacetimes to expansions around arbitrary points, including the origin and horizons. It derives coefficient-level conditions on the deformation functions Φ(d) and Ψ(d) that are claimed to be necessary and sufficient for the finiteness of the Kretschmann scalar and all curvature scalars, and it derives a condition for geodesic completeness requiring horizons of h(r) and f(r) to coincide. It also classifies black hole cores as Minkowski, AdS, dS, or mixed, and applies the formalism to Schwarzschild, Dymnikova, and Visser black holes. The central claim is that the coefficient conditions provide a model-independent regularity test for the EMD metric ansatz.

Significance. If the results were valid as stated, the paper would offer a useful, coordinate-invariant diagnostic for regular black hole metrics within the EMD program. Its strengths are the systematic local-expansion machinery, the explicit classification of cores, and the reproduction of the known even-number-of-horizons condition in agreement with earlier geometric arguments. The derivation is self-contained and does not appear to assume its conclusions. However, the main theorem currently lacks the smoothness hypotheses needed for its sufficiency direction, and the geodesic-completeness statement in the abstract is stronger than what the body proves. These issues are localizable and fixable, but they affect the central claims and therefore require revision.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1, origin conditions (after Eq. (19))] The claim that the listed conditions are 'necessary and sufficient to ensure that the Kretschmann scalar and all curvature scalars ... remain finite everywhere' is false without an explicit smoothness or remainder hypothesis. The derivation in Sec. 3.2 Case 1 assumes an integer-power expansion d(r) = d1 δr + d2 δr^2 + ..., so the conditions only annihilate the first few Taylor coefficients of Φ(d) and Ψ(d); they do not control fractional-power remainders. Concretely, take Ψ(d)=0 and Φ(d)=-(α/(2M)) d^{5/2}(1+O(d)). Then h(r)=1 and f(r)=1+α r^{3/2}+O(r^{5/2}). All listed origin conditions hold: Φ_0^{(0)}=Φ_0^{(1)}=Φ_0^{(2)}=0, Ψ_0^{(0)}=Ψ_0^{(2)}=0, and Ψ_0^{(1)}=0≠1/(2M). Nevertheless f'' ∼ (3/4)α r^{-1/2}, giving R ∼ -(7/2)α r^{-1/2} and K ∼ O(1/r), so the spacetime is singular. The theorem must either be restricted to functions admitting Taylor expansions with controlled remainders to the orders used, or be augmented by explicit conditions such as Φ(d)=O(d^3) and Ψ(d)=O(d), together with a proof that sub-polynomial remainders cannot reintroduce curvature divergences.
  2. [Sec. 4.2 and Abstract] The abstract states that the paper derives conditions under which 'the associated spacetime is geodesically complete,' but the body establishes only necessary conditions. After Eq. (33), the text explicitly says that 'the geodesic condition derived in this section is necessary but may not be sufficient to guarantee full geodesic completeness,' and the Conclusions describe 'necessary constraints for the extendibility of null and timelike geodesics.' The condition Φ_P^{(0)}=r_P/(2M) ⇔ Ψ_P^{(0)}=r_P/(2M) and the origin condition (29) address simple zeros and origin focusing, but they do not prove extendibility of all geodesics, as the footnote on inner horizons acknowledges. The abstract and the Sec. 4.2 summary should be reworded to 'necessary conditions for geodesic completeness' unless a full sufficiency proof is supplied.
  3. [Sec. 5.3, Visser example] The Visser example is used to argue that non-analytic models can be treated with the EMD regularity conditions, but the stated conditions do not establish regularity for such models. The derivation in Sec. 3.2 is built on integer-power expansions, and the counterexample in the first major comment shows that vanishing of all Taylor coefficients at the origin is insufficient for finiteness of curvature. For Visser's metric the remainder is exponentially small, e^{-a/r}, which is benign, but that is not a consequence of the coefficient conditions listed in Sec. 4.1. This section should either supply an explicit asymptotic-remainder argument controlling f(r)-1 and h(r)-1 near r=0, or explicitly state that the regularity of the Visser example is checked by direct computation rather than by the coefficient conditions.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Appendix B, Eq. (53)] The formula for d1 in Sec. 3.2 Case 2 has a dimensional inconsistency: since d(r) ≈ d1 δr^{3/2}, d1 should have dimension L^{-1/2}, but (2/3)√(|2M Φ_0^{(0)}|) has dimension L^{1/2}. The correct coefficient appears to be d1 = (2/3)/√(|2M Φ_0^{(0)}|).
  2. [Sec. 3.2, Eq. (15)] When Φ_0^{(0)} ≠ 0, the leading behavior d ∼ δr^{3/2} is derived by balancing powers, but the text does not explicitly state the sign/absolute-value conventions that select the physical branch of d1 for f(r)<0 inside the horizon; a brief clarification would help.
  3. [Sec. 4.3, Eq. (34)] The core classification is presented only for the case Φ_0^{(0)}=0 with integer-power expansions; given the discussion of non-analytic cores in Sec. 5.3, the classification should state its domain of validity (e.g., metrics admitting the expansion (17) to the orders used).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the regularity and geodesic conditions are obtained from the paper's own local expansions, and prior EMD work is cited contextually rather than used as a substitute for derivation.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Sections 3 and 4 is self-contained: the regularity conditions are obtained by substituting the proper-distance expansions (equations 12, 17, 19, 22, 24) into the Kretschmann scalar and reading off restrictions on the expansion coefficients, while the geodesic-completeness condition follows from integrating the effective potential (equation 25) with the same expansions. No parameter is fitted to data, and no 'prediction' is a re-expression of an input. The agreement with Carballo-Rubio et al. [47,48] in Sections 4.2 and 4.3 is presented as a cross-check, not as the origin of the conditions. The EMD formalism is cited from the authors' prior work [1-4], but the definitions are restated in Section 2 and Appendix A, and the new constraints are derived rather than imported. The skeptical concern about non-analytic remainders (e.g., a metric with f = 1 + alpha r^(3/2)) identifies a genuine correctness or sufficiency gap in the stated 'necessary and sufficient' theorem, because the derivation assumes Taylor expansions and does not control fractional-power remainders; however, this is a missing-smoothness-hypothesis issue, not a circular reduction of the claim to its input. No circular step can be quoted, so the score reflects only a low-level reliance on the authors' own previously established EMD framework.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central derivation rests on the EMD ansatz and smoothness assumptions. No new physical entities are introduced, and no constants are fitted to data. The deformation functions are a reparametrization of the metric, not new degrees of freedom.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The spacetime is static and spherically symmetric, with metric (1) and deformation functions as in (3).
    This is the EMD ansatz inherited from refs [1-4]; the paper does not derive it from a more fundamental theory.
  • domain assumption Φ(d) and Ψ(d) admit Taylor expansions at d=0 and around each horizon to the required order.
    Used throughout Secs. 3-4; for the Visser metric it holds only as an asymptotic expansion (Sec. 5.3, Appx. C), so the necessary-and-sufficient claim is conditional on this smoothness.
  • domain assumption The proper distance d(r) defined in (4) is a valid global coordinate, i.e., monotonic and invertible.
    Ensures Obs=d is well-defined; breaks down for extremal (double-zero) horizons, which the paper explicitly excludes.
  • domain assumption No extremal horizons: df/dr ≠ 0 at all horizons.
    Stated in Sec. 4.2; the geodesic analysis excludes double zeros of f.
  • standard math In a static spherically symmetric spacetime, finiteness of the Kretschmann scalar implies finiteness of all scalar polynomials constructed from the Riemann tensor.
    Cited to [35] in Sec. 4.1; standard result for 4D static spherically symmetric metrics.
  • standard math The geodesic equation in the form (25) with constants of motion (26) is valid.
    Standard result from the geodesic Lagrangian; cites [40].
  • domain assumption Radial null geodesics suffice to diagnose geodesic incompleteness at the origin.
    Sec. 4.2 analyzes only L=0, κ=0 radial null geodesics near r=0; no analysis of timelike or non-radial null geodesics is given, so the geodesic-completeness conditions are necessary but not proven sufficient.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Regular Spacetimes in the Effective Metric Description." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/F5PR5ERE

@misc{pith2026250612620,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Regular Spacetimes in the Effective Metric Description},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/F5PR5ERE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.12620}
}
read the original abstract

Over the past few decades, significant effort has been directed towards developing various regularized models for compact objects. Recently, a new observable-based parametrization was introduced to account for black hole deformations in a model-independent fashion, referred to as the Effective Metric Description (EMD) \cite{Binetti:2022xdi, DelPiano:2023fiw, DelPiano:2024gvw, DelPiano:2024nrl}. In this paper, we carry out a systematic investigation of the regularity of static and spherically symmetric spacetimes by extending the EMD. We derive the conditions under which curvature scalars remain finite everywhere and the associated spacetime is geodesically complete. Our results are then used to classify the cores of regular spacetimes based on their asymptotic behavior near the origin. To illustrate our findings, we apply our regularity conditions to known black hole examples.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Effective theory of quantum black holes

    Emanuele Binetti et al. “Effective theory of quantum black holes”. In: Phys. Rev. D 106.4 (2022), p. 046006. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 106 . 046006. arXiv: 2203 . 13515 [gr-qc]

    work page 2022

  2. [2]

    Quantum black hole physics from the event horizon

    Manuel Del Piano, Stefan Hohenegger, and Francesco Sannino. “Quantum black hole physics from the event horizon”. In: Phys. Rev. D 109.2 (2024), p. 024045. doi: 10. 1103/PhysRevD.109.024045. arXiv: 2307.13489 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  3. [3]

    Effective metric de- scriptions of quantum black holes

    Manuel Del Piano, Stefan Hohenegger, and Francesco Sannino. “Effective metric de- scriptions of quantum black holes”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 84.12 (2024), p. 1273. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13609-5 . arXiv: 2403.12679 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  4. [4]

    Black Hole Shadow and other Observables away from the Horizon: Extending the Effective Metric Descriptions

    Manuel Del Piano, Stefan Hohenegger, and Francesco Sannino. “Black Hole Shadow and other Observables away from the Horizon: Extending the Effective Metric Descriptions”. In: (Dec. 2024). arXiv: 2412.13673 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  5. [5]

    Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation

    Albert Einstein. “Die Feldgleichungen der Gravitation”. In: Preussische Akademie der Wissenschaften, Sitzungsberichte (1915), pp. 844–847

    work page 1915

  6. [6]

    The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment

    Clifford M. Will. “The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment”. In: Living Rev. Rel. 17 (2014), p. 4.doi: 10.12942/lrr-2014-4. arXiv: 1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Classical Tests of General Relativity Part I: Looking to the Past to Understand the Present

    Jorge Pinochet. “Classical tests of general relativity I: looking to the past to understand the present”. In: Phys. Educ. 55.6 (2020), p. 065016. doi: 10.1088/1361-6552/abaea6. arXiv: 2008.11177 [physics.ed-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    Gravitational Waves Through Time: Scientific Significance, Detection Techniques, and Recent Breakthroughs

    Chris Jia. “Gravitational Waves Through Time: Scientific Significance, Detection Tech- niques, and Recent Breakthroughs”. In: (Dec. 2023). arXiv: 2312.16198 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2023

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    J. B. Hartle. Gravity: An introduction to Einstein ’s general relativity. 2003. isbn: 978-0- 8053-8662-2

    2003

  2. [10]

    Misner, K

    Charles W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler. Gravitation. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman, 1973. isbn: 978-0-7167-0344-0, 978-0-691-17779-3

    1973

  3. [11]

    On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory

    Karl Schwarzschild. “On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory”. In: Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys.) 1916 (1916), pp. 189–

    1916

  4. [12]

    Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities

    Roger Penrose. “Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 (1965), pp. 57–59. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.14.57

    1965 doi

  5. [13]

    Occurrence of singularities in open universes

    Stephen Hawking. “Occurrence of singularities in open universes”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 15 (1965), pp. 689–690. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.15.689

    1965 doi

  6. [14]

    The Singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmol- ogy

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose. “The Singularities of gravitational collapse and cosmol- ogy”. In: Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314 (1970), pp. 529–548. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1970. 0021

    1970 doi

  7. [15]

    Singular space-times

    G. F. R. Ellis and B. G. Schmidt. “Singular space-times”. In: Gen. Rel. Grav. 8 (1977), pp. 915–953. doi: 10.1007/BF00759240

    1977 doi

  8. [16]

    Gravitational collapse and cosmic censorship

    Robert M. Wald. “Gravitational collapse and cosmic censorship”. In: Oct. 1997, pp. 69–

    1997

  9. [17]

    Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity

    R. Penrose. “Gravitational collapse: The role of general relativity”. In: Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1 (1969), pp. 252–276. doi: 10.1023/A:1016578408204

    1969 doi

  10. [18]

    On continued gravitational contraction

    J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder. “On continued gravitational contraction”. In: Phys. Rev. 56 (1939), pp. 455–459. doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.56.455

    1939 doi

  11. [19]

    Investigations in relativistic cosmology

    E. M. Lifshitz and I. M. Khalatnikov. “Investigations in relativistic cosmology”. In: Adv. Phys. 12 (1963), pp. 185–249. doi: 10.1080/00018736300101283

    1963 doi

  12. [20]

    What is a singularity in general relativity?

    Robert P. Geroch. “What is a singularity in general relativity?” In: Annals Phys. 48 (1968), pp. 526–540. doi: 10.1016/0003-4916(68)90144-9

    1968 doi

  13. [21]

    Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity

    W. Israel. “Singular hypersurfaces and thin shells in general relativity”. In: Nuovo Cim. B 44S10 (1966). [Erratum: Nuovo Cim.B 48, 463 (1967)], p. 1. doi: 10 . 1007 / BF02710419

    1966

  14. [22]

    Notes on nonsingular models of black holes

    Valeri P. Frolov. “Notes on nonsingular models of black holes”. In: Phys. Rev. D 94.10 (2016), p. 104056. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.94.104056. arXiv: 1609.01758 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Regular Black Holes: A Short Topic Review

    Chen Lan et al. “Regular Black Holes: A Short Topic Review”. In: Int. J. Theor. Phys. 62.9 (2023), p. 202. doi: 10.1007/s10773-023-05454-1 . arXiv: 2303.11696 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Effective models of non- singular quantum black holes

    Mariano Cadoni, Mauro Oi, and Andrea Pierfrancesco Sanna. “Effective models of non- singular quantum black holes”. In: Phys. Rev. D 106.2 (2022), p. 024030. doi: 10.1103/ PhysRevD.106.024030. arXiv: 2204.09444 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Stability of a vacuum nonsingular black hole

    Irina Dymnikova and Evgeny Galaktionov. “Stability of a vacuum nonsingular black hole”. In: Class. Quant. Grav. 22 (2005), pp. 2331–2358. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/22/ 12/003. arXiv: gr-qc/0409049

    2005 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Formation and evaporation of regular black holes

    Sean A. Hayward. “Formation and evaporation of regular black holes”. In: Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006), p. 031103. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevLett . 96 . 031103. arXiv: gr - qc / 0506126

    2006

  19. [27]

    Regular black holes from pure gravity

    Pablo Bueno, Pablo A. Cano, and Robie A. Hennigar. “Regular black holes from pure gravity”. In: Phys. Lett. B 861 (2025), p. 139260. doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2025. 139260. arXiv: 2403.04827 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Regular Black Holes

    Cosimo Bambi, ed. Regular Black Holes. Towards a New Paradigm of Gravitational Collapse. Springer Series in Astrophysics and Cosmology. Springer, 2023. isbn: 978-981- 99-1595-8, 978-981-99-1598-9, 978-981-99-1596-5. doi: 10.1007/978-981-99-1596-5 . arXiv: 2307.13249 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Non-singular general relativistic gravitational collapse

    James Bardeen. “Non-singular general relativistic gravitational collapse”. In: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity . Sept. 1968, p. 87

    1968

  22. [30]

    Vacuum nonsingular black hole

    I. Dymnikova. “Vacuum nonsingular black hole”. In: Gen. Rel. Grav. 24 (1992), pp. 235–

    1992

  23. [31]

    Regular black holes with asymptotically Minkowski cores

    Alex Simpson and Matt Visser. “Regular black holes with asymptotically Minkowski cores”. In: Universe 6.1 (2019), p. 8. doi: 10.3390/universe6010008 . arXiv: 1911. 01020 [gr-qc]

    2019 doi

  24. [32]

    Pure Lovelock gravity regular black holes

    Milko Estrada and Rodrigo Aros. “Pure Lovelock gravity regular black holes”. In: JCAP 01 (2025), p. 032. doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2025/01/032. arXiv: 2409.09559 [gr-qc]. 21

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Hawking and George F

    Stephen W. Hawking and George F. R. Ellis. The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time . Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, Feb

  26. [34]

    Effective Metric Description of Charged Black Holes

    Mattia Damia Paciarini et al. “Effective Metric Description of Charged Black Holes”. In: (Apr. 2025). arXiv: 2504.20810 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Bronnikov and Sergey G

    Kirill A. Bronnikov and Sergey G. Rubin. Black Holes, Cosmology and Extra Dimensions. WSP, 2012. isbn: 978-981-4374-20-0, 978-981-4440-02-8. doi: 10.1142/12186

    2012 doi

  28. [36]

    Empty space-times admitting a three parameter group of motions

    A. H. Taub. “Empty space-times admitting a three parameter group of motions”. In: Annals Math. 53 (1951), pp. 472–490. doi: 10.2307/1969567

    1951 doi

  29. [37]

    Empty space generalization of the Schwarzschild metric

    E. Newman, L. Tamburino, and T. Unti. “Empty space generalization of the Schwarzschild metric”. In: J. Math. Phys. 4 (1963), p. 915. doi: 10.1063/1.1704018

    1963 doi

  30. [38]

    Geodesic motion in the Kundt spacetimes and the character of envelope singularity

    Jiri Podolsky and Miroslav Belan. “Geodesic motion in the Kundt spacetimes and the character of envelope singularity”. In: Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004), pp. 2811–2830. doi: 10.1088/0264-9381/21/12/003. arXiv: gr-qc/0404068

    2004 arXiv

  31. [39]

    The Plane-Fronted Gravitational Waves

    Wolfgang Kundt. “The Plane-Fronted Gravitational Waves”. In: Zeitschrift f¨ ur Physik 163 (1961), pp. 77–86. doi: 10.1007/BF01328918

    1961 doi

  32. [40]

    James B. Hartle. Gravity. Cambridge University Press, Sept. 2021. isbn: 978-1-009- 04260-4. doi: 10.1017/9781009042604

    2021 doi

  33. [41]

    A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics

    Eric Poisson. A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics . Cam- bridge University Press, Dec. 2009. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511606601

    2009 doi

  34. [42]

    Geodesic congruences in modified Schwarzschild black holes

    Zi-Liang Wang. “Geodesic congruences in modified Schwarzschild black holes”. In: Eur. Phys. J. C 82.10 (2022), p. 901. doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-022-10843-7

    2022 doi

  35. [43]

    ¨Uber die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einstein- schen Theorie

    H. Reissner. “ ¨Uber die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einstein- schen Theorie”. In: Annalen Phys. 355.9 (1916), pp. 106–120. doi: 10 . 1002 / andp . 19163550905

    1916

  36. [44]

    Zur Gravitationstheorie

    Hermann Weyl. “Zur Gravitationstheorie”. In: Annalen Phys. 359.18 (1917), pp. 117–

    1917

  37. [45]

    On the Energy of the Gravitation field in Einstein’s Theory

    G. Nordstr¨ om. “On the Energy of the Gravitation field in Einstein’s Theory”. In:Konin- klijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings Series B Physical Sciences 20 (Jan. 1918), pp. 1238–1245

    1918

  38. [46]

    The Field of an Electron on Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation

    G. B. Jeffery. “The Field of an Electron on Einstein’s Theory of Gravitation”. In: Pro- ceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 99.697 (May 1921), pp. 123–134. doi: 10.1098/rspa.1921.0028

    1921

  39. [47]

    Geodesically complete black holes

    Ra´ ul Carballo-Rubio et al. “Geodesically complete black holes”. In: Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020), p. 084047. doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.084047. arXiv: 1911.11200 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Geodesically complete black holes

    Ra´ ul Carballo-Rubio et al. “Geodesically complete black holes”. In: Phys. Rev. D 101.8, 084047 (Apr. 2020), p. 084047. doi: 10 . 1103 / PhysRevD . 101 . 084047. arXiv: 1911 . 11200 [gr-qc]

    2020

  41. [49]

    The Swampland: Introduction and Review

    Eran Palti. “The Swampland: Introduction and Review”. In: Fortsch. Phys. 67.6 (2019), p. 1900037. doi: 10.1002/prop.201900037. arXiv: 1903.06239 [hep-th]. 22

    2019 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Primordial black holes: Do they exist and are they useful?

    Bernard J. Carr. “Primordial black holes: Do they exist and are they useful?” In: 59th Yamada Conference on Inflating Horizon of Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology . Nov

  43. [85]

    arXiv: gr-qc/9710068

    doi: 10.1007/978-94-017-0934-7_5 . arXiv: gr-qc/9710068. 20

    arXiv

  44. [145]

    doi: 10.1002/andp.19173591804

    doi

  45. [196]

    arXiv: physics/9905030

    arXiv

  46. [242]

    doi: 10.1007/BF00760226

    doi

  47. [2005]

    arXiv: astro-ph/0511743. 23

    arXiv

  48. [2023]

    doi: 10.1017/9781009253161

    isbn: 978-1-009-25316-1, 978-1-009-25315-4, 978-0-521-20016-5, 978-0-521-09906- 6, 978-0-511-82630-6, 978-0-521-09906-6. doi: 10.1017/9781009253161

    doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.