pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.22531 · v1 · pith:3GOTBTLAnew · submitted 2026-06-21 · 🌀 gr-qc · hep-th

Steering a warp drive without exotic matter

An T. Le This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-26 09:57 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc hep-th
keywords warp drivepositive energyKinnersley photon rockettimelike shellaccelerationBondi-Sachs momentumgeneral relativitysurface energy conditions
0
0 comments X

The pith

A positive-energy warp drive can accelerate by matching a photon rocket exterior to a flat interior via a timelike shell.

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

A conservation law from the Bondi-Sachs four-momentum shows that any asymptotically flat warp drive with confined dominant-energy sources must radiate to change velocity. The paper constructs an explicit example by taking the exact Kinnersley photon rocket as the exterior spacetime around a prescribed passenger worldtube and solving for the matching timelike shell. The shell satisfies the surface dominant energy condition when 2m/R is below 24/25, with acceleration bounded by a Buchdahl-type limit, and the interior remains exactly flat. This establishes that steering is possible without exotic matter, at the cost of Bondi mass loss obeying -ṁ ≥ 3m|a|.

Core claim

Prescribing the passenger worldtube, the exact Kinnersley photon rocket serves as exterior and the matching timelike shell is solved for; the exterior and steering law are exact while the shell is certified perturbatively and numerically. The mechanism is photon-rocket recoil on a tidally protected flat cavity. The exterior energy conditions reduce to n² ≥ 0, steering obeys -ṁ ≥ 3m|a| paid by Bondi mass loss, and the shell satisfies the surface dominant energy condition for 2m/R < 24/25 with a Buchdahl-type frontier a_max R ≤ g(2m/R).

What carries the argument

The Kinnersley photon rocket exterior matched across a timelike shell to an exactly flat interior cavity.

If this is right

  • Steering is paid for by Bondi mass loss satisfying -ṁ ≥ 3m|a|.
  • Admissible accelerating shells exist near the Schwarzschild-Minkowski anchor and for slow burns as time-evolved spacetimes.
  • Acceleration is capped between a numerical lower bound around 0.2 and the closed-form ceiling ½(1-2m/R).
  • On the gravitational-wave-silent class the optimal maneuver is the Damour dipole.
  • The wall is marginally stable, with strict stability available at no energy-condition cost.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The flat interior decouples the passenger from external tidal forces, so the drive functions as a protected cavity rather than a warped metric.
  • The energy-budget requirement implies that rapid velocity changes remain costly even when exotic matter is avoided.
  • Matching techniques of this type could be tested in numerical relativity codes by evolving the shell under the derived steering law.
  • Similar constructions might extend to other exterior solutions that carry different radiation patterns or multipole moments.

Load-bearing premise

A timelike shell exists that matches the Kinnersley exterior to the flat interior while satisfying the surface dominant energy condition for 2m/R below 24/25.

What would settle it

An exact closed-form shell metric or high-resolution numerical evolution that violates the surface dominant energy condition for any accelerating configuration with 2m/R < 24/25.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.22531 by An T. Le.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The worldtube-first warpshell [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Complete finite-duration maneuver (Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The radiative tangential-pressure wall stays dominant-energy-admissible. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Radiation signature of the certified maneuver (The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Self-consistent anisotropic wall. The worst-observer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Minimum-radiation steering (Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Numerical certification of Theorem [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Poisson–Visser radial stability of the static an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_9.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

A useful warp drive must change its velocity, yet known positive-energy constructions are static or constant-velocity, while accelerating ones require exotic matter; Bobrick and Martire noted that warp drives ``do not have any natural way of changing their velocities.'' First, a conservation law settles the principle: for any asymptotically flat drive with a confined dominant-energy source and standard peeling, the Bondi--Sachs four-momentum changes only through radiation to null infinity, so the drive cannot steer without radiating. Second, we construct a positive-energy spacetime that saturates this bound. Prescribing the passenger worldtube, we take the exact Kinnersley photon rocket as exterior and solve for the matching timelike shell; the exterior and steering law are exact, while the shell is certified perturbatively and numerically. The mechanism is photon-rocket recoil on a tidally protected, exactly flat cavity; the warp drive is the decoupled flat interior, not a warp field. The exterior energy conditions reduce to $n^2\ge0$, and steering obeys $-\dot m\ge 3m|a|$, paid for by Bondi mass loss. The shell satisfies the surface dominant energy condition for $2m/R<24/25$; admissible accelerating shells exist near the Schwarzschild--Minkowski anchor and, for slow burns, as time-evolved spacetimes. A Buchdahl-type frontier $a_{\max}R\le g(2m/R)$ caps the acceleration between a numerical lower bound $\sim\!0.2$ and a closed-form ceiling ${1\over2}(1-2m/R)$. On the gravitational-wave--silent class, the optimal maneuver is the Damour dipole. The wall is marginally stable, with strict stability available at no energy-condition cost; fully dynamical flux-coupled stability remains open. The drive is causal, subluminal, and energetically costly but positive-energy: steering is a problem of energy budget, not exotic matter.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper claims that a warp drive can change velocity without exotic matter by saturating the Bondi-Sachs conservation bound: an exact Kinnersley photon-rocket exterior is matched to a flat interior across a timelike shell whose surface stress-energy satisfies the dominant energy condition for 2m/R < 24/25. The exterior solution and steering law (–ṁ ≥ 3m|a|) are exact and paid for by radiation; the shell is certified perturbatively and numerically, admissible accelerating shells exist near the Schwarzschild–Minkowski anchor, a Buchdahl-type bound a_max R ≤ g(2m/R) caps acceleration, and the construction is causal and subluminal.

Significance. If the shell construction and surface DEC hold, the work supplies the first explicit positive-energy mechanism for accelerating a warp drive, directly addressing Bobrick–Martire’s observation that known positive-energy drives lack a natural steering mechanism. Credit is due for the exact Kinnersley exterior, the parameter-free use of the standard Bondi–Sachs law, and the absence of invented entities or ad-hoc parameters.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract / shell-matching section] Abstract and the section describing the shell construction: the central claim that a timelike shell exists and obeys the surface dominant energy condition for 2m/R < 24/25 rests on perturbative and numerical certification rather than a closed-form derivation of the Israel junction conditions and the resulting surface stress-energy tensor; without the latter it is not shown that the DEC holds identically across the claimed range.
  2. [stability discussion] The paragraph stating that fully dynamical flux-coupled stability remains open: because the construction is intended as a physical steering mechanism, the absence of a stability proof for the shell under the coupled gravitational-wave and matter fluxes is load-bearing for the long-term viability of the positive-energy claim.
minor comments (1)
  1. The notation for the surface stress-energy tensor and the precise definition of the passenger worldtube should be introduced with an equation number at first use to improve readability.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 1 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful reading and for identifying these two substantive issues. We respond to each major comment below, indicating the extent of any revisions.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract / shell-matching section] Abstract and the section describing the shell construction: the central claim that a timelike shell exists and obeys the surface dominant energy condition for 2m/R < 24/25 rests on perturbative and numerical certification rather than a closed-form derivation of the Israel junction conditions and the resulting surface stress-energy tensor; without the latter it is not shown that the DEC holds identically across the claimed range.

    Authors: The referee is correct that the surface stress-energy is obtained by solving the Israel junction conditions numerically (or via perturbative expansion about the Schwarzschild–Minkowski anchor) rather than in closed form. The Kinnersley exterior and the steering law −ṁ ≥ 3m|a| are exact; the shell quantities are determined by enforcing continuity of the induced metric and the jump in extrinsic curvature across the timelike hypersurface. In the revised manuscript we will add the explicit component expressions for the surface stress-energy tensor that follow directly from the junction conditions, together with the perturbative series used to certify the bound 2m/R < 24/25. These additions will make the certification fully transparent while preserving the statement that the DEC holds throughout the indicated range on the basis of the numerical and perturbative evidence already obtained. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [stability discussion] The paragraph stating that fully dynamical flux-coupled stability remains open: because the construction is intended as a physical steering mechanism, the absence of a stability proof for the shell under the coupled gravitational-wave and matter fluxes is load-bearing for the long-term viability of the positive-energy claim.

    Authors: We agree that long-term viability requires control of stability under the coupled fluxes. The manuscript already states explicitly that “fully dynamical flux-coupled stability remains open” while demonstrating marginal stability of the wall and the existence of a strictly stable configuration at no extra energy-condition cost on the gravitational-wave-silent sector. A complete analytic or numerical proof of stability in the presence of both gravitational-wave and matter fluxes lies outside the scope of the present work and would constitute a separate investigation. We will expand the relevant paragraph to underscore this limitation and to frame it as an important open question for subsequent study. revision: partial

standing simulated objections not resolved
  • A rigorous proof of stability for the shell under simultaneous gravitational-wave and matter fluxes is not available and remains an open problem.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity; derivation relies on external known solutions and standard conservation laws

full rationale

The paper applies the standard Bondi-Sachs four-momentum conservation law (external) to an asymptotically flat spacetime with confined dominant-energy source, concluding that steering requires radiation. It then adopts the exact known Kinnersley photon rocket as the exterior metric (a pre-existing solution, not derived here) and solves for a matching timelike shell to a flat interior. The shell matching and surface DEC are certified only perturbatively and numerically, but this is presented as a limitation rather than a fitted prediction or self-definition. No self-citations appear as load-bearing steps, no parameters are fitted to subsets of data and renamed as predictions, and no ansatz or uniqueness theorem is smuggled via prior author work. The construction is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks, with the central positive-energy claim following from the external inputs rather than reducing to them by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard general-relativity assumptions of asymptotic flatness and the dominant energy condition together with the known Kinnersley solution; no new free parameters are fitted and no new entities are postulated.

axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Asymptotically flat spacetime with standard peeling for the Bondi-Sachs four-momentum
    Invoked to establish that momentum change occurs only through radiation to null infinity.
  • domain assumption Dominant energy condition on the timelike shell
    Required to certify that the matched spacetime remains positive-energy.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5877 in / 1346 out tokens · 40221 ms · 2026-06-26T09:57:10.236753+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

76 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    energy without momentum

    streaming through it: a generalized-Vaidya interior m(u, r) = ¯m(u)χ(r) withχ(0) = 0, so the radia- tion fills the wall with no beam through the center and no matter→vacuum edge. For the idealized fixed- background split (31) at constantµ(withp r = 0), the radial Hawking–Ellis block has discriminant ∆ = (ρ+p r)(ρ+p r + 4µ) =ρ(ρ+ 4µ)>0,(32) so it stays Haw...

  2. [2]

    postulated single fluid

    The lapse/tilt block is alge- braic with non-vanishing Jacobian forx <1 (the √1−x redshift factors, e.g.∂ R[√f] =m/(R 2√1−x)̸= 0). HenceDF 0 is a bounded isomorphism off theℓ= 1 trans- lation gauge, and the implicit function theorem makes Theorem 2unconditionalin a (rigorous, non-explicit) open neighborhood of the anchor. What this argument doesnotsupply ...

  3. [3]

    Two facts contain this

    lasts∼2× longer, so even the high-xcorner is not certified safe with- out active stabilization. Two facts contain this. First, the realized mode isneutralatλ= 0 (zero growth rate): a static wall drifts only secularly, not exponentially. Sec- ond, a slightlystifferwall,η > η crit, sits in a strict poten- tial well and is linearly stable, and this costsnoth...

  4. [4]

    Alcubierre, Class

    M. Alcubierre, Class. Quantum Grav.11, L73 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/0009013

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  5. [5]

    Santiago, S

    J. Santiago, S. Schuster, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064038 (2022), arXiv:2105.03079

    arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    F. S. N. Lobo and M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav.21, 5871 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0406083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    M. J. Pfenning and L. H. Ford, Class. Quantum Grav. 14, 1743 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9702026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1997

  8. [8]

    L. H. Ford and T. A. Roman, Phys. Rev. D51, 4277 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9410043

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  9. [9]

    Nat´ ario, Class

    J. Nat´ ario, Class. Quantum Grav.19, 1157 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0110086

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Van Den Broeck, Class

    C. Van Den Broeck, Class. Quantum Grav.16, 3973 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9905084

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    Bobrick and G

    A. Bobrick and G. Martire, Class. Quantum Grav.38, 105009 (2021), arXiv:2102.06824

    arXiv 2021

  12. [12]

    E. W. Lentz, Class. Quantum Grav.38, 075015 (2021), arXiv:2006.07125

    arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    S. D. B. Fell and L. Heisenberg, Class. Quantum Grav. 38, 155020 (2021), arXiv:2104.06488

    arXiv 2021

  14. [14]

    Fuchs, C

    J. Fuchs, C. Helmerich, A. Bobrick, L. Sellers, B. Melcher, and G. Martire, Class. Quantum Grav.41, 095013 (2024), arXiv:2405.02709

    arXiv 2024

  15. [15]

    Rodal, Gen

    J. Rodal, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.58, 1 (2026), arXiv:2512.18008. 25

    arXiv 2026

  16. [16]

    Garattini and K

    R. Garattini and K. Zatrimaylov, (2025), arXiv:2502.13153 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  17. [17]

    Barzegar, T

    H. Barzegar, T. Buchert, and Q. Vigneron, (2026), arXiv:2602.16495

    arXiv 2026

  18. [18]

    Barzegar and T

    H. Barzegar and T. Buchert, Universe11, 293 (2025), arXiv:2407.00720

    arXiv 2025

  19. [19]

    A. T. Le, (2026), arXiv:2605.25417

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    A. T. Le, (2026), arXiv:2602.18023 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  21. [21]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Struc- ture of Space-Time(Cambridge University Press, 1973)

    1973

  22. [22]

    Kinnersley, Phys

    W. Kinnersley, Phys. Rev.186, 1335 (1969)

    1969

  23. [23]

    Robinson and A

    I. Robinson and A. Trautman, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A 265, 463 (1962)

    1962

  24. [24]

    W. B. Bonnor, Class. Quantum Grav.11, 2007 (1994)

    2007

  25. [25]

    Podolsk´ y, Int

    J. Podolsk´ y, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D20, 335 (2011), arXiv:1006.1583

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  26. [26]

    S. Dain, O. M. Moreschi, and R. J. Gleiser, Class. Quan- tum Grav.13, 1155 (1996)

    1996

  27. [27]

    Israel, Nuovo Cimento B44, 1 (1966)

    W. Israel, Nuovo Cimento B44, 1 (1966)

    1966

  28. [28]

    Poisson,A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    E. Poisson,A Relativist’s Toolkit: The Mathematics of Black-Hole Mechanics(Cambridge University Press, 2004)

    2004

  29. [29]

    Penrose, Proc

    R. Penrose, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A284, 159 (1965)

    1965

  30. [30]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, J. Math. Phys.3, 566 (1962)

    1962

  31. [31]

    E. T. Newman and T. W. J. Unti, J. Math. Phys.3, 891 (1962)

    1962

  32. [32]

    Dray and M

    T. Dray and M. Streubel, Class. Quantum Grav.1, 15 (1984)

    1984

  33. [33]

    Geroch and J

    R. Geroch and J. Winicour, J. Math. Phys.22, 803 (1981)

    1981

  34. [34]

    Geroch, inAsymptotic Structure of Space-Time, edited by F

    R. Geroch, inAsymptotic Structure of Space-Time, edited by F. P. Esposito and L. Witten (Plenum Press, New York, 1977) pp. 1–105

    1977

  35. [35]

    Bondi, M

    H. Bondi, M. G. J. van der Burg, and A. W. K. Metzner, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A269, 21 (1962)

    1962

  36. [36]

    R. K. Sachs, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A270, 103 (1962)

    1962

  37. [37]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Streubel, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A376, 585 (1981)

    1981

  38. [38]

    Schoen and S.-T

    R. Schoen and S.-T. Yau, Comm. Math. Phys.79, 231 (1981)

    1981

  39. [39]

    Witten, Comm

    E. Witten, Comm. Math. Phys.80, 381 (1981)

    1981

  40. [40]

    G. T. Horowitz and M. J. Perry, Phys. Rev. Lett.48, 371 (1982)

    1982

  41. [41]

    Reula and K

    O. Reula and K. P. Tod, J. Math. Phys.25, 1004 (1984)

    1984

  42. [42]

    Ludvigsen and J

    M. Ludvigsen and J. A. G. Vickers, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.15, L67 (1982)

    1982

  43. [43]

    Wisdom, Science299, 1865 (2003)

    J. Wisdom, Science299, 1865 (2003)

    2003

  44. [44]

    J. E. Avron and O. Kenneth, New J. Phys.8, 68 (2006), arXiv:math-ph/0602053

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  45. [45]

    Andrade e Silva, G

    R. Andrade e Silva, G. E. A. Matsas, and D. A. T. Vanzella, Phys. Rev. D94, 121502 (2016), arXiv:1611.06183

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  46. [46]

    W. B. Bonnor and M. A. Rotenberg, Proc. R. Soc. Lond. A265, 109 (1961)

    1961

  47. [47]

    Peres, Phys

    A. Peres, Phys. Rev.128, 2471 (1962)

    1962

  48. [48]

    F¨ uzfa, Phys

    A. F¨ uzfa, Phys. Rev. D99, 104081 (2019), arXiv:1902.03869

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  49. [49]

    P. C. Vaidya, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. A33, 264 (1951)

    1951

  50. [50]

    M. L. McClure, K. Anderson, and K. Bardahl, (2007), arXiv:0709.3288 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  51. [51]

    H. Ge, M. Luo, Q. Su, D. Wang, and X. Zhang, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.43, 2729 (2011), arXiv:1105.3258

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  52. [52]

    Damour, Class

    T. Damour, Class. Quantum Grav.12, 725 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9412063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  53. [53]

    Andr´ easson, Commun

    H. Andr´ easson, Commun. Math. Phys.274, 399 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0605097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  54. [54]

    Horvat and S

    D. Horvat and S. Iliji´ c, Class. Quantum Grav.24, 5637 (2007), arXiv:0707.1636

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  55. [55]

    Andr´ easson, J

    H. Andr´ easson, J. Diff. Eqs.245, 2243 (2008), arXiv:gr- qc/0702137

    arXiv 2008

  56. [56]

    Barrab` es and W

    C. Barrab` es and W. Israel, Phys. Rev. D43, 1129 (1991)

    1991

  57. [57]

    Poisson, (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0207101

    E. Poisson, (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0207101

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  58. [58]

    Han and J.-X

    Q. Han and J.-X. Hong,Isometric Embedding of Rieman- nian Manifolds in Euclidean Spaces, Mathematical Sur- veys and Monographs, Vol. 130 (American Mathematical Society, Providence, RI, 2006)

    2006

  59. [59]

    Andr´ easson, Living Rev

    H. Andr´ easson, Living Rev. Relativ.14, 4 (2011), arXiv:1106.1367

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  60. [60]

    Karlovini and L

    M. Karlovini and L. Samuelsson, Class. Quantum Grav. 20, 3613 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0211026

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  61. [61]

    von der G¨ onna and D

    U. von der G¨ onna and D. Kramer, Class. Quantum Grav. 15, 215 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9711001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  62. [62]

    F. H. J. Cornish, Class. Quantum Grav.17, 3945 (2000)

    2000

  63. [63]

    L. S. Pontryagin, V. G. Boltyanskii, R. V. Gamkrelidze, and E. F. Mishchenko,The Mathematical Theory of Op- timal Processes(Interscience Publishers, 1962)

    1962

  64. [64]

    Liberzon,Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control Theory: A Concise Introduction(Princeton University Press, 2012)

    D. Liberzon,Calculus of Variations and Optimal Control Theory: A Concise Introduction(Princeton University Press, 2012)

    2012

  65. [65]

    Buchert and A

    T. Buchert and A. Frackowiak, Universe12, 132 (2026), arXiv:2605.03653

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  66. [66]

    S. V. Krasnikov, Phys. Rev. D57, 4760 (1998), arXiv:gr- qc/9511068

    arXiv 1998

  67. [67]

    Schuster, J

    S. Schuster, J. Santiago, and M. Visser, Gen. Relativ. Gravit.55, 14 (2023), arXiv:2205.15950

    arXiv 2023

  68. [68]

    Poisson and M

    E. Poisson and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D52, 7318 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9506083

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  69. [69]

    Mart´ ın-Moruno, N

    P. Mart´ ın-Moruno, N. Montelongo-Garc´ ıa, F. S. N. Lobo, and M. Visser, JCAP03, 034, arXiv:1112.5253

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  70. [70]

    Huey, Class

    G. Huey, Class. Quantum Grav.41, 135007 (2024), arXiv:2311.07193

    arXiv 2024

  71. [71]

    Kinnersley and M

    W. Kinnersley and M. Walker, Phys. Rev. D2, 1359 (1970)

    1970

  72. [72]

    E. W. Lentz and R. C. Felton, (2024), arXiv:2405.19381

    arXiv 2024

  73. [73]

    Clough, T

    K. Clough, T. Dietrich, and S. Khan, Open J. Astro- phys.7, 10.33232/001c.121868 (2024), arXiv:2406.02466 [gr-qc]

    work page doi:10.33232/001c.121868 2024

  74. [74]

    Helmerich, J

    C. Helmerich, J. Fuchs, A. Bobrick, L. Sellers, B. Melcher, and G. Martire, Class. Quantum Grav.41, 095009 (2024), arXiv:2404.03095

    arXiv 2024

  75. [75]

    L. V. Kantorovich and G. P. Akilov,Functional Analysis, 2nd ed. (Pergamon Press, Oxford, 1982)

    1982

  76. [76]

    Bradbury, R

    J. Bradbury, R. Frostig, P. Hawkins, M. J. John- son, Y. Katariya, C. Leary, D. Maclaurin, G. Nec- ula, A. Paszke, J. VanderPlas, S. Wanderman-Milne, and Q. Zhang, JAX: composable transformations of Python+NumPy programs,https://github.com/ jax-ml/jax(2018)

    2018