Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse

Carsten Gundlach; David Hilditch; Jos\'e M. Mart\'in-Garc\'ia

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 9 cited by

Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A review of critical gravitational collapse argues that universality, power-law black-hole mass scaling, and scale echoing are explained by exact self-similar solutions that act as codimension-one attractors at the black hole threshold…

desk verdict A careful, authoritative update of the standard critical-collapse review; the abstract's universality claim is one notch stronger than the vacuum evidence the paper itself summarizes. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.07636 v1 pith:42GLORCT submitted 2025-07-10 gr-qc math.AP

Carsten Gundlach , David Hilditch , José M. Martín-García This is my paper

classification gr-qcmath.AP

keywords criticalcollapseblackholethresholdself-similarityexponentsnakedsingularitiescosmiccensorshipChoptuiksolutiongeneralrelativity

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 paper argues that the surprising regularities seen when gravitational collapse is tuned exactly to the threshold of black hole formation—universal critical exponents, power-law scaling of the black hole mass, and repeating 'echoes' on ever smaller scales—are the fingerprint of a single object: an exact solution that attracts all nearby evolutions but repels them along exactly one direction. The review assembles the numerical and mathematical evidence for this attractor picture across matter models, spacetime dimensions, and increasingly beyond spherical symmetry. If the picture is right, fine-tuning generic smooth initial data to the threshold produces arbitrarily small black holes, with a naked singularity visible from infinity in the perfect-tuning limit, giving a classical route to arbitrarily large curvature from smooth data. That is why the subject matters for cosmic censorship, quantum gravity, and the general dynamics of general relativity.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the critical solution as a fixed point (CSS) or limit cycle (DSS) of the Einstein-matter evolution, sitting on a critical surface of codimension one in phase space. The argument is carried by the mode ansatz $Z(x,\tau)=Z_*(x)+\sum_i C_i(p)e^{\lambda_i\tau}Z_i(x)$, in which exactly one mode has $\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda>0$; together with the scaling of the metric $g_{\mu\nu}=e^{-2\tau}\tilde{g}_{\mu\nu}$, this turns the single growing amplitude into the only dimensionful scale, yielding $M\propto e^{-\tau_*}\propto (p-p_*)^{1/\lambda_0}$. DSS is defined by a map $\Phi$ with $\Phi^*g=e^{-2\Delta}g$, giving a period $\Delta$ in the log-scale time $\tau$ and a superimposed periodic 'wiggle' on the power law.

What would settle it

A numerical or analytical construction of a second growing mode with $\mathrm{Re}\,\lambda>0$ in the perturbation spectrum of the Choptuik solution would invalidate the predicted power law; so would a one-parameter family of smooth initial data tuned to $10^{-15}$ precision whose black-hole mass scaling exponent or echoing period differs from the universal values beyond numerical error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that at the black hole threshold in the space of initial data for general relativity there is a critical solution—typically continuously or discretely self-similar (CSS or DSS)—that acts as an attractor of codimension one: it pulls in all nearby evolutions, then lets them leave along a single unstable direction. Because the critical solution is scale-invariant, the only length scale left at the moment of departure from the attractor is $e^{-\tau_*}$, and dimensional analysis then forces the black-hole mass to scale as $M \propto (p-p_*)^{1/\lambda_0}$, where $\lambda_0$ is the growth rate of the single unstable mode. The exponent $\gamma=1/\lambda_0$ and, for DSS, the echoing period $\Delta$ are universal within a given universality class but depend on the matter model. In the limit of perfect fine-tuning the growing mode is absent, all decaying modes die out, and the critical spacetime itself contains a curvature singularity that is at least locally naked; the review documents rigorous results showing that such naked singularities are non-generic yet can form from smooth data in a codimension-one set.

Load-bearing premise

The clean power law and universality rest on the assumption that, near the critical solution, linear perturbation theory is valid all the way down to the scale that sets the black hole mass, and that the perturbation spectrum is discrete with exactly one growing mode and no continuous part.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Within any universality class, measuring the critical exponent $\gamma$ and echoing period $\Delta$ on one family of initial data fixes them for all families of that matter model.
Black hole charge and angular momentum at the threshold obey their own power laws, with the charge exponent tied to the most slowly decaying charged mode; in type II collapse one expects $\delta \ge 2\gamma$.
The critical solution's single unstable mode means that near-threshold physics is effectively one-dimensional: all memory of the initial data except the distance to the threshold is forgotten before the black hole forms.
In the perfect-tuning limit the critical spacetime is a naked singularity, so critical collapse provides a concrete classical mechanism by which arbitrarily high curvature can be visible from infinity without an event horizon.
Beyond spherical symmetry, the evidence assembled here indicates that power-law scaling with a wiggle persists for individual families in vacuum axisymmetric collapse, but the exponent and period need not be universal across families.

Reading between the lines

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

If the attractor picture holds, the mass-scaling law is really a statement about dimensional analysis under scale invariance; the same logic should apply to any dimensionful observable, so measurements of curvature-maximum scaling provide a direct test of the underlying self-similarity.
The review's evidence that vacuum axisymmetric critical exponents vary from family to family suggests that the black-hole threshold in vacuum may be a union of many codimension-one attractors rather than a single one; a systematic search for a common critical solution in high-precision vacuum evolutions would settle this.
Because the critical spacetime ends in a naked singularity with a Cauchy horizon, the same setting can be used to probe strong cosmic censorship: any blueshift instability of that horizon puts an upper bound on how finely one can tune before the classical picture breaks down.
One could test the universality conjecture in modified gravity or semiclassical theories by checking whether the leading correction to the mass-scaling law near the Planck scale is controlled by the same critical solution, rather than by the new physics.

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

What you should know first: this is not a research paper with a new result, it is an updated review from the people who wrote the previous version and much of the field's canonical work. Within that genre it is very good. The structure is clear, the coverage is current, and the authors are openly honest about what is numerical, what is conjectural, and what is proved. The new sections on PDE blowup and on rigorous singularity formation results are a real addition, not a cosmetic update.

The soft spot is not in the body but in the frame. The abstract and the Introduction's bullet list say that universality, power-law scaling, and echoing are explained by codimension-one attracting self-similar solutions. That is an accurate description of the spherically symmetric and some matter-field cases. But Section V.D, which the authors themselves wrote, says that for axisymmetric vacuum collapse the evidence points away from universality: the critical exponent and echoing period vary from family to family, and there is probably no universal threshold axisymmetric vacuum solution. The body is appropriately hedged; the headline is not. The central claim should be qualified to match the body, for instance by saying "in the cases studied so far" or by explicitly excepting axisymmetric vacuum. I would not call this a fatal flaw, but it is a real correctness risk in a paper that people will use as a reference.

The mass-scaling derivation in Section II.C is also explicitly heuristic—discrete spectrum, exactly one unstable mode, linear theory valid all the way to the scale that sets the black hole mass. The authors flag this, but users should remember it is a framework, not a theorem.

The self-citation load is heavy, but this is a field where the same small group has done most of the work, and the central claims are independently corroborated by other groups and by the formal existence proofs cited in Section VII. I would not penalize it.

Who should read this: graduate students and researchers entering the subject, and anyone who needs a current map of what is known versus what is wished. It deserves a serious referee: reviews are citable and this one will be the standard reference for years. My recommendation is to send it to review, with the expectation that the abstract be tightened to match the body's careful non-universality statement in vacuum axisymmetry.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This manuscript is a substantial update of the authors' Living Reviews article on critical phenomena in gravitational collapse. It surveys the theory (universality, self-similarity, mass scaling, type I/II), the spherical scalar field case, many matter models in spherical symmetry, axisymmetric and 3D studies (especially vacuum collapse), self-similar blowup in dispersive PDEs, and recent rigorous results on self-similarity and naked singularity formation. The central thesis is that the observed phenomena are explained by a codimension-one attractor in the phase space of initial data, typically a self-similar solution, and that fine-tuning to threshold yields arbitrarily small black holes and, in the limit, globally naked singularities. The review also identifies open problems, particularly regarding universality beyond spherical symmetry.

Significance. If accepted, this will be a standard reference. Its strengths are breadth, the clear separation of numerical evidence from rigorous theorems, careful reporting of quantitative disagreements (e.g., Sec. V.D on axisymmetric vacuum exponents), and inclusion of computer-assisted existence proofs (Secs. VII.C and VII.D.7). The authors are transparent about the heuristic nature of the dynamical-systems picture and about the many open questions. However, because the paper's authority rests on accurate synthesis, the mismatch between the unqualified universality statements in the abstract and Introduction and the non-universality reported in Secs. IV.C and V.D is a substantive issue that must be fixed before publication.

major comments (3)

[Abstract and Sec. I.A] The abstract and the first bullet in Sec. I.A state that universality of the critical exponent is a general feature of the black hole threshold, 'depending on the type of collapsing matter.' This is contradicted by the review's own Sec. V.D, which concludes that for axisymmetric vacuum collapse 'the critical exponent and echoing period are not universal across families' and that 'there is no universal threshold axisymmetric vacuum solution.' Since these are vacuum, asymptotically flat initial data with the same observable (Kretschmann scaling with a wiggle), the non-universality is not covered by the matter-type caveat. The abstract and bullet should be qualified to systems in which a codimension-one self-similar attractor has actually been established, with the status beyond spherical symmetry explicitly deferred.
[Sec. IV.C] The same bullet is also contradicted by the review's account of spherical collisionless matter: Sec. IV.C reports that for massive Einstein-Vlasov the type I critical exponent 'depends weakly on the family of initial data, ranging from 5.0 to 5.9' and that later computations give exponents 'ranging now from 5.27 to 11.65,' with 'no universal critical solution.' This is within spherical symmetry, so it cannot be attributed to beyond-spherical complications. The claim that the exponent is universal with respect to initial data for a given matter type should therefore be presented as a property of specific models, not as a general empirical law.
[Sec. II.C, Eqs. (11)-(15)] The derivation of the power law M proportional to (p-p*)^(1/lambda0) rests on the assumption, stated in the text, of a countable set of modes with no continuous spectrum and exactly one growing mode. The review does not discuss the domain of validity of this assumption, despite later reporting systems where the mode picture is not established: Sec. V.D finds no universal axisymmetric vacuum critical solution, and Sec. IV.A.4 cites evidence against a universal critical solution for general spherical SU(2) EYM. A reader could take Eq. (15) as a theorem. The section should explicitly state that the derivation applies to systems in which the discrete single-unstable-mode spectrum has been verified, and that continuous spectra or additional growing modes would modify or invalidate the clean scaling law.

minor comments (4)

[Secs. IV.B.3, VII.A, VII.B] The solution named after Larson and Penston is spelled 'Larston-Penston' throughout; it should be 'Larson-Penston.'
[Sec. IV.A.3] The sentence 'the constant eta in (44) and (43) is dimensionless' refers to Eq. (44), which is introduced only in the following subsection; the reference should be corrected or renumbered.
[Sec. VII.D.6] Typo: 'Christodolou' should be 'Christodoulou.'
[Sec. I.B] Typo: 'Fore-runners' should be 'Forerunners.'

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No circular derivation: the mass-scaling law follows from the single-unstable-mode ansatz plus dimensional analysis, and the load-bearing existence claims are supported by the independent proof of Reiterer and Trubowitz. The abstract's unqualified universality is contradicted by the paper's own Sec. V.D, but that is a correctness caveat, not circularity.

full rationale

The derivation chain in Sec. II.C is conditional rather than circular. It assumes a critical solution that is an attractor of codimension one with exactly one growing linear mode, writes the linear perturbation as Z = Z* + sum C_i e^{lambda_i tau} Z_i, defines tau_* by dC0/dp (p-p*) e^{lambda0 tau_*} = eps, and then uses dimensional analysis to conclude M ∝ e^{-tau_*} ∝ (p-p*)^{1/lambda0}. The exponent 1/lambda0 is not fitted to the black-hole-mass data; it is an eigenvalue of the perturbation problem around the critical solution, and the review cites independent numerical verifications of the resulting scaling. The charge-scaling prediction delta ≃ 0.88 for scalar electrodynamics is similarly presented as a prediction from perturbation theory that was subsequently verified by Hod and Piran and by Petryk, not as a post-hoc fit. Self-citations appear frequently (e.g., [20,29,43] for the mass wiggle, scalar electrodynamics perturbations, and the global structure of the Choptuik solution), but these refer to specific numerical and perturbative constructions; the central existence of the Choptuik solution is backed by the independent, computer-assisted proof of Reiterer and Trubowitz [42], and the universality of f_R has been checked by multiple groups. The abstract's claim of universality is overstated relative to the paper's own Sec. V.D, which states that in axisymmetric vacuum collapse 'the critical exponent and echoing period are not universal across families' and that 'there is no universal threshold axisymmetric vacuum solution.' This is an internal coherence and correctness issue in a review's summary, not a circular argument: the review openly qualifies the scope. No step in the paper reduces a prediction to its own input by construction, and no load-bearing conclusion is imported solely from an unverified self-citation. The mild score of 2 reflects only the expected authorial weight of several self-cited numerical constructions in a field review, not any demonstrated circularity.

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

This review introduces no new free parameters and no new postulated entities. Its synthesis rests on standard background in general relativity and on domain assumptions about numerical fidelity and the mode structure of critical solutions, which are listed above.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption Cauchy evolution of the Einstein-matter systems considered is well-posed, and numerical codes faithfully represent the continuum solutions.
The review's catalogue of critical solutions and exponents is built from simulations whose accuracy is assumed; for example, Sections III A and V D describe gauges and discretizations without full uncertainty quantification for all results.
domain assumption The black hole threshold is a smooth codimension-one surface in phase space, with a critical solution having exactly one unstable mode.
This is the organizing picture of Sec. II A and underpins universality and mass scaling. Sec. II E acknowledges the picture is simplified and that a suitable norm on phase space is missing.
ad hoc to paper The linear perturbation spectrum of the critical solution is discrete, with no continuous spectrum, and the growing mode dominates near the threshold.
Stated explicitly in Sec. II C: 'Assuming there is a countable set of such modes and no continuous spectrum...' Without this assumption, Eq. (15) for the mass scaling does not follow.
domain assumption Quoted numerical constants, such as the echoing period Δ ≈ 3.44 and critical exponents γ ≈ 0.37, are accurate and converged.
The phenomenological claims rest on these numbers from cited groups; the review states them without re-deriving them, e.g., Δ = 3.445452402(3) in Sec. III B.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/42GLORCT

@misc{pith2026250707636,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/42GLORCT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.07636}
}

read the original abstract

As first discovered by Choptuik, the black hole threshold in the space of initial data for general relativity shows both surprising structure and surprising simplicity. Universality, power-law scaling of the black hole mass, and scale echoing have given rise to the term ``critical phenomena''. They are explained by the existence of exact solutions which are attractors within the black hole threshold, that is, attractors of codimension one in phase space, and which are typically self-similar. Critical phenomena give a natural route from smooth initial data to arbitrarily large curvatures visible from infinity, and are therefore likely to be relevant for cosmic censorship, quantum gravity, astrophysics, and our general understanding of the dynamics of general relativity. Major additions since the 2010 version of this review are numerical simulations beyond spherical symmetry, in particular of vacuum critical collapse, and new sections on mathematical results in PDE blowup (as a toy model for singularity formation) and on naked singularity formation in GR.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.07636 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2. A different phase space picture, specifically for type II [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. The spacetime diagram of all generic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Conformal diagram of the critical solution matched [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: FIG. 5. The final event horizon of a black hole is only known [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 9 Pith papers

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

Interior instability of naked singularities of a scalar field
gr-qc 2025-08 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

Nonlinear interior perturbations below a regularity threshold make k-self-similar scalar-field naked singularities collapse into trapped surfaces and black holes.
Nonlinear Dynamics near the Threshold of Gravitational Collapse
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Perturbation theory around flat space fails before black hole formation once peak luminosity exceeds ~10^-2 L_Planck; near criticality the spectrum flattens to 1/ω, matching the prediction from discrete self-similarity.
Near--extremal gravitational collapse in 4+1 dimensions: Schwarzschild--de--Sitter space
gr-qc 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

Numerical simulations in 4+1 dimensions show near-extremal Schwarzschild-de Sitter black holes forming from gravitational wave collapse with mass over 99% of the extremal limit, suggesting the third law may not apply ...
A Nonlinear Endpoint of Charged Horizon Instabilities
gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

Charged scalar collapse can form dynamical extremal black holes whose horizons show divergent energy density and constant charge hair, with universal near-threshold scaling.
Higher-derivative gravitational effective field theories are generically weakly hyperbolic
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.5 of 10

Any pure-metric higher-derivative gravity EFT with derivative-independent characteristics has a weakly hyperbolic physical spin-2 block that gauge fixing and constraint addition cannot remove.
The weight of light: colliding pulses of radiation in General Relativity
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Focused pulses of electromagnetic radiation can self-gravitate into black holes and, just below the collapse threshold, into ultracompact horizonless states whose measured compactness exceeds the hoop-conjecture value.
Comparing twist-free axisymmetric gravitational waves near the black hole threshold
gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

Independent codes (bamps, prague, sphGR) agree on near-threshold vacuum wave collapse, confirming family-dependent scaling and quasi-universal strong-field features.
Horizon formation from effective matter profiles in static spacetimes
gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 5.0 of 10

Sufficient conditions are given for a unique outer horizon to cloak a negative-mass Schwarzschild timelike naked singularity when non-negative localized anisotropic matter is added.
Implications for Pulsar Timing Arrays of Sub-solar Black Hole Detections: From LVK to Einstein Telescope and Cosmic Explorer
astro-ph.CO 2025-08 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

A Bayesian analysis shows that a future sub-solar PBH detection would make the primordial SIGW interpretation of PTA data favored over the SMBH interpretation, but this preference is driven by the detection prior.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

300 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 9 Pith papers

[1]

admissible data

Asymptotically CSS vacuum solutions with κ = 0 In Rodnianski and Shlapentokh-Rothman [377], all spacetime dimensions ≥ 4 are considered, but for simplic- ity we restrict here to 4 dimensions, where g is a 2-metric. 39 Only a narrow wedge to the future of the similarity hori- zon is considered, namely −1 ≤ u <0 and 0 ≤ v < c(−u) for some small constant c. ...
[2]

(92) (See also Brady [369] for an independent study of the same ansatz)

Construction of CSS naked singularities that are analytic except at the SH Christodoulou [368] constructs CSS solutions with the most general ansatz for the scalar field compatible with CSS in spherical symmetry, √ 4πG ϕ(x, τ) = ˜ϕ(x) + kτ. (92) (See also Brady [369] for an independent study of the same ansatz). Here x and τ are any similarity coordi- nat...
[3]

However, the word “regular” is potentially misleading here

All CSS naked singularity examples are only C 1,ϵ at the past lightcone Christodoulou has therefore constructed a 2-parameter family of “solutions corresponding to regular asymptoti- cally flat initial data which develop singularities that are not preceded by a trapped region but have future light cones expanding to infinity” [368]. However, the word “reg...
[4]

Let ϑ be any initial data on C + 0 that form a naked singularity

All naked singularity spacetimes are unstable under perturbations that are only C 1,δ across the SH Christodoulou [55] shows that all naked singularity so- lutions are nongeneric: in some sense, they have codi- mension. Let ϑ be any initial data on C + 0 that form a naked singularity. Then there are choices of two functions f1 and f2 such that the data ϑ ...
[5]

Non-generic stability of approximately CSS naked singularity solutions in spherical symmetry Singh [375] relaxes the assumption of exact CSS for the singularity solutions of [368]. Data are imposed at on v = 0 (the past light cone of the singularity) for −1 ≤ u ≤ 0 and on u = −1 for v > 0 with deviations from exactly CSS data for naked singularity formati...
[6]

The interior of v = 0 is then obviously still the Christodolou naked singularity

Arbitrary codimension instability of CSS naked singularities beyond spherical symmetry An [376] considers setting exact data for the Christodoulou naked singularity solution on v = 0 but perturbing the data on u = −1 for v >0 non-spherically, with the perturbation bounded in some weighted Sobolev space. The interior of v = 0 is then obviously still the Ch...
[7]

The Choptuik DSS solution is analytic Numerically, the Choptuik solution can be constructed from an ansatz of spherical symmetry, DSS, analytic cen- tre Γ and analytic past light cone C − 0 [18]. In particular, the assumption of analyticity is represented in the nu- merical construction by expanding in truncated power series about x = 0, corresponding to ...
[8]

J. H. Horne, Matters of Gravity 1996, 14 (1996), gr- qc/9602001

arXiv 1996

Show all 300 references

[9]

Bizo´ n, Acta Cosm.22, 81 (1996), gr-qc/9606060

P. Bizo´ n, Acta Cosm.22, 81 (1996), gr-qc/9606060

1996 arXiv
[10]

It is this generalisation that allows CSS vacuum solutions to contain naked singularities and, in the terminology we introduce in Sec

Asymptotically CSS vacuum naked singularity solutions with κ >0 Rodnianski and Shlapentokh-Rothman [373] introduce a new type of self-similarity where, in contrast to previ- ously known CSS or DSS solutions, including those of Rodnianski and Shlapentokh-Rothman [377], the homo...
[11]

40 The compactness 2 m/r ≪ 1 everywhere in the solu- tion, but undergo an infinite number of oscillations as u → 0−

The initial data are exactly DSS only on v = 0 but not on u = −1, already in order to make the solution asymptotically flat, but the authors state that one should be able to construct also exactly DSS, non-asymptotically flat, solutions. 40 The compactness 2 m/r ≪ 1 everywhere...
[12]

P. R. Brady and M. J. Cai, in The Eighth Marcel Gross- mann Meeting on Recent Developments in Theoretical and Experimental General Relativity, Gravitation and Relativistic Field Theories , edited by T. Piran (World Scientific, Singapore, 1999) pp. 689–704, gr-qc/9812071

1999 arXiv
[13]

Eggers and M

J. Eggers and M. A. Fontelos, Nonlinearity 22, R1 (2009), arXiv:0812.1339 [math-ph]

2009 arXiv
[14]

M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 9 (1993)

1993
[15]

Gundlach, Living Rev

C. Gundlach, Living Rev. Relativity 2, 4 (1999), 10.12942/lrr-1999-4

1999 doi
[16]

Gundlach and J

C. Gundlach and J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, Living Rev. Rel- ativity 10, 5 (2007), 10.12942/lrr-2007-5

2007 doi
[17]

Gundlach, in Mathematics of Gravitation, Part I: Lorentzian Geometry and Einstein Equations , Banach Center Publications, Vol

C. Gundlach, in Mathematics of Gravitation, Part I: Lorentzian Geometry and Einstein Equations , Banach Center Publications, Vol. 41, edited by P. T. Chru´ sciel (Polish Academy of Sciences, Institute of Mathematics, Warsaw, 1997) pp. 143–152, gr-qc/9606023

1997 arXiv
[18]

Gundlach, Adv

C. Gundlach, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 1 (1998), gr- qc/9712084

1998
[19]

J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa and C. Gundlach, in Current Trends in Relativistic Astrophysics: Theoretical, Nu- merical, Observational , Lecture Notes in Physics, Vol. 617, edited by L. Fern´ andez-Jambrina and L. M. Gonz´ alez-Romero (Springer, Berlin; New York, 2003) pp. 68–86

2003
[20]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rep. 376, 339 (2003), gr- qc/0210101

2003
[21]

P. R. Brady, C. M. Chambers, and S. M. C. V. Gon¸ calves, Phys. Rev. D 56, R6057 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9709014

1997
[22]

Garfinkle and C

D. Garfinkle and C. Gundlach, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 4111 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9908016 [gr-qc]

1999 arXiv
[23]

M. W. Choptuik, in Gravitation and Relativity: At the Turn of the Millenium , edited by N. Dadhich and J. V. Narlikar (IUCAA, Pune, 1998) pp. 67–85, gr- qc/9803075

1998
[24]

M. W. Choptuik, Prog. Theor. Phys. Suppl. 136, 353 (1999)

1999
[25]

L. L. Smarr and J. W. York, Jr., Phys. Rev. D 17, 2529 (1978)

1978
[26]

M. W. Choptuik, in Deterministic Chaos in General Relativity, edited by D. Hobill, A. Burd, and A. Co- ley (Plenum Press, New York, 1994) p. 155

1994
[27]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 3214 (1995), gr- qc/9507054

1995
[28]

M. E. Cahill and A. H. Taub, Commun. Math. Phys. 21, 1 (1971)

1971
[29]

Cao, R.-G

Z. Cao, R.-G. Cai, and R.-Q. Yang, (2016), arXiv:1604.03363 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[30]

Garfinkle and G

D. Garfinkle and G. C. Duncan, Phys. Rev. D 58, 064024 (1998), gr-qc/9802061

1998 arXiv
[31]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 55, 695 (1997), gr- qc/9604019

1997
[32]

Hod and T

S. Hod and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D 55, 440 (1997), gr- qc/9606087

1997
[33]

Gundlach, T

C. Gundlach, T. W. Baumgarte, and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D 110, 024019 (2024), arXiv:2404.15839 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[34]

J. M. Yeomans, Statistical Mechanics of Phase Tran- sitions, Oxford Science Publications (Clarendon Press; Oxford University Press, Oxford; New York, 1992)

1992
[35]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 65, 064019 (2002), 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.064019, gr-qc/0110049. 45

2002 arXiv
[36]

Garfinkle and K

D. Garfinkle and K. Meyer, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064003 (1999), gr-qc/9806052

1999 arXiv
[37]

Garfinkle, Phys

D. Garfinkle, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3169 (1997), gr- qc/9612015

1997
[38]

R. S. Hamad´ e and J. M. Stewart, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 497 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9506044

1996 arXiv
[39]

A. V. Frolov and U.-L. Pen, Phys. Rev. D 68, 124024 (2003), gr-qc/0307081

2003 arXiv
[40]

M. W. Choptuik, T. Chmaj, and P. Bizo´ n, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 424 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9603051

1996 arXiv
[41]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6002 (1997), gr- qc/9610069

1997
[42]

The proof is based on an ex- pansion of the DSS ansatz in terms of sines and cosines in τ and Chebyshev polynomials in x

have rigorously proven that the Choptuik solution exists as an analytic solution from Γ through to some- what to the future of C − 0 . The proof is based on an ex- pansion of the DSS ansatz in terms of sines and cosines in τ and Chebyshev polynomials in x. Starting from an app...
[43]

Hence in the spherical scalar field system we have ν = 1 − 4πGϕ2,τ (spher

also gives the identity a2 0 = 1 + 2 V 2 0 , where V0 =√ 2πGϕ,τ on the horizon. Hence in the spherical scalar field system we have ν = 1 − 4πGϕ2,τ (spher. symm. scalar field only) , (122) The Choptuik solution is not analytic at its Cauchy horizon, and so there is no preferred...
[44]

Gundlach and J

C. Gundlach and J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D 54, 7353 (1996), gr-qc/9606072

1996 arXiv
[45]

T. Hara, T. Koike, and S. Adachi, (1996), arXiv:gr- qc/9607010

1996
[46]

Bizo´ n, T

P. Bizo´ n, T. Chmaj, and Z. Tabor, Phys. Rev. D 59, 104003 (1999), gr-qc/9901039

1999 arXiv
[47]

D. W. Neilsen and M. W. Choptuik, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 761 (2000), gr-qc/9812053

2000 arXiv
[48]

M. W. Choptuik, in Approaches to Numerical Relativity, edited by R. A. d’Inverno (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge; New York, 1992) pp. 202–222

1992
[49]

Gundlach, R

C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 890 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9307010

1994 arXiv
[50]

Garfinkle, Phys

D. Garfinkle, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5558 (1995), arXiv:gr- qc/9412008

1995
[51]

S. W. Goode, A. A. Coley, and J. Wainwright, Class. Quantum Grav. 9, 445 (1992)

1992
[52]

Gundlach and J

C. Gundlach and J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D 68, 064019 (2003), gr-qc/0306001

2003 arXiv
[53]

P¨ urrer, S

M. P¨ urrer, S. Husa, and P. C. Aichelburg, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104005 (2005), gr-qc/0411078

2005 arXiv
[54]

Ziprick and G

J. Ziprick and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D 79, 101503(R) (2009), 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.101503, arXiv:0812.0993 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[55]

Reiterer and E

M. Reiterer and E. Trubowitz, Commun. Math. Phys. 368, 143 (2019), arXiv:1203.3766 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[56]

J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024011 (2003), gr-qc/0304070

2003 arXiv
[57]

Christodoulou, Commun

D. Christodoulou, Commun. Math. Phys. 105, 337 (1986)

1986
[58]

Christodoulou, Commun

D. Christodoulou, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 46, 1131 (1993)

1993
[59]

Christodoulou, Commun

D. Christodoulou, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 44, 339 (1991)

1991
[60]

T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D98, 084012 (2018), arXiv:1807.10342 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[61]

J. A. Crespo, H. P. de Oliveira, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104017 (2019), arXiv:1910.03439 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[62]

Rinne, Gen

O. Rinne, Gen. Rel. Grav. 52, 117 (2020), arXiv:2008.12726 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[63]

Tod, Personal communication (prior to 1999)

P. Tod, Personal communication (prior to 1999)

1999
[64]

Kelson-Packer and J

C. Kelson-Packer and J. Belz, Phys. Rev. D106, 084063 (2022), arXiv:2108.06355 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[65]

C. W. Lai, A Numerical Study of Boson Stars, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver (2004), available at http://laplace.physics.ubc.ca/People/matt/Doc/Theses/, arXiv:gr-qc/0410040

2004 arXiv
[66]

B. J. Carr and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 67, 024035 (2003), gr-qc/0209092

2003 arXiv
[67]

R. M. Wald, (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9710068

1997 arXiv
[68]

Christodoulou, Ann

D. Christodoulou, Ann. Math. (2) 149, 183 (1999)

1999
[69]

Hawke and J

I. Hawke and J. M. Stewart, Class. Quantum Grav. 19, 3687 (2002)

2002
[70]

Musco, J

I. Musco, J. C. Miller, and L. Rezzolla, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 1405 (2005), gr-qc/0412063

2005 arXiv
[71]

Hod and T

S. Hod and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D 55, 3485 (1997), arXiv:gr-qc/9606093

1997 arXiv
[72]

R. J. W. Petryk, Maxwell-Klein-Gordon Fields in Black Hole Spacetimes, Ph.D. thesis, The University of British Columbia, Vancouver (2005)

2005
[73]

Seidel and W.-M

E. Seidel and W.-M. Suen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1659 (1991)

1991
[74]

S. H. Hawley and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D 62, 104024 (2000), 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.104024, arXiv:gr- qc/0007039

2000
[75]

Jimenez-Vazquez and M

E. Jimenez-Vazquez and M. Alcubierre, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044071 (2022), arXiv:2206.01389 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[76]

Kelson-Packer and J

C. Kelson-Packer and J. Belz, Phys. Rev. D102, 084050 (2020), arXiv:2008.06774 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[77]

Garfinkle, Phys

D. Garfinkle, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044007 (2001), gr- qc/0008023

2001
[78]

Garfinkle and C

D. Garfinkle and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 66, 044015 (2002), gr-qc/0205107

2002 arXiv
[79]

C. W. Lai and M. W. Choptuik, (2007), arXiv:0709.0324 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[80]

E. P. Honda and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084037 (2002), 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.084037, arXiv:hep-ph/0110065 [hep-ph]

2002 arXiv
[81]

E. P. Honda, Phys. Rev. D82, 024038 (2010), arXiv:1006.2421 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[82]

Ikeda and C.-M

T. Ikeda and C.-M. Yoo, Phys. Rev. D94, 124032 (2016), arXiv:1610.07280 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[83]

D. Cors, S. Renkhoff, H. R. R¨ uter, D. Hilditch, and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 108, 124021 (2023), arXiv:2308.01812 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[84]

Akbarian and M

A. Akbarian and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D92, 084037 (2015), arXiv:1508.01614 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[85]

L. R. Werneck, Z. B. Etienne, E. Abdalla, B. Cuadros- Melgar, and C. E. Pellicer, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 245005 (2021), arXiv:2106.06553 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[86]

Barreto, H

W. Barreto, H. P. de Oliveira, and B. Rodriguez- Mueller, Gen. Rel. Grav. 49, 107 (2017), arXiv:1707.04938 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[87]

Carlip, Class

S. Carlip, Class. Quantum Grav. 12, 2853 (1995), gr- qc/9506079

1995
[88]

Pretorius and M

F. Pretorius and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D 62, 124012 (2000), gr-qc/0007008

2000 arXiv
[89]

Husain and M

V. Husain and M. Olivier, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, L1 (2001), gr-qc/0008060

2001 arXiv
[90]

the- sis, University of Manitoba (2007), available at http: //hdl.handle.net/1993/20437

Dimension dependence of the critical phenomena in gravitational collapse of massless scalar field, Ph.D. the- sis, University of Manitoba (2007), available at http: //hdl.handle.net/1993/20437

2007
[91]

Kol, JHEP 10, 017 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0502033 [hep-th]

B. Kol, JHEP 10, 017 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0502033 [hep-th]

2006 arXiv
[92]

E. W. Hirschmann, A. Wang, and Y. Wu, Class. Quan- tum Grav. 21, 1791 (2004), gr-qc/0207121

2004 arXiv
[93]

Cl´ ement and A

G. Cl´ ement and A. Fabbri, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 3665 (2001), gr-qc/0101073

2001 arXiv
[94]

Cl´ ement and A

G. Cl´ ement and A. Fabbri, Nucl. Phys. B 630, 269 (2002), gr-qc/0109002

2002 arXiv
[95]

Cavagli` a, G

M. Cavagli` a, G. Cl´ ement, and A. Fabbri, Phys. Rev. D 70, 044010 (2004), gr-qc/0404033

2004 arXiv
[96]

Ja lmu˙ zna, C

J. Ja lmu˙ zna, C. Gundlach, and T. Chmaj, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124044 (2015), arXiv:1510.02592 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[97]

Ja lmu˙ zna and C

J. Ja lmu˙ zna and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D95, 084001 (2017), arXiv:1702.04601 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[98]

Garfinkle, C

D. Garfinkle, C. Cutler, and G. C. Duncan, Phys. Rev. D 60, 104007 (1999), 10.1103/PhysRevD.60.104007, arXiv:gr-qc/9908044

1999 arXiv
[99]

Birukou, V

M. Birukou, V. Husain, G. Kunstatter, E. Vaz, and M. Olivier, Phys. Rev. D 65, 104036 (2002), gr- qc/0201026

2002
[100]

Husain, G

V. Husain, G. Kunstatter, B. Preston, and M. Birukou, Class. Quantum Grav. 20, L23 (2003), gr-qc/0210011

2003 arXiv
[101]

Bland and G

J. Bland and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D75, 101501 (2007), arXiv:hep-th/0702226 [hep-th]

2007 arXiv
[102]

´Alvarez-Gaum´ e, C

L. ´Alvarez-Gaum´ e, C. G´ omez, and M. A. V´ azquez- Mozo, Phys. Lett. B 649, 478 (2007), hep-th/0611312

2007 arXiv
[103]

´Alvarez Gaum´ e and E

L. ´Alvarez Gaum´ e and E. Hatefi, JCAP 1310, 037 (2013), arXiv:1307.1378 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[104]

E. W. Hirschmann and D. M. Eardley, Phys. Rev. D 51, 4198 (1995), gr-qc/9412066

1995 arXiv
[105]

Sorkin and Y

E. Sorkin and Y. Oren, Phys. Rev. D 71, 124005 (2005), 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.124005, hep-th/0502034

2005 arXiv
[106]

Bland, B

J. Bland, B. Preston, M. Becker, G. Kunstatter, and V. Husain, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 5355 (2005), 46 arXiv:gr-qc/0507088 [gr-qc]

2005 arXiv
[107]

Taves and G

T. Taves and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D84, 044034 (2011), arXiv:1105.0878 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[108]

Porto Veronese and C

B. Porto Veronese and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 106, 104044 (2022), arXiv:2209.08404 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[109]

Golod and T

S. Golod and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D85, 104015 (2012), arXiv:1201.6384 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[110]

Deppe, C

N. Deppe, C. D. Leonard, T. Taves, G. Kunstatter, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D86, 104011 (2012), arXiv:1208.5250 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[111]

An and X

X. An and X. Zhang, Ann. Henri Poincar´ e19, 619–6513 (2018), 1509.07956

2018 arXiv
[112]

E. W. Hirschmann and D. M. Eardley, Phys. Rev. D 56, 4696 (1997), gr-qc/9511052

1997 arXiv
[113]

S. L. Liebling and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 1424 (1996), gr-qc/9606057

1996 arXiv
[114]

R. S. Hamad´ e, J. H. Horne, and J. M. Stewart, Class. Quantum Grav. 13, 2241 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9511024

1996 arXiv
[115]

´Alvarez-Gaum´ e and E

L. ´Alvarez-Gaum´ e and E. Hatefi, Class. Quant. Grav. 29, 025006 (2012), arXiv:1108.0078 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[116]

Bartnik and J

R. Bartnik and J. McKinnon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 141 (1988)

1988
[117]

M. W. Choptuik, E. W. Hirschmann, and R. L. Marsa, Phys. Rev. D 60, 124011 (1999), 10.1103/Phys- RevD.60.124011, arXiv:gr-qc/9903081

1999 arXiv
[118]

E. W. Hirschmann and D. M. Eardley, Phys. Rev. D 52, 5850 (1995), gr-qc/9506078

1995 arXiv
[119]

D. M. Eardley, E. W. Hirschmann, and J. H. Horne, Phys. Rev. D 52, R5397 (1995), gr-qc/9505041

1995 arXiv
[120]

S. Husa, C. Lechner, M. P¨ urrer, J. Thornburg, and P. C. Aichelburg, Phys. Rev. D 62, 104007 (2000), 10.1103/PhysRevD.62.104007, arXiv:gr-qc/0002067

2000 arXiv
[121]

Bizo´ n and A

P. Bizo´ n and A. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. D 62, 084031 (2000), gr-qc/0006034

2000 arXiv
[122]

Bizo´ n and A

P. Bizo´ n and A. Wasserman, Class. Quantum Grav.19, 3309 (2002), gr-qc/0201046

2002 arXiv
[123]

Bizo´ n, S

P. Bizo´ n, S. J. Szybka, and A. Wasserman, Phys. Rev. D 69, 064014 (2004), gr-qc/0310038

2004 arXiv
[124]

S. J. Szybka, Phys. Rev. D 69, 084014 (2004), gr- qc/0310050

2004
[125]

Lechner, Staticity, self-similarity and critical phe- nomena in a self-gravitating nonlinear sigma model , Ph.D

C. Lechner, Staticity, self-similarity and critical phe- nomena in a self-gravitating nonlinear sigma model , Ph.D. thesis, University of Vienna, Vienna (2001), gr- qc/0507009

2001
[126]

Thornburg, C

J. Thornburg, C. Lechner, M. P¨ urrer, P. C. Aichelburg, and S. Husa, in The Ninth Marcel Grossmann Meeting on recent developments in theoretical and experimental general relativity, gravitation and relativistic field theo- ries, edited by V. G. Gurzadyan, R. T. Jantzen, and R...
[127]

Bizo´ n and P

P. Bizo´ n and P. Biernat, Communications in Math- ematical Physics 338, 1443 (2015), arXiv:1409.8214 [math.AP]

2015 arXiv
[128]

Lechner, J

C. Lechner, J. Thornburg, S. Husa, and P. C. Aichel- burg, Phys. Rev. D 65, 081501 (2002), gr-qc/0112008

2002 arXiv
[129]

extremal critical collapse

that the critical solution for an Einstein-wavemap system is analytic, even though it is only CSS, makes that intuition questionable. However, we know numerically that the Cauchy hori- zon of the Choptuik solution is only H¨ older-continuous [43], in a very similar way to the ...

2007
[130]

P. C. Aichelburg, P. Bizo´ n, and Z. Tabor, Class. Quan- tum Grav. 23, S299 (2006), gr-qc/0512136

2006 arXiv
[131]

S. J. Szybka and T. Chmaj, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 101102 (2008), 10.1103/PhysRevLett.100.101102, arXiv:0711.4612 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[132]

Bizo´ n, Phys

P. Bizo´ n, Phys. Rev. Lett.64, 2844 (1990)

1990
[133]

M. S. Volkov and D. V. Gal’tsov, JETP Lett. 50, 346 (1989)

1989
[134]

Rinne, Phys

O. Rinne, Phys. Rev. D 90, 124084 (2014), arXiv:1409.6173 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[135]

Maliborski and O

M. Maliborski and O. Rinne, Phys. Rev. D97, 044053 (2018), arXiv:1712.04458 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[136]

Jackson, A Numerical Exploration of the Spheri- cally Symmetric SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations , Ph.D

D. Jackson, A Numerical Exploration of the Spheri- cally Symmetric SU(2) Einstein-Yang-Mills Equations , Ph.D. thesis, Monash U. (2018), arXiv:1808.08026 [gr- qc]

2018 arXiv
[137]

R. S. Millward and E. W. Hirschmann, Phys. Rev. D68, 024017 (2003), 10.1103/PhysRevD.68.024017, arXiv:gr- qc/0212015

2003
[138]

Kain, Phys

B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D 97, 024012 (2018), arXiv:1801.03044 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[139]

Kain, Phys

B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D99, 104017 (2019), arXiv:1905.04355 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[140]

Gundlach, T

C. Gundlach, T. W. Baumgarte, and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D 100, 104010 (2019), arXiv:1908.05971 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[141]

Santos-Oliv´ an and C

D. Santos-Oliv´ an and C. F. Sopuerta, (2018), arXiv:1803.00858 [physics.comp-ph]

2018 arXiv
[142]

Bizo´ n, T

P. Bizo´ n, T. Chmaj, and B. G. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 071102 (2005), gr-qc/0506074

2005 arXiv
[143]

Bizon and A

P. Bizon and A. Wasserman, Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 122001 (2010), arXiv:1003.3306 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[144]

Bizo´ n, T

P. Bizo´ n, T. Chmaj, and B. G. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 131101 (2006), gr-qc/0608102

2006 arXiv
[145]

Bizo´ n and A

P. Bizo´ n and A. Rostworowski, Acta Phys. Polon. B48, 1375 (2017), arXiv:1710.03438 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[146]

P. M. Chesler and B. Way, (2019), arXiv:1902.07218 [hep-th]

2019 arXiv
[147]

Bizo´ n, T

P. Bizo´ n, T. Chmaj, A. Rostworowski, B. G. Schmidt, and Z. Tabor, Phys. Rev. D 72, 121502 (2005), gr- qc/0511064

2005
[148]

Bizon and A

P. Bizon and A. Rostworowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 107, 031102 (2011), arXiv:1104.3702 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[149]

Maliborski and A

M. Maliborski and A. Rostworowski, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1340020 (2013), arXiv:1308.1235 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[150]

Martinon, (2017), arXiv:1708.05600 [gr-qc]

G. Martinon, (2017), arXiv:1708.05600 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[151]

Moschidis, Invent

G. Moschidis, Invent. Math. 231, 467 (2023), arXiv:1812.04268 [math.AP]

2023 arXiv
[152]

Santos-Oliv´ an and C

D. Santos-Oliv´ an and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 041101 (2016), arXiv:1511.04344 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[153]

Cai, L.-W

R.-G. Cai, L.-W. Ji, and R.-Q. Yang, Commun. Theor. Phys. 68, 67 (2017), arXiv:1609.02804 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[154]

Santos-Oliv´ an and C

D. Santos-Oliv´ an and C. F. Sopuerta, Phys. Rev.D93, 104002 (2016), arXiv:1603.03613 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[155]

T. W. Baumgarte and D. Hilditch, Phys. Rev. D 106, 044014 (2022), arXiv:2207.06376 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[156]

Bizon and J

P. Bizon and J. Ja lmu˙ zna, Phys. Rev. Lett.111, 041102 (2013), arXiv:1306.0317 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[157]

Baier, S

R. Baier, S. A. Stricker, and O. Taanila, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 025007 (2014), arXiv:1309.1629 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[158]

Deppe, Phys

N. Deppe, Phys. Rev. D 100, 124028 (2019), arXiv:1606.02712 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[159]

Garfinkle, R

D. Garfinkle, R. Mann, and C. Vuille, Phys. Rev. D 68, 064015 (2003), gr-qc/0305014

2003 arXiv
[160]

Okawa, V

H. Okawa, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 041502 (2014), arXiv:1311.1235 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[161]

Maliborski, Phys

M. Maliborski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 221101 (2012), arXiv:1208.2934 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[162]

Buchel, L

A. Buchel, L. Lehner, and S. L. Liebling, Phys. Rev. D 86, 123011 (2012), arXiv:1210.0890 [gr-qc]

2012 arXiv
[163]

S. L. Liebling, Phys. Rev. D 87, 081501 (2013), arXiv:1212.6970 [gr-qc]. 47

2013 arXiv
[164]

Friedrich, Class

H. Friedrich, Class. Quant. Grav. 31, 105001 (2014), arXiv:1401.7172 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[165]

Cai and R.-Q

R.-G. Cai and R.-Q. Yang, (2016), arXiv:1602.00112 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[166]

M. W. Choptuik, E. W. Hirschmann, and S. L. Liebling, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6014 (1997), gr-qc/9701011

1997 arXiv
[167]

M. H. P. M. van Putten, Phys. Rev. D54, R5931 (1996), gr-qc/9607074

1996 arXiv
[168]

Alcubierre, Phys

M. Alcubierre, Phys. Rev. D 55, 5981 (1997), arXiv:gr- qc/9609015

1997
[169]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084021 (2002), gr- qc/9906124

2002
[170]

Zhang, Q

C.-Y. Zhang, Q. Chen, Y. Liu, W.-K. Luo, Y. Tian, and B. Wang, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 161105 (2022), arXiv:2112.07455 [gr-qc]

2022 arXiv
[171]

Y. R. Baez, JHEP 05, 019 (2023), arXiv:2212.14805 [gr- qc]

2023 arXiv
[172]

J. F. Ventrella and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D 68, 044020 (2003), gr-qc/0304007

2003 arXiv
[173]

´Alvarez-Gaum´ e, C

L. ´Alvarez-Gaum´ e, C. G´ omez, A. S. Vera, A. Tavan- far, and M. A. V´ azquez-Mozo, Nucl. Phys. B 806, 327 (2009), arXiv:0804.1464 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[174]

Sarbach and L

O. Sarbach and L. Lehner, Phys. Rev. D 71, 026002 (2005), hep-th/0407265

2005 arXiv
[175]

C. R. Evans and J. S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1782 (1994), gr-qc/9402041

1994 arXiv
[176]

Novak, Astron

J. Novak, Astron. Astrophys. 376, 606 (2001), gr- qc/0107045

2001
[177]

S. C. Noble, A Numerical Study of Relativistic Fluid Collapse, Ph.D. thesis, University of Texas at Austin, Austin (2003), gr-qc/0310116

2003 arXiv
[178]

S. C. Noble and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D 78, 064059 (2008), 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.064059, arXiv:0709.3527

2008 arXiv
[179]

S. C. Noble and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D93, 024015 (2016), arXiv:1512.02999 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[180]

Maison, Phys

D. Maison, Phys. Lett. B 366, 82 (1996), gr-qc/9504008

1996 arXiv
[181]

Koike, T

T. Koike, T. Hara, and S. Adachi, Phys. Rev. D 59, 104008 (1999)

1999
[182]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7075 (1998), gr- qc/9710066

1998
[183]

Lavrelashvili and D

G. Lavrelashvili and D. Maison, Phys. Lett. B 343, 214 (1995)

1995
[184]

Bourg and C

P. Bourg and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124055 (2021), arXiv:2104.11940 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[185]

Bourg and C

P. Bourg and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 104, 104017 (2021), arXiv:2108.03643 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[186]

Gundlach and P

C. Gundlach and P. Bourg, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084023 (2020), arXiv:2007.12164 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[187]

Bizo´ n and T

P. Bizo´ n and T. Chmaj, Phys. Rev. D58, 041501 (1998), gr-qc/9801012

1998 arXiv
[188]

G. Rein, A. D. Rendall, and J. Schaeffer, Phys. Rev. D 58, 044007 (1998), gr-qc/9804040

1998 arXiv
[189]

Olabarrieta and M

I. Olabarrieta and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D 65, 024007 (2001), gr-qc/0107076

2001 arXiv
[190]

Akbarian and M

A. Akbarian and M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. D90, 104023 (2014), arXiv:1409.5176 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[191]

J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084026 (2002), gr-qc/0112009

2002 arXiv
[192]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 94, 124046 (2016), arXiv:1610.08908 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[193]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084008 (2017), arXiv:1708.07191 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[194]

J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064031 (1999), gr-qc/9809059

1999 arXiv
[195]

M. W. Choptuik, Personal communication
[196]

S. L. Liebling, Phys. Rev. D 58, 084015 (1998), gr- qc/9805043

1998
[197]

Harada and H

T. Harada and H. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 63, 084022 (2001), gr-qc/0101064

2001 arXiv
[198]

Straumann and Z.-H

N. Straumann and Z.-H. Zhou, Phys. Lett. B 243, 33 (1990)

1990
[199]

M. S. Volkov, O. Brodbeck, G. Lavrelashvili, and N. Straumann, Phys. Lett. B 349, 438 (1995), hep- th/9502045

1995
[200]

Bizo´ n and T

P. Bizo´ n and T. Chmaj, Phys. Rev. D61, 067501 (2000), gr-qc/9906070

2000 arXiv
[201]

K¨ uhnel, C

F. K¨ uhnel, C. Rampf, and M. Sandstad, Eur. Phys. J. C76, 93 (2016), arXiv:1512.00488 [astro-ph.CO]

2016 arXiv
[202]

S. L. Liebling, Phys. Rev. D 60, 061502 (1999), gr- qc/9904077

1999
[203]

Koike, T

T. Koike, T. Hara, and S. Adachi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 74, 5170 (1995), gr-qc/9503007

1995 arXiv
[204]

Ori and T

A. Ori and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 59, 2137 (1987)

1987
[205]

Ori and T

A. Ori and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D 42, 1068 (1990)

1990
[206]

D. W. Neilsen and M. W. Choptuik, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 733 (2000), gr-qc/9904052

2000 arXiv
[207]

Harada, Class

T. Harada, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 4549 (2001), gr- qc/0109042

2001
[208]

P. R. Brady, M. W. Choptuik, C. Gundlach, and D. W. Neilsen, Class. Quantum Grav. 19, 6359 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0207096

2002 arXiv
[209]

B. J. Carr and A. A. Coley, Phys. Rev. D 62, 044023 (2000), gr-qc/9901050

2000 arXiv
[210]

B. J. Carr, A. A. Coley, M. Goliath, U. S. Nilsson, and C. Uggla, Phys. Rev. D 61, 081502 (2000), gr- qc/9901031

2000
[211]

Ortiz and O

N. Ortiz and O. Sarbach, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 235001 (2011), arXiv:1106.2504 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[212]

J. C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 5481 (1998), gr-qc/9709072

1998 arXiv
[213]

A. M. Green and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Rev. D 60, 063509 (1999), astro-ph/9901268v2

1999 arXiv
[214]

Yokoyama, Phys

J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D 58, 107502 (1998), gr- qc/9804041

1998
[215]

Kodama, Prog

H. Kodama, Prog. Theor. Phys. 63, 1217 (1980)

1980
[216]

J. C. Niemeyer and K. Jedamzik, Phys. Rev. D 59, 124013 (1999), astro-ph/9901292

1999 arXiv
[217]

A. G. Polnarev and I. Musco, Class. Quantum Grav. 24, 1405 (2007), gr-qc/0605122

2007 arXiv
[218]

Musco, J

I. Musco, J. C. Miller, and A. G. Polnarev, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 235001 (2009), 10.1088/0264- 9381/26/23/235001, arXiv:0811.1452 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[219]

Musco and J

I. Musco and J. C. Miller, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 145009 (2013), arXiv:1201.2379 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[220]

D. M. Eardley and L. Smarr, Phys. Rev. D 19, 2239 (1979)

1979
[221]

Y. Guo, M. Hadzic, and J. Jang, Ann. PDE 9, 4 (2023), arXiv:2112.10826 [math.AP]

2023 arXiv
[222]

Harada, Phys

T. Harada, Phys. Rev. D 58, 104015 (1998), gr- qc/9807038

1998
[223]

Snajdr, Class

M. Snajdr, Class. Quantum Grav. 23, 3333 (2006), gr- qc/0508062

2006
[224]

J. B. Griffiths and J. Podolsk´ y, Exact Space-Times in Einstein ’s General Relativity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 48 2009)

2009
[225]

Kiem, (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9407100

Y. Kiem, (1994), arXiv:hep-th/9407100

1994 arXiv
[226]

Harada and H

T. Harada and H. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 64, 124024 (2001), gr-qc/0109095

2001 arXiv
[227]

Harada, H

T. Harada, H. Maeda, and B. Semelin, Phys. Rev. D 67, 084003 (2003), gr-qc/0210027

2003 arXiv
[228]

Gundlach, P

C. Gundlach, P. Bourg, and A. Davey, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024061 (2021), arXiv:2103.04435 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[229]

Ashtekar, F

A. Ashtekar, F. Pretorius, and F. M. Ramazanoglu, Phys. Rev. D 83, 044040 (2011), arXiv:1012.0077 [gr- qc]

2011 arXiv
[230]

Kinoshita, Phys

S. Kinoshita, Phys. Rev. D 103, 124042 (2021)

2021
[231]

R. Stevenson, The Spherically Symmetric Collapse of Collisionless Matter: Exploring Critical Phenomena through Finite Volume Methods , Master’s thesis, Uni- versity of British Columbia, Vancouver (2005)

2005
[232]

Andr´ easson and G

H. Andr´ easson and G. Rein, Class. Quantum Grav.23, 3659 (2006)

2006
[233]

A. D. Rendall and J. J. L. Velazquez, Annales Henri Poincare 12, 919 (2011), arXiv:1009.2596 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[234]

A. D. Rendall and J. J. L. Vel´ azquez, Annales Henri Poincar´ e18, 3565 (2017), arXiv:1604.06576 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[235]

S. B. Giddings, (1994), lectures presented at the 1994 Trieste Summer School in High Energy Physics and Cos- mology, arXiv:hep-th/9412138

1994 arXiv
[236]

Chiba and M

T. Chiba and M. Siino, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 12, 709 (1997)

1997
[237]

Ayal and T

S. Ayal and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D 56, 4768 (1997), gr-qc/9704027

1997 arXiv
[238]

Strominger and L

A. Strominger and L. Thorlacius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1584 (1994), hep-th/9312017

1994 arXiv
[239]

A. V. Frolov, Class. Quantum Grav. 16, 407 (1999), gr-qc/9806112

1999 arXiv
[240]

J.-G. Zhou, H. J. W. M¨ uller-Kirsten, and M.-Z. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 51, R314 (1995)

1995
[241]

Peleg, S

Y. Peleg, S. Bose, and L. Parker, Phys. Rev. D 55, 4525 (1997), gr-qc/9608040

1997 arXiv
[242]

S. Bose, L. Parker, and Y. Peleg, Phys. Rev. D 54, 7490 (1996), hep-th/9606152

1996 arXiv
[243]

Oliveira-Neto and F

G. Oliveira-Neto and F. I. Takakura, J. Math. Phys. 46, 062503 (2005), gr-qc/0309099

2005 arXiv
[244]

P. R. Brady and A. C. Ottewill, Phys. Rev. D58, 024006 (1998), gr-qc/9804058

1998 arXiv
[245]

Husain, Adv

V. Husain, Adv. Sci. Lett. 2, 214 (2009), arXiv:0808.0949 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[246]

Ziprick and G

J. Ziprick and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D 80, 024032 (2009), 10.1103/PhysRevD.80.024032, arXiv:0902.3224 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[247]

Benitez, R

F. Benitez, R. Gambini, L. Lehner, S. Liebling, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 071301 (2020), arXiv:2002.04044 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[248]

Berczi, P

B. Berczi, P. M. Saffin, and S.-Y. Zhou, JHEP 02, 183 (2022), arXiv:2111.11400 [hep-th]

2022 arXiv
[249]

M. D. Roberts, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 21, 907 (1989)

1989
[250]

Oshiro, K

Y. Oshiro, K. Nakamura, and A. Tomimatsu, Prog. Theor. Phys. 91, 1265 (1994), gr-qc/9402017

1994 arXiv
[251]

P. R. Brady, Class. Quantum Grav. 11, 1255 (1994), arXiv preprint title: Does scalar field collapse produce ‘zero mass’ black holes?, gr-qc/9402023

1994 arXiv
[252]

Wang and H

A. Wang and H. P. de Oliveira, Phys. Rev. D 56, 753 (1997), gr-qc/9608063

1997 arXiv
[253]

V. P. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044006 (2006), gr- qc/0604114

2006
[254]

A. V. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6433 (1997), gr- qc/9704040

1997
[255]

A. V. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D 59, 104011 (1999), gr- qc/9811001

1999
[256]

A. V. Frolov, Phys. Rev. D 61, 084006 (2000), gr- qc/9908046

2000
[257]

T. J. Waters and B. C. Nolan, Phys. Rev. D 79, 084002 (2009), arXiv:0903.3243 [gr-qc]

2009 arXiv
[258]

Wyman, Phys

M. Wyman, Phys. Rev. D 24, 839 (1981)

1981
[259]

Husain, E

V. Husain, E. A. Martinez, and D. N´ u˜ nez, Phys. Rev. D 50, 3783 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9402021 [gr-qc]

1994 arXiv
[260]

S. A. Hayward, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 4021 (2000), gr-qc/0004038

2000 arXiv
[261]

Cl´ ement and S

G. Cl´ ement and S. A. Hayward, Class. Quantum Grav. 18, 4715 (2001), gr-qc/0108024

2001 arXiv
[262]

Pullin, Phys

J. Pullin, Phys. Lett. A 204, 7 (1995), gr-qc/9409044

1995 arXiv
[263]

R. H. Price and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 54, 3792 (1996), gr-qc/9601009

1996 arXiv
[264]

Peleg and A

Y. Peleg and A. R. Steif, Phys. Rev. D51, R3992 (1995), gr-qc/9412023

1995 arXiv
[265]

Mahajan, T

A. Mahajan, T. Harada, P. Joshi, and K. Nakao, Prog. Theor. Phys. 118, 865 (2007), arXiv:0710.4315 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[266]

Harada and A

T. Harada and A. Mahajan, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 39, 1847 (2007), arXiv:0707.3000 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[267]

Garfinkle, C

D. Garfinkle, C. Gundlach, and J. M. Mart ´ ın-Garc ´ ıa, Phys. Rev. D 59, 104012 (1999), gr-qc/9811004

1999 arXiv
[268]

V. P. Frolov, A. L. Larsen, and M. Christensen, Phys. Rev. D 59, 125008 (1999), hep-th/9811148

1999 arXiv
[269]

G. T. Horowitz and V. E. Hubeny, Phys. Rev. D 62, 024027 (2000), hep-th/9909056

2000 arXiv
[270]

Birmingham, Phys

D. Birmingham, Phys. Rev. D 64, 064024 (2001), hep- th/0101194

2001
[271]

Gundlach and T

C. Gundlach and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064006 (2018), arXiv:1712.05741 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[272]

E. M. Duffy and B. C. Nolan, Classical and Quantum Gravity 28, 105020 (2011), arXiv:1012.2766 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[273]

E. M. Duffy and B. C. Nolan (2011) arXiv:1108.1103 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[274]

´Alvarez-Gaum´ e, C

L. ´Alvarez-Gaum´ e, C. Gomez, A. Sabio Vera, A. Tavan- far, and M. A. Vazquez-Mozo, JHEP 02, 009 (2009), arXiv:0811.3969 [hep-th]

2009 arXiv
[275]

M. W. Choptuik, E. W. Hirschmann, S. L. Liebling, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 68, 044007 (2003), gr- qc/0305003

2003
[276]

Marouda, D

K. Marouda, D. Cors, H. R. R¨ uter, F. Atteneder, and D. Hilditch, (2024), arXiv:2402.06724 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[277]

Deppe, L

N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel, and S. A. Teukol- sky, Phys. Rev. D99, 024018 (2019), arXiv:1802.08682 [gr-qc]

2019 arXiv
[278]

Healy and P

J. Healy and P. Laguna, Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1722 (2014), arXiv:1310.1955 [gr-qc]

2014 arXiv
[279]

Clough and E

K. Clough and E. A. Lim, (2016), arXiv:1602.02568 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[280]

Clough, Scalar Fields in Numerical General Rela- tivity: Inhomogeneous inflation and asymmetric bub- ble collapse , Ph.D

K. Clough, Scalar Fields in Numerical General Rela- tivity: Inhomogeneous inflation and asymmetric bub- ble collapse , Ph.D. thesis, King’s Coll. London, Cham (2017), arXiv:1704.06811 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[281]

Garfinkle and G

D. Garfinkle and G. C. Duncan, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044011 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0006073

2001 arXiv
[282]

M. W. Choptuik, E. W. Hirschmann, S. L. Liebling, and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 131101 (2004), gr-qc/0405101

2004 arXiv
[283]

Olabarrieta, J

I. Olabarrieta, J. F. Ventrella, M. W. Choptuik, and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 76, 124014 (2007), 10.1103/PhysRevD.76.124014, arXiv:0708.0513 [gr-qc]. 49

2007 arXiv
[284]

Hanawa and K

T. Hanawa and K. Nakayama, Astrophys. J. 484, 238 (1997)

1997
[285]

J. G. Baker, J. Centrella, D.-I. Choi, M. Koppitz, and J. van Meter, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111102 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511103

2006 arXiv
[286]

T. W. Baumgarte and P. J. Montero, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124065 (2015), arXiv:1509.08730 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[287]

Celestino and T

J. Celestino and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D 98, 024053 (2018)

2018
[288]

T. W. Baumgarte and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221103 (2016), arXiv:1603.04373 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[289]

Gundlach and T

C. Gundlach and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084012 (2016), arXiv:1608.00491 [gr-qc]

2016 arXiv
[290]

Gundlach, Phys

C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 57, 7080 (1998), gr- qc/9711079

1998
[291]

E. Ames, H. Andr´ easson, and O. Rinne, Class. Quant. Grav. 38, 105003 (2021), arXiv:2010.15771 [gr-qc]

2021 arXiv
[292]

A. M. Abrahams and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2980 (1993)

1993
[293]

A. M. Abrahams and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. D 49, 3998 (1994)

1994
[294]

Alcubierre, G

M. Alcubierre, G. Allen, B. Br¨ ugmann, G. Lanfermann, E. Seidel, W.-M. Suen, and M. Tobias, Phys. Rev. D 61, 041501 (2000), gr-qc/9904013

2000 arXiv
[296]

Rinne, Axisymmetric numerical relativity, Other the- sis (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0601064

O. Rinne, Axisymmetric numerical relativity, Other the- sis (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0601064

2005 arXiv
[297]

Rinne, Class

O. Rinne, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 135009 (2008), arXiv:0802.3791 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[298]

Pretorius, Phys

F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 121101 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0507014

2005 arXiv
[300]

Campanelli, C

M. Campanelli, C. O. Lousto, P. Marronetti, and Y. Zlochower, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 111101 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0511048

2006 arXiv
[368]

blue-shift rate

(naked singularities can form in collapse) and Christodoulou [55] (naked singularities are not generic) are independent of each other. On the one hand, Christodoulou [55] shows that any naked singularity so- lution, not only the ones of Christodoulou [368], but also for exampl...
[2001]

1645–1646, gr-qc/0012043

pp. 1645–1646, gr-qc/0012043

arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

admissible data

Asymptotically CSS vacuum solutions with κ = 0 In Rodnianski and Shlapentokh-Rothman [377], all spacetime dimensions ≥ 4 are considered, but for simplic- ity we restrict here to 4 dimensions, where g is a 2-metric. 39 Only a narrow wedge to the future of the similarity hori- zon is considered, namely −1 ≤ u <0 and 0 ≤ v < c(−u) for some small constant c. ...

[2] [2]

(92) (See also Brady [369] for an independent study of the same ansatz)

Construction of CSS naked singularities that are analytic except at the SH Christodoulou [368] constructs CSS solutions with the most general ansatz for the scalar field compatible with CSS in spherical symmetry, √ 4πG ϕ(x, τ) = ˜ϕ(x) + kτ. (92) (See also Brady [369] for an independent study of the same ansatz). Here x and τ are any similarity coordi- nat...

[3] [3]

However, the word “regular” is potentially misleading here

All CSS naked singularity examples are only C 1,ϵ at the past lightcone Christodoulou has therefore constructed a 2-parameter family of “solutions corresponding to regular asymptoti- cally flat initial data which develop singularities that are not preceded by a trapped region but have future light cones expanding to infinity” [368]. However, the word “reg...

[4] [4]

Let ϑ be any initial data on C + 0 that form a naked singularity

All naked singularity spacetimes are unstable under perturbations that are only C 1,δ across the SH Christodoulou [55] shows that all naked singularity so- lutions are nongeneric: in some sense, they have codi- mension. Let ϑ be any initial data on C + 0 that form a naked singularity. Then there are choices of two functions f1 and f2 such that the data ϑ ...

[5] [5]

Non-generic stability of approximately CSS naked singularity solutions in spherical symmetry Singh [375] relaxes the assumption of exact CSS for the singularity solutions of [368]. Data are imposed at on v = 0 (the past light cone of the singularity) for −1 ≤ u ≤ 0 and on u = −1 for v > 0 with deviations from exactly CSS data for naked singularity formati...

[6] [6]

The interior of v = 0 is then obviously still the Christodolou naked singularity

Arbitrary codimension instability of CSS naked singularities beyond spherical symmetry An [376] considers setting exact data for the Christodoulou naked singularity solution on v = 0 but perturbing the data on u = −1 for v >0 non-spherically, with the perturbation bounded in some weighted Sobolev space. The interior of v = 0 is then obviously still the Ch...

[7] [7]

The Choptuik DSS solution is analytic Numerically, the Choptuik solution can be constructed from an ansatz of spherical symmetry, DSS, analytic cen- tre Γ and analytic past light cone C − 0 [18]. In particular, the assumption of analyticity is represented in the nu- merical construction by expanding in truncated power series about x = 0, corresponding to ...

[8] [8]

J. H. Horne, Matters of Gravity 1996, 14 (1996), gr- qc/9602001

arXiv 1996