Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

This paper shows that the black hole horizon condition is equivalent to the Penrose–Rindler equation at the horizon, which yields a generalized quasi-local Smarr formula E = 2TS + 2ΩJ − 3⟨P⟩V for stationary rotating black holes.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-02 22:37 UTC pith:46VB4RKQ

load-bearing objection Real rotating-sector extension with a checkable Smarr volume, but the θ-independence step is only Kerr-verified and the 'unified' claims outrun the proof. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2602.16428 v2 pith:46VB4RKQ submitted 2026-02-18 gr-qc

Penrose-Rindler equation and horizon thermodynamics of stationary black holes

Diego Fern\'andez-Silvestre , Alberto Guilabert , Pedro Bargue\~no , Juan A. Miralles This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C0583C6083C40 PACS 04.70.Dy04.70.-s
keywords black hole thermodynamicshorizon thermodynamicsNewman–Penrose formalismGeroch–Held–Penrose formalismPenrose–Rindler equationSmarr formulaquasi-local geometryKerr-like black holes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper shows that the condition defining a black hole horizon—the vanishing of the metric function at the trapping surface—is exactly the Penrose–Rindler equation of null geometry when both are evaluated on the horizon. Read this way, the radial Einstein field equation becomes a local equilibrium of pressures: matter, thermal, curvature, and, for rotating holes, rotation. The same pressure balance leads to a generalized Smarr mass formula, E = 2TS + 2ΩJ − 3⟨P⟩V, where V is a horizon-averaged quantity the authors call the Smarr volume. The authors work out the static spherically symmetric case first, then the stationary Kerr-like case, and finally recast the whole construction in GHP language, which makes the pressure decomposition geometrically transparent and supplies the quasi-local volume. A sympathetic reader would care because this is a unified geometric route from the field equations to black hole thermodynamics that naturally accommodates rotation and points toward a quasi-local equation of state.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is the equivalence, for the two metric ansätze considered, between the black hole horizon condition and the Penrose–Rindler equation—the relation −Ψ₂ + Φ₁₁ + Λ = k_g/2 linking Weyl and Ricci scalars to the Gaussian curvature of the horizon cross-section. For the static ansatz ds² = f dt² − f⁻¹ dr² − r² dΩ², the equation f(r)=0 is rewritten as the Penrose–Rindler equation, and its pressure-equilibrium reading is P = P_T + P_{k_g}. For the rotating Kerr-type ansatz, the same equivalence holds with the real part of Ψ₂, and a rotation pressure P_a enters, giving the generalized Smarr relation E = 2TS + 2ΩJ − 3P V_θ. In the GHP reformulation, horizon averaging of the rad

What carries the argument

The Penrose–Rindler equation is the central object: it states that the combination −Ψ₂ + Φ₁₁ + Λ equals half the Gaussian curvature k_g of a null surface, and the paper shows that at a horizon this equation is exactly the horizon condition—an alternative form of the radial Einstein equation. The GHP formalism then provides the refined machinery: the spin coefficients ρ, σ, τ, κ and the weighted derivatives þ′, ð′ decompose the pressure into thermal, rotation, and curvature pieces, with temperature identified with (1/4π) Re(þ′ρ) at the horizon and the rotation terms ττ̄ and −Re(ð′τ), the latter vanishing on closed horizon sections. The Smarr volume V, defined by 1/V = average over the horizon

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that, for the rotating Kerr-type ansatz, every solution satisfies the algebraic relation (25) linking Im(Ψ₂) to the other NP scalars, making Δ, Δ′, and T θ-independent—a property checked on Kerr but not proven—together with the GHP identifications of temperature with Re(þ′ρ) and of ⟨P_{ð′τ}⟩ with zero.

What would settle it

Compute the Newman–Penrose scalars for a stationary axisymmetric black hole in the ansatz (20) that is not Kerr (different multipole moments or a non-type-D Weyl tensor) and check whether Eq. (25) holds and whether the Penrose–Rindler equation evaluated at the horizon is equivalent to the horizon condition; alternatively, evaluate Eq. (62) for Kerr–Newman using Eqs. (54) and (59) and check whether the equality survives.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • The horizon condition, the Penrose–Rindler equation, and the radial Einstein equation at the horizon are the same statement; every solution of the field equations automatically satisfies a pressure equilibrium at its horizon.
  • For static spherically symmetric black holes, the pressure balance P = P_T + P_{k_g} reproduces the generalized Smarr formula E = 2TS − 3PV.
  • For Kerr-like rotating black holes, rotation contributes a pressure term, and the quasi-local Smarr formula E = 2TS + 2ΩJ − 3⟨P⟩V holds with the newly defined Smarr volume.
  • Within the pressure decomposition, only the thermal term depends explicitly on the radial structure Δ′(r); the curvature and rotation terms are universal, so the non-thermal pressures agree across different gravity theories.
  • The construction is claimed to extend directly to Kerr–(A)dS spacetimes and to modified gravity theories such as f(R) or Lovelock gravity, since the NP/GHP formalism is theory-independent.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One could test whether the Penrose–Rindler/horizon equivalence and the Smarr-volume construction survive for stationary black holes outside the Kerr-type ansatz—for example, with non-type-D Weyl tensors or non-Kerr multipole moments; the present proof does not cover those cases.
  • The universality of the non-thermal pressure terms suggests a concrete numerical check: take a known stationary solution such as Kerr-Newman or Kerr-Sen, compute ⟨P⟩ and V from Eqs. (54) and (59), and see whether Eq. (62) still holds or whether new charge/dilaton pressure terms appear.
  • The quasi-local equation of state ⟨P⟩(n,T) for rotating holes is left undeveloped; a natural next step would be to derive it from Eq. (62) and compare with the van der Waals-like behavior found in the static case.
  • The vanishing of the averaged rotation term ⟨P_{ð′τ}⟩ relies on closed, boundaryless, topologically spherical horizon sections; for horizons with different topology (e.g., toroidal), the Smarr formula might acquire an extra topological contribution.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper develops a Newman-Penrose (NP) and Geroch-Held-Penrose (GHP) reformulation of horizon thermodynamics for static spherically symmetric metrics (1) and for a Kerr-type stationary axisymmetric ansatz (20). It shows that the horizon condition is equivalent to the Penrose–Rindler equation evaluated at the horizon, rewrites that equation as a balance of matter, thermal, curvature, and rotation pressures, and uses it to obtain Smarr-like relations: Eq. (18) for the static case and Eqs. (40) and (62) for the rotating case. The GHP formalism is then used to decompose the rotation pressure more finely and to introduce a horizon-averaged matter pressure ⟨P⟩ and a conjugate 'Smarr volume' V defined by the harmonic mean of a θ-dependent pseudo-volume Vθ. The central claimed result is Eq. (62), E = 2TS + 2ΩJ − 3⟨P⟩V, as a quasi-local Smarr formula for stationary black holes.

Significance. If the proof gaps are closed, the paper offers a clean geometric reformulation of horizon thermodynamics for a broad family of static and rotating black holes, and it extends previous static-sector results (refs. [25], [32], [33]) to rotating spacetimes. The explicit NP inversion for the rotating ansatz and the GHP pressure decomposition are nontrivial and appear correct for the Kerr subfamily, where the identities (25), (28), (39), and (62) check out. The introduction of a horizon-averaged radial pressure and a conjugate Smarr volume is an interesting quasi-local proposal. The paper is also commendably explicit about the restricted character of its ansatze and about the fact that Vθ is not a proper volume. The main value would be a unified geometric derivation of the Smarr formula beyond spherical symmetry, assuming the missing algebraic and integral identities are supplied.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (24)–(26) and text after Eq. (26)] The θ-independence of Δ(r), Δ′(r), and T after imposing C=0 is asserted but not proved for the general ansatz (20). The only justification offered is 'One can convince oneself of this fact, for instance, with the Kerr solution.' This is load-bearing: Eq. (28), the pressure decomposition (34)–(35), and the Smarr-like formulas (40) and (62) all depend on the inversion being valid for the full family, not just Kerr. Please supply the explicit θ-dependence of ReΨ2, Φ11, and Λ for generic Δ(r), or state precisely the conditions under which the cancellations occur. As written, the rotating-sector equivalence is established only for the Kerr subfamily.
  2. [Section III, Eqs. (37)–(40)] The quantities E=(r²+a²)/(2r), J=Ea, S=π(r²+a²), and Ω=a/(r²+a²) are the Kerr horizon expressions. For a generic Δ(r) in the ansatz (20), the ADM mass and angular momentum are not determined by the horizon radius in this way; E as defined is not the physical mass entering the standard Smarr formula unless Δ(r) has the Kerr form. Thus Eq. (40) is an identity for a defined 'energy' rather than a generalized Smarr formula for arbitrary rotating black holes. Please clarify the physical meaning of E and specify the subclass of Δ(r) for which Eq. (40) reproduces the standard Smarr relation with the ADM mass.
  3. [Section IV, Eqs. (56)–(62), especially Eq. (61)] The identity 3(⟨Pττ⟩+⟨Pkg⟩)V = −E+2ΩJ is stated without showing the averaging integrals. Since V is defined through Eq. (58) as 1/V = ⟨1/Vθ⟩, the derivation of the quasi-local Smarr formula (62) hinges critically on this computation; it is not a direct consequence of the pointwise identity (39) unless additional information about the averaging of products with Vθ is supplied. Please present the explicit integrals for ⟨Pττ⟩ and ⟨Pkg⟩ (or a clear derivation from Eq. (39) that respects the different averaging), and discuss whether the result is independent of the chosen averaging prescription.
  4. [Section II and III, Eqs. (7)–(8) and (28); Final Remarks] The paper repeatedly states that the Penrose–Rindler equation is 'an alternative formulation of the radial Einstein field equation evaluated at the horizon.' The manuscript shows equivalence with the horizon condition Δ=0/f=0, but the identification with the radial component of Einstein's equations is made only through the definition P = −T^r_r. Please make explicit in which sense Eq. (28) (or Eq. (7)) is the radial Einstein equation; otherwise the claimed 'reinterpretation' remains a definitional rewriting rather than a derivation.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section II title] The section heading contains a typo: 'ST A TIC' should be 'STATIC'.
  2. [Eq. (59)] The formula for V is typographically ambiguous. Please insert parentheses, e.g. V = (4πr³/3) · [2(r²+a²)] / [r² + (r/a)(r²+a²) arctan(a/r)].
  3. [Notation throughout] The symbol ρ is used both for ρ²=r²+a²cos²θ and for the GHP spin coefficient ρ. The paper notes this, but the double use remains confusing in Section IV; a different symbol for one of them would improve readability.
  4. [Eq. (17)] The holographic normalization N̄=N/6 is introduced without explanation. Please state the origin of the factor 6.
  5. [Final Remarks; Abstract] The abstract and Final Remarks claim a 'unified setting for extending black hole thermodynamics beyond spherical symmetry.' Given the restricted ansatz (20) and the missing proof of θ-independence in Section III, the claims should be qualified to the Kerr-type family considered in this paper.
  6. [Final Remarks, first paragraph] The phrase 'plays in the role of the matter pressure' should be 'plays the role of the matter pressure'; also 'alternative formulation the radial Einstein field equation' is missing 'of'.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Smarr volume is defined to make the 2TS term automatic; the recovered quasi-local Smarr formula is therefore partly definitional, while the rotating-sector θ-independence is asserted rather than proved.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section IV, Eqs. (36), (57)-(62)]
    "Let us define the effective volume V at this stage, such that the inverse of V is the average of the inverse of Vθ, namely 1/V ≡ ⟨1/Vθ⟩ ... The Smarr volume is constructed to define the quasi-local Smarr formula (62)."

    V is introduced by Eq. (58) precisely so that, combined with the identity ⟨PT⟩ = (2TS/3)⟨1/Vθ⟩, the thermal term 3⟨PT⟩V = 2TS holds by definition. The quasi-local Smarr formula (62) is then 'recovered' as an algebraic consequence of this definition plus the averaged pressure decomposition, rather than as an independent prediction. The remaining term relies on the asserted identity (61) (3(⟨Pττ⟩+⟨Pkg⟩)V = -E+2ΩJ), which is not derived in the text but carried over 'analogously'; to the extent the Smarr volume is chosen to make the formula hold, the derivation is partly tautological.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is a reformulation of the radial Einstein equation at the horizon in NP/GHP language. The static case (Section II) expresses the horizon condition f(r)=0 as the Penrose-Rindler equation and then, by the definitions E=r/2, S=πr^2, T=f'/(4π), P=-T^r_r, rewrites it as Eq. (18); this is algebraically self-consistent and equivalent to the input field equation, but it is an honest reformulation, not a hidden cycle. The rotating case is more delicate. The derivation assumes the ansatz (20), imposes C=0 and Eq. (25), and asserts without proof that the resulting Δ(r), Δ'(r), and T are θ-independent ('One can convince oneself of this fact, for instance, with the Kerr solution'); this is an omitted proof/scope limitation, but not a circularity because it does not assume the Smarr formula. The clearest definitional element is the Smarr volume: V is defined in Eq. (58) as 1/⟨1/Vθ⟩, which makes 3⟨PT⟩V=2TS automatic from Eq. (57); and Vθ was earlier chosen so that this identity holds. The paper is transparent that the Smarr volume is 'constructed to define the quasi-local Smarr formula (62)'. Thus the final Smarr-like relation is partly built into the definition of the conjugate volume; the only independent content is the asserted identity (61), which is not derived in the text. The self-citations to [25], [31], [32], [33] are not load-bearing: the Penrose-Rindler equation is taken from [29], the GHP temperature identification from Hayward [36], and the vanishing integral of ð'τ from [29,36]. Overall, no 'prediction' is fitted to data, but the quasi-local Smarr formula is a definitional rearrangement with a partially constructed volume; hence a moderate circularity score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 8 axioms · 3 invented entities

The central claims rest on the type-D ansätze (1) and (20), the trapping-horizon conditions ρ=0, σ=0, standard GHP identities, the Killing-horizon temperature identification, and — for the rotating case — the asserted but only Kerr-verified θ-independence of the NP-scalar inversion. No data are fitted; the hand-chosen items are the holographic normalization N̄=N/6 and the averaged-volume prescription V=1/⟨1/Vθ⟩, both introduced to make the EOS and Smarr formulas take their target forms.

free parameters (2)
  • holographic normalization N̄ = N/6 = N/6 with N = A/ℓp²
    Chosen by hand so that the equation of state takes the van der Waals-like form P = nT − n²/(2π) (Eq. 17); the factor 1/6 fixes n = 1/(2r) and is not derived from first principles.
  • Smarr volume prescription V = 1/⟨1/Vθ⟩ = V = (4πr³/3)·2(r²+a²)/(r² + (r/a)(r²+a²)tan⁻¹(a/r)) (Eq. 59)
    Defined by the averaging prescription so that 3⟨P_T⟩V = 2TS takes Smarr form; the choice of an inverse-average (rather than a plain area average of Vθ) is introduced ad hoc to make the Smarr formula hold, though the remaining identity 3(⟨Pττ⟩+⟨Pkg⟩)V = −E+2ΩJ is then verified.
axioms (8)
  • domain assumption The spacetimes are Petrov type D with null tetrads adapted to the principal null directions (ansätze (1) and (20))
    The NP scalar inversions (4)–(6) and (22)–(26) require the type-D structure and the specific tetrads; the rotating ansatz (20) is explicitly 'not the most general' stationary axisymmetric metric.
  • domain assumption The horizon cross-sections are marginally trapped with ρ = 0 and shear-free (σ = 0)
    Used in Section IV (points (i) and (ii)) to reduce the GHP Penrose–Rindler equation (44) to (32); standard for these Killing/trapping horizons but an input, not derived.
  • standard math GHP Ricci identity (46): þ'ρ − ð'τ = ρρ' + σσ' − ττ̄ − κκ' − (Ψ2 + 2Λ)
    Background GHP equation imported without proof; it is the source of the temperature connection via Re(þ'ρ).
  • standard math ∫ ð'τ over a closed horizon section vanishes
    Imported from [29,36]; load-bearing for ⟨P_ð'τ⟩ = 0 and the averaged decomposition (56).
  • domain assumption Temperature identification T = f'(r_H)/(4π) (static) and T = Δ'(r_H)/(4π(r_H²+a²)) (rotating)
    Standard Killing-horizon surface-gravity relation used without derivation in Sections II and III; also tied to Hayward's Re(þ'ρ) temperature in Section IV.
  • ad hoc to paper θ-independence and reality of the NP-scalar inversion (C = 0, Eqs. (25)–(26)) for the whole Kerr-like family
    The load-bearing technical premise of the rotating-case equivalence; verified only on Kerr, asserted for the family ('One can convince oneself').
  • domain assumption Holographic equipartition N = A/ℓp²
    Imported from the Padmanabhan program; used only for the van der Waals-like EOS (17), not otherwise load-bearing.
  • domain assumption P = −T^r_r is the horizon 'matter pressure'
    The pressure-equilibrium reinterpretation rests on the horizon-thermodynamics premise identifying the radial Einstein equation at the horizon with a thermodynamic identity (Hayward/Jacobson program).
invented entities (3)
  • Rotation pressure P_a (with GHP split P_ð'τ, P_ττ) no independent evidence
    purpose: Term in the horizon pressure equilibrium (35)/(51) accounting for rotation; Pa = −(1/4π)(Re(Ψ2)+2Λ) − P_T.
    A bookkeeping variable defined as the a²-proportional remainder of the temperature relation; no falsifiable handle outside the framework.
  • Smarr volume V no independent evidence
    purpose: Quasi-local volume conjugate to the horizon-averaged matter pressure ⟨P⟩ in the Smarr formula (62); defined by 1/V = ⟨1/Vθ⟩.
    Constructed to satisfy the Smarr relation; the paper defers the quasi-local equation of state that would give it independent thermodynamic content to future work.
  • θ-dependent pseudo-volume Vθ = (4π/3)(ρ⁴/r) no independent evidence
    purpose: Intermediate quantity with dimensions of volume that makes 3P_T Vθ = 2TS hold pointwise; explicitly 'not a proper volume'.
    Introduced in the NP treatment (36) as an auxiliary, later replaced by the averaged Smarr volume.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14428 in / 53416 out tokens · 445802 ms · 2026-08-02T22:37:00.782111+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Black holes are the natural arena for exploring the interplay between gravity and thermodynamics. Although the association between black hole mechanics and black hole thermodynamics is well established, the comprehensive geometric formulation of thermodynamic variables deserves further investigation. In this work, both Newman-Penrose (NP) and Geroch-Held-Penrose (GHP) formalisms are considered within the framework of horizon thermodynamics. We show that the NP formalism reformulates the horizon condition as the Penrose-Rindler equation. In this context, a Smarr-like formula for stationary black holes is recovered from the Penrose-Rindler equation reinterpreted as a horizon equilibrium of pressures, which includes a pressure associated with the horizon rotation. A complete geometric reformulation of this reinterpretation of the Penrose-Rindler equation evaluated at the horizon is developed within the GHP formalism. The GHP approach further inspires the introduction of the horizon-averaged matter pressure and its conjugate volume, thereby enabling a quasilocal realization of the Smarr-like formula for stationary black holes. This geometric formulation clarifies the connection between horizon dynamics and thermodynamics and offers a unified setting for extending black hole thermodynamics beyond spherical symmetry.

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

45 extracted references · 30 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    Christodoulou, Reversible and irreversible transforations in black hole physics, Phys

    D. Christodoulou, Reversible and irreversible transforations in black hole physics, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1596 (1970)

    1970

  2. [2]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Black holes and entropy, Phys. Rev. D7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  3. [3]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, The four laws of black hole mechanics, Commun. Math. Phys.31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  4. [4]

    Smarr, Mass formula for Kerr black holes, Phys

    L. Smarr, Mass formula for Kerr black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.30, 71 (1973), [Erratum: Phys. Rev. Lett. 30, 521–521 (1973)]

    1973

  5. [5]

    S. W. Hawking, Particle creation by black holes, Commun. Math. Phys.43, 199 (1975), [Erratum: Commun. Math. Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]

    1975

  6. [6]

    S. A. Hayward, General laws of black hole dynamics, Phys. Rev. D49, 6467 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9303006

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  7. [7]

    Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Thermodynamics of spacetime: The Einstein equation of state, Phys. Rev. Lett.75, 1260 (1995), arXiv:gr-qc/9504004

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  8. [8]

    S. A. Hayward, Unified first law of black hole dynamics and relativistic thermodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav.15, 3147 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9710089

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  9. [9]

    Padmanabhan, Classical and quantum thermodynamics of horizons in spherically symmetric spacetimes, Class

    T. Padmanabhan, Classical and quantum thermodynamics of horizons in spherically symmetric spacetimes, Class. Quant. Grav.19, 5387 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0204019

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  10. [10]

    Padmanabhan, Gravity and the thermodynamics of horizons, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Gravity and the thermodynamics of horizons, Phys. Rept.406, 49 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0311036

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  11. [11]

    Kothawala, S

    D. Kothawala, S. Sarkar, and T. Padmanabhan, Einstein’s equations as a thermodynamic identity: The cases of stationary axisymmetric horizons and evolving spherically symmetric horizons, Phys. Lett. B652, 338 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0701002. 13

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  12. [12]

    Padmanabhan, Thermodynamical aspects of gravity: New insights, Rept

    T. Padmanabhan, Thermodynamical aspects of gravity: New insights, Rept. Prog. Phys.73, 046901 (2010), arXiv:0911.5004 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  13. [13]

    Padmanabhan, Equipartition of energy in the horizon degrees of freedom and the emergence of gravity, Mod

    T. Padmanabhan, Equipartition of energy in the horizon degrees of freedom and the emergence of gravity, Mod. Phys. Lett. A25, 1129 (2010), arXiv:0912.3165 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Hansen, D

    D. Hansen, D. Kubiznak, and R. B. Mann, Universality of P-V criticality in horizon thermodynamics, JHEP01, 047, arXiv:1603.05689 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  15. [15]

    Hansen, D

    D. Hansen, D. Kubiznak, and R. Mann, Horizon thermodynamics from Einstein’s equation of state, Phys. Lett. B771, 277 (2017), arXiv:1610.03079 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  16. [16]

    Hansen, D

    D. Hansen, D. Kubiznak, and R. B. Mann, Criticality and surface tension in rotating horizon thermodynamics, Class. Quant. Grav.33, 165005 (2016), arXiv:1604.06312 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray, and J. Traschen, Enthalpy and the mechanics of AdS black holes, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 195011 (2009), arXiv:0904.2765 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  18. [18]

    B. P. Dolan, The cosmological constant and the black hole equation of state, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 125020 (2011), arXiv:1008.5023 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  19. [19]

    Kubiznak and R

    D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, P-V criticality of charged AdS black holes, JHEP07, 033, arXiv:1205.0559 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  20. [20]

    B. P. Dolan, Where is the PdV in the first law of black hole thermodynamics?, inOpen Questions in Cosmology, edited by G. J. Olmo (IntechOpen, 2012) Chap. 12, arXiv:1209.1272 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  21. [21]

    B. P. Dolan, Black holes and Boyle’s law: The thermodynamics of the cosmological constant, Mod. Phys. Lett. A30, 1540002 (2015), arXiv:1408.4023 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  22. [22]

    Kubiznak, R

    D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and M. Teo, Black hole chemistry: Thermodynamics with Lambda, Class. Quant. Grav.34, 063001 (2017), arXiv:1608.06147 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  23. [23]

    R. B. Mann, Black hole chemistry: The first 15 years, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D34, 2542001 (2025), arXiv:2508.01830 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Wei and Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, Insight into the microscopic structure of an AdS black hole from a thermodynamical phase transition, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, 111302 (2015), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 116, 169903 (2016)], arXiv:1502.00386 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  25. [25]

    A. F. Vargas, E. Contreras, and P. Bargue˜ no, SAdS black holes and spacetime atoms: A heuristic approach, Gen. Rel. Grav.50, 117 (2018), arXiv:1712.01159 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    F. D. Villalba, A. F. Vargas, E. Contreras, and P. Bargue˜ no, The Kerr-Newman black hole as a rotating van der Waals gas, Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 87 (2020)

    2020

  27. [27]

    Newman and R

    E. Newman and R. Penrose, An approach to gravitational radiation by a method of spin coefficients, J. Math. Phys.3, 566 (1962)

    1962

  28. [28]

    R. P. Geroch, A. Held, and R. Penrose, A spacetime calculus based on pairs of null directions, J. Math. Phys.14, 874 (1973)

    1973

  29. [29]

    Penrose and W

    R. Penrose and W. Rindler,Spinors and Space-Time. Volume 1: Two-Spinor Calculus and Relativistic Fields, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 1984)

    1984

  30. [30]

    Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, International Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 1998)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, International Series of Monographs on Physics (Clarendon Press, 1998)

    1998

  31. [31]

    Bargue˜ no and E

    P. Bargue˜ no and E. Contreras,The Geroch-Held-Penrose Calculus: Fundamentals and Applications, Springer Briefs in Physics (Springer, 2023)

    2023

  32. [32]

    F. D. Villalba, P. Bargue˜ no, A. F. Vargas, and E. Contreras, Newman-Penrose scalars and black hole equations of state, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100614 (2020), arXiv:2004.02411 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  33. [33]

    Guilabert and P

    A. Guilabert and P. Bargue˜ no, The Smarr formula within the Geroch-Held-Penrose formalism, Class. Quant. Grav.42, 075018 (2025), arXiv:2412.09682 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  34. [34]

    Zhang, A

    F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, D. A. Nichols, Y. Chen, G. Lovelace, K. D. Matthews, R. Owen, and K. S. Thorne, Visualizing spacetime curvature via frame-drag vortexes and tidal tendexes II. Stationary black holes, Phys. Rev. D86, 084049 (2012), arXiv:1208.3034 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  35. [35]

    Smarr, Surface geometry of charged rotating black holes, Phys

    L. Smarr, Surface geometry of charged rotating black holes, Phys. Rev. D7, 289 (1973)

    1973

  36. [36]

    S. A. Hayward, Spin coefficient form of the new laws of black hole dynamics, Class. Quant. Grav.11, 3025 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9406033

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  37. [37]

    Fodor, K

    G. Fodor, K. Nakamura, Y. Oshiro, and A. Tomimatsu, Surface gravity in dynamical spherically symmetric spacetimes, Phys. Rev. D54, 3882 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9603034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  38. [38]

    A. B. Nielsen and J. H. Yoon, Dynamical surface gravity, Class. Quant. Grav.25, 085010 (2008), arXiv:0711.1445 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  39. [39]

    Hawking, Gravitational radiation in an expanding universe, J

    S. Hawking, Gravitational radiation in an expanding universe, J. Math. Phys.9, 598 (1968)

    1968

  40. [40]

    Penrose, Quasilocal mass and angular momentum in general relativity, Proc

    R. Penrose, Quasilocal mass and angular momentum in general relativity, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A381, 53 (1982)

    1982

  41. [41]

    J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Jr., Quasilocal energy and conserved charges derived from the gravitational action, Phys. Rev. D47, 1407 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9209012

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  42. [42]

    Wang and S.-T

    M.-T. Wang and S.-T. Yau, Quasilocal mass in general relativity, Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 021101 (2009), arXiv:0804.1174 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  43. [43]

    L. B. Szabados, Quasi-local energy-momentum and angular momentum in general relativity, Living Rev. Rel.12, 4 (2009)

    2009

  44. [44]

    R. M. Wald, Black hole entropy is the Noether charge, Phys. Rev. D48, R3427 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9307038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1993

  45. [45]

    Ashtekar and B

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, Isolated and dynamical horizons and their applications, Living Rev. Rel.7, 10 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407042

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004