On electrostatic manifolds with boundary

Stanislav Demurov; Vladimir Medvedev

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 37 references

On electrostatic manifolds with boundary

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper establishes that electrostatic manifolds with boundary are rigid: under photon-sphere boundary conditions, the only complete asymptotically Reissner-Nordström example is the Reissner-Nordström manifold itself.

desk verdict A useful, honest extension paper: new boundary class, known photon-sphere rigidity; conditional on a global electric potential that should be starred in the theorems. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05581 v1 pith:5QDR2KDE submitted 2025-05-08 math.DG math-phmath.MP

Stanislav Demurov , Vladimir Medvedev This is my paper · ORCID

classification math.DGmath-phmath.MP MSC 53C2453C2183C22

keywords electrostaticmanifoldwithboundarystaticReissner-Nordströmphotonsphererigiditytheoremzero-levelsetofpotentialEinstein-Maxwellequationsprescribedscalarcurvature

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 introduces electrostatic manifolds with boundary: a Riemannian manifold with a static potential $V$ and an electric field $E$ satisfying a coupled overdetermined system and a Robin boundary condition. It proves that for complete, one-ended asymptotically Reissner-Nordström systems, the boundary data alone determine the geometry: if the compact boundary is sub-extremal, has $V=\mathrm{const}>0$, $H_g<0$, $E$ normal to the boundary, and $|E|$ constant on the boundary, then the manifold is isometric to the sub-extremal Reissner-Nordström manifold with boundary ($m>|q|$). In three dimensions the same conclusion holds under weaker asymptotic decay and also for $m=|q|$ and $m<|q|$. For compact manifolds the paper proves a Euclidean ball rigidity theorem and structural restrictions on the zero set of $V$. The overall point is that electrostatic boundary rigidity is controlled by photon-sphere conditions.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the electrostatic manifold with boundary, a quadruple $(M^n,g,V,E)$ satisfying $\mathrm{Hess}\,V-(\Delta V)g-V\,\mathrm{Ric}\,g = 2V(E^\flat\otimes E^\flat - |E|^2 g)$ in $M$ and $\partial_\nu V - V B=0$ on $\partial M$, with $\mathrm{div}\,E=0$ and $d(VE^\flat)=0$. The key mechanism is Lemma 4.3: a compact boundary component with $V=\mathrm{const}>0$, $H<0$, $E$ normal, and $|E|=\mathrm{const}$ automatically satisfies the two quasi-local photon-sphere equations $R_S=\frac{n}{n-1}H_S^2+2|E|^2$ and $\partial_\nu V = \frac{H_S}{n-1}V$. This converts the boundary into an object to which photon-sphere uniqueness theorems apply directly. For those uniqueness arguments the one-form $VE^\flat$ is assumed exact, giving a globally defined electric potential $\Psi$ with $VE=-\nabla\Psi$; Definition 4.4 rewrites the system in terms of $V$ and $\Psi$. Lemma 3.1 supplies the structural facts: the zero set of $V$ is totally geodesic, the boundary is totally umbilical, and $dH_g=2E^\flat(\nu)E^\flat$ on the boundary.

What would settle it

Build a complete, one-ended, asymptotically Reissner-Nordström electrostatic manifold with compact boundary and a globally defined electric potential, whose boundary satisfies $V=\mathrm{const}>0$, $H_g<0$, $E$ normal, and $|E|=\mathrm{const}$, yet which is not isometric to $\mathrm{RN}^n_-$; Lemma 4.3 would force that boundary to be a quasi-local photon sphere, contradicting the photon-sphere uniqueness theorems.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that an electrostatic manifold with boundary is rigid exactly when its boundary behaves like a photon sphere. Theorem 1.1 states that a complete, one-ended asymptotically Reissner-Nordström system of mass $m$ and charge $q$ that is an electrostatic manifold with compact boundary, with every boundary component sub-extremal, $V\neq 0$, $H_g<0$, $V$ constant on the boundary, $E$ normal to the boundary, and $|E|$ constant on the boundary, is isometric to the sub-extremal Reissner-Nordström manifold with boundary $\mathrm{RN}^n_-$ with $m>|q|$. Theorem 1.2 gives the same conclusion in dimension three under weaker asymptotic decay, covering $m>|q|$, $m=|q|$, and $m<|q|$. The proof shows first that the boundary is itself a quasi-local photon sphere, and then invokes photon-sphere uniqueness theorems. In the compact setting, Theorem 1.3 says that a scalar-flat three-dimensional electrostatic manifold with boundary mean curvature $2$ and $\mathrm{Ric}_g(E,E)\geq -2|E|^2_g$, with connected zero set, has zero-set area bounded by $\pi$ when it meets the boundary and $2\pi$ when it does not, with equality only for the Euclidean unit ball with a linear potential and $E=0$.

Load-bearing premise

The uniqueness theorems assume that the one-form $VE^\flat$ is globally exact on $M$, so a single electric potential $\Psi$ with $VE=-\nabla\Psi$ exists everywhere; if it is only closed, the reformulation and the photon-sphere uniqueness arguments do not apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

In the asymptotically Reissner-Nordström class, the four boundary conditions $V=\mathrm{const}$, $|E|=\mathrm{const}$, $E$ normal, and $H_g<0$ leave no freedom: the metric, potential, and electric field are forced to be those of the sub-extremal Reissner-Nordström manifold cut at its photon sphere.
In three dimensions, the same boundary rigidity survives with weaker asymptotic decay, so the extremal and super-extremal cases $m=|q|$ and $m<|q|$ do not create counterexamples.
In the compact scalar-flat case with boundary mean curvature $2$, a connected zero-level set is either a free-boundary disk of area at most $\pi$ or a sphere of area less than $2\pi$; the area bound is saturated only by the Euclidean ball with a linear potential and $E=0$.
For a stable constant-mean-curvature boundary with $E$ normal, the zero set of the potential intersects the boundary at most once; with $E$ tangent and $|E|$ constant, the potential does not vanish on the boundary.

Reading between the lines

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

If the exactness of $VE^\flat$ is dropped, the photon-sphere reduction stops working; a natural test is whether closed-but-not-exact electrostatic manifolds can satisfy all four boundary conditions without being Reissner-Nordström, which would make global exactness the true boundary of the rigidity phenomenon.
The boundary data $V=\mathrm{const}$, $|E|=\mathrm{const}$, $E$ normal, and $H_g<0$ look like a charged analogue of quasi-local mass boundary data; they might serve as the correct one-sided data for a quasi-local mass in Einstein-Maxwell theory, and the rigidity here suggests such a mass would be minimized exactly by Reissner-Nordström.
The splitting alternative in Theorem 1.7 suggests a charged extension of area-minimizing sphere rigidity: in three-dimensional electrostatic manifolds with $\Lambda+\inf_M |E|^2>0$, any homologically nontrivial zero-set component is either a small topological sphere or disk, or the manifold splits locally as a warped product over it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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

Short version: this is a solid extension paper. The genuinely new item is the definition of electrostatic manifolds with boundary, combining the Robin boundary condition from static manifolds with the electrostatic system. Lemma 4.3 — boundary components with the right signs and constants are quasi-local photon spheres — is the key observation, and Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 then follow from existing uniqueness theorems of Jahns and Borghini–Cederbaum–Cogo. The authors say this openly; there is no attempt to claim a new technology. The proofs that are written out, especially Theorem 1.3, are generally careful; the Pohozaev computation checks out, including the geodesic curvature term in the free-boundary case.

Now the soft spots, in proportion. First, the exactness of VE♭ is genuinely load-bearing and is hidden in the definitions rather than starred in the theorems. Section 4.2 states that the authors only require exactness and do not assume global hyperbolicity. That is honest. But Definition 2.3 requires only closedness, while Definition 4.4 and Definition 4.5 work with Ψ and exactness. The two classes are not the same. So Theorem 1.1, as written, does not prove rigidity for every electrostatic manifold with boundary in the original sense; it proves rigidity in the Ψ class. I do not think this breaks the paper, but the statements should say so explicitly, and the reading that electrostatic boundary rigidity is fully characterized by photon-sphere conditions should be discouraged. The stress-test concern is fair, though it lands as a framing/definitional gap rather than a mathematical error.

Second, Theorems 1.4–1.6 are stated without proof, called simple exercises, and then Theorem 1.5 is used in the proof of Corollary 5.6. For a referee, this is the main concrete problem. Either include the short arguments (they are short, since the static case is in the author’s previous paper) or demote those statements to remarks and reprove the specific instance needed in Corollary 5.6.

Third, minor typos: a missing parenthesis in the proof of Theorem 1.3 and “cosnt” in Lemma 5.5. Cosmetic.

On the citation pattern: the self-citations to Med24 are legitimate, since the static case is exactly the E=0 limit. No circularity.

Bottom line: this deserves a serious referee. I would want the exactness assumption flagged at the top of Theorems 1.1 and 1.2, and I would want proofs or demotions for Theorems 1.4–1.6. After that, it is publishable. If you work on static or electrostatic rigidity, cite this for the boundary definition and Lemma 4.3.

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces electrostatic manifolds with boundary, defined by a static potential V, an electric field E, and a Robin-type boundary condition, motivated by the reduction of the source-free Einstein–Maxwell equations in static spacetimes. It derives structural properties (totally umbilical boundary, constant surface gravity on the zero set, variational characterization) and then proves: (i) uniqueness theorems for asymptotically Reissner–Nordström and asymptotically flat electrostatic systems with boundary (Theorems 1.1 and 1.2), using photon-sphere uniqueness results of Jahns and of Borghini–Cederbaum–Cogo; (ii) a compact rigidity/area bound for the zero set of V in three dimensions (Theorem 1.3), generalizing Cruz–Nunes; (iii) a splitting alternative for three-dimensional electrostatic manifolds with boundary (Theorem 1.7); and (iv) intersection properties of the zero set with stable CMC boundary components (Theorem 1.8). The main proofs reformulate the system in terms of an electric potential Ψ, assuming global exactness of VE♭.

Significance. If the results hold, Theorems 1.1 and 1.2 give a clean photon-sphere characterization of electrostatic boundary rigidity in the exact-potential case, and Theorem 1.3 extends the Cruz–Nunes rigidity theorem to nonzero electric fields. The structural lemmas, especially Lemma 3.1, Lemma 4.3, and Lemma 5.3, are useful and clearly stated. The paper is honest about the global exactness assumption on VE♭ and correctly credits the external uniqueness theorems it builds upon. However, the central rigidity statements are conditional on the existence of a globally defined electric potential Ψ, which is not implied by the basic electrostatic-manifold definition (Definition 2.3) and is only argued for via topological censorship under additional assumptions that the paper explicitly does not impose. The contribution is therefore narrower than the title and abstract may suggest. The photon-sphere computation in Appendix 6.2 is consistent with the boundary equation, and the Pohozaev identity computation in Theorem 1.3 checks out once the boundary terms are handled carefully. Several auxiliary theorems are stated without proof, and the gluing argument in Theorem 1.1(II) is compressed.

major comments (4)

[Section 4.2, Definition 4.4 and Definition 4.5; Theorem 1.1 and Theorem 1.2] The global exactness of VE♭ is the load-bearing assumption for the non-compact rigidity theorems. Definition 2.3 only requires d(VE♭)=0, while Definition 4.4 and Definition 4.5 pass to the Ψ-formulation with VE♭=−dΨ. The paper explicitly declines to assume global hyperbolicity or simple connectivity, so a closed-but-inexact VE♭ on a one-ended manifold with nontrivial H^1 in the compact core is not excluded by the stated hypotheses. The proofs of Theorem 1.1(I) and Theorem 1.2 appeal to [Jah19, Theorem 3] and [BCC24, Theorem 3.2], both formulated in terms of Ψ; if exactness fails, those theorems are not applicable. This is not an internal inconsistency, since Definition 4.5 does assume Ψ, but the rigidity theorems are much narrower than the term 'electrostatic manifolds with boundary' suggests. Please state the exactness assumption explicitly in the theorem statements, and either prove it from the remaining hypotheses or state clearly when topological censorship provides it as a theorem with the required extra assumptions.
[Section 1, after Theorem 1.6; Theorem 1.8 and Corollary 5.6] Theorems 1.4, 1.5, and 1.6 are stated as results of the paper but are not proved; the text says the proof 'follows the same arguments as in the proofs of Theorems 1.4 and 1.5 and we will leave it as a simple exercise.' These theorems are not decorative: Theorem 1.5 is used in the proof of Theorem 1.8 and in Corollary 5.6. Since the electrostatic terms change the right-hand side of the sub-static inequality (the trace equation (2.9) contains 2|E|²V), the reduction to [Med24] is not literally automatic. Please provide complete proofs, or at minimum a precise reduction that spells out each electrostatic modification and verifies the boundary condition.
[Section 4.3, Proof of Theorem 1.1(II)] The gluing proof is too compressed. The displayed definition of the glued objects reads 'eE=(Ψ,on Ω, Ψ_{m,q},onRN^3_-)', mixing the electric field with the electric potential; the next sentence refers to 'eV and eΨ', and the quadruple is then denoted (fM,eg,eV,eE). The glued metric and potential are only C^{1,1} across the gluing surfaces, yet the proof invokes Bartnik's positive mass theorem and the rigidity case after a conformal change Θ. Please specify exactly which objects are glued (E or Ψ), state the regularity class used for the electrostatic equations across the gluing surfaces, and provide a precise reference for the low-regularity positive mass theorem applied to the C^{1,1} conformally flat metric.
[Section 5, proof of Theorem 1.3, free-boundary case] In the case Σ∩∂M≠∅, the proof asserts that Γ=S∩Σ has geodesic curvature 1 in Σ without justification, and the displayed inequality '2κ(πχ(Σ)−|Σ|≥0' appears to be missing a closing parenthesis. The derivation of this inequality from (5.7) is not fully transparent: the boundary term ∫_S Δ_S V = ∫_Γ ∂V/∂ξ and the geodesic-curvature contribution in Gauss–Bonnet need to be written out explicitly. Please give the complete Gauss–Bonnet computation for the free-boundary case, including the sign of ∂V/∂ξ on Γ.

minor comments (6)

[Section 4.3] The notation 'eE=(Ψ,on Ω, Ψ_{m,q},onRN^3_-)' should read 'eΨ=(Ψ,on Ω, Ψ_{m,q},onRN^3_-)', and the later quadruple '(fM,eg,eV, eE)' should be '(fM,eg,eV,eΨ)' or the electric field should be reconstructed from Ψ via VE=−dΨ.
[Section 5, proof of Theorem 1.3] The displayed inequality '2κ(πχ(Σ)−|Σ|≥0' lacks a closing parenthesis and should be '2κ(πχ(Σ)−|Σ|)≥0'.
[Theorem 1.2 statement] The hypothesis 'assume that on ∂M the inequality V^2≥|1−Ψ^2| holds if V^2>(1−|Ψ|)^2 and that V=1 and Ψ=0 do not both hold' is difficult to parse. Please rephrase this as a clearer set of case distinctions, or explain the logical structure of the assumption.
[Section 6.1] Typographical issues: 'Then-dimensional Reissner–Nordstr¨ om manifold' should read 'The n-dimensional Reissner–Nordstr¨ om manifold', and similar missing spaces occur throughout the appendix.
[Corollary 5.6 proof] The sentence 'By Lemma 5.5 does not vanish on ∂M' is missing the subject 'V'; it should read 'By Lemma 5.5, V does not vanish on ∂M'.
[Remark 1.3 and Theorem 1.7] The notation 'E⊥Σ=V^{-1}(0) along Σ' is ambiguous; it should say 'E is normal to Σ along Σ=V^{-1}(0)'. Also, in Theorem 1.7 the phrase 'V does not vanish on a compact surface in M' is awkward and should be 'V does not vanish on any compact surface in M' or similar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the main rigidity theorems are reductions to external photon-sphere uniqueness results after deriving quasi-local photon-sphere conditions, and the global exactness assumption is an explicit hypothesis, not a derived prediction.

full rationale

The paper's headline claims are not circular. Theorem 1.1(I) is proved by Lemma 4.3, which derives from the electrostatic equations and the boundary assumptions that the boundary is a quasi-local photon sphere satisfying (Q1) and (Q2), and then by invoking the external photon-sphere uniqueness theorem [Jah19, Theorem 3]. Theorem 1.2 similarly reduces to the external electrostatic equipotential photon surface uniqueness theorem [BCC24, Theorem 3.2]. In both cases the boundary conditions and sub-extremality are hypotheses, the photon-sphere equations are derived, and the isometric rigidity conclusion is supplied by independent external results; the conclusion is not an input of the derivation. The global exactness condition VE = -grad Psi is introduced explicitly in Section 4.2 and is built into Definition 4.5 of an asymptotically Reissner-Nordstrom system and into Definition 4.6. The paper does not claim to derive exactness from the weaker equations (E3); it states that exactness is the only additional assumption required. Thus the theorems are conditional on that global hypothesis, which is a limitation in scope, not a circular reduction. The self-citations to the second author's [Med24] occur in the peripheral compact results, Theorems 1.4-1.6 and Lemma 5.5, which are described as trivial generalizations with proofs omitted or left as exercises; these results are not used in the proof of the main non-compact rigidity theorems, which rest on [Jah19] and [BCC24]. No parameter is fitted and then renamed as a prediction, and no equation reduces to its own input by construction. Therefore the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted constants and no new physical entities. The central claims depend on a global exactness assumption for VE^b and on a collection of prior theorems (Jah19, BCC24, Bar86, BBN10, Amb15, HS21) used as black boxes. The main self-citation is to Medvedev's earlier static paper Med24, but the headline uniqueness theorems are not derived from it.

assumptions (6)

domain assumption Existence of a global electric potential Psi with VE=-grad Psi, i.e., exactness of VE^b
Assumed in Section 4.2 before Definition 4.4 and needed for Theorems 1.1 and 1.2; if VE^b is not exact, the uniqueness results do not apply.
standard math Reissner-Nordström photon sphere uniqueness [Jah19, Theorem 3] and [Jah19, Corollary 4]
Used in proof of Theorem 1.1 to identify the boundary component and the horizon-side manifold with Reissner-Nordström; accepted as prior theorem.
standard math Equipotential photon surface uniqueness in asymptotically flat electrostatic electro-vacuum [BCC24, Theorem 3.2]
Used directly in proof of Theorem 1.2 for the 3D weak-decay case.
standard math Bartnik's positive mass theorem [Bar86] rigidity case for C^{1,1} metrics
Used in proof of Theorem 1.1(II) to conclude the conformally compactified doubled manifold is Euclidean space; assumes the theorem extends to the C^{1,1} regularity of the glued metric.
standard math Courant nodal domain theorem for Robin and Dirichlet eigenvalue problems [HS21, Theorem 1.1 and Proposition 2.6]
Used in proofs of Lemma 5.1 and Lemma 5.5 to control nodal sets of the static potential.
standard math Stability and area-minimizing rigidity results [BBN10, Theorem 1] and [Amb15, Proposition 6, Theorem 7]
Used in proof of Lemma 5.4 for the area bounds on zero-set components.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On electrostatic manifolds with boundary." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5QDR2KDE

@misc{pith2026250505581,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On electrostatic manifolds with boundary},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5QDR2KDE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05581}
}

read the original abstract

Static manifolds with boundary were recently introduced by Cruz and Vit\'orio in the context of the prescribed scalar curvature problem in a manifold with boundary with prescribed mean curvature. This kind of manifold is also interesting from the point of view of the general theory of relativity. In this article, we introduce electrostatic manifolds with boundary as a natural generalization of static manifolds with boundary in the presence of a non-zero electric field. We study the geometry of the zero-level set of the potential and its connection to the global properties of electrostatic manifolds with boundary. In particular, we establish some rigidity theorems for the 3-dimensional Euclidean ball and for the Reissner-Nordstr\"om manifold.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

37 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

[1]

L. C. Ambrozio. Rigidity of area-minimizing free boundary surfaces in mean convex three-manifolds. The Journal of Geometric Analysis , 25:1001--1017, 2015

work page 2015
[2]

Aronszajn

N. Aronszajn. A unique continuation theorem for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations or inequalities of second order. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées , 36:235--249, 1957

work page 1957
[3]

R. Bartnik. The mass of an asymptotically flat manifold. Communications on pure and applied mathematics , 39(5):661--693, 1986

work page 1986
[4]

Baltazar, A

H. Baltazar, A. Barros, and R. Batista. A local rigidity theorem for minimal two-spheres in charged time-symmetric initial data set. Letters in Mathematical Physics , 113(5):92, 2023

work page 2023
[5]

H. Bray, S. Brendle, and A. Neves. Rigidity of area-minimizing two-spheres in three-manifolds. Communications in Analysis and Geometry , 18(4):821--830, 2010

work page 2010
[6]

Borghini, C

S. Borghini, C. Cederbaum, and A. Cogo. Black hole and equipotential photon surface uniqueness in four-dimensional asymptotically flat electrostatic electro-vacuum spacetimes. Annales Henri Poincaré , 2024

work page 2024
[7]

Borghini and M

S. Borghini and M. Fogagnolo. Comparison geometry for substatic manifolds and a weighted isoperimetric inequality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14618 , 2023

arXiv 2023
[8]

Borghini, M

S. Borghini, M. Fogagnolo, and A. Pinamonti. The equality case in the substatic H eintze-- K archer inequality. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 248(6):108, 2024

work page 2024

Show all 37 references

[9]

S. Brendle. Constant mean curvature surfaces in warped product manifolds. Publications math \'e matiques de l'IH \'E S , 117(1):247--269, 2013

2013
[10]

Cederbaum and G

C. Cederbaum and G. J. Galloway. Uniqueness of photon spheres in electro-vacuum spacetimes. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 33(7):075006, 2016

2016
[11]

Cederbaum, S

C. Cederbaum, S. Jahns, and O. V. Martínez. On equipotential photon surfaces in (electro-)static spacetimes of arbitrary dimension. arXiv preprint arXiv:2311.17509 , 2023

2023 arXiv
[12]

T. Cruz, V. Lima, and A. de Sousa. Min-max minimal surfaces, horizons and electrostatic systems . Journal of Differential Geometry , 128(2):583 -- 637, 2024

2024
[13]

Cruz and I

T. Cruz and I. Nunes. On static manifolds satisfying an overdetermined R obin type condition on the boundary. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 151(11):4971--4982, 2023

2023
[14]

Cruz and A

T. Cruz and A. Silva Santos. Critical metrics and curvature of metrics with unit volume or unit area of the boundary. The Journal of Geometric Analysis , 33(1):22, 2023

2023
[15]

Cruz and F

T. Cruz and F. Vit \'o rio. Prescribing the curvature of R iemannian manifolds with boundary. Calculus of Variations and Partial Differential Equations , 58(4):124, 2019

2019
[16]

Claudel, K

C.-M. Claudel, K. S. Virbhadra, and G.F.R. Ellis. The geometry of photon surfaces. Journal of Mathematical Physics , 42(2):818--838, 2001

2001
[17]

Chrusciel and R.M

P.T. Chrusciel and R.M. Wald. On the topology of stationary black holes. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 11(12):L147, dec 1994

1994
[18]

M. P. do Carmo. Hypersurfaces of constant mean curvature. In Differential Geometry: Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium, held at Pe \ n iscola, Spain, June 5--12, 1988 , pages 128--144. Springer, 2006

1988
[19]

Friedman, K

J.L. Friedman, K. Schleich, and D.M. Witt. Topological censorship. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 71:1486--1489, Sep 1993

1993
[20]

Friedman, K

J.L. Friedman, K. Schleich, and D.M. Witt. Topological censorship[phys. rev. lett. 71, 1486 (1993)]. Phys. Rev. Lett. , 75:1872--1872, Aug 1995

1993
[21]

Galloway

G.J. Galloway. On the topology of the domain of outer communication. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 12(10):L99, oct 1995

1995
[22]

G. J. Galloway and A. Mendes. Some rigidity results for charged initial data sets. Nonlinear Analysis , 256:113780, 2025

2025
[23]

Gourgoulhon

E. Gourgoulhon. 3+1 Formalism in General Relativity. Bases of numerical nelativity . Springer, 2012

2012
[24]

Huang, D

L.-H. Huang, D. Martin, and P. Miao. Static potentials and area minimizing hypersurfaces. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 146(6):2647--2661, 2018

2018
[25]

Hassannezhad and D

A. Hassannezhad and D. Sher. Nodal count for D irichlet-to- N eumann operators with potential. arXiv preprint arXiv:2107.03370 , 2021

2021 arXiv
[26]

S. Jahns. Photon sphere uniqueness in higher-dimensional electrovacuum spacetimes. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 36(23):235019, 2019

2019
[27]

Kunduri and J

H.K. Kunduri and J. Lucietti. No static bubbling spacetimes in higher dimensional E instein– M axwell theory. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 2018

2018
[28]

Lima, P.A

A.B. Lima, P.A. Sousa, and R.M. Batista. Rigidity of marginally outer trapped surfaces in charged initial data sets. Letters in Mathematical Physics , 115(2):41, 2025

2025
[29]

Li and C

J. Li and C. Xia. An integral formula and its applications on sub-static manifolds. Journal of Differential Geometry , 113(3):493--518, 2019

2019
[30]

Medvedev

V. Medvedev. Static manifolds with boundary: Their geometry and some uniqueness theorems. arXiv preprint arXiv:2410.15347 , 2024

2024 arXiv
[31]

P. Miao. A remark on boundary effects in static vacuum initial data sets. Classical and quantum gravity , 22(11):L53, 2005

2005
[32]

V. Perlick. On totally umbilic submanifolds of semi- R iemannian manifolds. Nonlinear Analysis: Theory, Methods & Applications , 63(5-7):e511--e518, 2005

2005
[33]

S. Raulot. A spinorial proof of the rigidity of the R iemannian S chwarzschild manifold. Classical and Quantum Gravity , 38(8):085015, 2021

2021
[34]

S. Raulot. On the adm mass of critical area-normalized capacitors. arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13427 , 2025

2025 arXiv
[35]

Y. Shen. A note on F ischer- M arsden's conjecture. Proceedings of the American Mathematical Society , 125(3):901--905, 1997

1997
[36]

P. A. Sousa and A. B. Lima. Charged H awking mass and local rigidity of three-manifolds. The Journal of Geometric Analysis , 33(1):11, 2023

2023
[37]

Wang, Y.-K

M.-T. Wang, Y.-K. Wang, and X. Zhang. Minkowski formulae and A lexandrov theorems in spacetime. Journal of Differential Geometry , 105(2):249--290, 2017

2017

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

L. C. Ambrozio. Rigidity of area-minimizing free boundary surfaces in mean convex three-manifolds. The Journal of Geometric Analysis , 25:1001--1017, 2015

work page 2015

[2] [2]

Aronszajn

N. Aronszajn. A unique continuation theorem for solutions of elliptic partial differential equations or inequalities of second order. Journal de Mathématiques Pures et Appliquées , 36:235--249, 1957

work page 1957

[3] [3]

R. Bartnik. The mass of an asymptotically flat manifold. Communications on pure and applied mathematics , 39(5):661--693, 1986

work page 1986

[4] [4]

Baltazar, A

H. Baltazar, A. Barros, and R. Batista. A local rigidity theorem for minimal two-spheres in charged time-symmetric initial data set. Letters in Mathematical Physics , 113(5):92, 2023

work page 2023

[5] [5]

H. Bray, S. Brendle, and A. Neves. Rigidity of area-minimizing two-spheres in three-manifolds. Communications in Analysis and Geometry , 18(4):821--830, 2010

work page 2010

[6] [6]

Borghini, C

S. Borghini, C. Cederbaum, and A. Cogo. Black hole and equipotential photon surface uniqueness in four-dimensional asymptotically flat electrostatic electro-vacuum spacetimes. Annales Henri Poincaré , 2024

work page 2024

[7] [7]

Borghini and M

S. Borghini and M. Fogagnolo. Comparison geometry for substatic manifolds and a weighted isoperimetric inequality. arXiv preprint arXiv:2307.14618 , 2023

arXiv 2023

[8] [8]

Borghini, M

S. Borghini, M. Fogagnolo, and A. Pinamonti. The equality case in the substatic H eintze-- K archer inequality. Archive for Rational Mechanics and Analysis , 248(6):108, 2024

work page 2024