Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Axially symmetric ghost stars

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs static, axially symmetric fluid distributions in general relativity that match smoothly to Minkowski spacetime on their boundary, so they produce no gravitational field outside the source; the explicit model has zero…

desk verdict A sound new axisymmetric ghost-star construction, but the advertised vanishing complexity factors are an automatic consequence of the unit-lapse ansatz, not a dynamical property of the source. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05114 v1 pith:DQTISSHE submitted 2025-06-05 gr-qc astro-ph.SRmath-phmath.MP

L. Herrera , J. L. Hernandez-Pastora , J. Ospino , A. Di Prisco This is my paper
classification gr-qcastro-ph.SRmath-phmath.MP MSC 83C0583C1583C55 PACS 04.20.Cv04.20.-q04.20.Ha95.30.Sf
keywords ghoststarsstaticaxialsymmetryMinkowskimatchingzerototalmassrelativisticmultipolemomentscomplexityfactorsnegativeenergydensityWeylsolutions
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 claims that Einstein's equations admit static, axially symmetric fluid bodies that are gravitationally silent outside their surfaces: the interior metric joins Minkowski spacetime smoothly at the boundary, so there is no exterior gravitational field. A specific solution, defined by the metric function $\hat g = r_\Sigma^{n+2}(s-1)^2s^n(1-y^2)\kappa y$ with $n\geq 3$ and $\hat a=0$, is worked out in detail. For this solution the total Tolman/Komar mass is zero, every relativistic multipole moment vanishes, and all complexity factors vanish, which the authors read as the simplest possible ghost star in the axially symmetric class. The construction matters because it shows non-spherical static matter distributions can hide their gravity entirely outside their boundary, an effect that relies on negative energy density inside the fluid. A reader should care because such objects would be invisible to tests that measure exterior gravitational fields, with potentially different observational signatures from ordinary compact stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the matching ansatz for the interior metric, inherited from [2], together with the freedom in the metric functions $\hat a(r,\theta)$ and $\hat g(r,\theta)$. For an exterior with $\sigma=0$ the interior line element simplifies to $A=Z=1$ and $\hat a,\hat g$ of the form $(r-r_\Sigma)^2F$, $(r-r_\Sigma)^2G$, and the Einstein equations give the energy-momentum tensor components (6)--(8). The paper chooses $\hat a=0$, so the matter is described by the single function $\hat g$; the specific choice (35) vanishes at the axis and equator, is odd in $y$, and has the required regular behavior near the origin. That angular dependence forces the integral defining the total mass to cancel, while the smooth matching makes exterior multipole and complexity integrals vanish.

What would settle it

Evaluate the Israel junction conditions at the boundary surface $r=r_\Sigma$ for the metric (3) with $A=Z=1$, $\hat a=0$, and $\hat g$ from Eq. (35); a non-zero surface stress-energy tensor would mean a thin shell rather than a genuine smooth match. The paper inherits the match from [2] without re-deriving it, so this calculation specifically targets the load-bearing premise.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is a family of static axisymmetric interior solutions matched smoothly to Minkowski spacetime, obtained by specializing the matching construction of [2] to the case $\sigma=0$. In this limit the metric functions $A$ and $Z$ reduce to $1$, and the interior freedom is carried by $\hat a=(r-r_\Sigma)^2F$ and $\hat g=(r-r_\Sigma)^2G$. Taking $\hat a=0$ and $\hat g$ of the form $\hat g=(r-r_\Sigma)^2H(r^n)(1-y^2)J(y)$, the paper shows that the total mass integral can be made to vanish either by choosing $J$ odd in $y$ or by choosing $H$ as a two-term polynomial satisfying a coefficient relation. The explicit model realizes the first option. Since the exterior is Minkowski, the flux integrals that define the relativistic multipole moments vanish, and since only spatial Riemann components survive and the electric part $Y_{\mu\nu}$ vanishes, all complexity factors vanish as well.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the smooth matching to Minkowski inherited from the method of [2] is genuine, with no thin shell at the boundary, and that regions of negative energy density are acceptable as part of a classical fluid source.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any source in this family matching Minkowski on the boundary has zero Tolman/Komar mass, because the boundary-surface expression for $M_T$ reduces to $\sigma=0$; the paper evaluates this for the specific model.
  • All relativistic multipole moments of the model vanish, since the exterior flux integral is proportional to the exterior metric function $\psi$, which is zero for Minkowski.
  • The electric part of the Riemann tensor vanishes, so all three complexity factors vanish and the model is, in this sense, the simplest axisymmetric ghost star.
  • A nontrivial spherical ghost star is excluded under the paper's working assumption that the spherical limit is a homogeneous, isotropic fluid; axisymmetry is essential to allow sign-changing energy density with zero total mass.
  • The specific $\hat g$ of Eq. (35) is one member of a broader family: any $\hat g$ of the form (30) with $J$ odd in $y$, or with $H$ a two-term polynomial satisfying the stated coefficient relation, also gives vanishing total mass.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct check of the Israel junction conditions for the metric with $\hat g$ from Eq. (35) would place the smooth-match claim on independent footing, since the paper inherits this step from [2] rather than recomputing it.
  • Because the exterior is exactly Minkowski, a ghost star would produce no exterior gravitational lensing or Shapiro delay; a testable program would compare shadow and lensing templates of zero-exterior-field compact objects with ordinary stars.
  • The same angular-cancellation mechanism might be tried for rotating sources, where the exterior would not be Minkowski; the paper does not address time-dependent or stationary rotating cases.
  • Given the paper's remark that ghost stars are reservoirs of dark mass, one speculative route would be to ask whether quantum vacuum effects can supply the required negative-energy regions; that question is not settled here.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs static axisymmetric fluid solutions of Einstein's equations that match smoothly to Minkowski spacetime on a boundary surface, thereby providing further examples of "ghost stars." The construction specializes the method of refs. [1,2] to the case of a Minkowski exterior by setting the Weyl parameters ψ=Γ=σ=0 in the metric ansatz, which fixes A=Z=1 and leaves the functions â and ĝ, with â=0 for the explicit model. The specific model is defined by Eq. (35), ĝ = rΣ^{n+2}(s−1)^2 s^n(1−y^2) κ y, and the paper computes the resulting stress–energy tensor, the Tolman/Komar mass, proper lengths along various angular directions, the electric part of the Riemann tensor, complexity factors, and relativistic multipole moments. It concludes that the source has zero total mass, vanishing complexity factors, and vanishing multipole moments.

Significance. If the construction is correct, the explicit model provides a simple axisymmetric counterpart to the previously known spherical ghost stars, and the C^1 matching at r=rΣ with ĝ(rΣ)=ĝ'(rΣ)=0 appears to satisfy the Israel junction conditions without a thin shell. The stress–energy tensor is computed explicitly, and the paper correctly notes that the source requires negative energy density in some regions. The main advertised properties are, however, largely immediate consequences of the ansatz: the vanishing complexity factors follow from g00=−1 for the entire family, and the vanishing multipole moments follow from choosing a Minkowski exterior. In addition, the mass integral calculation contains an algebraic error that coincidentally does not affect the explicit model. The paper therefore makes a useful existence statement, but several of its headline claims need substantial reworking before publication.

major comments (1)
  1. [3.4, Eqs. (41)–(42), and Section 5] The interior volume integral for relativistic multipole moments, Eq. (48), contains only â and its derivatives, but the Laplacian in Eq. (43) is computed with the full three-dimensional metric, which for the ansatz (3) also depends on ĝ through √ĝ and ĝ^{ij}. For the explicit model â=0 while ĝ≠0, so the reduction from Eq. (43) to Eqs. (48)–(49) is not justified. The final conclusion that all multipole moments vanish is nevertheless correct and already follows from the Minkowski exterior via Eq. (46); the interior calculation should either be corrected to include the ĝ terms or removed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [3.2, Eqs. (30)–(32)] The symbol n is used both for the radial power n≥3 in Eq. (35) and for the even integer powers of y in the polynomial J in Eq. (32); this reuse makes the conditions difficult to follow and should be changed.
  2. [3.3, Eq. (40)] The displayed equation contains an erroneous equality "= rΣ ≡" that suggests l(y) is identically rΣ; the proper length is equal to rΣ only on the axis (y=±1) and the equator (y=0), and the text after Eq. (40) should use π instead of Π.
  3. [2.1, after Eq. (11)] The word "denots" should be "denotes."
  4. [3.2, Eq. (23)] The quantity M defined in Eq. (23) is the integral of T^0_0 over the proper spatial volume; it is not the Tolman/Komar mass discussed earlier in Section 2. The text should use distinct terms, such as "energy-density integral," to avoid conflating the two notions of mass.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The rescaling factor is written ambiguously; it should be typeset unambiguously, for example as κ rΣ^3/(8π) e^{−2κ rΣ^5}, so that the reader can verify the plotted quantities.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Vanishing complexity factors reduce by construction to the unit-lapse ansatz; the central ghost-star matching construction is otherwise not circular.

  1. other [Section 3.4, Eqs. (41)-(42); metric ansatz Eq. (3) with A=Z=1 and \hat a=0 (Section 3.2)]
    "the electric part of the Riemann tensor Yμν vanishes, implying the vanishing of all complexity factors."

    The metric is specialized to the Minkowski-matching case with A=Z=1 and \hat a=0, giving g00=-1 and gti=0. For any such ultrastatic metric, R_{0i0j}=0 identically for every choice of \hat g, so Y_{μν}=R_{0μ0ν} vanishes by construction. Section 3.4 lists only spatial Riemann components (42), so the advertised 'vanishing complexity factors' is not a property of the ghost-star fluid; it is an identity forced by the unit-lapse gauge. The later claim that the solution is 'the simplest possible ghost star' therefore rests on a coordinate artifact, not on a derived property of the matter distribution.

full rationale

The core construction — matching the interior metric (3), with A=Z=1 and \hat a=0, to Minkowski via the (r-rΣ)^2 factors and checking C^1 boundary conditions — is not circular: the energy-momentum tensor follows from the Einstein equations and the matching is verified from the stated boundary constraints. The vanishing of all RMM is explicitly anticipated from the Minkowski exterior (ψ=0), and the vanishing total mass is imposed by choosing J(y) odd in (35), so those are consistency checks, not fitted predictions. The one headline result that reduces by construction is the vanishing complexity: it is a direct consequence of g00=-1, independent of \hat g, and therefore cannot characterize the source. Score 6 reflects this partial, construction-level circularity in a secondary advertised property, while the main ghost-star existence argument remains intact.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction relies on the standard Einstein equations and on the authors' earlier matching formalism. The solution family has free parameters kappa, n, and rSigma, but these are not fitted to data; they parametrize the model. No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced. The key results of vanishing mass, complexity, and multipoles are consequences of the chosen ansatz (unit lapse g00=-1 and Minkowski exterior) rather than independent predictions.

free parameters (3)
  • kappa = arbitrary real parameter
    Controls the amplitude of the deformation function ghat in Eq. (35); not fitted to data, but chosen by hand to define the model.
  • n = integer n >= 3
    Integer exponent in ghat (Eq. 35) ensuring regularity at the origin; a model parameter, not fitted.
  • rSigma = boundary radius of the source
    Sets the size of the compact object; a free length scale of the solution.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The matching method of Hernandez-Pastora et al. [2] produces a global metric satisfying the Einstein equations and the Israel junction conditions at r=rSigma.
    The paper relies on this cited method to guarantee that the interior (3) matches smoothly to Minkowski (5) without a full re-derivation (Section 2.1).
  • standard math The exterior of any static, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat vacuum source is a Weyl solution.
    Used to motivate the matching to Weyl exteriors and to Minkowski as the trivial member (Introduction, Section 2.1).
  • standard math The Komar and Tolman mass definitions coincide for static spacetimes and give the total mass of the source.
    Used in Section 2 to compute M_T and conclude M_T=0 for sigma=0.
  • domain assumption The multipole moments defined in ref. [29] are the appropriate relativistic generalization and are computed by the volume and surface integrals (43)-(49).
    Used in Section 4 to show all RMM vanish; this definition is cited, not re-derived.
  • domain assumption The electric part of the Riemann tensor Y_mu_nu as defined in ref. [35] yields the complexity factors; their vanishing is the relevant notion of zero complexity.
    Used in Section 3.4; the paper does not derive or motivate the definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Axially symmetric ghost stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/DQTISSHE

@misc{pith2026250605114,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Axially symmetric ghost stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/DQTISSHE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05114}
}
read the original abstract

We present static axially symmetric fluid distributions not producing gravitational field outside their boundaries (i.e. fluid sources which match smoothly on the boundary surface to Minkowski space-time). These solutions provide further examples of ghost stars. A specific model is fully described, and its physical and geometrical properties are analyzed in detail. This includes the multipole moment structure of the source and its complexity factors, both of which vanish for our solution.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.05114 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Components of the energy-momentum (a) T 0 0 , (b) T 1 1 rescaled by a factor κ r 3 Σ 8π e −2κr5 Σ , are represented as functions of radial variable s and for different values of the angular variable y: y = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7, 0.9, 1. as indicated in the figure where ρ, z are cylindrical coordinates. The expressions above for the proper lengths allow us to visualize the flattening of the source with respect to the sp… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. l(θ), scaled by a factor 1/rΣ, for different values of δ: (a) with n = 3, δ = 1, 1.2, 1.5 , and (b) with n = 5, δ = 1, 1.2, 1.5. 3.4 The complexity of the source In recent papers [34, 35] a new definition of complexity for self–gravitating fluids has been proposed, which has been proved to be particularly suitable for measuring the degree of “complexity” of a given fluid distribution. The proposed definition is base… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The shape of the source is depicted by the polar grap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The shape of the source is depicted by the polar grap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 60 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Hern´ andez-Pastora and L

    J.L. Hern´ andez-Pastora and L. Herrera Eur. Phys.J. C , 83, 375, (2023)

    work page 2023

  2. [2]

    Hern´ andez-Pastora, L

    J.L. Hern´ andez-Pastora, L. Herrera and J. Mart ´ ınClass. Quantum Grav. 33, 235005 (2016)

    work page 2016

  3. [3]

    Herrera and J

    L. Herrera and J. Ponce de Leon. J. Math. Phys. 26, 2847 (1985)

    work page 1985

  4. [4]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco and J. Ospino Symmetry 16, 562 (2024)

    work page 2024

  5. [5]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco and J. Ospino Symmetry 16, 1422 (2024)

    work page 2024

  6. [6]

    Naseer, K

    T. Naseer, K. Hassan and M. Sharif Chin. J. P. 94 594 (2025)

    work page 2025

  7. [7]

    Y. B. Zeldovich. The Collapse of a Small Mass in the General Theory of Rela- tivity. Sov. Phys. JETP 15, 446 (1962)

    work page 1962

  8. [8]

    Y. B. Zeldovich and I. D. Novikov. Relativistic Astrophysics. Vol. I. Stars and Relativity; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, (1971)

    work page 1971

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Davis and J

    T. Davis and J. Ray Phys. Rev. D 9, 331 (1974)

    1974

  2. [10]

    C. D. Collinson and P. B. Morris Il Nuovo Cimento B 16, 273 (1973)

    1973

  3. [11]

    C. D. Collinson and P. B. Morris J. Phys. A: Math. Gen. 6, 915 (1973)

    1973

  4. [12]

    Weyl Ann

    H. Weyl Ann. Physik 54, 117 (1918)

    1918

  5. [13]

    Weyl Ann

    H. Weyl Ann. Physik 364, 185 (1919)

    1919

  6. [14]

    Levi-Civita Atti

    T. Levi-Civita Atti. Accad. Naz. Lincei Rend. Classe Sci.Fis. Mat.Nat. 28, 101 (1919)

    1919

  7. [15]

    J. L. Synge Relativity, The general theory (North-Holland Publ. Co, Amster- dam) (1960)

    1960

  8. [16]

    Kamenshchik and T

    A.Yu. Kamenshchik and T. Vardanyani, Phys. Lett. B 792, 430-435 (2019)

    2019

  9. [17]

    Israel Phys

    W. Israel Phys. Rev. 164, 1776, (1967)

    1967

  10. [18]

    Winicour, A

    J. Winicour, A. I. Janis and E.T. Newman Phys. Rev. 176,1507 (1968). 14

    1968

  11. [19]

    Janis, E.T Newman and J

    A. Janis, E.T Newman and J. Winicour Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 878 (1968)

    1968

  12. [20]

    L. Bel Gen. Relativ. Gravitation 1, 337 (1971)

    1971

  13. [21]

    F. I. Cooperstock and G. J. Junevicus Nuovo Cimento 16B, 387 (1973)

    1973

  14. [22]

    Herrera Int

    L. Herrera Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 17 , 557 (2008)

    2008

  15. [23]

    Szekeres Phys

    P. Szekeres Phys. Rev. D 12, 2941 (1975)

    1975

  16. [24]

    Szekeres Commun

    P. Szekeres Commun. Math. Phys. 41, 55 (1975)

    1975

  17. [25]

    W. B. Bonnor Commun. Math. Phys. 51, 191 (1976)

    1976

  18. [26]

    W. B. Bonnor, A. H. Sulaiman and N. Tomimura Gen. Rel. Grav. 8, 549 (1977)

    1977

  19. [27]

    Hern´ andez-PastoraEur

    J.L. Hern´ andez-PastoraEur. Phys. J. C 80, 372 (2020)

    2020

  20. [28]

    Geroch, J

    R. Geroch, J. Math. Phys. 11, 1955 (1970); ibid 11, 2580 (1970)

    1970

  21. [29]

    Hern´ andez-PastoraEur

    J.L. Hern´ andez-PastoraEur. Phys. J. C 82, 224 (2022)

    2022

  22. [30]

    Komar Phys

    A. Komar Phys. Rev 113, 934 (1959)

    1959

  23. [31]

    Tolman Phys

    R. Tolman Phys. Rev. 35, 875 (1930)

    1930

  24. [32]

    Herrera, J

    L. Herrera, J. Ospino, and A. Di Prisco Phys. Rev. D 77, 027502 (2008)

    2008

  25. [33]

    Kayll Lake Phys. Rev. D 67, 104015 (2003)

    2003

  26. [34]

    Herrera Phys

    L. Herrera Phys. Rev. D 97, 044010 (2018)

    2018

  27. [35]

    Herrera, A

    L. Herrera, A. Di Prisco and J. Ospino Phys. Rev. D 99, 044049 (2019)

    2019

  28. [36]

    R. O. Hansen J. Math. Phys. 15, 46 (1974)

    1974

  29. [37]

    K. S. Thorne Rev. Mod. Phys. 52, 299 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    Fodor., C

    G. Fodor., C. Hoenselaers and Z. Perj´ es J. Math. Phys. 30, 2252 (1989)

    1989

  31. [39]

    Bondi Rev

    H. Bondi Rev. Mod. Phys. 29, 423-428 (1957)

    1957

  32. [40]

    Cooperstock and N

    F. Cooperstock and N. Rosen Int. J. Theor. Phys. 28, 423–440 (1989)

    1989

  33. [41]

    W. B. Bonnor and F. I. Cooperstock Phys. Lett. A. 139, 442–444 (1989)

    1989

  34. [42]

    Papapetrou

    A. Papapetrou. Lectures on General Relativity ; D. Reidel, Dordrecht-Holland: Boston. USA, (1974.)

    1974

  35. [43]

    Herrera and V

    L. Herrera and V. Varela Physics Letters A 189, 11–14 (1994)

    1994

  36. [44]

    Najera, A

    S. Najera, A. Gamboa, A. Aguilar-Nieto and C. Escamilla-Rivera. On Negative Mass Cosmology in General Relativity. arXiv: 2105.110041v1 2021

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    J. S. Farnes Astron. Astrophys. 620, A92 (2018). 15

    2018

  38. [46]

    Maciel, M

    A. Maciel, M. L. Delliou and J. P. Mimoso Class. Quantum Gravity 37,125005 (2020)

    2020

  39. [47]

    Herrera Int

    L. Herrera Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 31, 2240001 (2022)

    2022

  40. [48]

    Capozziello, F

    S. Capozziello, F. S. N. Lobo and J. P. Mimoso Phys. Lett. B 730, 280–283 (2014)

    2014

  41. [49]

    Capozziello, F

    S. Capozziello, F. S. N. Lobo and J. P. Mimoso Phys. Rev. D 91,124019 (2015)

    2015

  42. [50]

    Barcelo and M

    C. Barcelo and M. Visser Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 1553–1560 (2022)

    2022

  43. [51]

    E. A. Kontou and K. Sanders Class. Quantum Gravity 2020, 37, 193001 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    Pavsic Int

    M. Pavsic Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 35, 2030020 (2020)

    2020

  45. [53]

    Chen-Hao Hao et al Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 878 (2024)

    2024

  46. [54]

    Bormashenko Pramana J

    E. Bormashenko Pramana J. P. 97, 199 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration) Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  48. [56]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration) Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  49. [57]

    Psaltis Gen

    D. Psaltis Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 51, 137 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    S. E. Gralla Phys. Rev. D 103, 024023 (2021)

    2021

  51. [59]

    Nalui and S

    S. Nalui and S. Bhattacharya Phys. Lettt. B 861, 139261 (2025)

    2025

  52. [60]

    Croon and S

    D. Croon and S. Sevillano Munoz Eur.Phys J. C 85, 8 (2025). 16

    2025

Pith tools

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