Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 40 references

A failed Newman–Janis rotating metric can be repaired, at leading order in spin, if and only if its obstruction tensor lies in the image of a completion operator; otherwise the deformation is obstructed within the chosen ansatz class.

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

2026-08-01 14:49 UTC pith:E2FNM3AU

load-bearing objection Useful framework for diagnosing failed Newman–Janis deformations, with a clean worked example; the main overclaim is that the completion criteria cover the full Kerr-like geometry rather than just the field-equation residual. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.20565 v1 pith:E2FNM3AU submitted 2026-07-21 gr-qc hep-th

An obstruction and residual-completion theory for Newman--Janis deformations

Reggie C. Pantig , Ali \"Ovg\"un This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th MSC 83C5783C1583C05 PACS 04.20.-q04.70.Bw
keywords Newman–Janis algorithmobstruction tensorresidual completionrotating black holesKerr metricSchwarzschild seedcomplexification ambiguitysource preservation
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 recasts the Newman–Janis algorithm — the standard trick that turns a static black-hole metric into a rotating one — as an off-shell ansatz generator whose output is not assumed to solve the field equations. Its failures are encoded in a Newman–Janis obstruction tensor, the residual left after substituting the trial rotating metric and trial matter into the intended theory, decomposed into dynamical, geometrical/Boyer–Lindquist, and source-preservation channels. The central claim is that at leading order in the rotation parameter the question 'can a minimal correction cancel the failure?' reduces to a linear solvability problem: the obstruction must lie in the image of a gauge- and boundary-restricted completion operator, with a nonzero cokernel projection giving a no-go and source-class mismatch giving a third obstruction. This replaces the search for the 'correct complexification' with computable criteria for success, completion, or obstruction. The Schwarzschild example demonstrates the whole chain: a non-Kerr complexification fails at order a² with labels (n*, ℓ*) = (2,0), and the minimal even-parity correction q^(2)_uu = −M cos²θ/r³ removes the leading residual, restoring the Kerr form.

Core claim

The paper's central claim: a Newman–Janis-type deformation of a static seed is not required to be an exact solution; it is a trial configuration whose failure is measured by the obstruction tensor O^NJA_μν, the residual of the target field equations evaluated on the trial metric. At the first nonzero order a^{n*}, a minimal correction (q, ψ) exists exactly when the linear equation L^{n*}_NJA[q, ψ] = −O^{n*} is solvable, so repairability is an image-space statement: −O^{n*} must lie in the image of the gauge- and boundary-restricted completion operator, and any adjoint zero mode with nonzero overlap is a genuine obstruction. The framework replaces 'which complexification is correct?' with com

What carries the argument

The key object is the Newman–Janis obstruction tensor O^NJA_μν, defined as the residual of the target field equations evaluated on the off-shell trial metric, expanded in powers of the rotation parameter a. Its leading nonzero coefficient at order a^{n*} enters the linearized residual-completion equation L^{n*}_NJA[q, ψ] = −O^{n*}, where L^{n*} is the gauge-fixed linearization of the field equations restricted to the minimal stationary, axisymmetric, reflection-symmetric ansatz with specified boundary conditions. The operator-theoretic formulation carries the argument: Theorem 1 identifies repairability with the image of this restricted operator, the adjoint-kernel (Fredholm) compatibility c

Load-bearing premise

The framework's central promise stands or falls on the image of the completion operator being checkable without already knowing the rotating answer: the paper's only worked completion identifies its correction by comparison with the known Kerr metric, so if verifying membership in the image is as hard as solving the stationary-axisymmetric problem from scratch, the criterion becomes a diagnostic language rather than a decision procedure.

What would settle it

Compute the adjoint kernel of the gauge- and boundary-restricted completion operator for the Schwarzschild seed and check that the claimed repair q^(2)_uu = −M cos²θ/r³ exactly cancels the order-a² obstruction: if any adjoint zero mode has nonzero overlap with O^(2)_μν, Theorem 1 is violated. The sharper test is prospective: apply the image criterion to a nonlinear-electrodynamics or scalar-field seed with no known rotating counterpart; a trial metric whose leading obstruction passes the image test but that admits no genuine higher-order completion would falsify the framework's claim that the

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

If this is right

  • Any seed treated with a Newman–Janis-type prescription can be audited by a fixed protocol: compute the leading obstruction, check the image condition, and read off success, minimal completion, or no-go — without deciding the complexification question in advance.
  • Familiar consistency checks — circularity, Boyer–Lindquist integrability, axis regularity, Segre type, equation-of-state preservation — become obstruction channels that must all vanish, or be explicitly repaired, before a trial metric counts as a rotating counterpart of its seed.
  • The worked Schwarzschild example shows that two complexifications of the same seed can agree to first order in spin yet differ at second: the non-Kerr one fails with (n*, ℓ*) = (2,0) plus quadrupolar content, and the minimal correction q^(2)_uu = −M cos²θ/r³ removes the leading residual.
  • Because the completion equation is linear, the framework is stated to apply beyond vacuum GR — to nonlinear electrodynamics, scalar fields, and modified gravity — wherever a linearization of the field equations exists.
  • The trichotomy of outcomes (admissible, completable, obstructed; Classes I–III) replaces the binary 'works/fails' judgment that has historically surrounded the algorithm.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Read one way, the framework explains the algorithm's successes retroactively: for Kerr and Kerr–Newman the obstruction vanishes identically, so no complexification choice needs arbitration; for every other seed, the choice becomes a hypothesis to be tested.
  • The example's repair is identified by comparison with the known Kerr metric; the framework's prospective power would be demonstrated by applying the image test to a seed with no known rotating counterpart, where the correction cannot be guessed in advance.
  • The channel decomposition suggests a practical diagnostic: even when a completion exists, it tells the user why the original trial metric failed (field equations vs geometry vs source), which could guide which part of an ansatz to relax first.
  • A natural stress test would be to run the cokernel criterion on modified-gravity seeds for which Newman–Janis outputs are known to fail: the framework predicts that no re-complexification within the minimal ansatz can succeed, which is directly checkable.

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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper develops a formal obstruction-and-completion framework for Newman–Janis-type deformations of static, spherically symmetric seeds. It defines an off-shell obstruction tensor as the field-equation residual of a trial rotating metric, decomposes it into dynamical, geometrical/coordinate-admissibility, and source-preservation channels, and formulates residual completion as a linear solvability problem at leading order in the rotation parameter. The main formal statement, Theorem 1, identifies existence of a leading-order completion with the condition that the obstruction lie in the image of a gauge- and boundary-restricted linearized operator. The advertised output is illustrated by a Schwarzschild example using a deliberately non-Kerr ONJA complexification: the alternative trial metric is computed, its leading obstruction is found at n* = 2 and l* = 0, it is shown to be non-circular and non-Boyer–Lindquist at that order, and the metric correction q_uu^(2) = -M cos^2θ / r^3 is identified as the minimal even-parity correction restoring the Kerr complexification through order a^2.

Significance. The paper has genuine organizational value: it cleanly separates field-equation failure from circularity, Boyer–Lindquist integrability, axis regularity, and source preservation, which are often conflated in Newman–Janis applications. The explicit Schwarzschild example is transparent, contains no fitted parameters, and computes the obstruction tensor directly; the identification of n* = 2, l* = 0 with additional quadrupolar content is concrete and verifiable. If the framework were supplemented by an actual constructive inversion procedure, it could provide a useful language for assessing Newman–Janis-type prescriptions. As it stands, however, the advertised 'computable criteria' are only a reformulation of linear solvability, and the sole worked completion is not obtained by inverting the stated completion operator.

major comments (4)
  1. [§VII.A, Eq. (VII.6); §VIII, Eqs. (VIII.33)–(VIII.36)] The central claim that the framework 'replaces the search for the correct complexification rule with computable criteria' is not supported by the theorem or the example. Theorem 1 is definitional: a correction exists iff the obstruction lies in the image of the operator, which is just the statement that the linear equation L X = -O is solvable. No procedure is given to determine image membership or compute the cokernel in practice. In the example, q_uu^(2) is read off from the known Kerr difference F_K - F_alt, and Eq. (VIII.36) is asserted rather than verified by inverting δG or checking Fredholm conditions. Thus the example demonstrates consistency of the framework, but not its advertised computational power.
  2. [§III.B, Eqs. (III.14)–(III.19); §V.B–C, Eqs. (V.18)–(V.19), (V.33)–(V.40); §VII, Theorems 1–2] The completion operator and Theorems 1–2 address only the dynamical channel O_dyn^(n*). The geometrical obstruction tuple O_geom = (C_ξ, C_η, B_λ, B_χ, A_±, R_eq, K_sep) defined in Eqs. (III.19) is not part of the operator's image criterion; the boundary conditions in Eqs. (V.37)–(V.40) enforce axis regularity, elementary flatness, equatorial reflection, and charge fixing, but do not impose circularity or Boyer–Lindquist integrability. Consequently, a correction satisfying Eq. (V.19) can cancel the Einstein-tensor residual while leaving the spacetime non-circular. The Schwarzschild example avoids this only because the chosen correction is exactly the Kerr difference, which restores circularity; no theorem shows that every solution of Eq. (V.19) in the specified ansatz class is geometrically admissible.
  3. [§VI.C, Eqs. (VI.29)–(VI.34); §VII.C, Eq. (VII.34)] The source-preservation channel is imposed as an additional constraint, not integrated into a solvable operator problem. In Theorem 3, the condition M[X] = 0 is required by fiat, and the source-preserving solution space A_src is defined by it. But M includes Segre-type, equation-of-state, and model-realizability residuals (Eqs. (VI.24)–(VI.28)), which are generically nonlinear and involve unknown matter fields and equations of state. The example is vacuum, so M is trivial and the framework's treatment of this channel is never tested. Without a constructive method to enforce M[X] = 0, the criterion -O^(n*) ∈ Im L_src is as hard as the original problem of finding a source-preserving rotating solution.
  4. [§V.B, Eqs. (V.13)–(V.19); §VIII, Eq. (VIII.36)] The analysis is explicitly leading-order, but the paper's conclusions speak of 'residual completion' as a constructive completion procedure. The quadratic remainder Q_μν in Eq. (V.13) starts at order a^{2n*}, so a solution of the leading-order equation (V.19) does not automatically extend to a genuine completion at higher orders. No argument is given for such an extension, and the example only restores Kerr 'through order a^2.' If the intended claim is solely about the leading perturbative order, the statements in the abstract and conclusion should be qualified accordingly; otherwise a convergence or iterative-construction argument is needed.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§VIII] Equation numbering is confused: the trial metric is labeled (VIII.9), and then the expansion of F_K is also labeled (VIII.9), with F_alt labeled (VIII.10). Please renumber so that each equation has a unique label and the cross-references in the text are unambiguous.
  2. [§VIII, Eq. (VIII.35)] The notation q_uu^(2) = -M cos^2θ / r^3 = -M/(3r^3)[1 + 2P_2(cosθ)] is clear, but the text does not explicitly state at which point this correction is verified to satisfy the boundary conditions (V.34)–(V.40). It would help to include a one-sentence check of asymptotic flatness and axis regularity for this correction.
  3. [§III.C, Eq. (III.35)] The definition of l* as the minimum ℓ in L_{n*} with O^(n*,ℓ) ≠ 0 is fine, but the wording 'with additional quadrupolar structure at the same order' could be misinterpreted as l* = 2. Clarify that l* = 0 is the lowest nonzero angular channel and that ℓ = 2 also appears at the same order a^2.
  4. [§V.C, Eq. (V.7)] In Eq. (V.7), the polar correction is written with P_0 and P_2, but the text earlier says 'monopolar and quadrupolar channels.' Consider defining the Legendre normalization explicitly (P_0 = 1) so that the l = 0 term is not mistaken for a constant that could be absorbed elsewhere.
  5. [Throughout] The paper uses 'minimal' both for the ansatz class A_min and for the 'minimal even-parity correction' in Sec. VIII. These are related but distinct concepts; a sentence distinguishing them would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the obstruction is a direct residual, the example is checked against the known Kerr metric as an external benchmark, and no fitted parameter is relabeled as a prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its own inputs. The obstruction tensor is defined directly as the field-equation residual after substituting the off-shell trial configuration (Eq. III.4), and its leading coefficient O^(2)_mu_nu is obtained by explicit substitution of the alternative ONJA metric into the vacuum Einstein tensor (Eqs. VIII.11–VIII.17). No parameter is fitted to make the example work. The completion correction q^(2)_uu = -M cos^2θ/r^3 (Eq. VIII.35) is taken from the known difference between the Kerr and alternative complexifications (Eq. VIII.33), and the check dG[q] = -O^(2) (Eq. VIII.36) uses the external fact that Kerr has vanishing Einstein tensor. This is a valid existence demonstration, not a prediction extracted from the completion operator. Theorem 1's image criterion is definitionally equivalent to solvability of Eq. V.19, so it is more a reformulation than a derived physical result; that is a novelty or computability concern, not circularity. The absence of the geometric-obstruction tuple from the dynamical completion operator (compare Eq. III.19 with Eq. V.47) is a scoping/completeness gap, not a circular reduction. Cited works on uniqueness and stress-tensor classification are external and are not used as load-bearing self-citations.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 7 axioms · 1 invented entities

No numbers are fitted to data. The framework rests on standard results in GR perturbation theory, the Fredholm alternative, and a set of explicitly stated domain restrictions (stationary axisymmetric reflection-symmetric seeds, slow-rotation expansion, source-preservation interpretive stance). The 'minimal correction' in the example is identified using the known Kerr solution, not by solving the completion equation from scratch.

axioms (7)
  • standard math Fredholm alternative / adjoint-kernel solvability for linear operators (Kato, Reed–Simon), invoked in Sec. V.B and Sec. VII as the practical criterion for Eq. (V.19).
    The completion criterion is only as strong as the Fredholm structure of the linearized Einstein operator on the chosen domain; the paper asserts, but does not prove, the required compactness/boundary setup.
  • standard math Standard linearized Einstein tensor formulas (V.21)–(V.22) around the static seed.
    Used to define the completion operator L; these are textbook results.
  • domain assumption Stationary, axisymmetric, reflection-symmetric deformations of static spherical seeds, with metric ansatz (II.26) and parity expansions (II.33).
    The entire framework is scoped to this ansatz class; violations (e.g., meridional flows) are excluded.
  • domain assumption Perturbative slow-rotation expansion in a, with equatorial reflection implying even/odd parity separation (Sec. III.C).
    All statements about leading obstruction order and completion rest on this expansion being valid to the required order.
  • domain assumption Kerr metric is a known vacuum solution and the correct completion in the example (Sec. VIII).
    Used as external benchmark to identify the 'minimal correction'; the paper does not derive the correction by inverting L.
  • domain assumption Source-preservation criterion (Sec. VI) that effective stress tensors are insufficient; physical interpretation requires Segre type, equation of state, and model realizability.
    This is a stated interpretive stance, not derived.
  • standard math Circularity theorems / Frobenius conditions (Papapetrou, Kundt–Trümper, Carter) for stationary axisymmetric spacetimes.
    Used to define the geometric obstruction channel.
invented entities (1)
  • Newman–Janis obstruction tensor no independent evidence
    purpose: Encodes failure of an off-shell Newman–Janis output as the residual obtained by substituting the trial configuration into the intended field equations.
    A formal diagnostic object; it has no independent physical handle beyond its definition, and its vanishing is equivalent to the trial metric solving the field equations.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 32282 in / 16757 out tokens · 129092 ms · 2026-08-01T14:49:35.158450+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We formulate an obstruction and residual-completion theory for Newman-Janis-type deformations of black hole seeds, where Newman-Janis-type includes both the original complex-coordinate Newman-Janis algorithm and modified prescriptions such as non-complexification variants. The Newman-Janis algorithm is treated as an off-shell map from a static seed to a stationary-axisymmetric trial geometry, rather than as a solution-generating theorem. Its failure is encoded in a Newman-Janis obstruction tensor, defined as the residual obtained after substituting the trial configuration into the intended field equations. We decompose this residual into dynamical, geometrical/coordinate-admissibility, and source-preservation channels, separating field-equation failure from circularity, Boyer-Lindquist integrability, stress-tensor type, equation-of-state preservation, and matter-model realizability. When the obstruction is nonzero, residual completion asks whether a minimal correction of the metric and matter fields can cancel it. At leading nonzero order in the rotation parameter, this becomes a linear solvability problem: the obstruction must lie in the image of a gauge-fixed completion operator subject to boundary and source-sector constraints, while the cokernel condition gives a no-go criterion in the chosen ansatz class. We illustrate the framework with a Schwarzschild example in vacuum GR. Using an ONJA-type complexification different from the Kerr-generating one, we obtain a non-Kerr rotating trial metric and compute its obstruction. The example gives $n_\star=2$ and $\ell_\star=0$, with an additional quadrupolar component at the same order, and shows how the leading residual is removed by the minimal even-parity correction restoring the Kerr complexification. The framework replaces the search for the correct complexification rule with computable criteria for success, completion, or obstruction.

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

40 extracted references · 17 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. P. Kerr, Gravitational field of a spinning mass as an example of algebraically special metrics, Phys. Rev. Lett.11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  2. [2]

    E. T. Newman and A. I. Janis, Note on the Kerr spinning particle metric, J. Math. Phys.6, 915 (1965)

    1965

  3. [3]

    E. T. Newman, E. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash, and R. Torrence, Metric of a Rotating, Charged Mass, J. Math. Phys.6, 918 (1965)

    1965

  4. [4]

    S. P. Drake and P. Szekeres, Uniqueness of the Newman- Janis algorithm in generating the Kerr-Newman metric, Gen. Rel. Grav.32, 445 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9807001

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  5. [5]

    Gurses and F

    M. Gurses and F. Gursey, Lorentz Covariant Treatment of the Kerr-Schild Metric, J. Math. Phys.16, 2385 (1975)

    1975

  6. [6]

    Bambi and L

    C. Bambi and L. Modesto, Rotating regular black holes, Phys. Lett. B721, 329 (2013), arXiv:1302.6075 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Toshmatov, Z

    B. Toshmatov, Z. Stuchl ´ ık, and B. Ahmedov, Generic ro- tating regular black holes in general relativity coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D95, 084037 (2017), arXiv:1704.07300 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  8. [8]

    Hansen and N

    D. Hansen and N. Yunes, Applicability of the Newman- Janis Algorithm to Black Hole Solutions of Modified Gravity Theories, Phys. Rev. D88, 104020 (2013), arXiv:1308.6631 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  9. [9]

    D. J. Cirilo Lombardo, The Newman-Janis algorithm, ro- tating solutions and Einstein-Born-Infeld black holes, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 1407 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0612063

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  10. [10]

    Azreg-A ¨ ınou, Generating rotating regular black hole so- lutions without complexification, Phys

    M. Azreg-A ¨ ınou, Generating rotating regular black hole so- lutions without complexification, Phys. Rev. D90, 064041 (2014), arXiv:1405.2569 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  11. [11]

    Erbin, Janis–Newman algorithm: simplifications and gauge field transformation, Gen

    H. Erbin, Janis–Newman algorithm: simplifications and gauge field transformation, Gen. Rel. Grav.47, 19 (2015), arXiv:1410.2602 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  12. [12]

    Erbin, Janis-Newman algorithm: generating rotating and NUT charged black holes, Universe3, 19 (2017), arXiv:1701.00037 [gr-qc]

    H. Erbin, Janis-Newman algorithm: generating rotating and NUT charged black holes, Universe3, 19 (2017), arXiv:1701.00037 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  13. [13]

    Chaturvedi, U

    P. Chaturvedi, U. Kumar, U. Thattarampilly, and V. Kakkat, Exact rotating black hole solutions for f(R) gravity by modified Newman Janis algorithm, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 1124 (2023), [Erratum: Eur.Phys.J.C 84, 1157 (2024)], arXiv:2309.17044 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  14. [14]

    Canonico, L

    R. Canonico, L. Parisi, and G. Vilasi, The Newman Janis Algorithm: A Review of Some Results, Proc. Geom. Int. Quant.12, 159 (2011)

    2011

  15. [15]

    Demia´ nski and E

    M. Demia´ nski and E. T. Newman, A combined kerr–nut solution of the einstein field equations, Bulletin de l’Acad´ emie Polonaise des Sciences14, 653 (1966)

    1966

  16. [16]

    Carter, Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields, Phys

    B. Carter, Global structure of the Kerr family of gravitational fields, Phys. Rev.174, 1559 (1968)

    1968

  17. [17]

    Beltracchi and P

    P. Beltracchi and P. Gondolo, Physical interpretation of Newman-Janis rotating systems. I. A unique family of Kerr-Schild systems, Phys. Rev. D104, 124066 (2021), arXiv:2104.02255 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  18. [18]

    Beltracchi and P

    P. Beltracchi and P. Gondolo, Physical interpretation of Newman-Janis rotating systems. II. General systems, Phys. Rev. D104, 124067 (2021), arXiv:2108.02841 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  19. [19]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity(Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  20. [20]

    Carter, The commutation property of a stationary, axisym- metric system, Communications in Mathematical Physics 17, 233 (1970)

    B. Carter, The commutation property of a stationary, axisym- metric system, Communications in Mathematical Physics 17, 233 (1970)

    1970

  21. [21]

    Stephani, D

    H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. A. H. MacCallum, C. Hoense- laers, and E. Herlt,Exact solutions of Einstein’s field equa- tions, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003)

    2003

  22. [22]

    Papapetrou, Champs gravitationnels stationnaires ` a sym´ etrie axiale, Ann

    A. Papapetrou, Champs gravitationnels stationnaires ` a sym´ etrie axiale, Ann. Inst. H. Poincare Phys. Theor. A4, 83 (1966). 25

    1966

  23. [23]

    Kundt and M

    W. Kundt and M. Trumper, Orthogonal decomposition of axi-symmetric stationary spacetimes, Z. Phys.192, 419 (1966)

    1966

  24. [24]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduction to General Relativity(Cambridge University Press, 2019)

    2019

  25. [25]

    Iyer and R

    V. Iyer and R. M. Wald, Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy, Phys. Rev. D50, 846 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9403028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  26. [26]

    J. B. Hartle, Slowly rotating relativistic stars. 1. Equations of structure, Astrophys. J.150, 1005 (1967)

    1967

  27. [27]

    J. B. Hartle and K. S. Thorne, Slowly Rotating Relativistic Stars. II. Models for Neutron Stars and Supermassive Stars, Astrophys. J.153, 807 (1968)

    1968

  28. [28]

    R. H. Boyer and R. W. Lindquist, Maximal analytic extension of the Kerr metric, J. Math. Phys.8, 265 (1967)

    1967

  29. [29]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Stability of a Schwarzschild singularity, Phys. Rev.108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  30. [30]

    F. J. Zerilli, Effective potential for even parity Regge-Wheeler gravitational perturbation equations, Phys. Rev. Lett.24, 737 (1970)

    1970

  31. [31]

    Martel and E

    K. Martel and E. Poisson, Gravitational perturbations of the Schwarzschild spacetime: A Practical covariant and gauge-invariant formalism, Phys. Rev. D71, 104003 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0502028

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995)

    T. Kato,Perturbation Theory for Linear Operators(Springer Berlin Heidelberg, 1995)

    1995

  33. [33]

    Reed and B

    M. Reed and B. Simon,Methods of Modern Mathematical Physics I: Functional Analysis(Academic Press, 1972)

    1972

  34. [34]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Martin-Moruno and M

    P. Martin-Moruno and M. Visser, Hawking-Ellis classification of stress-energy tensors: Test fields versus backreaction, Phys. Rev. D103, 124003 (2021), arXiv:2102.13551 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  36. [36]

    Dymnikova, Vacuum nonsingular black hole, Gen

    I. Dymnikova, Vacuum nonsingular black hole, Gen. Rel. Grav.24, 235 (1992)

    1992

  37. [37]

    K. A. Bronnikov, Regular magnetic black holes and monopoles from nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. D 63, 044005 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0006014

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  38. [38]

    D. P. Sorokin, Introductory Notes on Non-linear Electrody- namics and its Applications, Fortsch. Phys.70, 2200092 (2022), arXiv:2112.12118 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  39. [39]

    Ayon-Beato and A

    E. Ayon-Beato and A. Garcia, Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics, Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 5056 (1998), arXiv:gr-qc/9911046

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  40. [40]

    Moncrief, Gravitational perturbations of spherically sym- metric systems

    V. Moncrief, Gravitational perturbations of spherically sym- metric systems. I. The exterior problem., Annals Phys.88, 323 (1974)

    1974