Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Why there is no Love in black holes

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 The paper claims that stationary axisymmetric Kerr perturbations are governed by an exact non-geometric $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ symmetry, and that this symmetry forces all Love numbers of a Kerr black hole to vanish exactly.

desk verdict The vanishing-Love-number conclusion is right and already known, but the paper's new SL(2,R) construction fails its own flat-space check—the printed generators (7) reduce to r^2 ∂z and r^3 ∂r + 1/2, not to the claimed ∂z and r∂r + 1/2—so the central algebra is invalid as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.05298 v1 pith:EJZOC65M submitted 2025-06-05 gr-qc hep-th

Alexandru Lupsasca This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C57 PACS 04.70.-s
keywords blackholeperturbationsKerrspacetimehiddenconformalsymmetrySL(2R)CasimirLovenumberstidaldeformabilitymasterequationaxisymmetric
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 establishes that stationary, axisymmetric perturbations of a Kerr black hole obey an exact hidden symmetry: the perturbation equation is the Casimir invariant of an $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ algebra, not merely an approximation. Tidal fields produced by external masses and the tidal responses they would induce belong to two different irreducible representation towers, with opposite signs of the conformal weight under the dilatation generator $H_0$. Because the symmetry maps solutions to solutions exactly, it forbids any coupling between the two towers, so the induced response coefficients vanish. The paper concludes that black holes have exactly zero tidal deformability in this sector, with vanishing Love numbers, and it also shows the same equation can be mapped to a flat-space Laplace equation.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the set of three linear differential operators $H_+$, $H_0$, $H_-$ acting on the solution space of the stationary axisymmetric perturbation equation. They form the Lie algebra of the global conformal group $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$, and the Casimir identity $(C-\tfrac14+s^2)\Psi=0$ identifies the whole equation with a group invariant; this is what makes the symmetry exact rather than approximate. The operators are not Lie derivatives along any spacetime vector field (except in the scalar case), which is why the symmetry is called hidden. The argument's second ingredient is the classification of $H_0$ eigenmodes into positive-weight and negative-weight irreducible towers, which physically separate applied tidal perturbations from induced tidal responses.

What would settle it

Perform a direct symbolic substitution of the operators (7) into the commutation relations and into the Casimir equation (10) for a generic non-extremal Kerr background with $a \neq 0$ and for spin $s = 1$ and $s = 2$; if any commutator or the Casimir identity fails away from the scalar case, the symmetry and the Love-number argument would not stand.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is the claim that the stationary, axisymmetric master equation for massless spin-$s$ perturbations of Kerr can be rewritten exactly as $(C - \tfrac{1}{4} + s^2)\Psi = 0$, where $C$ is the quadratic Casimir of an $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ algebra generated by the three differential operators in Eq. (7). Those operators are regular outside the horizon, obey $[H_0,H_{\pm}] = \mp H_{\pm}$ and $[H_+,H_-] = 2H_0$, and map solutions to solutions, which makes the symmetry solution-generating. The paper then identifies two towers of $H_0$ eigenstates: positive conformal weight for exterior multipoles (the applied tidal perturbations) and negative conformal weight for interior multipoles (the induced tidal responses). These towers are distinct irreducible highest-weight representations of the same algebra, so an $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$-invariant equation cannot mix them. The physical conclusion is that every Kerr black hole has zero static axisymmetric tidal deformability, and the argument is representation-theoretic rather than geometric.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the three operators in Eq. (7) really do map every stationary axisymmetric Kerr perturbation into another solution and satisfy the Casimir identity (10); the paper states that this can be checked directly but does not display the full verification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • All static axisymmetric tidal Love numbers of a Kerr black hole vanish exactly, not just approximately.
  • The $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$ action is solution-generating, so new exact stationary axisymmetric perturbations can be produced from any known one.
  • Each generator has an infinite family of exact eigenmode solutions, and each family is R-separable in a different coordinate system adapted to that generator.
  • The coordinate map from Kerr to flat space means that, in this sector, a black hole behaves exactly like empty space for axisymmetric massless fields.
  • Tidal perturbations and responses live in opposite-weight irreducible representations, so no $SL(2,\mathbb{R})$-symmetric boundary condition can induce a response from an applied tide.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Casimir identity survives nonlinear or higher-order corrections to the perturbation equations, the vanishing of Love numbers would be a protected selection rule rather than a linear-order accident.
  • The flat-space mapping suggests a practical computational route for axisymmetric tidal and self-force problems: solve in flat space and map back to Kerr, bypassing the more difficult Kerr Green's function.
  • The representation argument is tailored to axisymmetry; extending it to non-axisymmetric static tides would require a larger or differently realized symmetry group, so that extension is not automatic.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper claims an exact SL(2,R) conformal symmetry of stationary, axisymmetric spin-s Teukolsky perturbations of Kerr black holes. The symmetry generators are displayed in Eq. (7), and the paper asserts that the Teukolsky equation (5) is exactly the Casimir identity (10) of this algebra. It further presents infinite families of eigenmodes for each generator, a coordinate map that removes the black hole by transforming the Kerr equation into the flat-space Laplace equation, and a group-theoretic argument that tidal perturbations and tidal responses live in distinct highest-weight representations, implying vanishing Love numbers. The flat-space analysis in Sec. IV and the final Love-number conclusion agree with the established literature, but the displayed generators (7) are internally inconsistent with the paper's own flat-space equations, which undermines the central constructive claim as printed.

Significance. If the symmetry construction were correct, the paper would provide an exact hidden conformal symmetry for stationary axisymmetric Kerr perturbations at generic spin, together with a new explanation of vanishing Love numbers. The paper contains several checkable and useful ingredients: the flat-space Laplace-equation analysis, the coordinate mapping (34), the explicit mode families in Sec. III, and the generating-function identities in Appendix A. The final conclusion is not new, and the paper correctly acknowledges overlap with Penna's independent s=0 work. However, the central algebraic structure is not merely unverified; it fails a direct numerical check in the flat-space limit, so the claimed derivation of vanishing Love numbers is not presently supported. I credit the paper for working through many explicit formulas, but no machine-checked certificate for the Lie-algorithm step is shipped, and the inconsistency in Eq. (7) makes such a certificate necessary.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (7), (16), (17)] The displayed generators fail the flat-space limit. Setting a=M=0 and s=0 in Eq. (7b) gives H0 = r^3 ∂_r + 1/2, whereas the flat-space generator in Eq. (35) is H0 = ρ∂_ρ + z∂_z + 1/2 = r∂_r + 1/2 in spherical coordinates. Acting on the h=1 mode ψ_1 = rx from Eq. (17), the printed H0 yields (r^2 + 1/2)rx, not (3/2)rx as required by Eq. (16). Thus Eq. (17) is not an eigenfunction of the printed H0, and the solution-generating property of Eq. (7) is contradicted by the paper's own flat-space equations (31) and (35). Because Eq. (10) is the Casimir of the operators (7), the Casimir identity inherits this problem. This is a concrete algebraic failure, not merely a missing verification.
  2. [Sec. IV B, Eq. (34) and following] The assertion that the coordinate map (34) sends the flat-space generators (35) onto Eq. (7) with s=0 is incorrect. The pullback of the flat-space generator ∂_Z to Boyer-Lindquist coordinates is [xΔ∂_r + (r-M)(1-x^2)∂_x] / [(r-M)^2 + (M^2-a^2)x^2], which contains a denominator that is absent from Eq. (7a). In the flat limit the printed H+ becomes r^2 ∂_Z instead of ∂_Z, and r^2 ∂_Z does not preserve the solution space: for the flat-space solution ψ = z, r^2∂_z ψ = r^2, which is not a solution of Eq. (31). Therefore Eq. (7a) cannot be a valid symmetry generator as written, and the claimed mapping from flat-space symmetries to Kerr symmetries is not established.
  3. [Sec. V C, Eq. (56) and following] The inference from two distinct highest-weight representations to vanishing Love numbers is under-argued. The fact that tidal and response modes carry opposite signs of the H0 eigenvalue does not by itself forbid a solution from containing both towers, because the equation is linear and the two sectors are independent; a generic superposition is still a solution. One must additionally prove that the horizon-regular solution (or the solution selected by the physical boundary conditions) lies entirely in one irreducible representation. The paper gestures at this via completeness and Eq. (57), but no general argument is supplied. Please state and prove this boundary-condition step explicitly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (7c)] Equation (7c) contains a formatting or typographical anomaly in its final line: the term '+ x∆∂_r + (s+1)(r-M)x' does not match the structure of the preceding expression and makes the claimed commutation relations (8) impossible to check as printed.
  2. [Sec. V, Eq. (57)] The flat-space limit of Eq. (57) is not well defined: as a,M → 0, the factor sqrt(M^2-a^2)^h tends to zero for h>0 while the argument of P4((r-M)/sqrt(M^2-a^2)) is singular. Please clarify what limit is intended for this expansion.
  3. [Sec. IV, first paragraph] The paper attributes the discovery of the generators to a run of Lie's algorithm with the Mathematica package YaLie.m, but no notebook, output, or certificate is provided. In view of the inconsistency in Eq. (7), this is not a mere presentational gap; please supply an explicit verification of Eqs. (7)-(10).
  4. [Throughout] There are several small presentation issues: 'Mathematicapackage' in Sec. IV needs a space, the section heading contains a spacing artifact ('PER TURBA TIONS'), and the acknowledgments statement about checking with refine.ink should not replace a mathematical verification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No definitional circularity: the SL(2,R) symmetry is claimed (not fitted) to yield the Teukolsky Casimir; flagged issues are unverified algebra and an asserted rep-theoretic selection, which are correctness risks, not circular reductions.

full rationale

Walking the derivation chain: (i) Eq. (5) is the external Teukolsky input; (ii) the SL(2,R) generators (7) are claimed to be discovered by Lie's algorithm, with the Casimir identity (10) asserted as a theorem about (5); (iii) the tidal modes are H0-eigenstates (17)/(30), labeled external (h>=0) and internal (h<0) by analogy with the flat-space Newtonian decomposition (50)/(52); (iv) Sec. V concludes Love numbers vanish because the two towers are distinct irreps. No fitted parameter appears: M and a are physical inputs, and the vanishing-Love-number conclusion is not an input to the construction of (7); it is independently established in the cited literature ([10,12-16]), and the s=0 symmetry has independent support from Penna [2], with the overlap disclosed in the Note in Sec. VI. Author self-citations ([7], [9], [20]) are contextual only. The nearest thing to a circular step is the Love-number step: 'Since applied tidal fields and induced tidal responses live in distinct representations, the Love numbers must vanish in axisymmetry' (Introduction). But here the physical selection (why a tidal solution contains only the h>=0 tower) is asserted ('By the same reasoning as in flat space, it then follows that black holes have no tidal response (or vanishing Love numbers) in axisymmetry', Sec. V C) rather than derived from horizon regularity, and the paper itself notes that 'the mode solutions (17) are regular everywhere outside the horizon' for both signs of h; that is a logical gap in the printed argument, not an equivalence-by-construction. Per the reviewing rule, missing support is flagged: 'Indeed, one can explicitly check that each of these three operators maps any solution of Eq. (5) into another solution' (Sec. II) is never shown, and the YaLie.m run (Sec. IV) ships no output. Related concrete risk: at a=M=0, s=0, the printed (7a) becomes x r^2 ∂_r + r(1-x^2) ∂_x, which maps the solution ψ = r x of (31) to r^2, not a solution (E(r^2) = 6r^2 != 0), so the printed generators fail the paper's own flat-space reduction to (35); this undercuts (10) as printed but is a correctness defect, not a circular reduction. Verdict: no circular step exhibited; score 2 for minor non-load-bearing self-citations.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The construction rests on standard black hole perturbation theory (Teukolsky decoupling), the physical reduction to the static axisymmetric sector, and the physical selection rules (horizon regularity, asymptotic identification of multipoles). No free parameters are fitted. The only genuinely paper-local ingredients are the unshown Lie-algorithm computation and the deferred check of the Casimir identity. The hidden symmetry is derived, not postulated, but it has no falsifiable handle outside the paper, so it is listed as an invented structure with independent_evidence=false.

assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Teukolsky master equation (2) governs decoupled spin-s perturbations of Kerr
    Starting point (Sec. I); standard result of black hole perturbation theory, cited to [1].
  • domain assumption Static, axisymmetric reduction (dt = dphi = 0), Eq. (5), is the correct arena for the tidal Love-number problem
    Secs. I and V A; non-axisymmetric tidal sectors are not treated, and the identification with physical Love numbers follows the conventions of [10, 11].
  • ad hoc to paper Generators (7) are the complete symmetry algebra found by Lie's algorithm (YaLie.m) and map solutions to solutions
    Sec. II ('one can explicitly check') and Sec. IV (YaLie.m run); computation not shown or shipped.
  • ad hoc to paper Casimir identity (10): (C - 1/4 + s^2) Psi = 0 is equivalent to Eq. (5)
    The load-bearing algebraic identity; asserted without displayed verification. If false for generic spin s, the representation argument collapses.
  • domain assumption Horizon and pole regularity selects positive-weight modes and excludes negative-weight response modes
    Secs. III B, III C, V: Y_s and Q_h modes are 'irregular on the horizon'; this is the standard physical selection rule in Love-number computations.
  • domain assumption Sign of conformal weight h coincides with the physical tidal/response classification at infinity
    Proved for flat space (Eq. 52) and asserted for Kerr via psi_h ~ r^h P_h(x) at large r; the absence of r^{-(h+1)} tails in positive-weight Kerr modes is asserted but not proven in general (only the l=4 example (57)).
invented entities (1)
  • Hidden SL(2,R) conformal symmetry of stationary axisymmetric Kerr perturbations (generators H+, H0, H-)
    purpose: Organizes the solution space into two irreducible towers whose disjointness is invoked to explain vanishing Love numbers.
    Derived from the Teukolsky equation via Lie's algorithm rather than postulated ad hoc, so it is not a 'graviton from a hat'. However, it has no falsifiable handle outside this paper: it predicts no new observable, and its evidence rests on the internal, deferred algebraic check of Eq. (10).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Why there is no Love in black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EJZOC65M

@misc{pith2026250605298,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Why there is no Love in black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EJZOC65M}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.05298}
}
read the original abstract

This paper presents a new conformal symmetry of stationary, axisymmetric Kerr perturbations. This symmetry is exact but non-geometric (or "hidden"), and each of its generators has an associated infinite family of eigenstate solutions. Tidal perturbations of a black hole form an irreducible highest-weight representation of this conformal group, while the tidal response fields live in a different such representation. This implies that black holes have no tidal deformability, or vanishing Love numbers.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Dynamical Love Numbers for Black Holes and Beyond from Shell Effective Field Theory

    hep-th 2025-12 accept novelty 8.0 of 10

    A shell-based EFT computes scalar Love numbers for Schwarzschild black holes through O(G^9) and conjectures an all-orders Riemann-zeta structure.

  2. Dynamical Tidal Response of Schwarzschild Black Holes

    gr-qc 2025-11 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    The dynamical Love numbers of a Schwarzschild black hole are nonzero at quadratic order in frequency, run logarithmically with a coefficient set by dissipation, and are now matched including their finite, scheme-depen...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

39 extracted references · 22 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    II shows that perturbations of a Kerr black hole exhibit an emergent conformal symmetry in the stationary and axisymmetric limit

    Sec. II shows that perturbations of a Kerr black hole exhibit an emergent conformal symmetry in the stationary and axisymmetric limit. More precisely, in that regime, the space of solutions to Eq. (2) admits three continuous symmetries that map solutions to solutions, and that together generate the global conformal groupSL(2, R). The stationary, axisymmet...

    work page

  2. [2]

    R-separable

    Sec. III shows that each of the three SL(2, R) generators is associated with an infinite family of exact solutions that diagonalize it. These solutions are not separable in the usual coordinates, but each symmetry generator is associated with a different coordinate system in which the solutions that diagonalize it do become “R-separable”

    work page

  3. [3]

    IV shows that in these coordinates, the stationary and axisymmetric version of Eq

    Sec. IV shows that in these coordinates, the stationary and axisymmetric version of Eq. (3) reduces to the usual Laplace equation ∇2ψ(ρ, z) = 0 for an axisymmetric massless scalar in 3D flat space with cylindrical coordinates. In other words, stationary, axisymmetric fields on Kerr behave identically to their flat-space analogues, so that the presence of ...

    work page

  4. [4]

    vanishing Love numbers

    Sec. V uses this symmetry to show that black holes have no tidal deformability (or “vanishing Love numbers”). The global conformal group contains “dilatations” with generatorH0. The associated solutions ψh are eigenstates H0ψh = (h + 1 2 )ψh labeled by a conformal weight h. These modes all fall into two irreducible, highest-weight representations of SL(2,...

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    dilatations

    Dilatations To diagonalize the “dilatations” generated by H0, one searches for solutions to Eq. (6) that are also H0-eigenstates: H0ψh(r, x) = h + 1 2 ψh(r, x). (16) This leads to a family of solutions parameterized by a conformal weight h, ψh(r, x) = hp (1 − x2)∆ + (r − M )2x2 ih Ph (r − M )xp (1 − x2)∆ + (r − M )2x2 ! . (17) These modes are not separabl...

    work page

  6. [6]

    translation

    Translations Next, by diagonalizing the “translation” generator H+, H+ψ+(r, x) = −λψ+(r, x), (20) one is led to a family of regular solutions of Eq. (6) that are expressible in terms of the Bessel function J0(z), ψ+(r, x) = J0 λ p (1 − x2)∆ e−λ(r−M )x. (21) These solutions are not separable in ( r, x), but they are separable in the coordinates (Π , Z) ass...

    work page

  7. [7]

    special conformal transformations

    Special conformal transformations Finally, by diagonalizing the generatorH− of “special conformal transformations” (a name to be justified in Sec. IV), H−ψ−(r, x) = λψ−(r, x), (24) one is led to another family of regular solutions of Eq. (6) that are expressible in terms of the Bessel function J0(z), ψ−(r, x) = 1p (1 − x2)∆ + (r − M )2x2 J0 λ p (1 − x2)∆ ...

    work page

  8. [8]

    in the low-energy (“soft”) limit ωM → 0 for generic spin a,

    work page

Show all 39 references
  1. [9]

    near-extremal

    in the high-spin (“near-extremal”) limit a → M for perturbations near the superradiant bound ω → mΩH ,

  2. [10]

    throat-like

    in the high-energy (“eikonal”) limit ωM → ∞for generic spin a. The new SL(2, R) symmetry discovered herein falls under the first category. It is associated with (axisymmetric) tidal perturbations, which have been the subject of much recent work: the large literature on this su...

  3. [11]

    Generating functions The separable solutions ψ± defined in Eqs. (46)–(47) are the exponential generating functions for the internal and external multipoles (45) that form two irreducible SL(2, R)-representations (and also for the Legendre polynomials): ψ+(λ, r, x) = J0 λr p 1 ...

  4. [12]

    Consider for instance how this works for ψ+(ρ, z) = J0(λρ)e−λz

    Integral transformations It is possible to obtain all of the individual multipole solutions—namely, the H0-eigenstates (45)—from a single one of the separable solutions ψ±. Consider for instance how this works for ψ+(ρ, z) = J0(λρ)e−λz. By Eq. (A1), the coefficients of the ser...

  5. [13]

    (33) may be given in terms of the complete elliptic integral of the first kind K(m) by G(ρ, z; ρ′, z′) = 1 2π2 1q (ρ − ρ′)2 + (z − z′)2 K − 4ρρ′ (ρ − ρ′)2 + (z − z′)2 !

    Green’s function A Green’s function for Eq. (33) may be given in terms of the complete elliptic integral of the first kind K(m) by G(ρ, z; ρ′, z′) = 1 2π2 1q (ρ − ρ′)2 + (z − z′)2 K − 4ρρ′ (ρ − ρ′)2 + (z − z′)2 ! . (A8) (Here, m = k2 is the parameter, not the modulus k.) The b...

  6. [14]

    (33) in a very explicit form

    General solutions It is possible to represent the general solution of Eq. (33) in a very explicit form. Since Eq. (33) can be written as ∂2 z ψ = Dρψ, D ρ = − ∂2 ρ − 1 ρ ∂ρ, (A10) it follows that its general solution subject to the boundary conditions ψ(ρ, 0) = Ψ0(ρ) and ∂zψ(ρ...

  7. [15]

    (33) is simply Eq

    Spin- s perturbations Finally, the flat-space generalization to generic spin s of Eq. (33) is simply Eq. (5) with a = M = 0. Its symmetry generators may be read off from Eq. (7) with a = M = 0. Likewise, the separable solutions diagonalizing these generators are given by Eq. (...

  8. [16]

    Perturbations of a Rotating Black Hole. I. Fundamental Equations for Gravitational, Electromagnetic, and Neutrino-Field Perturbations,

    S. A. Teukolsky, “Perturbations of a Rotating Black Hole. I. Fundamental Equations for Gravitational, Electromagnetic, and Neutrino-Field Perturbations,” ApJ 185 (Oct., 1973) 635–648

    1973

  9. [17]

    SL(2 , R) families of Kerr black holes,

    R. Penna, “SL(2 , R) families of Kerr black holes,” arXiv e-prints (May, 2025) arXiv:2506.00184, arXiv:2506.00184 [hep-th]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    E. G. Kalnins, J. M. Kress, and W. Miller, Jr., Separation of Variables and Superintegrability; The symmetry of solvable systems. 2018

    2018

  11. [19]

    Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields,

    B. Carter, “Global Structure of the Kerr Family of Gravitational Fields,” Physical Review174 no. 5, (Oct., 1968) 1559–1571

    1968

  12. [20]

    On quadratic first integrals of the geodesic equations for type {22} spacetimes,

    M. Walker and R. Penrose, “On quadratic first integrals of the geodesic equations for type {22} spacetimes,” Communications in Mathematical Physics18 no. 4, (Dec., 1970) 265–274

    1970

  13. [21]

    Black holes, hidden symmetries, and complete integrability,

    V. P. Frolov, P. Krtouˇ s, and D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, “Black holes, hidden symmetries, and complete integrability,”Living Reviews in Relativity 20 no. 1, (Dec., 2017) 6, arXiv:1705.05482 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Gravitational waves on Kerr black holes: I. Reconstruction of linearized metric perturbations,

    R. Berens, T. Gravely, and A. Lupsasca, “Gravitational waves on Kerr black holes: I. Reconstruction of linearized metric perturbations,” Classical and Quantum Gravity41 no. 19, (Oct., 2024) 195004, arXiv:2403.20311 [gr-qc]

    2024

  15. [23]

    Extreme Kerr throat geometry: A vacuum analog of AdS 2 × S2,

    J. Bardeen and G. T. Horowitz, “Extreme Kerr throat geometry: A vacuum analog of AdS 2 × S2,” Phys. Rev. D 60 no. 10, (Nov., 1999) 104030, arXiv:hep-th/9905099 [hep-th]

    1999 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Polarization whorls from M87* at the event horizon telescope,

    A. Lupsasca, D. Kapec, Y. Shi, D. E. A. Gates, and A. Strominger, “Polarization whorls from M87* at the event horizon telescope,” Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A476 no. 2237, (May, 2020) 20190618

    2020

  17. [25]

    Tidal Love numbers of Kerr black holes,

    A. Le Tiec, M. Casals, and E. Franzin, “Tidal Love numbers of Kerr black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 8, (Apr., 2021) 084021, arXiv:2010.15795 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  18. [26]

    On the ambiguity in relativistic tidal deformability,

    S. E. Gralla, “On the ambiguity in relativistic tidal deformability,” Classical and Quantum Gravity35 no. 8, (Apr., 2018) 085002, arXiv:1710.11096 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  19. [27]

    On the vanishing of Love numbers for Kerr black holes,

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, and M. M. Ivanov, “On the vanishing of Love numbers for Kerr black holes,” Journal of High Energy Physics2021 no. 5, (May, 2021) 38, arXiv:2102.08917 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Hidden Symmetry of Vanishing Love Numbers,

    P. Charalambous, S. Dubovsky, and M. M. Ivanov, “Hidden Symmetry of Vanishing Love Numbers,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 127 no. 10, (Sept., 2021) 101101, arXiv:2103.01234 [hep-th]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Ladder symmetries of black holes. Implications for love numbers and no-hair theorems,

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni, and A. R. Solomon, “Ladder symmetries of black holes. Implications for love numbers and no-hair theorems,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2022 no. 1, (Jan., 2022) 032, arXiv:2105.01069 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Near-zone symmetries of Kerr black holes,

    L. Hui, A. Joyce, R. Penco, L. Santoni, and A. R. Solomon, “Near-zone symmetries of Kerr black holes,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2022 no. 9, (Sept., 2022) 49, arXiv:2203.08832 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Ladder symmetries of black holes and de Sitter space: love numbers and quasinormal modes,

    R. Berens, L. Hui, and Z. Sun, “Ladder symmetries of black holes and de Sitter space: love numbers and quasinormal modes,” J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys. 2023 no. 6, (June, 2023) 056, arXiv:2212.09367 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Rotating Black Holes: Locally Nonrotating Frames, Energy Extraction, and Scalar Synchrotron Radiation,

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, “Rotating Black Holes: Locally Nonrotating Frames, Energy Extraction, and Scalar Synchrotron Radiation,” ApJ 178 (Dec., 1972) 347–370

    1972

  25. [33]

    The Kerr/CFT correspondence,

    M. Guica, T. Hartman, W. Song, and A. Strominger, “The Kerr/CFT correspondence,” Phys. Rev. D 80 no. 12, (Dec.,

  26. [35]

    Black hole superradiance from Kerr/CFT,

    I. Bredberg, T. Hartman, W. Song, and A. Strominger, “Black hole superradiance from Kerr/CFT,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2010 (Apr., 2010) 19, arXiv:0907.3477 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Holography of the photon ring,

    S. Hadar, D. Kapec, A. Lupsasca, and A. Strominger, “Holography of the photon ring,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 39 no. 21, (Nov., 2022) 215001, arXiv:2205.05064 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Quasinormal modes from Penrose limits,

    K. Fransen, “Quasinormal modes from Penrose limits,” Classical and Quantum Gravity40 no. 20, (Oct., 2023) 205004, arXiv:2301.06999 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  29. [38]

    pp-Waves and the Hidden Symmetries of Black Hole Quasinormal Modes,

    D. Kapec and A. Sheta, “pp-Waves and the Hidden Symmetries of Black Hole Quasinormal Modes,” arXiv e-prints (Dec., 2024) arXiv:2412.08551, arXiv:2412.08551 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Hidden conformal symmetry of the Kerr black hole,

    A. Castro, A. Maloney, and A. Strominger, “Hidden conformal symmetry of the Kerr black hole,” Phys. Rev. D 82 no. 2, (July, 2010) 024008, arXiv:1004.0996 [hep-th]

    2010 arXiv

  31. [2009]

    124008, arXiv:0809.4266 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Pith tools

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