Viscous Accretion Disks around Regular Black Holes Embedded in a Quintessence Dark Energy Field: Beyond the Novikov--Thorne Approximation

Sandip Dutta

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 18 references

Viscous Accretion Disks around Regular Black Holes Embedded in a Quintessence Dark Energy Field: Beyond the Novikov--Thorne Approximation

T0 review · 4 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-01 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper argues that a rotating Hayward regular black hole embedded in a quintessence dark-energy field, together with a nonzero viscous torque at the inner edge of its accretion disk, raises the radiative efficiency to 8.71% at moderate

desk verdict Careful, transparent disk calculation, but the claimed α-independence of η is definitional — the actual luminosity is not 1−E(ISCO) when Tin≠0 — and Tin is never specified, so the headline observational numbers don't hold. read the letter →

arxiv 2607.15679 v1 pith:EKNCGQ3C submitted 2026-07-17 gr-qc hep-th

Sandip Dutta This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th MSC 83C5783C55 PACS 04.70.-s95.30.Sf98.62.Mw

keywords regularblackholesHaywardmetricquintessencedarkenergyaccretiondisksNovikov-ThornemodelinnertorqueradiativeefficiencyShakura-Sunyaevviscosity

topics Dark Energy

open problems Dark Energy

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 builds a thin-disk accretion model for a rotating Hayward regular black hole embedded in a quintessence dark-energy field, dropping the stress-free inner boundary of the standard Novikov–Thorne disk by adding a nonzero viscous torque at the ISCO. The central claim is that the bolometric efficiency η = [1 − E(rISCO)] × 100% is exactly independent of the viscosity parameter α, while remaining sensitive to the Hayward length l and the dark-energy density ρ0. On that geometry the efficiency rises to 8.71% at spin j = 0.4, above the 7.51% of vacuum Kerr, and the inner-torque correction to the flux, which diverges at the ISCO, is amplified: the viscosity amplification ratio goes from 0.80–4.52% in vacuum Kerr to 0.87–6.76% in Hayward+DE at α = 0.1. A reader should care because this gives a geometry-vs-viscosity degeneracy-breaking scheme and a clean spectral handle on whether regular cores and local dark energy actually modify black hole disks.

What carries the argument

The central construction is a running mass function M(r) = MH(r) + MDE(r), with Hayward core mass MH = MBH r^3/(r^3+l^3) and Kiselev dark-energy mass MDE ∝ r^{-3ω}, inserted into the Kerr line element via a Newman–Janis-type substitution. The paper's key identity is the flux correction δF/FNTP = Tin/I(r), where I(r) is the usual Novikov–Thorne integral and Tin the specific viscous torque at the ISCO; this identity produces the divergence that makes the viscosity signal visible, and it is the agent that turns the geometric modification of the boundary pressure into a larger observational effect.

What would settle it

Compute the Ricci (or Einstein) tensor of Eqs. (5)–(6) near rISCO; if the field-equation violation is comparable to the disk's energy density there, the quoted ISCO radius and efficiency do not follow. Alternatively, obtain a rigorous rotating solution of the Hayward+quintessence system and check whether rISCO and η shift by more than a percent. On the observational side, a bolometric efficiency measurement of a moderately spinning (j ≈ 0.4) black hole that matches vacuum Kerr (7.51%) rather than 8.71% would falsify the benchmark geometry.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's discovery, on its own terms, is that combining a Hayward regular core with a Kiselev quintessence field moves the ISCO to 4.6827 MBH at j = 0.4 and deepens the binding energy there enough to raise the disk efficiency from 7.51% to 8.71%, while the nonzero inner torque—entering through the vertical epicyclic frequency—makes the flux ratio Tin/I(r) diverge at the ISCO in a way that is amplified by the modified geometry. The authors prove analytically, and confirm numerically to better than 10^-8%, that η does not depend on α, because E(rISCO) comes purely from geodesics. They identify the viscosity amplification ratio (Hayward+DE vs its own NTP baseline) as the cleanest observable,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the running-mass rotating metric, built by substituting M(r) into the Kerr form, is a valid spacetime for computing geodesics and disk emission despite not being proven to solve the full Einstein equations near the core.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

If η is truly α-independent, a bolometric efficiency measurement alone can constrain the spacetime parameters j, l, and ρ0, and a separate high-frequency spectral ratio can then fix α without the two being entangled.
At j ≈ 0.7, the Hayward+DE efficiency reaches about 12%, a value vacuum Kerr only reaches at j > 0.9, which would change spin estimates for luminous quasars.
The amplified inner-torque divergence raises the local effective temperature near the ISCO, offering a geometric route to the soft X-ray excess without a warm corona.
The bulk spectrum of the combined geometry is fainter by up to about 90% at low frequencies relative to vacuum Kerr, so the local inner-edge signal, not the integrated flux, is the discriminant to observe.
Because δF/FNTP diverges at r → rISCO+, the surface density and flux are dominated by the ISCO boundary; this sharpens the prediction of a quasi-periodic oscillation shift of order 1% in frequency.

Reading between the lines

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

A first-principles rotating solution—obtained by solving the coupled field equations rather than by substitution—could close the metric-validity gap; if the near-core field-equation violations are as small as the paper expects, all the disk predictions carry over.
The same Tin/I(r) mechanism should apply to any regular or dark-energy metric, implying that the monotonic viscosity-amplification ratio is a generic test of spacetime geometry, not specific to this particular mass function.
The α-independence of η is a geodesic statement that should also hold for any stationary axisymmetric metric once the thin-disk assumptions apply; this suggests a quick test: recompute η for a known alternative rotating metric (e.g., a Kerr metric with a different mass profile) and compare with the vacuum Kerr curve.
The paper's bulk-spectrum suppression relative to Kerr is a strong enough prediction that a stacked spectral analysis of moderate-spin SMBH candidates, if it shows an excess rather than a deficit, would challenge the benchmark parameters even if the local amplification ratio remains unmeasurable.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Two things to know. First, the paper is honest and well-constructed: it combines a rotating Hayward regular BH with a Kiselev quintessence field and a finite-ISCO viscous torque, computes geodesics, fluxes, and spectra carefully, and reproduces the Schwarzschild NTP limit to good precision. Second, the headline result — that the radiative efficiency η is strictly independent of α — holds only if you define η as the binding energy 1−E(ISCO), not if you define it as the actual bolometric luminosity per unit accretion rate. The paper's own flux equation (17) contains Tin explicitly, and integrating it gives a luminosity that includes a Tin-dependent term (work done at the inner edge). The physical efficiency therefore does depend on α once the inner torque is nonzero. The paper never performs the integral; it simply states Eq. (19). That is a genuinely circular step, and the stress-test critique is correct.

What is new: the specific combination of ingredients is new, and the numerical values (η = 8.71% at j = 0.4, etc.) are new. The paper is also admirably transparent: it explicitly flags the non-exact status of the rotating metric, the speculative QPO remark, the unflattering bulk spectral suppression, and the absence of a full stability analysis. That transparency is rare and should be credited.

The soft spots beyond the central one: Tin (and the disk sound speed at ISCO) is never specified. Eq. (16) does not close without a model for Ptot and cs at the ISCO, so the quoted viscosity amplification ratios (0.87–6.76%) are not reproducible from the paper alone. The metric itself is admitted to be a Newman-Janis-type construction with small field-equation violations near the core; for moderate spin and large l this could shift ISCO values. These are real but secondary; the first issue is load-bearing.

For whom: workers in accretion-disk phenomenology or regular-BH models might find the framework useful as a scaffold. But as it stands, the central observational discriminator collapses if you take "efficiency" literally. A revision that (a) computes L_disk explicitly and reports η_phys including the torque term, (b) either closes Tin or gives a plausible range of values, and (c) softens the proof claim to "geodesic binding energy" would make this worth another look.

Recommendation: send to peer review — a competent referee will catch the same issue, but the paper deserves the process, not a desk reject. If I were editor, I'd send it out knowing it likely needs major revision.

Referee Report

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper constructs a rotating Hayward+quintessence black-hole spacetime by inserting a running mass M(r)=MH(r)+MDE(r) into the Kerr metric (Eqs. (5)–(6)), computes equatorial circular geodesics and the ISCO, and then develops a thin α-disk model with a nonzero inner torque Tin. Its central claims are (i) the bolometric efficiency η=[1−E(rISCO)]×100% is independent of α; (ii) at benchmark parameters (j=0.4, l=0.5MBH, ρ0=2×10−4) η=8.71%, versus 7.51% for vacuum Kerr; and (iii) the inner-torque correction to the radiative flux, δF/FNTP=Tin/I(r), diverges at r→rISCO+ and is amplified by the Hayward+DE geometry, giving viscosity amplification ratios of 0.87–6.76% against 0.80–4.52% for Kerr at α=0.1. The authors are explicit that the rotating metric is a phenomenological Newman–Janis-type construction, not an exact solution.

Significance. If the claims were correct, the model would offer a moderately interesting observable distinction from Kerr at moderate spin: a higher radiative efficiency without high spin and a small frequency-dependent viscosity excess. The paper is also transparent about the metric's phenomenological status and provides analytic expressions. However, the central physical claim is not supported: η is defined to be the geodesic binding energy, not the actual disk luminosity per accretion rate, and the actual luminosity in the authors' own flux formula Eq. (17) contains Tin, which depends on α. The inner torque is never specified, so the quoted numerical amplification ratios are not reproducible. The unquantified non-exactness of the spacetime further undermines the claimed precision. The paper's useful contribution is therefore limited to a geodesic calculation in a toy metric; the disk predictions are not established.

major comments (4)

[Section 4, Eqs. (17)–(19)] The claim that η is 'strictly independent of α' is definitional. Eq. (19) defines η as 1−E(rISCO), a geodesic quantity, so the independence is a tautology. The physical bolometric efficiency is the total radiated luminosity per unit accretion rate. Integrating Eq. (17) over the disk, the nonzero inner torque Tin adds contributions proportional to Ω_in T_in (cf. Agol & Krolik 2000). Through Eq. (16), Tin depends on Ptot(rISCO), H(rISCO), and cs, hence on α and the disk microphysics. The paper never computes L_disk/Ṁ; equating the binding energy with the efficiency is circular and does not establish the claimed 'rigorous degeneracy-breaking strategy'.
[Section 3, Eq. (16); Section 5] Tin is never specified. Eq. (16) is merely the torque definition G_in/Ṁ written in terms of αPtotH at the ISCO; it is not closed because Ptot(rISCO), H(rISCO), and cs are not determined by any vertical-structure calculation in the paper. Consequently, the quoted numerical amplification ratios (Fig. 5b: 0.87–6.76% vs 0.80–4.52%) and the claimed geometric amplification of the viscosity correction are not reproducible. A disk model, or a clearly stated assumption for Tin, is required before these quantitative predictions can be assessed.
[Section 2.1 and Section 7] The rotating Hayward+DE metric is admitted not to be an exact solution of Einstein's equations; the authors cite Kamenshchik & Petriakova for small field-equation violations near the core, but no quantitative estimate is given for the benchmark parameters. The benchmark ISCO lies at r≈4.68 M, only about 9.4 times the core scale l=0.5 M, and the claimed effects are at the 1–16% level. Without quantifying the residual Einstein tensor in the disk region, the predictive accuracy of the ISCO and flux predictions is unknown. This is a central caveat, not a mere presentation issue.
[Section 4, Eq. (18); Abstract] The statement that δF/F_NTP 'diverges at r→rISCO+' is a trivial consequence of the decomposition: I(r)→0 at the ISCO while Tin is finite. The physically meaningful observable is the integrated flux or a band-limited spectral ratio, not the pointwise ratio of a correction to a flux that itself vanishes. Emphasizing the divergence in the abstract and Section 6.1 overstates the model's content.

minor comments (3)

[Abstract and throughout] Many typographical errors: 'geometric odification', 'a nd', 'E mbedde d' in the title; Fig. 2 captions show 'Di ergence' and 's α'.
[Section 3, Eq. (14)] The approximation Ω⊥≈ΩK is acknowledged to be good only to 10–15% near the ISCO. Since the claimed viscosity-amplification difference between geometries is small (~0.07–2.24 pp), a sensitivity check to this approximation should be reported.
[Data Availability] The statement that Python scripts are available 'upon reasonable request' does not meet modern reproducibility standards; the code should be deposited in a permanent repository.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

The claimed α-independence of the bolometric efficiency is a definitional identity, not a derived disk property: Eq. (19) defines η as 1−E(rISCO), while the paper's own flux formula contains an α-dependent inner torque term.

self definitional [Section 4, Eq. (19); cf. Eqs. (16)–(18)]
"The bolometric efficiency [Eq. (19)], η = [1 − E(rISCO)] × 100 %, depends only on E(rISCO), and E(rISCO) in turn comes purely from the geodesic equations for circular orbits, Eqs. (7)–(8), which know nothing about α, Ptot, or any other piece of the disk physics — they only see the metric gµν(r; M (r), a). So η is exactly independent of α, while still being sensitive to the Hayward length l and the DE density ρ0 through M (r)."

Eq. (19) does not derive the radiative efficiency; it defines η to be the geodesic binding energy. The claimed α-independence is therefore true by construction. But the paper's own flux, Eq. (17), contains T_in explicitly, and Eq. (16) shows T_in ∝ α Ptot(rISCO)H(rISCO)/Ṁ. Integrating Eq. (17) adds boundary-work terms involving T_in (e.g., Ω(ISCO)T_in), so the actual disk luminosity per unit accretion rate depends on α. The 'rigorous two-observable degeneracy-breaking strategy' rests on this definitional identification rather than on a derivation from the viscous disk equations.

full rationale

The geodesic calculation of rISCO and E(rISCO) is self-contained and not circular: it follows from the running-mass metric and standard circular-orbit equations. The metric itself is explicitly advertised as a phenomenological Newman–Janis-type construction rather than an exact rotating solution, and the paper's caveats about Kamenshchik & Petriakova's field-equation violations are a correctness risk, not a circularity. There are no load-bearing self-citations: the cited uniqueness/Bardeen–Press–Teukolsky equivalence is a standard external result. However, the headline claim that the 'bolometric efficiency' is strictly α-independent is an identity from Eq. (19); once a non-zero inner torque is included, the physical luminosity efficiency from the paper's own flux formula is not 1−E(rISCO) and does depend on T_in and hence on α. The quoted amplification ratios (0.87–6.76% vs 0.80–4.52%) are also not reproducible from the paper alone because T_in (or Ptot and cs at ISCO) is never numerically specified, though that is more a reproducibility gap than a circular step. Overall, partial circularity: the central 'proof' reduces to a definition, while the underlying geodesic numbers retain independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central results rest on several unstated or ad hoc choices: the rotating combined metric is a phenomenological Newman-Janis-type construction with admitted field-equation violations; the vertical epicyclic frequency is approximated by the Keplerian value; the disk's sound speed and pressure at ISCO are never specified, leaving the inner torque T_in a free parameter; the Kiselev quintessence mass is truncated at r_s=20 M_BH; and the efficiency is defined as 1-E(ISCO) even though a nonzero inner torque would alter the true luminosity. These are inputs, not derived from Einstein equations or microphysics.

free parameters (6)

Hayward length scale l = 0.5 MBH (benchmark)
Sets the regular core size; chosen to make the effects visible, not derived from any physical theory.
Quintessence density ρ0 = 2×10^-4 (benchmark)
Controls the DE mass contribution; chosen by hand; r0=MBH assumed.
Spin j = 0.4 (benchmark)
Chosen to show moderate-spin effects; also scanned 0–0.85.
Viscosity α = 0.1 (benchmark)
Standard Shakura-Sunyaev parameter, but its value does not set T_in in the paper; the results are insensitive to α except through T_in, which is unspecified.
Inner torque T_in = not specified
Effective free parameter; Eq. (16) is an identity and the disk sound speed/pressure at ISCO is never modeled, so the quoted amplification ratios depend on an unstated value.
Quintessence cutoff radius r_s = 20 MBH
Ad hoc cutoff to prevent unbounded M_DE; does not affect ISCO but affects the outer disk spectrum.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Rotating combined metric from Newman-Janis-type substitution is a valid spacetime for disk physics despite field-equation violations near the core.
Invoked throughout §2-6; admitted in §2.1 and §7 citing Kamenshchik & Petriakova.
domain assumption Vertical epicyclic frequency can be approximated by Keplerian frequency Ω⊥≈ΩK to set disk scale height.
Eq. (14) in §3; stated as 'common route' [10]; introduces ~10-15% error near ISCO even in vacuum Kerr.
ad hoc to paper The efficiency of the disk is defined as η=1-E(rISCO) even with nonzero inner torque.
Eq. (19) in §4; this is the standard NT definition, but with nonzero T_in the total luminosity would include T_in-associated terms, so the definition is not the physical efficiency.
domain assumption Kiselev quintessence solution is physically meaningful locally with a cutoff at r_s.
§2.1 Eq. (2)-(3); the density profile diverges as r→∞ and is frozen at r_s=20 MBH; this is a modeling choice.
domain assumption Geometrically thin, optically thick, steady-state α-disk assumptions hold.
§3, standard Shakura-Sunyaev framework; no radiation-pressure instability analysis included.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Viscous Accretion Disks around Regular Black Holes Embedded in a Quintessence Dark Energy Field: Beyond the Novikov--Thorne Approximation." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/EKNCGQ3C

@misc{pith2026260715679,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Viscous Accretion Disks around Regular Black Holes Embedded in a Quintessence Dark Energy Field: Beyond the Novikov--Thorne Approximation},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/EKNCGQ3C}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.15679}
}

abstract

We develop a comprehensive relativistic framework for geometrically thin, optically thick Shakura--Sunyaev $\alpha$-viscous accretion disks around rotating Hayward regular black holes embedded in a quintessence dark energy (DE) field. The static, spherically symmetric building blocks of our spacetime are each exact solutions of the Einstein field equations, sourced respectively by the Hayward non-linear electromagnetic field and a quintessence fluid with equation-of-state parameter $\omega<-1/3$; we combine and rotate them following standard practice for this class of models, and we are explicit throughout about the resulting metric's phenomenological status. Abandoning the stress-free inner boundary of the Novikov--Thorne--Page (NTP) model, we analytically incorporate a non-zero viscous torque $\Tcal_{\rm in}$ at the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) via the relativistic vertical epicyclic frequency $\Obot(r)$. We prove that the bolometric efficiency $\eta=[1-E(\rISCO)]\times100\,\%$ is strictly independent of the viscosity parameter $\alpha$ but sensitive to both the Hayward length scale $l$ and the DE density $\rho_0$, establishing a rigorous two-observable degeneracy-breaking strategy. At benchmark parameters ($j=0.4$, $l=0.5M_{\BH}$, $\rho_0=2\times10^{-4}$), the combined geometry yields $\eta=8.71\,\%$, substantially above the vacuum Kerr value $7.51\,\%$ at the same spin. The viscosity correction $\delta\Fcal/\Fcal_{\rm NTP}$ diverges at $r\to\rISCO^+$, amplified by the geometric odification of the boundary pressure: the viscosity amplification ratio rises from $0.80$--$4.52\,\%$ (vacuum Kerr) to $0.87$--$6.76\,\%$ (Hayward+DE) at $\alpha=0.1$, providing a clean, monotonic observational discriminator accessible to \textit{NICER} and \textit{NuSTAR}, independent of the bulk spectral normalisation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15679 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** Dimensionless radiative flux F ∗ ×105 vs. r/MBH (j = 0.4, l = 0.5MBH, ρ0 = 2×10−4 , α = 0.1). Line identity: black dashed = Kerr NTP (coincides with blue dotted = viscous Kerr); red dash-dotted = NTP Hayward+DE (coincides with green solid = viscous Hayward+DE) in the NTP panel — both overlaps are exact (see text). (a) Full disk; (b) inner disk zoomed to r/MBH ≤ 15, where the geometric and viscous modifications are m… view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** Inner-torque divergence shown on logarithmic sca [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** Bolometric efficiency η [%] for the four configurations: vacuum Kerr (black dashed), Hayward only (blue dotted), DE only (red dash-dotted), Hayward+DE (green solid). (a) η vs. viscosity parameter α at j = 0.4: all curves are perfectly flat, confirming η is strictly independent of α. (b) η vs. spin j at α = 0: the Hayward+DE model (green) systematically exceeds vacuum Kerr (black) at all spin values, reaching η ≈ 12 … view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (2 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Spectral observables at j = 0.4, fcol = 1.7, α = 0.1. Line identity: black dashed = Kerr NTP, blue dotted = viscous Kerr, red dash-dotted = NTP Hayward+DE, green solid = viscous Hayward+DE. (a) Absolute spectral luminosity log10(νLν) near the spectral peak: the Hayward…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: Percentage viscosity amplification, isolating th [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

18 extracted references · 4 canonical work pages

[1]

Novikov and K.S

I.D. Novikov and K.S. Thorne, in Black Holes , ed. C. De Witt (Gordon & Breach, 1973), p. 343

1973
[2]

Page and K.S

D.N. Page and K.S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 191, 499 (1974). doi:10.1086/152990

doi:10.1086/152990 1974
[3]

Hayward, Phys

S.A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 031103 (2006). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.031103

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.031103 2006
[4]

Bambi and L

C. Bambi and L. Modesto, Phys. Lett. B 721, 329 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.025

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.025 2013
[5]

Kiselev, Class

V.V. Kiselev, Class. Quantum Grav. 20, 1187 (2003). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/6/310

doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/6/310 2003
[6]

Boshkayev et al., Eur

K. Boshkayev et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 230 (2024). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12446-w

doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12446-w 2024
[7]

Krolik, Astrophys

J.H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. Lett. 515, L73 (1999). doi:10.1086/311979

work page doi:10.1086/311979 1999
[8]

Agol and J.H

E. Agol and J.H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 528, 161 (2000). doi:10.1086/308177

work page doi:10.1086/308177 2000

Show all 18 references

[9]

Shakura and R.A

N.I. Shakura and R.A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys. 24, 337 (1973)

1973
[10]

Riﬀert and H

H. Riﬀert and H. Herold, Astrophys. J. 450, 508 (1995). doi:10.1086/176160

1995 doi
[11]

Ghosh, Eur

S.G. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 222 (2016). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4051-7

2016 doi
[12]

Kamenshchik and P

A. Kamenshchik and P. Petriakova, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124020 (2023). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.124020

2023 doi
[13]

Bardeen, W.H

J.M. Bardeen, W.H. Press, and S.A. Teukolsky, Astrophy s. J. 178, 347 (1972). doi:10.1086/151796

1972 doi
[14]

Okazaki, Y

A.T. Okazaki, Y. Kato, and J. Fukue, Publ. Astron. Soc. J pn. 39, 457 (1987)

1987
[15]

Shimura and F

T. Shimura and F. Takahara, Astrophys. J. 445, 780 (1995). doi:10.1086/175740

1995 doi
[16]

Davis and A

S.W. Davis and A. Laor, Astrophys. J. 728, 98 (2011). doi:10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/98

2011 doi
[17]

Done et al., Mon

C. Done et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 420, 1848 (2012). doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.19779.x

2012
[18]

Lightman and D.M

A.P. Lightman and D.M. Eardley, Astrophys. J. Lett. 187, L1 (1974). doi:10.1086/181377 12

1974 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 1, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Novikov and K.S

I.D. Novikov and K.S. Thorne, in Black Holes , ed. C. De Witt (Gordon & Breach, 1973), p. 343

1973

[2] [2]

Page and K.S

D.N. Page and K.S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 191, 499 (1974). doi:10.1086/152990

doi:10.1086/152990 1974

[3] [3]

Hayward, Phys

S.A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 031103 (2006). doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.031103

doi:10.1103/physrevlett.96.031103 2006

[4] [4]

Bambi and L

C. Bambi and L. Modesto, Phys. Lett. B 721, 329 (2013). doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.025

doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2013.03.025 2013

[5] [5]

Kiselev, Class

V.V. Kiselev, Class. Quantum Grav. 20, 1187 (2003). doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/6/310

doi:10.1088/0264-9381/20/6/310 2003

[6] [6]

Boshkayev et al., Eur

K. Boshkayev et al., Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 230 (2024). doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12446-w

doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-12446-w 2024

[7] [7]

Krolik, Astrophys

J.H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. Lett. 515, L73 (1999). doi:10.1086/311979

work page doi:10.1086/311979 1999

[8] [8]

Agol and J.H

E. Agol and J.H. Krolik, Astrophys. J. 528, 161 (2000). doi:10.1086/308177

work page doi:10.1086/308177 2000