Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 121 references

The glow of eternal black holes

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An eternal black hole would cast a shadow that is not dark: its center would glow, and that glow has an exponential interferometric signature that separates the eternal geometry from one formed by collapse.

desk verdict Genuinely new signature for eternal black holes, but the headline exponential visibility is a toy-model result, not a black-body one; still worth a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.05270 v1 pith:G3S3VQRG submitted 2026-08-05 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Vladimir Strokov This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE MSC 83C5783C1083C75 PACS 04.70.-s04.20.-q
keywords eternalblackholeswhiteholeshadowphotonringinterferometricvisibilitysurfaceoflastscatteringlimitingdensityhypothesisSgrA*
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

The paper asks whether an eternal (maximally extended) Schwarzschild black hole, which contains a past white-hole singularity, can be told apart from a black hole formed by stellar collapse. Following a long-standing hypothesis that matter density has a limiting value, the author replaces the past singularity with a spacelike surface at $r=r_m$ that emits black-body radiation. Past-directed rays that fall inside the photon sphere terminate on this surface, so the shadow of an eternal black hole is not dark: it carries a radially symmetric bright spot at its center. The spot's interferometric visibility turns out to be a pure exponential in baseline length, unlike the power-law envelopes of the accretion disk and the photon ring, giving a concrete, sharp discriminant. The darkness or brightness of observed shadows therefore becomes a direct test of whether astrophysical black holes are eternal.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 'surface of last scattering' at $r=r_m$, a spacelike hypersurface introduced in the spirit of a limiting-density hypothesis to replace the past singularity of the white-hole region. The frequency shift of comoving emission from this surface is $g_{\rm spot}(b)$, whose third power sets the observed intensity; because it depends only on impact parameter, the spot is azimuthally symmetric. The closed-form visibility follows from applying a standard Hankel-transform pair to the rational profile $I(b)=C^3 r_m^3/(b^2+z^2)^{3/2}$, producing an exact exponential in baseline length. The sharp truncation at the photon sphere adds only small quasi-periodic corrections at long baselines.

What would settle it

Measure the azimuthally averaged visibility amplitude of the shadow interior of M87* or Sgr A* at baselines beyond the photon-ring region: the eternal spot requires an exponential tail $\propto e^{-2\pi q z}$, whereas any power-law decay $\propto q^{-1/2}$ or $\propto q^{-3/2}$ from diffuse or sharp-edged emission would rule it out. Equivalently, an image with no resolved central brightness inside the critical curve at the flux level predicted by the $(r_m,T)$ contours of Fig. 6 would falsify the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that replacing the past singularity of the eternal Schwarzschild solution with an emitting spacelike surface produces a persistent bright spot inside the shadow, with profile $I_{\rm spot}(b)\propto (b^2+z^2)^{-3/2}$ for captured rays, where $z=r_m/\sqrt{2/r_m-1}$ and $b$ is the impact parameter. The azimuthally averaged visibility of this spot is then, in closed form, $\propto e^{-2\pi q z}$ (Eq. 40), an exponential decay whose scale is set entirely by the emission radius $r_m$. This contrasts with the direct disk image (visibility $\sim q^{-3/2}$) and the photon ring ($\sim q^{-1/2}$). If true, the observed darkness of the M87* and Sgr A* shadows constrains the product $r_m T$ at roughly the MeV level, while the Planck-star limit of $r_m$ is far below any current or projected sensitivity.

Load-bearing premise

That matter emerging from the past singularity becomes transparent precisely at a spacelike surface $r=r_m$ and emits there as a black body at one temperature $T$; if this surface does not exist or its emission is not thermal, neither the spot nor the exponential visibility follows.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A non-dark shadow becomes a clean observational discriminant between eternal and collapse-formed black holes.
  • The product $r_m T$ for the white-hole emitter is pinned down by existing 230 GHz flux measurements of the two best-observed supermassive black holes, roughly at the MeV level, while a sensitivity near $10\,\mu$Jy would probe down to tens of eV.
  • For Planck-scale last scattering, the spot shrinks to a point-like source with essentially flat visibility, and is undetectable by current or planned interferometers.
  • The exponential visibility decay follows from smoothness of the interior profile and should survive for rotating geometries as long as the emission inside the shadow is smooth.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the exponential tail were detected, its decay scale $z$ would directly measure $r_m$ in units of the black-hole mass, providing a purely gravitational ruler on the interior.
  • The same smoothness argument suggests that any horizonless ultracompact object with smooth interior emission would produce a similar exponential visibility tail, so the signature may be a family property rather than unique to eternal Schwarzschild black holes.
  • The model predicts a steady spot, so multi-epoch and polarimetric observations that separate it from time-variable hot gas inside the photon sphere would test the eternal interpretation without waiting for higher sensitivity.
  • A null detection can be turned into an exclusion plot for $(r_m,T)$; any theory that places the last-scattering surface near the horizon is constrained by shadow darkness at 230 GHz.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the optical appearance of a maximally extended (eternal) Schwarzschild black hole in which the past singularity is replaced by a spacelike surface r = r_m emitting black-body radiation at temperature T. The authors integrate past-directed null geodesics, derive the gravitational frequency-shift factor for captured rays, and obtain a bright axisymmetric 'white-hole spot' filling the shadow. They superpose this spot on a thin Keplerian accretion disk, compute interferometric visibilities for the spot, disk, and photon ring, and derive physical flux constraints on the product r_m T from the 230 GHz fluxes of M87* and Sgr A*. The central advertised claim is that the spot visibility is a pure exponential in baseline length, in contrast to the power-law envelopes of the disk and photon ring, providing a potential discriminator between eternal and collapse-formed black holes.

Significance. If the radiative boundary condition were accepted, the paper would provide a concrete, falsifiable interferometric discriminant between eternal and collapse-formed black holes. The geodesic integration and redshift factor (Eqs. (13)-(23)) are derived cleanly, the closed-form Hankel transform in Eq. (39) and the truncation analysis in Eq. (41) are correct for the unit-emissivity model, and the flux asymptotics in Appendix A are internally consistent. The model is a forward calculation given r_m and T, not a fit, so the circularity concern is largely absent. However, the headline exponential-visibility claim is an artifact of the unit rest-frame emissivity assumption and does not follow from the black-body emission model adopted in Section 4.2; this load-bearing inconsistency must be fixed before the central claim can be accepted.

major comments (2)
  1. [§4.1–4.2, Eqs. (38)–(40) and (44)] The exponential visibility is derived from the unit-emissivity profile I_spot(b) = g(b)^3 with I_emit = 1 (Eqs. (20), (38)–(40)). Under the Planck-law emission that the paper adopts as its physical model in Section 4.2, the invariant I_nu/nu^3 gives I_obs,nu(b) = B_nu(g(b)T), which is not proportional to g(b)^3. These profiles differ materially: in the Rayleigh–Jeans limit B_nu(gT) is proportional to g(b), yielding a profile ~1/sqrt(b^2+z^2) whose Hankel transform contains a factor 1/q, and whose truncation at b_c introduces q^{-3/2} edge oscillations that dominate at moderate baselines; in the Wien limit the profile is ~exp(-const*b), whose transform decays algebraically. Consequently Eq. (40) is not the visibility of the black-body spot, and the statement in Section 4.2 that 'the curves in Figure 5 should simply be moved vertically' is incorrect. Because the abstract's 'pure exponential' claim and the contrast with the disk/ring power laws are built on Eq. (40), this is a load-bearing inconsistency rather than a normalization issue.
  2. [§5, Discussion] The Discussion states that 'the specific intensity of the spot at the observed frequency is a rational function of the impact parameter, Eq. (38)' and that the exponential visibility distinguishes the spot from the disk and photon ring. This is inconsistent with Section 4.2's black-body model, where the specific intensity is B_nu(gT) (Eq. (44)). The claimed discriminator is therefore not established for the physical model whose parameters are constrained in Figure 6. The authors should either compute the visibility for the Planck-law profile and characterize its baseline dependence, or explicitly reframe the exponential result as a property of a flat-spectrum toy model and soften the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and §5] The phrase 'visibility is a pure exponential' should be qualified as holding for a unit (flat) rest-frame spectrum and only at baselines where the truncation corrections of Eq. (41) are negligible; as written, it overstates both the unit-emissivity result and the physical black-body model.
  2. [§4.2] The sentence 'the curves in Figure 5 should simply be moved vertically to reflect the correct physical fluxes at zero baseline' is valid only if the rest-frame emission is frequency-independent; under the Planck law adopted in the same section, the baseline shape changes, so this sentence should be reconciled with Eq. (44) or removed.
  3. [§4.2, Figure 6] The text should state explicitly that the observed compact fluxes are used as upper limits on the spot flux, since the spot is not separately detected and the measured flux is dominated by the disk; the contours in Figure 6 should be labeled as upper-limit fluxes.
  4. [§3, after Eq. (27)] The phrase 'We leaver_m as a free parameter' contains a typo and should read 'We leave r_m as a free parameter.'
  5. [Eq. (41) and Figure 5] Even within the unit-emissivity model, the actual visibility includes quasi-periodic corrections of order q^{-3/2} that become noticeable near q ~ 1.5 for r_m = 0.8; the paper should state the baseline range over which Eq. (40) is an accurate approximation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the exponential visibility is a forward-modeled Hankel transform of the explicitly stated unit-emissivity profile, with black-body emission used only for flux normalization.

full rationale

The derivation chain is a forward model, not a fit. The spot profile in Eq. (25) follows from the geodesic frequency-shift factor Eq. (23) under the explicitly stated unit rest-frame emissivity ('we normalized to unit intensity at emission,' Sec. 3.1; 'This is equivalent to the assumption of unit specific intensity at emission,' Sec. 4.1). The Hankel transform of the extended profile is a standard mathematical identity (Eq. 39), giving Eq. (40); the decay scale z is fixed by the free parameter r_m and is not adjusted to match any visibility data. The black-body model of Sec. 4.2 is applied only to the total flux normalization and to the constraints from observed 230 GHz fluxes, which are used as upper limits rather than best-fit values. The two self-citations ([80] and [108]) are not load-bearing: [80] is one entry in a list of black-to-white-hole scenarios and [108] is cited only for a pixel-scale conversion. A legitimate scientific concern, though not a circularity, is that the exponential visibility is derived from the unit-emissivity profile, whereas the black-body profile B_nu(gT) would not have the same Hankel transform; the paper's abstract and discussion state the exponential without this caveat. That is a model-consistency/correctness issue, not a case of the prediction being equivalent to its input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central prediction depends on the speculative replacement of the white-hole singularity by an emitting surface at r=r_m and on the choice of temperature T. Both are free parameters. The standard GR ingredients (Schwarzschild metric, Kruskal extension, null geodesic equations, Hankel transforms) are taken as background.

free parameters (2)
  • r_m = free, arbitrary in Section 3; Planck-star estimate r_m = 48^(1/6) (l_P/M)^(2/3)
    Introduced as a free parameter in Section 3. It sets the spot's decay scale z = r_m/sqrt(2/r_m - 1) and the flux normalization. In the Planck-star scenario it is fixed by dimensional analysis rather than data.
  • T = free; Planck value T_P in Planck-star scenario
    Assumed to be a free parameter in Section 4.2. It sets the flux amplitude but not the shape of the spot or the exponential visibility.
assumptions (7)
  • standard math Null geodesic equations in Schwarzschild spacetime (Eqs. 13-18).
    Used to compute ray trajectories and the redshift factor.
  • standard math Kruskal-Szekeres extension and Penrose compactification (Eqs. 3-7).
    Defines the eternal spacetime with white hole region and is used for the observer-friendly diagrams.
  • standard math Hankel transform pair (Eq. 39) and van Cittert-Zernike theorem (Eq. 33).
    Used to derive the closed-form visibility and interpret interferometric observations.
  • domain assumption Maximally extended Schwarzschild solution is a viable model for an astrophysical black hole.
    The paper takes the eternal geometry at face value, even though collapse-formed black holes lack the white hole region.
  • domain assumption Accretion disk is geometrically thin, optically thick, and Keplerian (Section 3.2).
    Standard Luminet-style model used for the background image.
  • ad hoc to paper The past singularity is replaced by a spacelike surface r=r_m that emits black-body radiation at temperature T.
    This is the central speculative modeling step, introduced after Eq. (19) following Markov's hypothesis.
  • ad hoc to paper The matter at r=r_m is comoving with the interior cosmology, with 4-velocity u^r = sqrt(2/r - 1) (Eq. 21).
    Determines the gravitational redshift factor that shapes the spot profile.
invented entities (1)
  • Spacelike surface of last scattering at r=r_m in the white hole interior
    purpose: Replaces the past singularity and provides a thermal emitter that generates the bright spot inside the otherwise dark shadow
    The paper postulates this surface following Markov's limiting-density hypothesis. No independent observable evidence is provided for its existence; its only handle is the predicted spot, which is a consequence of the assumed boundary condition rather than independent confirmation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The glow of eternal black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/G3S3VQRG

@misc{pith2026260805270,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The glow of eternal black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/G3S3VQRG}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.05270}
}
abstract

We compute the optical appearance of a maximally extended (eternal) Schwarzschild black hole surrounded by a geometrically thin accretion disk. Unlike astrophysical black holes formed by gravitational collapse, the eternal solution contains a white hole (WH) region connected to a past singularity. Following Markov's hypothesis of a limiting density of matter, we replace the past singularity with a spacelike "surface of last scattering" at $r=r_{\rm m}$ and assume that it emits black-body radiation with temperature $T$. Past-directed rays that cross the past horizon terminate on this surface, resulting in a bright spot at the center of the shadow of an eternal black hole. The radial profile of the spot is set by the gravitational frequency shift, with a blueshifted center when the spacelike surface is sufficiently close to the singularity. We use ray tracing to generate an image of the disk and the spot, and we derive a closed-form interferometric signature of the spot. Its visibility is a pure exponential in the baseline length, in contrast to the power-law envelopes of the disk and the photon ring. We constrain the product $r_{\rm m} T$ from the observed 230 GHz fluxes of M87* and Sgr A*. We also consider a Planck-star scenario in which the value of $r_{\rm m}$ is determined on dimensional grounds, and show that it is out of reach of any current or planned facilities. Nevertheless, the darkness of the observed shadows remains a test of whether these black holes are eternal.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.05270 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Standard Penrose diagrams of the eternal Schwarzschild spacetime (left) and of a [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Penrose diagrams of the eternal (top) and collapse (bottom) Schwarzschild space [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Penrose diagrams of the collapse spacetime formed by a dust shell (bold black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Observer-sky image of the eternal Schwarzschild black/white hole with a thin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: RMS visibility amplitude for three features: disk (blue), photon ring (orange), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Iso-flux contours of the WH spot at 230 GHz in the ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

121 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Michell J 1784Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond.7435–57

  2. [2]

    Laplace P S 1796Exposition du syst` eme du mondevol 2 (Paris: Imprimerie du Cercle Social) p. 305

  3. [3]

    Schwarzschild K 1916Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )1916 189–196 (PreprintarXiv:physics/9905030)

    arXiv 1916

  4. [4]

    Misner C W, Thorne K S and Wheeler J A 1973Gravitation(San Francisco: W. H. Freeman) ISBN 978-0-7167-0344-0, 978-0-691-17779-3

  5. [5]

    Chandrasekhar S 1983The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes(Oxford: Clarendon Press)

  6. [6]

    Rept.9471–39 (PreprintarXiv:2105.07101)

    Perlick V and Tsupko O Y 2022Phys. Rept.9471–39 (PreprintarXiv:2105.07101)

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Cunha P V P and Herdeiro C A R 2018Gen. Rel. Grav.5042 (Preprint arXiv:1801.00860)

    arXiv

  8. [8]

    Astrophys.75228–235

    Luminet J P 1979Astron. Astrophys.75228–235

Show all 121 references
  1. [9]

    Luminet J P 2019 (PreprintarXiv:1902.11196)

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Gralla S E, Holz D E and Wald R M 2019Phys. Rev. D100024018 (Preprint arXiv:1906.00873)

    1906 arXiv

  3. [11]

    J.718446–454 (Preprint arXiv:1005.1931)

    Johannsen T and Psaltis D 2010Astrophys. J.718446–454 (Preprint arXiv:1005.1931)

    1931 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Gralla S E and Lupsasca A 2020Phys. Rev. D102124003 (Preprint arXiv:2007.10336)

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Himwich E, Johnson M D, Lupsasca A and Strominger A 2020Phys. Rev. D101 084020 (PreprintarXiv:2001.08750)

    2001 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Bromley B C, Melia F and Liu S 2001Astrophys. J. Lett.555L83 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0106180) 24

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Broderick A E and Loeb A 2006Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.367905–916 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0509237)

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    Noble S C, Leung P K, Gammie C F and Book L G 2007Class. Quant. Grav.24 S259–S274 (PreprintarXiv:astro-ph/0701778)

    arXiv

  9. [17]

    J.6971164–1179 (Preprint arXiv:0812.0366)

    Broderick A and Loeb A 2009Astrophys. J.6971164–1179 (Preprint arXiv:0812.0366)

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    J.706497–507 (PreprintarXiv:0909.5431)

    Moscibrodzka M, Gammie C F, Dolence J C, Shiokawa H and Leung P K 2009Astro- phys. J.706497–507 (PreprintarXiv:0909.5431)

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dexter J, McKinney J C and Agol E 2012Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4211517 (PreprintarXiv:1109.6011)

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    Dibi S, Drappeau S, Fragile P C, Markoff S and Dexter J 2012Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4261928 (PreprintarXiv:1206.3976)

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    J.788120 (PreprintarXiv:1404.7095)

    Lu R S, Broderick A E, Baron F, Monnier J D, Fish V L, Doeleman S S and Pankratius V 2014Astrophys. J.788120 (PreprintarXiv:1404.7095)

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    J.812103 (PreprintarXiv:1505.01500)

    Chan C K, Psaltis D, ¨Ozel F, Medeiros L, Marrone D, Sadowski A and Narayan R 2015Astrophys. J.812103 (PreprintarXiv:1505.01500)

    arXiv

  15. [23]

    Astrophys.586A38 (Preprint arXiv:1510.07243)

    Moscibrodzka M, Falcke H and Shiokawa H 2016Astron. Astrophys.586A38 (Preprint arXiv:1510.07243)

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Astrophys

    Porth O, Olivares H, Mizuno Y, Younsi Z, Rezzolla L, Moscibrodzka M, Falcke H and Kramer M 2017Comput. Astrophys. Cosmol.41 (PreprintarXiv:1611.09720)

    arXiv

  17. [25]

    Chael A, Rowan M E, Narayan R, Johnson M D and Sironi L 2018Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.4785209–5229 (PreprintarXiv:1804.06416)

    arXiv

  18. [26]

    J.864126 (PreprintarXiv:1808.01958)

    Ryan B R, Ressler S M, Dolence J C, Gammie C F and Quataert E 2018Astrophys. J.864126 (PreprintarXiv:1808.01958)

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Astrophys.632A2 (Preprint arXiv:1906.10065)

    Davelaar J, Olivares H, Porth O, Bronzwaer T, Janssen M, Roelofs F, Mizuno Y, Fromm C M, Falcke H and Rezzolla L 2019Astron. Astrophys.632A2 (Preprint arXiv:1906.10065)

    1906 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Falcke H, Melia F and Agol E 2000Astrophys. J. Lett.528L13 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/9912263)

    arXiv

  21. [29]

    J.541234 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0004195)

    ¨Ozel F, Psaltis D and Narayan R 2000Astrophys. J.541234 (Preprint arXiv:astro-ph/0004195)

    arXiv

  22. [30]

    Doeleman Set al.2008Nature45578 (PreprintarXiv:0809.2442)

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Doeleman S Set al.2012Science338355 (PreprintarXiv:1210.6132)

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    J.807150 (PreprintarXiv:1505.03545)

    Akiyama Ket al.2015Astrophys. J.807150 (PreprintarXiv:1505.03545)

    arXiv

  25. [33]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2019Astrophys. J. Lett.875L1 (Preprint arXiv:1906.11238) 25

    1906 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2022Astrophys. J. Lett.930L12 (Preprint arXiv:2311.08680)

    arXiv

  27. [35]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2022Astrophys. J. Lett.930L14 (Preprint arXiv:2311.09479)

    arXiv

  28. [36]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2021Astrophys. J. Lett.910L12 (Preprint arXiv:2105.01169)

    arXiv

  29. [37]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2021Astrophys. J. Lett.910L13 (Preprint arXiv:2105.01173)

    arXiv

  30. [38]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2024Astrophys. J. Lett.964L25

  31. [39]

    Astrophys.704A91 (PreprintarXiv:2509.24593)

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2025Astron. Astrophys.704A91 (PreprintarXiv:2509.24593)

  32. [40]

    Astrophys.699A279 (Preprint arXiv:2505.10333)

    Dahale Ret al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2025Astron. Astrophys.699A279 (Preprint arXiv:2505.10333)

    arXiv

  33. [41]

    J.100234 (Preprint arXiv:2506.15783)

    Faggert J C, ¨Ozel F and Psaltis D 2026Astrophys. J.100234 (Preprint arXiv:2506.15783)

    arXiv

  34. [42]

    Doeleman S Set al.2023Galaxies11107 (PreprintarXiv:2306.08787)

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    Rel.284 [Erratum: Living Rev.Rel

    Ayzenberg Det al.2025Living Rev. Rel.284 [Erratum: Living Rev.Rel. 28, 7 (2025)] (PreprintarXiv:2312.02130)

    2025 arXiv

  36. [44]

    SPIE Int

    Johnson M Det al.2024Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng.13092130922D (Preprint arXiv:2406.12917)

    arXiv

  37. [45]

    SPIE Int

    Lupsasca A, C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no A, Palumbo D C M, Johnson M D, Gralla S E, Marrone D P, Galison P, Tiede P and Keeble L 2024Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 13092130926Q (PreprintarXiv:2406.09498)

    arXiv

  38. [46]

    Adv.6eaaz1310 (PreprintarXiv:1907.04329)

    Johnson M Det al.2020Sci. Adv.6eaaz1310 (PreprintarXiv:1907.04329)

    1907 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Gralla S E, Lupsasca A and Marrone D P 2020Phys. Rev. D102124004 (Preprint arXiv:2008.03879)

    2008 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no A and Lupsasca A 2023Phys. Rev. D108064043 (Preprint arXiv:2305.12956)

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    Astrophys.668A11 (PreprintarXiv:2206.02781)

    Paugnat H, Lupsasca A, Vincent F and Wielgus M 2022Astron. Astrophys.668A11 (PreprintarXiv:2206.02781)

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    Jia H, Quataert E, Lupsasca A and Wong G N 2024Phys. Rev. D110083044 (Preprint arXiv:2405.08804)

    arXiv

  43. [51]

    C´ ardenas-Avenda˜ no A, Keeble L and Lupsasca A 2024Phys. Rev. D109124052 (PreprintarXiv:2404.01083)

    arXiv

  44. [52]

    Tiede P, Johnson M D, Pesce D W, Palumbo D C M, Chang D O and Galison P 2022 Galaxies10111 (PreprintarXiv:2210.13498) 26

    2022 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Astrophys.625A124 (PreprintarXiv:1904.04934)

    Roelofs F, Falcke H, Brinkerink C, Mo´ scibrodzka M, Gurvits L I, Martin-Neira M, Kudriashov V, Klein-Wolt M, Tilanus R, Kramer M and Rezzolla L 2019Astron. Astrophys.625A124 (PreprintarXiv:1904.04934)

    1904 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Zineb Y B, Ozel F and Psaltis D 2024 (PreprintarXiv:2412.01904)

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    J.923260 (Preprint arXiv:2108.05228)

    Pesce D W, Palumbo D C M, Narayan R, Blackburn L, Doeleman S S, Johnson M D, Ma C P, Nagar N M, Natarajan P and Ricarte A 2021Astrophys. J.923260 (Preprint arXiv:2108.05228)

    arXiv

  48. [56]

    J.98541 (Preprint arXiv:2406.17754)

    Zhang X A, Ricarte A, Pesce D W, Johnson M D, Nagar N, Narayan R, Ramakr- ishnan V, Doeleman S and Palumbo D C M 2025Astrophys. J.98541 (Preprint arXiv:2406.17754)

    arXiv

  49. [57]

    Palumbo D C M, Doeleman S S, Johnson M D, Bouman K L and Chael A A 2019 ApJ 88162 (PreprintarXiv:1906.08828)

    2019 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2022Astrophys. J. Lett.930L17 (Preprint arXiv:2311.09484)

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    Vagnozzi Set al.2023Class. Quant. Grav.40165007 (PreprintarXiv:2205.07787)

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Carballo-Rubio R, Di Filippo F, Liberati S and Visser M 2022JCAP08055 (Preprint arXiv:2205.13555)

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Psaltis Det al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2020Phys. Rev. Lett.125141104 (Preprint arXiv:2010.01055)

    2010 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kocherlakota Pet al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2021Phys. Rev. D103104047 (PreprintarXiv:2105.09343)

    arXiv

  55. [63]

    Amarilla L, Eiroa E F and Giribet G 2010Phys. Rev. D81124045 (Preprint arXiv:1005.0607)

    arXiv

  56. [64]

    Nandi K K, Zhang Y Z and Zakharov A V 2006Phys. Rev. D74024020 (Preprint arXiv:gr-qc/0602062)

    arXiv

  57. [65]

    Bambi C 2013Phys. Rev. D87107501 (PreprintarXiv:1304.5691)

    arXiv

  58. [66]

    Nedkova P G, Tinchev V K and Yazadjiev S S 2013Phys. Rev. D88124019 (Preprint arXiv:1307.7647)

    arXiv

  59. [67]

    Ohgami T and Sakai N 2015Phys. Rev. D91124020 (PreprintarXiv:1704.07065)

    arXiv

  60. [68]

    Shaikh R 2018Phys. Rev. D98024044 (PreprintarXiv:1803.11422)

    arXiv

  61. [69]

    Rep.65 1185–1193 (PreprintarXiv:2106.03256)

    Bugaev M A, Novikov I D, Repin S V and Shelkovnikova A A 2021Astron. Rep.65 1185–1193 (PreprintarXiv:2106.03256)

    arXiv

  62. [70]

    Stuchl ´ ık Z and Schee J 2019Eur. Phys. J. C7944

  63. [71]

    J.89689 (Preprint arXiv:2006.09869) 27

    Kumar R, Kumar A and Ghosh S G 2020Astrophys. J.89689 (Preprint arXiv:2006.09869) 27

    2006 arXiv

  64. [72]

    Eichhorn A and Held A 2021JCAP05073 (PreprintarXiv:2103.13163)

    arXiv

  65. [73]

    Eichhorn A, Held A and Johannsen P V 2023JCAP01043 (Preprint arXiv:2204.02429)

    arXiv

  66. [74]

    Vincent F H, Meliani Z, Grandclement P, Gourgoulhon E and Straub O 2016Class. Quant. Grav.33105015 (PreprintarXiv:1510.04170)

    arXiv

  67. [75]

    Olivares H, Younsi Z, Fromm C M, De Laurentis M, Porth O, Mizuno Y, Falcke H, Kramer M and Rezzolla L 2020Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.497521–535 (Preprint arXiv:1809.08682)

    arXiv

  68. [76]

    Herdeiro C A R, Pombo A M, Radu E, Cunha P V P and Sanchis-Gual N 2021JCAP 04051 (PreprintarXiv:2102.01703)

    arXiv

  69. [77]

    Usp.52811–814 (PreprintarXiv:0809.0362)

    Shatskiy A 2009Phys. Usp.52811–814 (PreprintarXiv:0809.0362)

    arXiv

  70. [78]

    Frolov V P 2016Phys. Rev. D94104056 (PreprintarXiv:1609.01758)

    arXiv

  71. [79]

    De Lorenzo T, Pacilio C, Rovelli C and Speziale S 2015Gen. Rel. Grav.4741 (Preprint arXiv:1412.6015)

    arXiv

  72. [80]

    Lukash V N and Strokov V N 2013Int. J. Mod. Phys. A281350007 (Preprint arXiv:1301.5544)

    arXiv

  73. [81]

    Rovelli C and Vidotto F 2014Int. J. Mod. Phys. D231442026 (Preprint arXiv:1401.6562)

    arXiv

  74. [82]

    Haggard H M and Rovelli C 2015Phys. Rev. D92104020 (PreprintarXiv:1407.0989)

    arXiv

  75. [83]

    Barrau A, Rovelli C and Vidotto F 2014Phys. Rev. D90127503 (Preprint arXiv:1409.4031)

    arXiv

  76. [84]

    De Lorenzo T and Perez A 2016Phys. Rev. D93124018 (PreprintarXiv:1512.04566)

    arXiv

  77. [85]

    Bianchi E, Christodoulou M, D’Ambrosio F, Haggard H M and Rovelli C 2018Class. Quant. Grav.35225003 (PreprintarXiv:1802.04264)

    arXiv

  78. [86]

    Rovelli C and Vidotto F 2018Universe4127 (PreprintarXiv:1805.03872)

    arXiv

  79. [87]

    Ben Achour J, Brahma S, Mukohyama S and Uzan J P 2020JCAP09020 (Preprint arXiv:2004.12977)

    2004 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Corichi A and Singh P 2016Class. Quant. Grav.33055006 (Preprint arXiv:1506.08015)

    arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ashtekar A, Olmedo J and Singh P 2018Phys. Rev. Lett.121241301 (Preprint arXiv:1806.00648)

    arXiv

  82. [90]

    Ashtekar A and Olmedo J 2020Int. J. Mod. Phys. D292050076 (Preprint arXiv:2005.02309)

    2005 arXiv

  83. [91]

    Markov M A 1982JETP Lett.36265

  84. [92]

    Markov M A 1984Annals Phys.155333–357 28

  85. [93]

    Frolov V P and Novikov I D 1998Black hole physics: Basic concepts and new devel- opments(Kluwer)

  86. [94]

    Landau L D and Lifschits E M 1975The Classical Theory of Fields(Course of Theo- retical Physicsvol 2) (Oxford: Pergamon Press) ISBN 978-0-08-018176-9

  87. [95]

    1: Stars and Relativity(Chicago: University of Chicago Press)

    Zel’dovich Y B and Novikov I D 1971Relativistic Astrophysics, Vol. 1: Stars and Relativity(Chicago: University of Chicago Press)

  88. [96]

    Ames W L and Thorne K S 1968 ApJ151659

    1968

  89. [97]

    Lake K and Roeder R C 1979 ApJ232277

    1979

  90. [98]

    Yoshino H, Takahashi K and Nakao K i 2019Phys. Rev. D100084062 (Preprint arXiv:1908.04223)

    1908 arXiv

  91. [99]

    Ortiz N, Sarbach O and Zannias T 2015Phys. Rev. D92044035 (Preprint arXiv:1505.07017)

    arXiv

  92. [100]

    China Phys

    Cao L M, Li L Y and Liu X Y 2026Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69250413 (Preprint arXiv:2511.13077)

  93. [101]

    Novikov I D 2001Gen. Rel. Grav.332259 golden Oldie reprint of Soobshch. GAISh 132, 3 (1964)

    1964

  94. [102]

    Zeldovich Y B and Novikov I D 1983Relativistic Astrophysics. Vol. 2. The Structure and Evolution of the UniverseISBN 978-0-226-97957-1

  95. [103]

    James O, von Tunzelmann E, Franklin P and Thorne K S 2015Class. Quant. Grav. 32065001 (PreprintarXiv:1502.03808)

    arXiv

  96. [104]

    Synge J L 1966Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.131463–466

  97. [105]

    Novikov I D and Thorne K S 1973 Astrophysics of black holesBlack Holesed DeWitt C and DeWitt B S (New York: Gordon and Breach) pp 343–450

    1973

  98. [106]

    J.855 128 (PreprintarXiv:1802.06166)

    Craig Walker R, Hardee P E, Davies F B, Ly C and Junor W 2018Astrophys. J.855 128 (PreprintarXiv:1802.06166)

    arXiv

  99. [107]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2019Astrophys. J. Lett.875L5 (Preprint arXiv:1906.11242)

    1906 arXiv

  100. [108]

    Comput.36100467 (Preprint arXiv:2311.16227)

    Popov A A, Strokov V N and Surdyaev A A 2021Astron. Comput.36100467 (Preprint arXiv:2311.16227)

    arXiv

  101. [109]

    Thompson A R, Moran J M and Swenson G W 2017Interferometry and Synthesis in Radio Astronomy3rd ed (Springer)

  102. [110]

    Piessens R 2000 Chapter 9: The Hankel transformThe Transforms and Applications Handbooked Poularikas A D (Boca Raton: CRC Press) 2nd ed

    2000

  103. [111]

    Iosevich A and Liflyand E 2014Decay of the Fourier Transform: Analytic and Geo- metric Aspects(Basel: Birkh¨ auser) 29

  104. [112]

    Yuan F and Narayan R 2014Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.52529–588 (Preprint arXiv:1401.0586)

    arXiv

  105. [113]

    Akiyama Ket al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2019Astrophys. J. Lett.875L4 (Preprint arXiv:1906.11241)

    1906 arXiv

  106. [114]

    Wielgus Met al.(Event Horizon Telescope) 2022Astrophys. J. Lett.930L19 (Preprint arXiv:2207.06829)

    arXiv

  107. [115]

    Barrau A and Rovelli C 2014Phys. Lett. B739405–409 (PreprintarXiv:1404.5821)

    arXiv

  108. [116]

    Boyer R H and Lindquist R W 1967J. Math. Phys.8265

  109. [117]

    Rev.1741559–1571

    Carter B 1968Phys. Rev.1741559–1571

  110. [118]

    Poisson E and Israel W 1990Phys. Rev. D411796–1809

  111. [119]

    Ori A 1991Phys. Rev. Lett.67789–792

  112. [120]

    Dafermos M and Luk J 2025Ann. Math. (2)202309–630 (Preprint arXiv:1710.01722)

  113. [121]

    Boerner T J, Deems S, Furlani T R, Knuth S L and Towns J 2023 ACCESS: Advancing innovation: NSF’s Advanced Cyberinfrastructure Coordination Ecosystem: Services & SupportPractice and Experience in Advanced Research Computing (PEARC ’23)(New York, NY, USA: ACM) pp 173–176 30

    2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.