Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Thermodynamics of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A rotating black hole in a uniform magnetic field gains a consistent thermodynamics once its mass is fixed by the Christodoulou-Ruffini relation.

desk verdict A clean, honest first thermodynamic pass on Kerr-BR, but the mass is imported via the Christodoulou-Ruffini relation, so the first law is a consistency check, not a derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2603.18821 v2 pith:J5Z3Z44S submitted 2026-03-19 gr-qc

Li Hu , Rong-Gen Cai , Shao-Jiang Wang This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C22 PACS 04.70.-s
keywords Kerr-Bertotti-RobinsonblackholethermodynamicsChristodoulou-RuffinimassfirstlawSmarrformulaexternalmagneticfieldconservedchargesEinstein-Maxwell
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 aims to show that the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson (Kerr-BR) black hole — a rotating black hole immersed in an asymptotically uniform external electromagnetic field — has a well-defined thermodynamics even though its conserved mass cannot be obtained by standard integrability methods. The authors define the conserved mass by adopting the Christodoulou-Ruffini relation, M^2 = S/(4π) + Q^2/2 + π(Q^4+4J^2)/(4S), which fixes the freedom in the mass generator. They then construct redefined temperature, angular velocity, and electrostatic potential that match the partial derivatives of this mass, so the first law δM = TδS + ΩδJ + ΦδQ and the Smarr formula hold exactly. A notable consequence is that the external magnetic field contributes no separate μδB or μB term. This matters because it extends black-hole thermodynamics to exact solutions with non-asymptotically-flat environments such as magnetic fields.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation, a closed formula M^2(S, J, Q) = S/(4π) + Q^2/2 + π(Q^4 + 4J^2)/(4S) imported from Kerr-Newman thermodynamics and used as the definition of conserved mass. It resolves the non-integrability of the energy charge by fixing the linear combination α(∂_t + Ω_int ∂_φ, Φ_int) as the generator; the redefined potentials in Eq. (41) are then exactly the derivatives of this mass, so the first law and Smarr formula follow mechanically. The absence of a magnetic-field term in the first law is a consequence of absorbing all B-dependence into these redefined potentials rather than into an extra charge.

What would settle it

Compute the conserved mass by an independent method that does not assume the Christodoulou-Ruffini relation — e.g. a background-subtraction or conformal charge integral — and compare with Eq. (35) for a nonzero B; any disagreement would break the first law and Smarr formula derived here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the Kerr-BR spacetime, the conserved angular momentum J and electric charge Q are integrable from covariant phase-space charges, but the energy charge for (∂_t, 0) is not integrable, leaving a three-parameter ambiguity. The paper's central move is to adopt the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation — M^2 = S/(4π) + Q^2/2 + π(Q^4+4J^2)/(4S) — as the thermodynamic definition of mass, which yields the explicit function M(m, a, B) in Eq. (35). With this mass fixed, a generator α(∂_t + Ω_int ∂_φ, Φ_int) is determined, and the redefined potentials T = αT_H, Ω = α(Ω_H − Ω_int), Φ = α(Φ_H − Φ_int) coincide with ∂M/∂S, ∂M/∂J, ∂M/∂Q. Hence the first law and Smarr formula hold in standard form, and no

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass formula, derived for Kerr-Newman black holes, remains the correct expression for the conserved mass when a uniform external magnetic field is present; if the field changes the mass relation, Eq. (35), the first law, and the Smarr formula all fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Kerr-BR black hole obeys the standard first law δM = TδS + ΩδJ + ΦδQ and Smarr formula M = 2TS + 2ΩJ + ΦQ with no μB term.
  • The explicit mass formula Eq. (35) interpolates between Schwarzschild-Bertotti-Robinson (a→0) and Kerr (B→0), providing a check on its physical identification.
  • The redefined potentials from Eq. (41) coincide with the derivative relations ∂M/∂S, ∂M/∂J, ∂M/∂Q, making the thermodynamic description internally consistent.
  • Because the external field B can be varied without entering the first law, the magnetic field acts as a freely variable background parameter rather than an additional conserved charge.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Christodoulou-Ruffini relation is taken as a universal thermodynamic identity for stationary Einstein-Maxwell black holes, the same generator-fixing strategy could disambiguate mass definitions for other asymptotically non-flat or magnetized solutions.
  • The absence of a μB term suggests that in this family the external field's energy is already encoded through the altered horizon area, angular momentum, and charge; a direct test would be to verify the Smarr relation under adiabatic variation of B.
  • A stronger independent check would be to derive Eq. (35) from a first-principles charge integral (for example, a conformal compactification) without assuming the Christodoulou-Ruffini form; the authors flag this as an open question.
  • The redefined temperature T = αT_H is a testable prediction: it gives a modified area-temperature relation that could be compared with Euclidean path-integral or tunnelling calculations if those become available for this spacetime.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

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 analyzes the thermodynamics of the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson (Kerr-BR) black hole, an exact Petrov type D solution of Einstein-Maxwell theory describing a rotating black hole in an external uniform electromagnetic field. After computing the horizon quantities (angular velocity, Hawking temperature, entropy, and electrostatic potential) from the metric, the authors compute the conserved charge Q and angular momentum J via covariant phase space methods. For the mass, standard integrability fails due to the non-asymptotically-flat structure; the authors therefore adopt the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation M^2 = S/(4π)+Q^2/2+π(Q^4+4J^2)/(4S) as a thermodynamic definition. Substituting the horizon values of S,J,Q yields an explicit mass function M(m,a,B). Using the condition that δM = α(/δQ(∂t,0)-Ω_int δJ-Φ_int δQ), the parameters α, Ω_int, Φ_int are determined, and redefined potentials T=αT_H, Ω=α(Ω_H-Ω_int), Φ=α(Φ_H-Φ_int) are shown to coincide with ∂M/∂S, ∂M/∂J, ∂M/∂Q. The first law δM=TδS+ΩδJ+ΦδQ and the Smarr formula M=2TS+2ΩJ+ΦQ then follow, with no explicit μB or μδB term. The paper concludes that a consistent thermodynamic description is achieved despite the nontrivial asymptotic structure.

Significance. If the central assumption were independently justified, the paper would provide a useful thermodynamic description of a recently constructed exact black-hole solution. The explicit computation of J and Q from covariant phase space methods, the determination of the generator associated with the adopted mass, and the demonstration that a standard first law and Smarr formula hold are concrete and well-executed steps. The paper also honestly acknowledges in the conclusions that obtaining the same mass from alternative approaches (e.g., conformal methods) remains open. However, the main result is conditional: the first law and Smarr formula are consequences of the assumed Christodoulou-Ruffini form of the mass, not independent tests. The paper therefore is best viewed as a consistency check under a definite but unproven mass definition. Its significance is moderate; it adds to the growing literature on thermodynamics of magnetized black holes but does not resolve the fundamental ambiguity of defining conserved mass in spacetimes with non-flat asymptotics.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (34)] The Christodoulou-Ruffini mass formula is imported from the Kerr-Newman family without derivation. Since Eq. (35) is the substitution of S,J,Q into this ansatz, and α, Ω_int, Φ_int are then solved from Eq. (33) so that the first-law variation holds, Eqs. (42)-(46) are algebraic consequences of the chosen M(S,J,Q), not independent physical predictions. The limits a→0 and B→0 show consistency with known cases but do not establish uniqueness. The authors should either derive Eq. (34) from the asymptotic structure of the Kerr-BR spacetime or explicitly state that the paper is a conditional construction, and adjust the abstract/introduction accordingly.
  2. [Sec. V, paragraph 2] The claim that 'no μB term appears in the first law or the Smarr formula' is a direct artifact of the assumption that M depends only on S,J,Q, not on B. If an alternative mass definition (e.g., a boundary stress-tensor or conformal method) yields M=M(S,J,Q,B), a μδB term would appear. The paper's own concluding sentence acknowledges this as an open question, but the abstract and introduction present the absence of μB as a robust result. This overstatement should be removed or carefully qualified.
  3. [Appendix A, Eq. (A8)] The derivation of the first law decomposes the horizon generator into pieces whose charges at infinity are defined as δJ, δQ, and δM. The parameters α, Ω_int, Φ_int are not arbitrary; they are fixed by Eq. (33) after M is chosen. Consequently, Eq. (A8) is not an independent check of the first law but the condition used to determine the generator. The text should make this explicitly clear to avoid the impression that the first law is a nontrivial output of the calculation.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III, Eq. (18)] The displayed expression for Φ_H is visually garbled: the numerator and denominator are not clearly separated, and the factors involving square roots are difficult to parse. Please re-typeset this formula for readability.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (26)-(27)] The symbol Q is used both for the electric charge and for the charge functional Q(ξ,λ). This is confusing, especially in Eqs. (26)-(27) where J=Q(-∂φ,0) and Q=Q(0,-1). Please use a different notation for the functional, e.g., \mathcal{Q}.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (10)] The definition P0 = 1+B^2(m^2 I2/I1^2 - a^2) is used to normalize ∂φ. It would help to state explicitly that P0>0 is assumed to avoid conical singularities, and to comment on the allowed parameter range.
  4. [Sec. IV, Eq. (35)] The limiting check B→0 giving M=m should be shown explicitly, since the expression looks non-trivial; similarly for a→0, the reduction to the Schwarzschild-BR mass of Ref. [25] is only cited, not demonstrated.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

First law and Smarr formula are imposed by adopting the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass as the definition of M; the reported 'predictions' reduce to that definition.

  1. self definitional [Sec. IV, Eq. (34) and Eq. (46)]
    "Fortunately, previous studies indicate that enforcing thermodynamic consistency leads to a mass that coincides with the well-known Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation [25, 45–47], M^2(S, J, Q) = S/(4π) + Q^2/2 + π(Q^4 + 4J^2)/(4S). ... it is natural to adopt this relation as the definition of the conserved mass. ... consequently, the Smarr formula M = 2T S + 2ΩJ + ΦQ."

    The Christodoulou-Ruffini relation is not derived for Kerr-BR; it is adopted as the definition of M. With T=∂M/∂S, Ω=∂M/∂J, and Φ=∂M/∂Q (Eqs. 42–44), the Smarr formula Eq. (46) is an Euler-homogeneity identity of Eq. (34), so it is a property of the chosen mass definition, not an independent consequence of the Kerr-BR field equations.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV, Eqs. (33), (41)–(45); Appendix A]
    "Substituting this mass into Eq. (33) immediately determines the three previously undetermined parameters in a linear combination of generators, ... With these identifications, the variation of the mass takes the standard form of the first law of black-hole thermodynamics (see Appendix A), δM = T δS + Ω δJ + Φ δQ."

    Equation (33) is exactly the component expansion of δM = α(/δQ(∂t,0) − Ω_int δJ − Φ_int δQ). Solving it for α, Ω_int, and Φ_int after fixing M by Eq. (34) is the condition that the generator charge reproduce the chosen mass function. The redefined potentials (41) are then defined so that they match the partial derivatives (42)–(44); the 'coincidence' and the first law are the solved conditions, not independent checks.

1 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Sec. V, no μB term]
    "Notably, we find that no additional contribution associated with the external magnetic field appears in the first law or the Smarr formula, i.e., there is no μδB or μB term, in agreement with previous results for magnetized black holes [45]."

    The adopted mass formula (34) depends only on S, J, Q and contains no independent magnetic-field variable B. Therefore the first law δM = T δS + Ω δJ + Φ δQ has no μδB term by construction. Reporting this as a finding presents a property of the assumed mass definition as a prediction of the spacetime thermodynamics.

full rationale

The paper is transparent that the conserved mass cannot be obtained from covariant phase space integrability and that the Christodoulou-Ruffini relation is adopted as a thermodynamic definition (Sec. IV: 'we adopt the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation as a thermodynamic definition of the conserved mass'). Given that definition, the first law and Smarr formula are not derived consequences of the Kerr-BR solution; they are algebraic identities of the chosen M(S,J,Q) together with the parameters α, Ω_int, Φ_int solved from Eq. (33) so that δM matches dM. The absence of a μB term likewise follows from the absence of B in Eq. (34). The computations of S, T_H, Φ_H, J, and Q from the geometry are independent and non-circular, and the generator parameters are nontrivial functions of m,a,B, so the work has real content as a consistency construction. However, the central advertised results — the standard first law, the Smarr formula, and the 'no μB term' conclusion — are enforced by the adopted mass definition rather than independently predicted. The conclusion itself acknowledges the assumption: 'it remains an interesting open question whether the same mass can be obtained from alternative approaches, such as the conformal method.' This partial circularity warrants a score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted; the analysis is analytic. The only input beyond the metric and gauge field is the Christodoulou-Ruffini relation, which is a fixed formula imported from Kerr-Newman thermodynamics. The generator parameters (α, Ω_int, Φ_int) are solved from the first-law conditions, not chosen freely. The central assumptions are the applicability of the CR mass relation to this spacetime, the standard phase-space/regularity conventions, and the absence of a separate magnetic-work term. No new physical entities are introduced.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation M^2 = S/(4π) + Q^2/2 + π(Q^4 + 4J^2)/(4S) (Eq. 34) applies to the Kerr-BR black hole.
    Adopted as the definition of conserved mass in Sec. IV. No derivation from the Einstein-Maxwell action or phase space is provided; all thermodynamic potentials and the first law/Smarr relations depend on this relation.
  • standard math The covariant phase space formalism (Iyer-Wald, Barnich-Brandt) with the chosen background yields the correct J and Q for the Kerr-BR spacetime.
    Used in Sec. IV to compute J and Q. This is an established framework, although the background subtraction for the non-asymptotically-flat Kerr-BR spacetime is not explicitly constructed.
  • domain assumption The coordinate and gauge normalizations (φ = ϕ/P0, gauge shift A0, and setting γ=0 to a purely magnetic external field) give the physically relevant horizon quantities and charges.
    Sec. II: P0 is chosen to avoid conical defects; the gauge shift and γ=0 are imposed to make the gauge potential regular on the axis and avoid a Dirac string. Entropy, charges, and potentials depend on these conventions.
  • domain assumption The external magnetic field B does not have a conjugate potential; the first law contains no μ δB term.
    This is a consequence of adopting the CR mass formula: M depends on B only through S,J,Q. The paper asserts this as a result, but it is built into the mass definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Thermodynamics of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/J5Z3Z44S

@misc{pith2026260318821,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Thermodynamics of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/J5Z3Z44S}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2603.18821}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the thermodynamic properties of the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole, an exact Petrov type D solution of Einstein-Maxwell theory describing a rotating black hole immersed in an external electromagnetic field. While the conserved angular momentum and electric charge can be computed straightforwardly, the conserved mass cannot be obtained through standard integrability methods due to the nontrivial asymptotically uniform external electromagnetic field. To overcome this difficulty, we adopt the Christodoulou-Ruffini mass relation as a thermodynamic definition of the conserved mass, and identify the associated generator, thereby fixing the ambiguity in defining this conserved mass and constructing the thermodynamic potentials. These thermodynamic quantities naturally satisfy the first law of black-hole thermodynamics as well as the Smarr formula.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Critical Behavior of Photon Rings in Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Spacetime

    gr-qc 2026-03 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    For a magnetized Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole, the photon-ring parameters gamma, delta, and tau all decrease compared with the unmagnetized Kerr case, weakening the self-similar stacking of higher-order images.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 27 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Ob- servation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), “Ob- servation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,

    Kazunori Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  3. [3]

    Dis- tinctive GWBs from eccentric inspiraling SMBH bi- naries with a DM spike,

    Li Hu, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao-Jiang Wang, “Dis- tinctive GWBs from eccentric inspiraling SMBH bi- naries with a DM spike,” JCAP02, 067 (2025), arXiv:2312.14041 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    Dynami- cal friction can flip the hierarchical three-body system,

    Li Hu, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao-Jiang Wang, “Dynami- cal friction can flip the hierarchical three-body system,” JCAP08, 010 (2025), arXiv:2411.14047 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  5. [5]

    Fully Relativistic Treatment of Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Collisionless Environments,

    Rodrigo Vicente, Theophanes K. Karydas, and Gian- franco Bertone, “Fully Relativistic Treatment of Extreme Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Collisionless Environments,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 211401 (2025), arXiv:2505.09715 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  6. [6]

    Ring formation from black hole superradiance through repeated particle production on bound orbits,

    Zhen-Hong Lyu, Rong-Gen Cai, Zong-Kuan Guo, Jian- Feng He, and Jing Liu, “Ring formation from black hole superradiance through repeated particle production on bound orbits,” Phys. Rev. D112, 104066 (2025), arXiv:2507.03490 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  7. [7]

    Supermassive black holes and the evolution of galaxies,

    D. Richstone et al., “Supermassive black holes and the evolution of galaxies,” Nature395, A14–A19 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9810378

    arXiv 1998

  8. [8]

    Coevolution (Or Not) of Supermassive Black Holes and Host Galax- ies,

    John Kormendy and Luis C. Ho, “Coevolution (Or Not) of Supermassive Black Holes and Host Galax- ies,” Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.51, 511–653 (2013), arXiv:1304.7762 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2013

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    A strong magnetic field around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy,

    R. P. Eatough et al., “A strong magnetic field around the supermassive black hole at the centre of the Galaxy,” Nature501, 391–394 (2013), arXiv:1308.3147 [astro- ph.GA]

    2013 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Observations of a black hole x-ray bi- nary indicate formation of a magnetically arrested disk,

    Bei You et al., “Observations of a black hole x-ray bi- nary indicate formation of a magnetically arrested disk,” Science381, abo4504 (2023), arXiv:2309.00200 [astro- ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Kerr black holes in a magnetic universe,

    Frederick J. Ernst and Walter J. Wild, “Kerr black holes in a magnetic universe,” J. Math. Phys.17, 182 (1976)

    1976

  4. [12]

    Black holes in a magnetic universe,

    Frederick J. Ernst, “Black holes in a magnetic universe,” J. Math. Phys.17, 54–56 (1976)

    1976

  5. [13]

    Er- goregions in Magnetised Black Hole Spacetimes,

    G. W. Gibbons, A. H. Mujtaba, and C. N. Pope, “Er- goregions in Magnetised Black Hole Spacetimes,” Class. Quant. Grav.30, 125008 (2013), arXiv:1301.3927 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Curvature tensors on distorted Killing horizons and their algebraic clas- sification,

    Vojtech Pravda and O. B. Zaslavskii, “Curvature tensors on distorted Killing horizons and their algebraic clas- sification,” Class. Quant. Grav.22, 5053–5072 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0510095

    2005 arXiv

  7. [15]

    New class of rotating charged black holes with nonaligned elec- tromagnetic field,

    Hryhorii Ovcharenko and Jiˇ r ´ ı Podolsk´ y, “New class of rotating charged black holes with nonaligned elec- tromagnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D112, 064076 (2025), arXiv:2508.04850 [gr-qc]

    2025

  8. [16]

    Kerr Black Hole in a Uniform Bertotti-Robinson Magnetic Field: An Exact Solution,

    Jiri Podolsky and Hryhorii Ovcharenko, “Kerr Black Hole in a Uniform Bertotti-Robinson Magnetic Field: An Exact Solution,” Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 181401 (2025), arXiv:2507.05199 [gr-qc]

    2025

  9. [17]

    Energy extraction from the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole via magnetic re- connection in a circular and a plunging plasma,

    Xiao-Xiong Zeng and Ke Wang, “Energy extraction from the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole via magnetic re- connection in a circular and a plunging plasma,” Phys. Rev. D112, 064032 (2025), arXiv:2507.21777 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Non-Monotonic Enhancement of the Magnetic Pen- rose Process in Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Spacetime and its Implication for Electron Acceleration,

    Mirjavoxir Mirkhaydarov, Tursunali Xamidov, Pankaj Sheoran, Sanjar Shaymatov, and Hemwati Nandan, “Non-Monotonic Enhancement of the Magnetic Pen- rose Process in Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Spacetime and its Implication for Electron Acceleration,” (2026), arXiv:2601.09919 [gr-qc]

    2026

  11. [19]

    Geodesics and shadows in the Kerr-Bertotti- Robinson black hole spacetime,

    Xinyu Wang, Yehui Hou, Xi Wan, Minyong Guo, and Bin Chen, “Geodesics and shadows in the Kerr-Bertotti- Robinson black hole spacetime,” JCAP02, 050 (2026), arXiv:2507.22494 [gr-qc]

    2026

  12. [20]

    Parameter estimation of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holes using their shad- ows,

    Heena Ali and Sushant G. Ghosh, “Parameter estimation of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holes using their shad- ows,” JCAP01, 018 (2026), arXiv:2508.15862 [gr-qc]

    2026

  13. [21]

    A Universal Framework for Horizon-Scale Tests of Gravity with Black Hole Shadows,

    Wentao Liu, Yang Liu, Di Wu, and Yu-Xiao Liu, “A Universal Framework for Horizon-Scale Tests of Gravity with Black Hole Shadows,” (2025), arXiv:2511.06017 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Holes Surrounded by a Cloud of Strings,

    Faizuddin Ahmed, ˙Izzet Sakallı, and Ahmad Al-Badawi, “Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Holes Surrounded by a Cloud of Strings,” (2025), arXiv:2511.11792 [gr-qc]

    2025

  15. [23]

    Static black holes in an external uniform electromagnetic field: Reissner-Nordstrom accelerating in Bertotti-Robinson,

    Hryhorii Ovcharenko and Jiri Podolsky, “Static black holes in an external uniform electromagnetic field: Reissner-Nordstrom accelerating in Bertotti-Robinson,” (2026), arXiv:2602.15462 [gr-qc]

    2026

  16. [24]

    Accelerating Bertotti-Robinson Black Holes in a Uniform Magnetic Field,

    Ahmad Al-Badawi, Faizuddin Ahmed, and Edilberto O. Silva, “Accelerating Bertotti-Robinson Black Holes in a Uniform Magnetic Field,” (2026), arXiv:2603.03494 [gr- qc]

    2026

  17. [25]

    Black holes in the external Bertotti- Robinson-Bonnor-Melvin electromagnetic field,

    Marco Astorino, “Black holes in the external Bertotti- Robinson-Bonnor-Melvin electromagnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D112, 104077 (2025), arXiv:2508.12908 [gr-qc]

    2025

  18. [26]

    From Bertotti–Robinson to Vacuum: New Exact Solutions in General Relativity via Harrison and Inversion Symmetries,

    Jos´ e Barrientos, Adolfo Cisterna, Amaro D ´ ıaz, and Keanu M¨ uller, “From Bertotti–Robinson to Vacuum: New Exact Solutions in General Relativity via Harrison and Inversion Symmetries,” (2026), arXiv:2602.17581 [gr-qc]

    2026

  19. [27]

    Gravitational-wave imprints of Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black holes: frequency blue-shift and waveform dephas- ing,

    Xiang-Qian Li, Hao-Peng Yan, and Xiao-Jun Yue, “Gravitational-wave imprints of Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black holes: frequency blue-shift and waveform dephas- ing,” Eur. Phys. J. C86, 176 (2026), arXiv:2512.02921 [gr-qc]

    2026

  20. [28]

    Gravitational wave signatures from periodic orbits around a Schwarzschild-Bertotti-Robinson black hole,

    Tursunali Xamidov, Sanjar Shaymatov, Qiang Wu, and Tao Zhu, “Gravitational wave signatures from periodic orbits around a Schwarzschild-Bertotti-Robinson black hole,” (2026), arXiv:2602.09453 [gr-qc]

    2026

  21. [29]

    External magnetic field influence on massive binary black hole inspiral grav- itational waves and its similarity with environmental ef- fects,

    Xulong Yuan and Xiangdong Zhang, “External magnetic field influence on massive binary black hole inspiral grav- itational waves and its similarity with environmental ef- fects,” (2026), arXiv:2603.05084 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Space- time and the Kerr/CFT Correspondence,

    Haryanto M. Siahaan, “Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Space- time and the Kerr/CFT Correspondence,” (2025), arXiv:2512.12533 [gr-qc]

    2025

  23. [31]

    Opti- cal characteristics of the Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black hole,

    Xiao-Xiong Zeng, Chen-Yu Yang, and Hao Yu, “Opti- cal characteristics of the Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black hole,” Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1242 (2025), arXiv:2508.03020 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Innermost stable circular orbit of Kerr- Bertotti-Robinson black holes and inspirals from it: Ex- act solutions,

    Tower Wang, “Innermost stable circular orbit of Kerr- Bertotti-Robinson black holes and inspirals from it: Ex- act solutions,” (2025), arXiv:2508.04684 [gr-qc]. 7

    2025 arXiv

  25. [33]

    The influence of uniform magnetic fields on strong field gravitational lensing by Kerr black holes,

    Amnish Vachher, Arun Kumar, and Sushant G. Ghosh, “The influence of uniform magnetic fields on strong field gravitational lensing by Kerr black holes,” JCAP11, 021 (2025), arXiv:2508.21100 [gr-qc]

    2025

  26. [34]

    Effects of magnetic fields on spinning test particles orbiting Kerr-Bertotti- Robinson black holes,

    Yu-Kun Zhang and Shao-Wen Wei, “Effects of magnetic fields on spinning test particles orbiting Kerr-Bertotti- Robinson black holes,” (2025), arXiv:2510.07914 [gr-qc]

    2025

  27. [35]

    Einstein-Maxwell fields as solutions of Einstein gravity coupled to conformally invariant non- linear electrodynamics,

    Marcello Ortaggio, “Einstein-Maxwell fields as solutions of Einstein gravity coupled to conformally invariant non- linear electrodynamics,” (2025), arXiv:2511.13665 [gr- qc]

    2025 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Hidden symmetries and separabil- ity structures of Ovcharenko-Podolsk´ y and conformal-to- Carter spacetimes,

    Finnian Gray, David Kubiznak, Hryhorii Ovcharenko, and Jiri Podolsky, “Hidden symmetries and separabil- ity structures of Ovcharenko-Podolsk´ y and conformal-to- Carter spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. D113, 044050 (2026), arXiv:2511.21538 [gr-qc]

    2026

  29. [37]

    Conserved quantities and integrability for massless spinning particles in general relativity,

    Lars Andersson, Finnian Gray, and Marius A. Oancea, “Conserved quantities and integrability for massless spinning particles in general relativity,” (2025), arXiv:2512.07677 [gr-qc]

    2025

  30. [38]

    Static hairy black hole in 4D gen- eral relativity,

    Marco Astorino, “Static hairy black hole in 4D gen- eral relativity,” Phys. Rev. D113, 024047 (2026), arXiv:2601.16254 [gr-qc]

    2026

  31. [39]

    Melvin–Bonnor and Bertotti–Robinson spacetimes with Baryonic charge,

    Jos´ e Barrientos, Fabrizio Canfora, Adolfo Cisterna, Keanu M¨ uller, and Anibal Neira, “Melvin–Bonnor and Bertotti–Robinson spacetimes with Baryonic charge,” (2026), arXiv:2601.19858 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Magnetic field effects on spherical orbit in Kerr- Bertotti-Robinson spacetime: constraints from jet pre- cession of M87*,

    Chao-Hui Wang, Xiang-Cheng Meng, and Shao-Wen Wei, “Magnetic field effects on spherical orbit in Kerr- Bertotti-Robinson spacetime: constraints from jet pre- cession of M87*,” (2026), arXiv:2602.03161 [gr-qc]

    2026

  33. [41]

    Dynamics, Ringdown, and Accretion-Driven Multiple Quasi-Periodic Oscillations of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Holes,

    G. Mustafa, Orhan Donmez, Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi, Sushant G. Ghosh, Ibrar Hussain, and Chengxun Yuan, “Dynamics, Ringdown, and Accretion-Driven Multiple Quasi-Periodic Oscillations of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson Black Holes,” (2026), arXiv:2602.08911 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Meissner Effect in Kerr–Bertotti– Robinson Spacetime,

    Haryanto M. Siahaan, “Meissner Effect in Kerr–Bertotti– Robinson Spacetime,” (2026), arXiv:2603.00653 [gr-qc]

    2026

  35. [43]

    Third type of spacetime with the coexistence of integrability and non-integrability,

    Junjie Lu and Xin Wu, “Third type of spacetime with the coexistence of integrability and non-integrability,” Eur. Phys. J. C86, 256 (2026), arXiv:2603.12674 [gr-qc]

    2026

  36. [44]

    Thermody- namics of magnetized Kerr-Newman black holes,

    G. W. Gibbons, Yi Pang, and C. N. Pope, “Thermody- namics of magnetized Kerr-Newman black holes,” Phys. Rev. D89, 044029 (2014), arXiv:1310.3286 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Mass of Kerr-Newman black holes in an ex- ternal magnetic field,

    M. Astorino, G. Comp` ere, R. Oliveri, and N. Vande- voorde, “Mass of Kerr-Newman black holes in an ex- ternal magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D94, 024019 (2016), arXiv:1602.08110 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  38. [46]

    CFT Duals for Accelerating Black Holes,

    Marco Astorino, “CFT Duals for Accelerating Black Holes,” Phys. Lett. B760, 393–405 (2016), arXiv:1605.06131 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Thermodynamics of Regular Acceler- ating Black Holes,

    Marco Astorino, “Thermodynamics of Regular Acceler- ating Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D95, 064007 (2017), arXiv:1612.04387 [gr-qc]

    2017 arXiv

  40. [48]

    General mass formulas for charged Kerr-AdS black holes,

    Yunjiao Gao, Zhenbo Di, and Sijie Gao, “General mass formulas for charged Kerr-AdS black holes,” Phys. Scripta99, 095022 (2024), arXiv:2304.10290 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Reversible transforma- tions of a charged black hole,

    D. Christodoulou and R. Ruffini, “Reversible transforma- tions of a charged black hole,” Phys. Rev. D4, 3552–3555 (1971)

    1971

  42. [50]

    Third law of repetitive electric Penrose processes,

    Li Hu, Rong-Gen Cai, and Shao-Jiang Wang, “Third law of repetitive electric Penrose processes,” Phys. Rev. D113, L061501 (2026), arXiv:2510.26866 [gr-qc]

    2026

  43. [51]

    Black holes and entropy,

    Jacob D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,” Phys. Rev. D7, 2333–2346 (1973)

    1973

  44. [52]

    The Four laws of black hole mechanics,

    James M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, “The Four laws of black hole mechanics,” Commun. Math. Phys.31, 161–170 (1973)

    1973

  45. [53]

    Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy,

    Vivek Iyer and Robert M. Wald, “Some properties of Noether charge and a proposal for dynamical black hole entropy,” Phys. Rev. D50, 846–864 (1994), arXiv:gr- qc/9403028

    1994

  46. [54]

    Covariant the- ory of asymptotic symmetries, conservation laws and cen- tral charges,

    Glenn Barnich and Friedemann Brandt, “Covariant the- ory of asymptotic symmetries, conservation laws and cen- tral charges,” Nucl. Phys. B633, 3–82 (2002), arXiv:hep- th/0111246

    2002

  47. [55]

    Boundary charges in gauge theories: Us- ing Stokes theorem in the bulk,

    Glenn Barnich, “Boundary charges in gauge theories: Us- ing Stokes theorem in the bulk,” Class. Quant. Grav.20, 3685–3698 (2003), arXiv:hep-th/0301039

    2003 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Central Charges in Extreme Black Hole/CFT Cor- respondence,

    Geoffrey Compere, Keiju Murata, and Tatsuma Nish- ioka, “Central Charges in Extreme Black Hole/CFT Cor- respondence,” JHEP05, 077 (2009), arXiv:0902.1001 [hep-th]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    An introduction to the mechanics of black holes,

    Geoffrey Compere, “An introduction to the mechanics of black holes,” in 2nd Modave Summer School in Theoretical Physics (2006) arXiv:gr-qc/0611129

    2006 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Thermodynamics of Kerr-Newman-AdS black holes and conformal field theories,

    Marco M. Caldarelli, Guido Cognola, and Dietmar Klemm, “Thermodynamics of Kerr-Newman-AdS black holes and conformal field theories,” Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 399–420 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9908022

    2000 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 2, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.