On type II(D) Einstein spacetimes in six dimensions

David Koko\v{s}ka; Marcello Ortaggio

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 74 references

On type II(D) Einstein spacetimes in six dimensions

T0 review · 1 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 The most general six-dimensional Einstein spacetime with Weyl type II or more special, a non-degenerate generic optical matrix, and suitable fall-off can be written explicitly as a Kerr-Schild metric that is locally a Kerr-NUT-(A)dS spaceti

desk verdict A clear, honest summary of the authors' own recent classification, with no new results; useful as an overview, not as a standalone proof. read the letter →

arxiv 2602.18074 v1 pith:NWXQHN4Y submitted 2026-02-20 gr-qc hep-th

David Kokoška , Marcello Ortaggio This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qchep-th

keywords EinsteinspacetimesWeyltypeIIopticalmatrixKerr-SchildKerr-NUT-(A)dSsixdimensionsexactsolutionsalgebraicallyspecial

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 claims that, under four clearly stated assumptions, the most general six-dimensional Einstein spacetime of Weyl type II or more special is explicit: it is locally described by metric (9) with functions P and Q given by (10), which depend on one discrete and three continuous parameters. The same assumptions imply these spacetimes are of type D, belong to the Kerr-Schild class, and are locally isometric to a subfamily of the Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family. The known doubly-spinning Kerr-(A)dS solution and its generalizations are recovered in a special factorizable case. A sympathetic reader should care because this completes the classification for the generic non-degenerate case in six dimensions, showing that no genuinely new algebraically special Einstein metrics arise beyond what was already known—a rigidity result in a dimension where the Weyl tensor has structurally new degrees of freedom compared with four and five dimensions.

What carries the argument

The central object is the optical matrix L associated with the multiple Weyl aligned null direction ℓ. Assumptions (ii) and (iv) make L non-degenerate and 'generic', respectively, and together with the fall-off condition (iii) they force the canonical form (8): two 2×2 blocks parameterized by functions y1 and y2. The genericity condition then allows y1 and y2 to be used as coordinates, turning the Einstein equations into an integrable system whose solution is the explicit metric (9). This metric ansatz—with its structure in the (r, y1, y2) coordinates—is what carries the classification.

What would settle it

Find a six-dimensional Einstein spacetime satisfying assumptions (i)–(iii) with a non-degenerate optical matrix that has |y1| = |y2| or dy1 = 0 and is not locally isometric to (9); such a solution would show the genericity restriction hides additional solutions. A more direct check: verify that the coordinate transformation claimed between (9) and the Kerr-NUT-(A)dS line element has a non-vanishing Jacobian on an open set of the parameter space (e.g., λ ≠ 0, μ ≠ 0, all four constants nonzero); a singular transformation would invalidate the local-isometry statement for that branch.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper establishes that, under the assumptions (i) Weyl type II or more special, (ii) non-degenerate optical matrix, (iii) spatial Weyl components falling off as o(r^-2), and (iv) genericity of the optical matrix (|y1| ≠ |y2| and dy1 ≠ 0 ≠ dy2), every six-dimensional Einstein spacetime can be written locally as (9), with P(s) = λs^6 + 2 Û0 s^4 − c0 s^2 − d0 and Q(r) = λr^6 − 2 Û0 r^4 − c0 r^2 + μr + d0. It then shows that this metric has constant curvature precisely when μ = 0, belongs to the Kerr-Schild class, and is locally isometric to a subfamily of the Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family, which implies it is of type D. The special case where P factorizes as (λs^2 + ϵ)(s^2 − a1^2)(s^2 − a2^2) repro

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the 'generic' condition on the optical matrix, |y1| ≠ |y2| and dy1 ≠ 0 ≠ dy2, which lets the authors use y1 and y2 as coordinates; the classification's claim to be 'most general' holds only within this generic branch, with non-generic cases explicitly deferred to future work.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any six-dimensional Einstein spacetime satisfying (i)–(iv) is locally isometric to a subfamily of the Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family, so the search for algebraically special solutions in n = 6 under these assumptions terminates in a known family.
The explicit metric (9) gives a concrete arena for studying the Kerr-Schild double copy in six dimensions, since both the background and the perturbation are identified in closed form.
The parameter count (one discrete, three continuous) means that, up to diffeomorphism and scaling, there are no hidden free functions in the generic type II class, unlike in four dimensions where integration functions remain.
The subfamily with factorizable P(s) includes the doubly-spinning Kerr-(A)dS metric and its generalizations, recovering known black hole solutions as special cases.
Because μ = 0 gives constant curvature, the genuinely non-trivial spacetimes are precisely those with μ ≠ 0, which carry the twisting character encoded by the y1, y2 coordinates.

Reading between the lines

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

If the deferred non-generic branches (|y1| = |y2| or dy1 = 0 or dy2 = 0) prove to be limits or quotients of (9), then the genericity assumption (iv) is only a technical convenience and the classification would actually cover all non-degenerate optical matrices—an outcome the paper leaves open.
The rigidity seen at n = 6 suggests that, under analogous genericity and fall-off conditions, higher-dimensional type II Einstein spacetimes may similarly collapse into the Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family; the qualitative change in the Weyl tensor for n > 5, however, means such an extension would need to control additional spatial components.
Reduction from four to three essential parameters via scaling hints that the discrete parameter corresponds to an invariant geometric label; identifying what physical quantity it represents could sharpen black-hole uniqueness discussions in higher dimensions.
For the Kerr-Schild double copy, metrics (9) with μ ≠ 0 provide explicit twisting examples where a single-copy gauge field can be derived in closed form; exploring whether the double copy extends to this twisting branch is a natural next step not pursued in the paper.

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

Here’s the short version: this is a summary of the authors’ own recent classification [42] (and [35] for λ=0), not a new research paper. It’s clear, well-written, and useful if you want the explicit metric (9) and a concise statement of the assumptions in one place. The four- and five-dimensional recap is a nice orientation.

What it does well: the assumptions (i)–(iv) are spelled out carefully, including the genericity condition (iv) and the note that the non-generic branches are deferred to [61]. The authors are honest that the λ=0 case did not need (iv). The metric and parameter count are presented cleanly, and the relation to Kerr-NUT-(A)dS is stated.

The soft spots: the central classification claim is not demonstrated here — it is cited from [42]. So a reader cannot verify it from this preprint. That is expected for a summary, but it means the paper has no standalone research value. The ‘most general’ phrase is conditional on (iv), and the stress-test worry about overclaiming doesn’t really land because the abstract and Section 3.1 both say ‘generic.’ The real limitation is that the non-generic branches for λ≠0 could in principle contain metrics not covered by (9), and those are not discussed here. That’s a known gap, not a hidden one.

Would I send this to a referee? For a primary research journal, no — there’s no new result to referee. As a proceedings contribution or a review note, it’s fine, maybe after a quick check that the summary of prior work is accurate. I wouldn’t cite it in my own work; I’d cite [42] for the classification and [35] for λ=0. I’d maybe bring it to a reading group if someone wanted an entry point into this corner of the literature.

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper is a concise proceedings-style summary of the authors' recent work [42] on six-dimensional Einstein spacetimes whose Weyl tensor is of type II or more special. The authors state four assumptions: (i) the Weyl type is II or more special relative to a mWAND; (ii) the optical matrix is non-degenerate; (iii) the spatial Weyl components fall off as C_{ijkm}=o(r^{-2}); and (iv) the optical matrix is 'generic' (|y_1|≠|y_2| and dy_1≠0≠dy_2). Under these assumptions the claimed most general local metric is displayed in Eq. (9), with polynomials P(s) and Q(r) given in Eq. (10). The paper further claims that these metrics are constant curvature if and only if μ=0, belong to the Kerr-Schild class, are locally isometric to a subfamily of the general Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family, and are therefore of type D. A special factorizable subcase is identified with the doubly-spinning Kerr-(A)dS metrics and related generalizations.

Significance. If the classification is correct, it constitutes a nontrivial extension of the n=6 results of [35] from λ=0 to arbitrary λ, at least in the generic sector, and it clarifies the relation between type II(D) six-dimensional Einstein spacetimes and the known Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family. The paper has the merit of presenting the explicit metric and the polynomial data, so the forward direction—that Eq. (9) defines Einstein spacetimes of the stated type—is directly checkable, and the bridge to Kerr-NUT-(A)dS is a useful concrete statement. The main limitation is that the uniqueness/maximality proof is not contained in this manuscript; it is cited to [42]. Since the paper explicitly describes itself as a summary, this is a reasonable division of labor, but it means that a reader cannot verify the 'most general' part from the present text alone.

major comments (1)

[Abstract and §3.2.1] The phrase 'most general metric' should be understood strictly within the generic class defined by assumption (iv), and the current wording is open to over-reading. In particular, the non-generic branches with λ≠0—such as |y_1|=|y_2| or dy_i=0—are not covered here and are deferred to [61]; the λ=0 case in [35] did not need (iv). I recommend that the abstract and the theorem statement in §3.2.1 explicitly say 'most general within the generic class (i)–(iv)' and add a sentence noting that non-generic λ≠0 cases are not treated in this paper. This is a scoping issue rather than a mathematical error, but it is load-bearing for the maximality claim.

minor comments (4)

[§3.2.1] The sentence 'Metrics (9) are of constant curvature iff μ=0, which demonstrates that they belong to the Kerr-Schild class' is logically incomplete: constant curvature of the μ=0 subfamily does not by itself demonstrate that the full family is Kerr-Schild. Please state directly that (9) is a Kerr-Schild metric, or cite the explicit Kerr-Schild form in [42].
[Abstract and §3.2.1] The abstract mentions 'one discrete (normalized) and three continuous parameters', while Eq. (10) contains λ, Û_0, c_0, d_0, μ with a scaling freedom. Please clarify which combination is the discrete normalized parameter and how λ is counted, so that the parameter count is unambiguous.
[§3.2.1] The uniqueness theorem is presented as a result from [42] without a theorem-like statement or a precise pointer to the relevant theorem/proposition in [42]. For a summary paper this is acceptable, but adding a labeled 'Theorem (from [42])' would make the provenance and the hypotheses cleaner for the reader.
[References] Reference [61] is given as 'To appear'. If possible, update it to include the arXiv number or journal data; otherwise the reader cannot locate the non-generic classification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the claimed classification is cited to the authors' published companion paper [42], and the assumptions do not encode the output metric.

full rationale

The paper is explicitly a summary of the authors' own [42], and the central classification statement is imported from that reference rather than re-derived here. That is a self-citation, but it is not a circular step in the technical sense: [42] is a separate published derivation, and the present text does not define assumptions (i)-(iv) in terms of the output metric (9). The generic optical-matrix assumption (iv) is a stated structural restriction, not a hidden restatement of the conclusion; the authors even acknowledge that dropping it requires separate work [61]. The type-D claim is reached by identifying metric (9) with a subfamily of the known Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family, so it is an external identification rather than a consequence of assuming type D. Similarly, the Kerr-Schild property is asserted via known results about the metric form, not derived by fitting parameters to the same claim. The only caveats are completeness limitations (the non-generic branches are deferred), which are correctness risks rather than circularity. No load-bearing step reduces to its own input by construction, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no fitted parameters or invented entities. The integration constants (Û0, c0, d0, μ) parameterize the solution family, not ad hoc inputs. The central theorem relies on the stated domain assumptions and on prior classification results, several from the same authors.

assumptions (8)

standard math Einstein equations R_ab=(n−1)λg_ab with n=6 (Eq. (1)).
Background field equations assumed throughout; the classification is for Einstein spacetimes.
domain assumption Weyl type II or more special, characterized by ℓ[e C a]b[cd ℓf] ℓb = 0 with mWAND ℓ (Eq. (2)).
This is the algebraic restriction defining the class being classified; not proven here.
domain assumption Optical matrix L_ij is non-degenerate, det L ≠ 0 (Eq. (3)).
Excludes degenerate optical-matrix cases (black strings, Kundt-type) and is required for the canonical form (8).
domain assumption Spatial Weyl components fall off as C_{ijkm}=o(r^{-2}) (Eq. (7)).
Fast fall-off at infinity; not automatic in n=6, unlike n=4,5; needed for the partial Goldberg-Sachs extension and the canonical L form.
ad hoc to paper Genericity of the optical matrix: |y1| ≠ |y2|, dy1 ≠ 0 ≠ dy2 (assumption (iv)).
Technical assumption enabling y_i as coordinates; directly restricts the scope of the 'most general' claim; non-generic branches are deferred to [61].
standard math Canonical form of the n=6 optical matrix under (i)-(iii) from [25,35,57] (Eq. (8)).
External theorem from prior literature reducing the optical matrix to two 2x2 blocks; accepted without proof here.
standard math Kerr-NUT-(A)dS family [20] is of type D [23].
Used to conclude type D for the constructed metrics once the local isometry to that family is asserted.
domain assumption The coordinate transformation showing local isometry to a Kerr-NUT-(A)dS subfamily is presented in [42].
The summary states this transformation exists but does not reproduce it; the identification with the known family rests on [42].

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On type II(D) Einstein spacetimes in six dimensions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NWXQHN4Y

@misc{pith2026260218074,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On type II(D) Einstein spacetimes in six dimensions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NWXQHN4Y}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2602.18074}
}

read the original abstract

After a concise overview of Einstein spacetimes of type II (or more special) in four and five dimensions, we summarize recent results in the six-dimensional case. We assume the optical matrix to be non-degenerate and ``generic'', and the Weyl tensor to fall off sufficiently rapidly at infinity. As it turns out, the most general metric is characterized by one discrete (normalized) and three continuous parameters, is of type D and belongs to the Kerr-Schild class. Its relation to the previously known Kerr-(A)dS and Kerr-NUT-(A)dS metrics is clarified.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

[42]

Rev.D112044050

Kokoˇ ska D and Ortaggio M 2025Phys. Rev.D112044050
[35]

Ortaggio M 2017JHEP06042
[61]

Kokoˇ ska D and Ortaggio M 2026 To appear

2026
[1]

Kerr R P 1963Phys. Rev. Lett.11237–238
[2]

Petrov A Z 1969Einstein Spacestranslation of the 1961 Russian ed (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

1961
[3]

Stephani H, Kramer D, MacCallum M, Hoenselaers C and Herlt E 2003Exact Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations2nd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[4]

Griffiths J B and Podolsk´ y J 2009Exact Space-Times in Einstein ’s General Relativity(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)
[5]

Lett.A26399–400

Carter B 1968Phys. Lett.A26399–400

Show all 74 references

[6]

Carter B 1968Commun. Math. Phys.10280–310
[7]

Kinnersley W 1969J. Math. Phys.101195–1203
[8]

Debever R 1971Bull. Soc. Math. Belg.23360–376
[9]

Carter B 1973Black holesed De Witt C and De Witt B S (New York: Gordon and Breach) pp 57–214
[10]

Physics90196–255

Pleba´ nski J F 1975Ann. Physics90196–255
[11]

Physics9898–127

Pleba´ nski J F and Demia´ nski M 1976Ann. Physics9898–127
[12]

Garc ´ ıa D ´ ıaz A 1984J. Math. Phys.251951–1954

1954
[13]

Debever R, Kamran N and McLenaghan R G 1984J. Math. Phys.251955–1972

1972
[14]

Quantum Grav.21L35–L41

Coley A, Milson R, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2004Class. Quantum Grav.21L35–L41
[15]

Tangherlini F R 1963Il Nuovo Cimento27636–651
[16]

Myers R C and Perry M J 1986Ann. Phys. (N.Y.)172304–347
[17]

Lett.B172175–179

Chakrabarti A 1986Phys. Lett.B172175–179
[18]

Rev.D59064005

Hawking S W, Hunter C J and Taylor-Robinson M M 1999Phys. Rev.D59064005
[19]

Gibbons G W, L¨ u H, Page D N and Pope C N 2005J. Geom. Phys.5349–73
[20]

Quantum Grav.235323–5340

Chen W, L¨ u H and Pope C N 2006Class. Quantum Grav.235323–5340
[21]

Quantum Grav.212873–2897 see also V

Pravda V, Pravdov´ a A, Coley A and Milson R 2004Class. Quantum Grav.212873–2897 see also V. Pravda, A. Pravdov´ a, A. Coley and R. MilsonClass. Quantum Grav.24(2007) 1691 (corrigendum)

2007
[22]

Coley A and Pelavas N 2006Gen. Rel. Grav.38445–461
[23]

Hamamoto N, Houri T, Oota T and Yasui Y 2007J. Phys. A40F177–F184
[24]

Quantum Grav.244407–4428

Pravda V, Pravdov´ a A and Ortaggio M 2007Class. Quantum Grav.244407–4428
[25]

Quantum Grav.26025008

Ortaggio M, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2009Class. Quantum Grav.26025008
[26]

Quantum Grav.26195010

Durkee M 2009Class. Quantum Grav.26195010
[27]

Quantum Grav.26245005

Durkee M and Reall H S 2009Class. Quantum Grav.26245005
[28]

Phys.: Conf

Garcia-Parrado G´ omez-Lobo A and Wylleman L 2011J. Phys.: Conf. Series314012024
[29]

Quantum Grav.29205002

Ortaggio M, Pravda V, Pravdov´ a A and Reall H S 2012Class. Quantum Grav.29205002
[30]

Quantum Grav.30075016

Ortaggio M, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2013Class. Quantum Grav.30075016
[31]

Quantum Grav.30055004

Reall H S, Graham A A H and Turner C P 2013Class. Quantum Grav.30055004
[32]

de Freitas G B, Godazgar M and Reall H S 2015Commun. Math. Phys.340291–323
[33]

Wylleman L 2015 (Preprint1511.02824)

2015 arXiv
[34]

Quantum Grav.33095002

de Freitas G B, Godazgar M and Reall H S 2016Class. Quantum Grav.33095002
[36]

Quantum Grav.35075004

Ortaggio M, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2018Class. Quantum Grav.35075004
[37]

Tintˇ era T and Pravda V 2019Gen. Rel. Grav.51111
[38]

Taghavi-Chabert A 2022Ann. Mat. Pura Appl.201655–693
[39]

Rev.D90104011

Ortaggio M and Pravdov´ a A 2014Phys. Rev.D90104011
[40]

Quantum Grav.241657–1664

Ortaggio M, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2007Class. Quantum Grav.241657–1664
[41]

Rev.D80084041

Ortaggio M, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2009Phys. Rev.D80084041
[43]

Quantum Grav.26195015

Ortaggio M 2009Class. Quantum Grav.26195015
[44]

Quantum Grav.28105006

Ortaggio M, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2011Class. Quantum Grav.28105006
[45]

Polon.Suppl.2213–23

Goldberg J N and Sachs R K 1962Acta Phys. Polon.Suppl.2213–23
[46]

Phys.16377–86

Kundt W 1961Z. Phys.16377–86
[47]

Kundt W 1962Proc. R. Soc.A270328–332
[48]

Sachs R 1961Proc. R. Soc.A264309–338
[49]

Newman E T and Penrose R 1962J. Math. Phys.3566–578 see also E. Newman and R. Penrose (1963), Errata,J. Math. Phys.4:998

1963
[50]

Robinson I and Trautman A 1962Proc. R. Soc.A265463–473
[51]

Ortaggio M 2007Proceedings of the XVII SIGRA V Conference (Torino, September 4–7, 2006)(Preprint gr-qc/0701036)

2006 arXiv
[52]

Quantum Grav.26165009

Godazgar M and Reall H S 2009Class. Quantum Grav.26165009
[53]

Kub ´ ıˇ cek J 2015Gravitace ve vyˇ sˇ s ´ ıch dimenz ´ ıchDiploma thesis Charles University in Prague
[54]

Rev.D68064011

Frolov V P and Stojkovi´ c D 2003Phys. Rev.D68064011
[55]

Quantum Grav.212937–2961

Mann R and Stelea C 2004Class. Quantum Grav.212937–2961
[56]

Quantum Grav.235785–5797

Podolsk´ y J and Ortaggio M 2006Class. Quantum Grav.235785–5797
[57]

Rev.D82064043

Ortaggio M, Pravda V and Pravdov´ a A 2010Phys. Rev.D82064043
[58]

Rev.D85084021

Godazgar M and Reall H S 2012Phys. Rev.D85084021
[59]

Quantum Grav.17L17–L30

Ashtekar A and Das S 2000Class. Quantum Grav.17L17–L30
[60]

Quantum Grav.28125011

M´ alek T and Pravda V 2011Class. Quantum Grav.28125011
[62]

Monteiro R, O’Connell D and White C D 2014JHEP12056
[63]

Bahjat-Abbas N, Luna A and White C D 2017JHEP12004
[64]

Carrillo-Gonz´ alez M, Penco R and Trodden M 2018JHEP04028
[65]

Lett.B658158–163

Chen W and L¨ u H 2008Phys. Lett.B658158–163
[66]

Rev.D76084035

Krtouˇ s P 2007Phys. Rev.D76084035
[67]

Quantum Grav.244669–4678

Aliev A 2007Class. Quantum Grav.244669–4678
[68]

Rev.D75084041

Aliev A 2007Phys. Rev.D75084041
[69]

Lett.B771254–256

Frolov V P, Krtouˇ s P and Kubizˇ n´ ak D 2017Phys. Lett.B771254–256
[70]

Chawla S and Keeler C 2023JHEP04005
[71]

Rev.D110044035

Ortaggio M and Srinivasan A 2024Phys. Rev.D110044035
[72]

Rev.D105044027

Mars M and Pe´ on-Nieto C 2022Phys. Rev.D105044027
[73]

Quantum Grav.42155007

Chru´ sciel P T, Cong W and Gray F 2025Class. Quantum Grav.42155007
[74]

Rev.D576127–6137 see also D

Klemm D, Moretti V and Vanzo L 1998Phys. Rev.D576127–6137 see also D. Klemm, V. Moretti, and L. Vanzo (1999), Erratum: Rotating topological black holes [Phys. Rev. D 57, 6127 (1998)],Phys. Rev.D 60:109902

1999

Pith tools

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

[1] [42]

Rev.D112044050

Kokoˇ ska D and Ortaggio M 2025Phys. Rev.D112044050

[2] [35]

Ortaggio M 2017JHEP06042

[3] [61]

Kokoˇ ska D and Ortaggio M 2026 To appear

2026

[4] [1]

Kerr R P 1963Phys. Rev. Lett.11237–238

[5] [2]

Petrov A Z 1969Einstein Spacestranslation of the 1961 Russian ed (Oxford: Pergamon Press)

1961

[6] [3]

Stephani H, Kramer D, MacCallum M, Hoenselaers C and Herlt E 2003Exact Solutions of Einstein ’s Field Equations2nd ed (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

[7] [4]

Griffiths J B and Podolsk´ y J 2009Exact Space-Times in Einstein ’s General Relativity(Cambridge: Cambridge University Press)

[8] [5]

Lett.A26399–400

Carter B 1968Phys. Lett.A26399–400