Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 97 references

Orbital Motion in Spacetimes Influenced by the Presence of Scalar and Electromagnetic Fields

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A sufficiently strong scalar field can turn the neighborhood of a naked singularity into a stable-orbit zone, and with added electric charge create two photon orbits—one stable, one unstable.

desk verdict A useful frequency catalogue for exotic spacetimes, but the JNWM stability boundary rests on a wrong derivative identity. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.13538 v1 pith:RIJXQLRF submitted 2025-01-23 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

J. Horák , T. Tahamtan , T. Hale , G. Török , A. Kotrlová , E. Šrámková This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE PACS 04.20.Jb04.70.Bw
keywords exactsolutionscalarfieldnakedsingularityphotonorbitsepicyclicfrequenciesorbitalstabilityaccretiondisknonlinearelectrodynamics
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 tries to establish that the orbital motion of uncharged test particles around compact objects with scalar and electromagnetic hair diverges qualitatively from the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordström baselines. Working in four exact spacetimes—the Janis-Newman-Winicour (JNW), Janis-Newman-Winicour-Maxwell (JNWM), square-root nonlinear electrodynamics, and Schwarzschild-Melvin solutions—it shows that weak scalar and electromagnetic charges act in nearly interchangeable ways, moving photon and marginally stable orbits inward. The central new claim is that a sufficiently strong scalar field changes the sign of the Keplerian angular-momentum gradient near the singularity, so stable circular orbits appear arbitrarily close to it; in the charged JNWM case the same regime can also host two photon orbits, one stable and one unstable, bounding a forbidden gap. This matters because the three geodesic frequencies are the input to quasi-periodic oscillation models and thin-disk spectra, so these effects would be observable as deviations from standard black-hole predictions if such spacetimes exist.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the profile of the Keplerian specific angular momentum $\ell_K(r)$ and its radial derivative. Stability is governed by the Rayleigh-type criterion $\Omega_r^2=g^{rr}\,(-g_{tt})'\,(\ln\ell_K)'$: circular geodesics are stable where $\ell_K$ increases outward, and the marginally stable orbits sit at $\ell_K'=0$. Photon orbits are located by the extrema of the circumferential radius $\tilde r=\sqrt{-g_{\phi\phi}/g_{tt}}=R/\sqrt{f}$, with a minimum giving an unstable photon orbit and a maximum a stable one; in the JNWM spacetime these extrema are encoded in the auxiliary function $y(r)$, whose crossings of $y=2$ mark the photon orbits. The same quantities are reinterpreted in optical geometry through the geodesic radius $\hat r$ and curvature radius $\mathcal R$, giving the geometric relation $\Omega_r^2=(\tilde r^2/\mathcal R^2)(d\mathcal R/d\hat r)\,\Omega_K^2$ used to draw the embedding diagrams.

What would settle it

For $C_0=1.25M$ and $q=0.9M$ in the JNWM metric, the paper predicts photon orbits at $R=0.900m$ and $1.539m$ and a marginally stable orbit at $4.036m$; numerically integrating the null and timelike geodesic equations to locate the actual photon spheres and the stability boundary would confirm or refute those radii directly.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the JNWM spacetime, the paper claims that the scalar-field strength $C_0$ and electric charge $q$ together determine the number of photon orbits and marginally stable orbits. When $C_0>\sqrt{3/2}\,M$ and $q>q^*_{\rm ph}$, the metric contains two circular photon orbits—the inner one stable, the outer one unstable—with a band between them in which no circular time-like geodesics exist. In the same family, when $C_0>\sqrt{8/5}\,M$ and $q<q^*_{\rm ms}$, the Keplerian angular momentum increases monotonically everywhere outside the singularity, so every time-like circular geodesic is stable and an accretion disk can in principle reach the singularity. The uncharged JNW limit shows the same phenomenon without the photon pair: for $C_0>\sqrt{8/5}\,M$, $\ell_K(r)$ has no extrema and all circular geodesics are stable, while for $\sqrt{3/2}\,M<C_0<\sqrt{8/5}\,M$ two marginally stable orbits enclose a narrow band of unstable orbits. The paper also claims that the electromagnetic field alone does not cause these reversals but shifts and enlarges the intermediate unstable region, and that the optical-geometry embedding diagrams make the stable and unstable bands visually transparent.

Load-bearing premise

The orbit classification stands on the adopted JNWM exact solution and its parameter constraints $C_1=4q^2/C_2$ and $(C_1-C_2)^2=4M^2\nu^2$; if that solution is not the correct physical geometry, the two-photon and fully-stable regions do not follow.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A naked-singularity compact object with $C_0>\sqrt{8/5}\,M$ (and in the JNWM case also $q<q^*_{\rm ms}$) would let a thin disk extend to the singularity, raising the accretion efficiency toward 100 percent instead of the Schwarzschild value of about 5.7 percent.
  • In the two-photon-orbit regime of JNWM ($C_0>\sqrt{3/2}\,M$, $q>q^*_{\rm ph}$), matter cannot maintain circular motion between the photon orbits, so accretion across that gap must be supersonic and requires angular-momentum removal by large-scale magnetic fields, radiation, or outflows.
  • Because the radial epicyclic frequency is non-monotonic outside the outer marginally stable orbit, these spacetimes support trapped axisymmetric g-mode oscillations in thin disks, so QPO frequency correlations could probe scalar-field strength.
  • Along a contour of fixed marginally stable orbit radius, scalar charge and electric charge give almost indistinguishable frequency profiles; only the strong-scalar regime ($C_0>\sqrt{3/2}\,M$) breaks the degeneracy and gives an unambiguous observational signature.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same sign-reversal mechanism should appear in any spherically symmetric naked-singularity solution whose effective potential makes $\ell_K(r)$ turn over near the center; checking this against other scalar-hair solutions would show whether the JNWM behavior is generic.
  • Beyond the paper, the stable inner photon orbit in JNWM can trap gravitational radiation, so a sufficiently dense accumulation of waves could drive nonlinear collapse; this gives a dynamical instability channel not discussed in the paper.
  • Beyond the paper, the predicted divergence of disk temperature near the singularity for $C_0>\sqrt{8/5}\,M$ could be tested with spectral hardening calculations: the high-energy tail of the emission would depart strongly from the Newtonian $(R/m)^{-3/4}$ profile before the flux integral converges.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies circular and epicyclic motion of uncharged test particles in four families of static spacetimes: the Janis-Newman-Winicour (JNW) naked-singularity solution, its Einstein-Maxwell generalization (JNWM), a nonlinear-electrodynamics 'square-root' solution, and the Schwarzschild-Melvin magnetic universe. The authors derive explicit formulas for the Keplerian orbital frequency, the radial epicyclic frequency, photon orbits, and marginally stable orbits, and they use these to classify the existence and stability regions of time-like circular geodesics. The central qualitative claims are that a strong scalar field suppresses the ordinary photon orbit in JNW spacetimes and that in JNWM spacetimes with sufficiently strong scalar field and suitable charge the geometry can host two photon orbits, or two marginally stable orbits, or a region where all circular geodesics outside the singularity are stable. The paper also discusses accretion-disk implications and visualizes the orbital structure with optical-geometry embedding diagrams.

Significance. If the results were fully correct, the paper would be a useful reference for epicyclic frequencies and orbital stability in scalar-field and nonlinear-electrodynamics spacetimes, with direct relevance to QPO models, accretion-disk theory, and observational discrimination between black holes and naked singularities. The derivations are analytic and parameter-free in the sense that no fitted constants enter the geodesic-frequency formulas; the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom limits are recovered correctly, and the paper provides several explicit formulas and classification diagrams. The use of optical geometry gives an elegant, quantitative way to connect photon orbits, marginally stable orbits, and regions of stable/unstable geodesic motion. However, the manuscript contains a concrete algebraic error in the JNWM radial epicyclic frequency that undermines the quantitative boundary curves and the 'all-stable region' claim; the qualitative two-photon-orbit result is not affected, but the stability classification and the associated figures and discussion require reworking.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Eq. (4.17)] The identity stated immediately after Eq. (4.17), d ln y/d ln r = 1 - (q/R)^2, is incorrect. Direct differentiation of y(r) defined in Eq. (4.14), using x' = ν M x/(r^2 - M^2) and R^2 = (r^2 - M^2)/f, gives d ln y/d ln r = 1 - q^2 y/R^2, not 1 - (q/R)^2; the two expressions agree only where y = 1, which is not satisfied on the orbits of interest. For the paper's own example q = 0.9M, C0 = 1.25M, r = 3M, the correct value is approximately 0.80, whereas 1 - (q/R)^2 is approximately 0.95. Because this derivative appears inside the argument of Omega_r^2 in Eq. (4.17), and because the curve q*_ms(nu) in Fig. 4 is defined by numerically locating the zeros of this Omega_r^2, the boundary of the dashed 'all stable' region and the statement in Sec. IV.B and the abstract that for q < q*_ms and C0 > sqrt(8/5)M all time-like circular geodesics outside the singularity are stable are not supported by the published equations. The photon-orbit classification in Sec. IV.A, which uses y = 2 and y' = 0 directly, is not affected by this error.
  2. [Sec. IV.C and Figs. 5-6] The incorrect derivative in Eq. (4.17) propagates into the radial profiles of Omega_r shown in the right panel of Fig. 5 and into the bottom panel of Fig. 6, where the near-degeneracy of the orbital frequencies along the contour R_ms = 4.5m is used to conclude that scalar and electromagnetic field effects are 'seemingly interchangeable' at lower intensities. These conclusions should be re-derived with the correct expression for d ln y/d ln r. Until this is done, the quantitative content of Sec. IV.C and the associated figures cannot be considered reliable, even though the qualitative picture of two photon orbits may remain intact.
  3. [Sec. II.B and Sec. VI] Equation (2.14) is introduced in Section II for spherically symmetric spacetimes, but it is applied in Section VI to the axisymmetric Schwarzschild-Melvin metric. The formula itself is standard for stationary axisymmetric spacetimes, so this is not a fatal issue, but the manuscript should state explicitly that the derivation via the effective potential in Eq. (2.12) applies to that broader class; as written, the reader is left with a gap between the stated assumptions of Section II and the usage in Section VI.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. VII] In the second paragraph of the Discussion, the threshold 'C0 = sqrt(8/4)M' appears to be a typo for 'C0 = sqrt(8/5)M'; as printed it is inconsistent with the thresholds used in Secs. III and IV.
  2. [Abstract and Introduction] There are several misspellings of proper names: 'Schwarzschild-Melvine' in the abstract should be 'Schwarzschild-Melvin', 'Rezolla' in the introduction should be 'Rezzolla', and 'Newmann' should be 'Newman'. The figure labels 'Reisner-Nordstrom' should also be 'Reissner-Nordstrom'.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (4.7)-(4.8)] The constraints C1 = 4q^2/C2, (C1-C2)^2 = 4 M^2 nu^2, and C1,2 = 2m ∓ nu M are adopted from Ref. [44] without re-derivation. While this is legitimate input, the paper should state more explicitly that all orbital results in Sec. IV inherit the validity of that exact solution; a one-sentence note would make the dependence clear.
  4. [Sec. II, Eqs. (2.5) and (2.14)] The notation in Eq. (2.5) is compressed: the derivative with respect to r inside the parentheses is not written in full, and the sign/convention for E_K^2 and L_K^2 is only implied. Expanding these definitions would improve readability without changing the results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: epicyclic frequencies and orbit classifications are algebraic consequences of stated metrics; the self-cited JNWM solution is input, not a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained from Sec. II onward: Eqs. (2.7)-(2.20) follow from the geodesic equation for the general spherically symmetric metric (2.1), and Secs. III and IV are algebraic substitutions of the JNW and JNWM metric functions into those general formulas. Photon orbits are located by the condition that E_K^2 and L_K^2 diverge (y = 2 in Eq. (4.14)), and marginally stable orbits are located by Omega_r^2 = 0 through Eq. (4.17); both are roots of derived equations, not fitted parameters renamed as predictions. The JNWM solution and its parameter constraints (Eqs. (4.7)-(4.8)) are taken from prior work, including the authors' own Ref. [44], but this is stated input: an exact solution with stated assumptions, not a result whose derivation is claimed in this paper. The self-citations are not used as a uniqueness theorem, do not forbid alternative solutions, and do not enter the algebra that produces the orbit classification. The skeptic's concern about Eq. (4.17), namely the identity d ln y / d ln r = 1 - (q/R)^2, is a mathematical-correctness issue if correct; it is not a circularity issue, because the identity is not obtained by fitting data or by assuming the conclusion. The same holds for applying the epicyclic formalism to non-asymptotically flat spacetimes: that is a validity assumption, not a circular step. Therefore no circularity steps are identified; the minor self-citations present are not load-bearing.

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

No parameters are fitted to data; the model parameters (M, C0, q, q_m, B) are physical constants of the adopted exact solutions. The central claim depends on the exactness of four spacetime solutions taken from prior literature, including the authors' own work, and on the standard geodesic perturbation formalism. No new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

assumptions (6)
  • standard math The metric ansatz (2.1) with positive f and circumferential radius R describes a general spherically symmetric spacetime; geodesic and normalization equations (2.2)-(2.8) govern circular orbits.
    Used as the basis for all orbital formulas in Secs. III-V.
  • standard math Small perturbations of circular geodesics obey the linearized geodesic equation (2.10), giving epicyclic frequencies (2.14) and the Rayleigh criterion (2.20).
    Basis of all stability claims and the definition of marginally stable orbits.
  • domain assumption The JNW solution (3.1)-(3.2) is an exact solution of Einstein's equations with a massless scalar field (Fisher 1948; Janis-Newman-Winicour 1968).
    Adopted as input; the paper does not re-derive the solution.
  • domain assumption The JNWM solution (4.1)-(4.4) with constraints C1=4q^2/C2 and (C1-C2)^2=4M^2nu^2 is an exact solution of the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar system (Tahamtan 2020).
    Underpins all Sec. IV results; not verified within the paper.
  • domain assumption The square-root nonlinear electrodynamics solution (5.2)-(5.3) with alpha=1-q_m/sqrt(2) is an exact solution (Tahamtan 2020).
    Input for Sec. V; the paper does not derive it.
  • domain assumption The Schwarzschild-Melvin metric (6.1) generated by an Ernst transformation is an exact solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations (Ernst 1976; Ortaggio 2004).
    Input for Sec. VI; the paper relies on prior derivation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Orbital Motion in Spacetimes Influenced by the Presence of Scalar and Electromagnetic Fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RIJXQLRF

@misc{pith2026250113538,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Orbital Motion in Spacetimes Influenced by the Presence of Scalar and Electromagnetic Fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RIJXQLRF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.13538}
}
read the original abstract

The study investigates orbital motion of test particles near compact objects described by solutions involving massless scalar fields, electromagnetic fields, and nonlinear electrodynamics. Specifically, we analyze orbital dynamics in the Janis-Newman-Winicour, Janis-Newman-Winicour-Maxwell, Schwarzschild-Melvin, and Bonnor-Melvin spacetimes, comparing the results with those obtained for the Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m solutions. We examine the stability of circular orbits and the behavior of epicyclic frequencies under varying physical parameters. Our analysis shows that in certain cases the central object transitions into a naked singularity. Deviations from classical Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m solutions reveal conditions for the existence of multiple photon orbits or marginally stable orbits. In some instances, the geometry allows the presence of two photon orbits -- one stable and one unstable -- with an interesting connection to the region of stable orbits. We find that at lower intensities, the effects of the scalar field and electromagnetic fields are comparable and seemingly interchangeable. However, for a sufficiently strong scalar field, its influence becomes dominant, leading to the emergence of a distinct region of stable orbits near the naked singularity. These effects are illustrated within the framework of optical geometry using embedding diagrams.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.13538 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Equatorial cut of the optical space corresponding to the square-root model of the nonlinear electrodynamics with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Keplerian angular momentum ℓK(left), Keplerian orbital velocity ΩK(middle) and the radial epicyclic frequency Ωr(right) in JNW spacetime as functions of the metric function R. All quantities are normalized by the ADM mass m. The value µ = 1 (black curves) corresponds to the Schwarzschild spacetime with the photon orbit and marginally stable orbit located at R = 3m and Rms = 6m. The position of the marginally stable … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Position of photon orbits (thin lines) and marginally [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Occurrence of the photon and marginally stable or [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Keplerian specific angular momentum (left), Keplerian angular velocity (middle) and the radial epicyclic frequency (right) normalized by the ADM mass m as functions of the metric function R. Four cases corresponding to the same electric charge q = 0.9M and different sc…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Top: The parameter space of the JNWM spacetime for charge and scalar-field strength expressed in units of the ADM mass m. The solid black contours show positions of the (outer) marginally stable orbits measured by the metric func￾tion R and normalized by m. The shaded …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Keplerian specific angular momentum ℓK for the square root Lagrangian for different values of the param￾eter α, where α = 1 corresponds to Schwarzschild spacetime. The marginally-stable orbits are denoted by a cross, and the vertical dotted gray line marks r = 6M.…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Positions of the circular photon orbits in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Keplerian angular momentum ℓK (left panels), Keplerian angular velocity ΩK (middle panels) and the radial epicyclic frequency Ωr (right panels) as functions of the radial coordinate r. The upper panels shows several cases that correspond to a fixed black-hole mass and …
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Embedding diagrams of the optical spaces corre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Relation between properties of Keplerian circu [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Top: Efficiency of a thin accretion disk in the JNWM spacetime as a function of the scalar-field strength and several values of the electric charge. The value C0 = 0 char￾acterizes Reisner-Nördstrom black hole, higher values corre￾spond to naked singularities. The ove…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Accretion scenario in the case of the JNW and JNWM spacetimes, whose parameters give a non-monotonic behavior [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The Misner-Sharp mass calculated for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p024_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

97 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [44]

    Rayimbaev, A

    J. Rayimbaev, A. H. Bokhari, and B. Ahmedov, Classical and Quantum Gravity39, 075021 (2022)

    2022

  2. [1]

    In this case, y(r) reaches the valuey = 2 at a single point

    y(M) < 2: This situation arises when ν > 1, or equivalentlyC0 < √ 3/2M. In this case, y(r) reaches the valuey = 2 at a single point. Con- sequently, the spacetime contains a single photon orbit outside the singularity. Circular orbits of un- accelerated test particles exist only above this or- bit. Inside, particles necessarily have nonzero ra- dial compo...

  3. [2]

    Consequently, there are two photon orbits outside the singularity

    y(M) > 2 but y(rmin) < 2: In this case, y(r) in- tersects the y = 2 line at two points, on either side of the minimumr =rmin. Consequently, there are two photon orbits outside the singularity. Test particles may orbit the central singularity circu- larly only inside the inner photon orbit or outside the outer one. In between, no circular time-like geodesi...

  4. [3]

    Time-like circu- lar geodesics exist in the whole domain outside the singularity (except for this particular radius)

    y(M) > 2 and y(rmin) = 2: In this case,y(r) just touches the y = 2 line at a single pointr∗ ph that coincides with the minimumrmin. Time-like circu- lar geodesics exist in the whole domain outside the singularity (except for this particular radius). 0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 √ 3/2 √ 2 C0 [M ] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9r [M ] q = 0 q = 0 q = 1.0M q = 1 .0M q = 1.4M q = 1...

  5. [4]

    Consequently, no photon orbits exist in the spacetime, and time-like circular geodesics are possible throughout the entire domainr>M

    y(rmin)> 2: In this case,y(r) is always above the y = 2 line. Consequently, no photon orbits exist in the spacetime, and time-like circular geodesics are possible throughout the entire domainr>M . Thecases2-4occurforratherstrongscalarfields, when ν <1, corresponding to √ 3/2M < C0 < √ 2M. In the following, we elaborate the limit case 3 in more detail. The...

  6. [5]

    square-root

    In the opposite limitν→ 0 (or C0→ √ 2M), q∗ ms approaches q∗ ms,max = 1.085M. Consequently, entirely stable orbits may exist only in the JNWM spacetimes with charges lower than this value. C. Geodesic orbital motion In this section, we analyze the behavior of specific an- gular momentum, as well as the Keplerian and radial epicyclic frequencies, for the f...

  7. [6]

    Bonnor–Melvin Universe

    The Schwarzschild solution is re- covered in the limit ofqm = 0, corresponding toα = 1, as should be expected in the absence of a source of the electromagnetic field. Obviously, for positive values ofα, f(r) has one root,r0, which can be considered an event horizon. The α parameter should be positive and is re- lated to the solid angle deficit/excess (it ...

  8. [7]

    van der Klis, ARAA 38, 717 (2000), astro- ph/0001167

    M. van der Klis, ARAA 38, 717 (2000), astro- ph/0001167

    work page arXiv 2000

Show all 97 references
  1. [8]

    R. A. Remillard and J. E. McClintock, ARAA44, 49 (2006), astro-ph/0606352

    2006 arXiv

  2. [9]

    A. R. Ingram and S. E. Motta, NAR85, 101524 (2019), 2001.08758. 25

    2019 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Gilfanov, E

    M. Gilfanov, E. Churazov, and M. Revnivtsev, MNRAS 316, 923 (2000), astro-ph/0001450

    2000 arXiv

  4. [11]

    M. A. Abramowicz, W. Kluźniak, J. E. McClintock, and R. A. Remillard, ApJL 609, L63 (2004), astro- ph/0402012

    2004

  5. [12]

    Goluchová, G

    K. Goluchová, G. Török, E. Šrámková, M. A. Abramow- icz, Z. Stuchlík, and J. Horák, A&A 622, L8 (2019), 1901.05419

    2019 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Belloni, M

    T. Belloni, M. Méndez, and J. Homan, A&A437, 209 (2005), astro-ph/0501186

    2005 arXiv

  7. [14]

    M. A. Abramowicz, T. Bulik, M. Bursa, and W. Kluź- niak, A&A404, L21 (2003), astro-ph/0206490

    2003 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Török, M

    G. Török, M. A. Abramowicz, P. Bakala, M. Bursa, J. Horák, W. Kluzniak, P. Rebusco, and Z. Stuchlik, AC- TAA58, 15 (2008), 0802.4070

    2008 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Torok, P

    G. Torok, P. Bakala, Z. Stuchlik, and P. Cech, ACTAA 58, 1 (2008)

    2008

  10. [17]

    Boutelier, D

    M. Boutelier, D. Barret, Y. Lin, and G. Török, MNRAS 401, 1290 (2010), 0909.2990

    2010 arXiv

  11. [18]

    T. M. Belloni, A. Sanna, and M. Méndez, MNRAS426, 1701 (2012), 1207.2311

    2012 arXiv

  12. [19]

    S. E. Motta, T. Munoz-Darias, A. Sanna, R. Fender, T. Belloni, and L. Stella, MNRAS 439, L65 (2014), 1312.3114

    2014 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Varniere and J

    P. Varniere and J. Rodriguez, Astrophys. J.865, 113 (2018), 1808.06823

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 17 (1999), astro-ph/9812124

    1999 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Rezzolla, S

    L. Rezzolla, S. Yoshida, T. J. Maccarone, and O. Zanotti, MNRAS 344, L37 (2003), astro-ph/0307487

    2003 arXiv

  16. [23]

    O. M. Blaes, P. Arras, and P. C. Fragile, MNRAS369, 1235 (2006), astro-ph/0601379

    2006 arXiv

  17. [24]

    M. A. Abramowicz, O. M. Blaes, J. Horák, W. Kluzniak, andP.Rebusco, ClassicalandQuantumGravity 23, 1689 (2006), astro-ph/0511375

    2006 arXiv

  18. [25]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Kluźniak, A&A 374, L19 (2001), astro-ph/0105077

    2001 arXiv

  19. [26]

    M. A. Abramowicz, V. Karas, W. Kluzniak, W. H. Lee, and P. Rebusco, PASJ55, 467 (2003), astro-ph/0302183

    2003 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Kluzniak and M

    W. Kluzniak and M. A. Abramowicz, arXiv e-prints astro-ph/0203314 (2002), astro-ph/0203314

    2002 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Horák, A&A486, 1 (2008), 0805.2059

    J. Horák, A&A486, 1 (2008), 0805.2059

    2008 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Kato, PASJ53, 1 (2001)

    S. Kato, PASJ53, 1 (2001)

    2001

  23. [30]

    Lai and D

    D. Lai and D. Tsang, MNRAS 393, 979 (2009), 0810.0203

    2009 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Horák and D

    J. Horák and D. Lai, MNRAS 434, 2761 (2013), 1307.8077

    2013 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Kato, PASJ56, 905 (2004), astro-ph/0409051

    S. Kato, PASJ56, 905 (2004), astro-ph/0409051

    2004 arXiv

  26. [33]

    B. T. Ferreira and G. I. Ogilvie, MNRAS 386, 2297 (2008), 0803.1671

    2008 arXiv

  27. [34]

    A. T. Okazaki, S. Kato, and J. Fukue, PASJ39, 457 (1987)

    1987

  28. [35]

    M. A. Nowak and R. V. Wagoner, Astrophys. J.393, 697 (1992)

    1992

  29. [36]

    R. V. Wagoner, A. S. Silbergleit, and M. Ortega- Rodríguez, ApJL559, L25 (2001), astro-ph/0107168

    2001 arXiv

  30. [37]

    Török and Z

    G. Török and Z. Stuchlík, A&A437, 775 (2005), astro- ph/0502127

    2005

  31. [38]

    Kotrlová, Z

    A. Kotrlová, Z. Stuchlík, and G. Török, Classical and Quantum Gravity25, 225016 (2008), 0812.0720

    2008 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Rayimbaev, A

    J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, and H. Wen-Biao, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104070 (2021)

    2021

  33. [40]

    Deligianni, J

    E. Deligianni, J. Kunz, P. Nedkova, S. Yazadjiev, and R. Zheleva, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024048 (2021), 2103.13504

    2021 arXiv

  34. [41]

    Deligianni, B

    E. Deligianni, B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, P. Nedkova, and S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D 104, 064043 (2021), 2107.01421

    2021 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Stuchlík and J

    Z. Stuchlík and J. Vrba, Universe 7, 279 (2021), 2108.09562

    2021 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Stuchlík and J

    Z. Stuchlík and J. Vrba, European Physical Journal Plus 136, 1127 (2021), 2110.10569

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    De Falco, F

    V. De Falco, F. Bajardi, R. D’Agostino, M. Benetti, and S. Capozziello, European Physical Journal C 83, 456 (2023), 2305.04695

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Rayimbaev, K

    J. Rayimbaev, K. F. Dialektopoulos, F. Sarikulov, and A. Abdujabbarov, European Physical Journal C83, 572 (2023), 2307.03019

    2023 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Shahzadi, M

    M. Shahzadi, M. Kološ, R. Saleem, and Z. Stuchlík, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 075014 (2024), 2309.09712

    2024 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Semerák and M

    O. Semerák and M. Zácek, Classical and Quantum Grav- ity 17, 1613 (2000)

    2000

  41. [49]

    Semerák and M

    O. Semerák and M. Žáček, Publ. Astron. Soc. Japan52, 1067 (2000)

    2000

  42. [50]

    Tahamtan, Phys

    T. Tahamtan, Phys. Rev. D 101, 124023 (2020), 2006.02810

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Tahamtan, inProceedings of RAGtime 20–22:Work- shops on black holes and neutron stars , edited by G

    T. Tahamtan, inProceedings of RAGtime 20–22:Work- shops on black holes and neutron stars , edited by G. T. Z. Stuchlík and V. Karas (Institute of Physics in Opava No. 9, 2018-2019-2020), ISBN 978-80- 7510-433-5, URL https://proceedings.physics.cz/ wp-content/uploads/2021/04/tah.pdf

    2018

  44. [52]

    M. F. Shirokov, General Relativity and Gravitation4, 131 (1973)

    1973

  45. [53]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Galtsov, General Relativity and Gravitation 13, 899 (1981)

    1981

  46. [54]

    Kato, PASJ42, 99 (1990)

    S. Kato, PASJ42, 99 (1990)

    1990

  47. [55]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Kluźniak, APSS300, 127 (2005), astro-ph/0411709

    2005 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kerner, J

    R. Kerner, J. W. van Holten, and J. Colistete, R., Classical and Quantum Gravity 18, 4725 (2001), gr- qc/0102099

    2001

  49. [57]

    M. A. Abramowicz, J. C. Miller, and Z. Stuchlík, Phys. Rev. D 47, 1440 (1993)

    1993

  50. [58]

    M. A. Abramowicz, ACTAA21, 81 (1971)

    1971

  51. [59]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Kluźniak, General Relativity and Gravitation35, 69 (2003), gr-qc/0206063

    2003 arXiv

  52. [60]

    M. A. Abramowicz, B. Carter, and J. P. Lasota, General Relativity and Gravitation20, 1173 (1988)

    1988

  53. [61]

    Keir, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 135009 (2016), 1404.7036

    J. Keir, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 135009 (2016), 1404.7036

    2016 arXiv

  54. [62]

    A. I. Janis, E. T. Newman, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. Lett. 20, 878 (1968)

    1968

  55. [63]

    I. Z. Fisher, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz. 18, 636 (1948), gr- qc/9911008

    1948

  56. [64]

    Svítek, T

    O. Svítek, T. Tahamtan, and A. Zampeli, Annals Phys. 418, 168195 (2020), 1606.05635

    2020 arXiv

  57. [65]

    K. S. Virbhadra and G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D 65, 103004 (2002), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.65.103004

    2002 doi

  58. [66]

    K. S. Virbhadra, D. Narasimha, and S. M. Chitre, Astronomy and Astrophysics 337, 1 (1998), astro- ph/9801174

    1998

  59. [67]

    A. N. Chowdhury, M. Patil, D. Malafarina, and P. S. Joshi, Phys. Rev. D85, 104031 (2012), URL https:// link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.85.104031. 26

    2012 doi

  60. [68]

    Ghosh, T

    S. Ghosh, T. Sarkar, and A. Bhadra, Phys. Rev. D 92, 083010 (2015), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.083010

    2015 doi

  61. [69]

    Gyulchev, P

    G. Gyulchev, P. Nedkova, T. Vetsov, and S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D100, 024055 (2019), URLhttps://link. aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.100.024055

    2019 doi

  62. [70]

    S. Sau, I. Banerjee, and S. SenGupta, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064027 (2020), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.064027

    2020 doi

  63. [71]

    Mirza, P

    B. Mirza, P. K. Kangazi, and F. Sadeghi, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1161 (2023), 2307.13588

    2023 arXiv

  64. [72]

    A.Azizallahi, B.Mirza, A.Hajibarat, andH.Anjomshoa, Nuclear Physics B 998, 116414 (2024), ISSN 0550- 3213, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/S0550321323003413

    2024

  65. [73]

    A. I. Janis, D. C. Robinson, and J. Winicour, Phys. Rev. 186, 1729 (1969)

    1969

  66. [74]

    Penney, Phys

    R. Penney, Phys. Rev.182, 1383 (1969), URL https: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRev.182.1383

    1969 doi

  67. [75]

    A. F. F. Teixeira, I. Wolk, and M. M. Som, Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General9, 53 (1976)

    1976

  68. [76]

    Banerjee and S

    A. Banerjee and S. B. D. Choudhury, Phys. Rev. D 15, 3062 (1977), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.15.3062

    1977

  69. [77]

    D. P. Sorokin, Fortsch. Phys. 70, 2200092 (2022), 2112.12118

    2022 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Boillat, J

    G. Boillat, J. Math. Phys.11, 941 (1970)

    1970

  71. [79]

    Born and L

    M. Born and L. Infeld, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Containing Papers of a Mathemat- ical and Physical Character144, 425 (1934)

    1934

  72. [80]

    P. S. Letelier, Phys. Rev. D20, 1294 (1979), URLhttps: //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD.20.1294

    1979 doi

  73. [81]

    Barriola and A

    M. Barriola and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 341 (1989), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.63.341

    1989

  74. [83]

    Tahamtan and O

    T. Tahamtan and O. Svitek, Eur. Phys. J.C74, 2987 (2014), 1312.7806

    2014 arXiv

  75. [84]

    Svitek and T

    O. Svitek and T. Tahamtan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 48, 22 (2016), 1406.6334

    2016 arXiv

  76. [85]

    Novello, V

    M. Novello, V. A. De Lorenci, J. M. Salim, and R. Klip- pert, Phys. Rev. D61, 045001 (2000), gr-qc/9911085

    2000 arXiv

  77. [86]

    F. J. Ernst, Journal of Mathematical Physics 17, 54 (1976), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.522781, URL https: //doi.org/10.1063/1.522781

    1976 doi

  78. [87]

    Stephani, D

    H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, and E. Herlt,Exact Solutions of Einstein’s Field Equa- tions, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2003), 2nd ed

    2003

  79. [88]

    Ortaggio, Phys

    M. Ortaggio, Phys. Rev. D 69, 064034 (2004), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 69.064034

    2004 doi

  80. [89]

    W. B. Bonnor, Proc. Phys. Soc. A67, 225 (1954)

    1954

  81. [90]

    Melvin, Physics Letters 8, 65 (1964), ISSN 0031- 9163, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0031916364908017

    M. Melvin, Physics Letters 8, 65 (1964), ISSN 0031- 9163, URL https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ article/pii/0031916364908017

    1964

  82. [91]

    M. A. Melvin and J. S. Wallingford, Journal of Mathe- matical Physics7, 333 (1966)

    1966

  83. [92]

    Tahamtan andM

    T. Tahamtan andM. Halilsoy, Astrophys.Space Sci.343, 435 (2013), 1104.3401

    2013 arXiv

  84. [93]

    N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, A&A24, 337 (1973)

    1973

  85. [94]

    I. D. Novikov and K. S. Thorne, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), edited by C. Dewitt and B. S. Dewitt (1973), pp. 343–450

    1973

  86. [95]

    Różańska, and A

    M.A.Abramowicz, M.Jaroszyński, S.Kato, J.P.Lasota, A. Różańska, and A. Sądowski, A&A521, A15 (2010), 1003.3887

    2010 arXiv

  87. [96]

    Lasota and M

    J.-P. Lasota and M. Abramowicz, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2410.06200 (2024), 2410.06200

    2024 arXiv

  88. [97]

    C.F.Gammie, ApJL 522, L57(1999), astro-ph/9906223

    1999 arXiv

  89. [98]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136, B571 (1964), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRev.136.B571

    1964

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.