Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Beyond Buchdahl's limit: bilayered stars and thin-shell configurations

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that outward-increasing two-layer density profiles let isotropic fluid spheres reach Bondi's compactness bound, and that a negative-density core lets them approach black-hole compactness arbitrarily closely.

desk verdict Explicit bilayered and thin-shell toy models that credibly illustrate how relaxing Buchdahl's assumptions changes compactness bounds, but the 'arbitrarily close' claims are numerically supported rather than proven. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.14018 v2 pith:SBO4OIKS submitted 2024-11-21 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Julio Arrechea , Carlos Barceló , Gerardo García-Moreno , José Polo-Gómez This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th PACS 04.20.-q04.40.Dg04.70.-s
keywords BuchdahllimitBondiboundcompactnessbilayeredstarsthin-shellconfigurationsnegativeenergydensityIsraeljunctionconditionsAdS
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 asks how much compactness a static, spherically symmetric star can have when Buchdahl's two extra assumptions are relaxed. Buchdahl's theorem gives C=2M/R<8/9 for isotropic perfect fluids with an outward-decreasing non-negative density; Bondi's earlier analysis showed that dropping monotonicity raises the bound to C_B=12√2−16≈0.9706, and that negative densities allow C to approach 1. The paper constructs explicit two-layer ('bilayered') toy models — a constant-density core surrounded by a denser constant-density crust — that realize these possibilities with regular fluid interiors and no distributional sources at the layer boundary. It reports numerical evidence that non-negative-density configurations approach Bondi's bound as the outer density grows, and regular configurations with a negative-density core exist for every compactness below the black-hole limit. These models also produce two named limits, the AdS star and the Einstein static star, offered as idealized versions of semiclassical ultracompact stars.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing construction is a two-layer constant-density star, with density ρ_i in r<R_i and ρ_o in R_i<r<R, ρ_i<ρ_o, solved by integrating the TOV equation inwards from the surface and matching through Israel junction conditions without delta-function sources. In Bondi's (u,v) phase space, regular solutions must stay below the A=9 parabola, whose intersection with v=0 fixes the Bondi bound; the positive-density limit approaches that parabola, while negative-density cores follow the straight lines v=−u and v=−3u, which intersect the A→∞ parabolas at u→1/2. The proof that negative-core solutions exist for every compactness below 1 rests on a numerically determined critical outer density ρ_sep that keeps the outer-layer pressure profile finite.

What would settle it

A high-precision numerical scan of the bilayered parameter space at 2M/R=1−$10^{-6}$, checking whether a regular pressure profile exists for negative core densities, would settle the main claim; refining the positive-density scaling to see whether the maximum compactness converges to C_B or stops short would test the Bondi-saturation claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the Buchdahl bound is not a property of isotropic perfect fluids in general but a consequence of the monotonicity and positivity of the density profile, and that each of these assumptions can be relaxed separately in simple models. For the bilayered family with 0<ρ_i<ρ_o, the paper finds that the maximum compactness saturates Bondi's bound C_B=12√2−16≈0.9706 in the limit of an infinitely thin, infinitely dense outer crust, with the approach following C(R)≈C_B−α/(R²ρ_o). For ρ_i<0, it constructs regular solutions with constant-pressure cores for which 2M/R can be set arbitrarily close to 1, provided no energy condition is imposed; these include configurations with p=−ρ (AdS star) and p=−ρ/3 (Einstein static star). The paper also shows that an anisotropic thin shell matching Minkowski to Schwarzschild can be placed arbitrarily close to its Schwarzschild radius, but its tangential pressure diverges there and the dominant energy condition fails beyond C=24/25.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the numerically found critical outer density ρ_sep exists for every compactness below 1 and that the approach to Bondi's bound follows the observed scaling law; if either fails at higher precision or for other parameter choices, the 'arbitrarily close' claims are weakened.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Isotropic perfect-fluid stars more compact than Buchdahl's 8/9 are allowed in general relativity once density monotonicity is dropped, up to compactness 0.9706 with non-negative densities.
  • Negative-density cores remove the compactness bound entirely within the perfect-fluid isotropic setting, so horizonless objects can be made arbitrarily close to black-hole compactness.
  • The AdS star and Einstein static star limits give concrete, fully matched geometries whose different interior redshift profiles would produce different light-crossing times and therefore distinct observational signatures.
  • In the anisotropic thin-shell model, energy conditions, not general relativity itself, set the compactness bound, here C≤0.96 for the dominant energy condition; relaxing them allows C→1.
  • Bondi's thin-shell Model I is the distributional limit of the regular bilayered family, showing that his fine-tuned shell carries no anisotropic pressure.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The numerical scaling C≈C_B−α/(R²ρ_o) suggests that Bondi's bound is the true supremum for piecewise-constant outward-increasing densities; an analytic proof would be needed to rule out a slightly lower sharp maximum.
  • The negative-core construction depends on the numerically established critical density ρ_sep, so a rigorous existence proof for all compactness values below 1 would strengthen the claim beyond the paper's current evidence.
  • The AdS-star template could be used to compute ringdown or shadow signatures of semiclassical ultracompact objects, extending the paper's qualitative redshift argument into testable predictions.
  • The thin-shell DEC threshold 24/25 likely depends on the Minkowski interior; replacing that interior with other geometries would produce a family of energy-condition bounds for anisotropic compact objects.
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 studies static, spherically symmetric toy models that relax the hypotheses of Buchdahl's theorem. It introduces bilayered constant-density stars with outward-increasing density and shows numerically that positive-density models approach the Bondi compactness bound C_B = 12√2 - 16, while negative-density cores allow compactness to approach the black-hole value C = 1. It also analyzes thin-shell constructions with anisotropic pressures, deriving the DEC bound C ≤ 24/25, and identifies two special configurations, called AdS stars and Einstein static stars, as idealized limits of the bilayer models. The paper includes a review of Buchdahl's and Bondi's results and connects the toy models to semiclassical ultracompact-object proposals.

Significance. If the saturation claims were rigorously established, the paper would be a valuable and pedagogical illustration of how each of Buchdahl's assumptions can be relaxed, and it would provide simple templates for semiclassically motivated black-hole mimickers. The analytic parts are genuinely useful: the Israel junction-condition derivations, the DEC bound for the anisotropic shell, and the constant-density inner-core solutions are standard but clearly presented, and the attached Mathematica notebook is a real reproducibility asset. The main weakness is that the two headline quantitative claims, that positive-density bilayers can approach the Bondi bound arbitrarily closely and that negative-core bilayers can approach C = 1 arbitrarily closely, rest on numerically located thresholds and fitted scaling laws rather than on analytic proofs. The paper itself acknowledges this in places, but the introduction and abstract use the word 'show' more strongly than the demonstrated evidence supports.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III B, Eq. (44)] The claim that non-negative-density bilayered stars can approach Bondi's bound arbitrarily closely is supported only by the numerically fitted scaling C(R) ≈ C_B - α/(R^2 ρ_o). The text explicitly says that agreement with the Bondi bound holds 'to the level of our numerical precision' (Section III A), which does not exclude a finite gap smaller than the numerical resolution. Since this scaling law is the only evidence that the gap closes, the conclusion 'we can find solutions whose compactness approaches Bondi's bound as much as desired' is not established at arbitrary precision. Please provide an analytic bound on the compactness gap, or at least an error-controlled numerical study that demonstrates the scaling persists for arbitrarily large ρ_o.
  2. [Section III C, paragraphs after Eq. (60)] The proof that regular configurations exist for every 2M/R < 1 rests on the premise 'since rho_sep exists for every 2M/R < 1', but rho_sep is only located numerically ('whose specific value can be found numerically'). The existence of the matching interval [R_-, R_+] and hence the conclusion that the black-hole compactness can be approached arbitrarily closely depend on this threshold. Without an analytic bound on rho_sep(2M/R), or at least a rigorous bracketing argument, the claim is not proven for every epsilon. This is a load-bearing gap in the central result and should be addressed explicitly.
  3. [Introduction, p. 5] The abstract and introduction state 'we show that it is possible to build solutions as close to the black hole limit as desired' and that positive-density models approach the Bondi bound 'as much as desired'. Given that both saturation results rely on the numerical inputs identified above, these statements overstate what is demonstrated in the body of the paper. The manuscript should either supply the missing analytic arguments or carefully rephrase the claims as numerical evidence supported by the explicit constructions.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (37)] As typeset, the equation appears to involve Φ_i times a logarithm and then a term −Φ_i log(2ρ_i); for negative ρ_i this would involve a logarithm of a negative number. If the intended expression is Φ(r) = Φ_i + log[...], please correct the notation.
  2. [Section III C, Eq. (57)] The asymptotic expression p ≃ −ρ + k√r with k > 0 is stated for r → 0 without specifying whether it applies to the outer-layer profile before matching; since the paper later argues the matched solution is regular, the range of validity of Eq. (57) should be clarified.
  3. [Acknowledgments] There is a minor grammatical error: 'We also thanks' should read 'We also thank'. The paper should also be checked for similar typographical slips in the equations and captions.
  4. [Section II B, Fig. 1 caption] The caption says solutions in the u < 0 half-plane 'start from (0,0) and can take negative u values as large as desired', but it may be clearer to state that these solutions have negative Misner-Sharp mass in the core, since u < 0 would otherwise be unfamiliar to readers.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the bilayered constructions are derived from the TOV equations and junction conditions, with the Bondi/Buchdahl bounds entering only as external comparison targets; the numerical thresholds (rho_sep, Eq. (44) scaling) are internal evidence whose precision limits the strength of the 'arbitrarily close' claims, not fitted inputs that force the result.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained. The central claims—bilayered stars with positive cores approaching Bondi's bound C_B = 12√2 − 16 (Sec. III A) and with negative cores approaching the black-hole compactness C = 1 (Sec. III C)—are obtained by direct integration of the TOV equation (Eq. 9) for the two-layer density ansatz (Eq. 30), with compactness chosen as an independent parameter and the maximum mass M∞(Ri, ρo) defined by divergence of the central pressure, not by any target bound. Bondi's bound enters only as an external classical result (Sec. II B, from Refs. [10,17]) used to compare the numerically computed C_max ≈ 0.9706; no model quantity is defined in terms of C_B or C = 1, and no fitted parameter is presented as a prediction of an external datum. The self-citations [20,21] are motivational ('idealizations of the semiclassical stellar configurations found in [20,21]') and methodological ('in the same way that it is done in [20]'); the latter refers to the shape of bounded pressure profiles that the present paper re-derives and verifies numerically with its own Mathematica notebook, so the compactness conclusions do not reduce to those citations. The genuine weaknesses are numerical rather than circular, and the paper is candid about them: the saturation of C_B rests on the fitted scaling C(R) ≈ C_B − α/(R²ρo) (Eq. 44) extrapolated to ρo → ∞, and the negative-core 'no upper compactness bound' conclusion relies on the numerically located threshold ρ_sep, asserted to exist for every 2M/R < 1 without an analytic bound (Sec. III C). These are evidence-strength concerns—a finite gap below numerical resolution is not excluded—not reductions of the claims to their own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on standard GR equations plus two ad hoc modeling choices: the bilayered density profile and the thin-shell gluing. The numerical values that carry the 'arbitrarily close' statements (alpha and rho_sep) are determined numerically rather than derived. The construction parameters (rho_i, Ri, rho_o, M) are the solution space of the toy model and are not counted as fitted constants.

free parameters (2)
  • alpha (scaling constant) = positive dimensionless constant, not computed
    Appears in the numerically inferred scaling C(R) ≈ C_B - alpha/(R^2 rho_o) (Eq. 44) used to argue that the Bondi bound is approached as rho_o goes to infinity. Its value is fitted to numerical data, not derived.
  • rho_sep (critical outer density) = determined numerically
    The negative-density-core construction requires rho_o >= rho_sep to keep outer-layer pressures finite. The paper states 'whose specific value can be found numerically' (Section III C), so the existence of regular solutions for every 2M/R < 1 rests on a numerically located threshold.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Einstein field equations with a static, spherically symmetric perfect-fluid source and Schwarzschild exterior (Birkhoff's theorem)
    The entire analysis is performed in this setup, stated in Section II A. All bounds are derived within classical GR.
  • standard math Israel junction conditions for thin shells
    Used in Sections III B, IV and Appendix B to compute distributional surface densities and pressures for the shell models.
  • ad hoc to paper The two-constant-density-layer ansatz with rho_i < rho_o (Eq. 30)
    This specific density profile is introduced to violate the monotonicity assumption of Buchdahl's theorem. It is not derived from any underlying physics.
  • ad hoc to paper AdS interior / Minkowski interior cut-and-paste constructions
    The AdS star and thin-shell models glue known geometries through a shell; the choice of interior is made to illustrate bypassing the Buchdahl limit, not derived from a deeper principle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Beyond Buchdahl's limit: bilayered stars and thin-shell configurations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SBO4OIKS

@misc{pith2026241114018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Beyond Buchdahl's limit: bilayered stars and thin-shell configurations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SBO4OIKS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.14018}
}
read the original abstract

One of the theoretical motivations behind the belief that black holes as described by general relativity exist in nature is that it is hard to find matter configurations that mimic their properties, especially their compactness. One of the classic results that goes in this direction is the socalled Buchdahl limit: a bound for the maximum compactness that spherically symmetric isotropic fluid spheres in hydrostatic equilibrium can possibly achieve with an outward-decreasing energy density. However, physically realistic situations could violate both isotropy and the monotonicity of the density profile. Notably, Bondi already showed that if the density profile is allowed to be arbitrary (but remains non-negative), a less restrictive compactness bound emerges. Furthermore, if negative energy densities are permitted, configurations can approach the black hole compactness limit arbitrarily closely. In this work we introduce a set of simple bilayered and thin-shell toy models designed to illustrate the effect of relaxing separately the assumptions of Buchdahl's theorem. Within these models we highlight the existence of two special examples that we have called AdS stars and Einstein Static stars. We also discuss how these toy models may represent some of the main features of realistic systems, and how they could be extended to find more refined models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.14018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Pictorial representation of the two-layered toy model that we are considering in this section. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Three dimensional representation of the surface in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Maximum compactness limit as a function of the quotient between the energy density of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Typical pressure and density profiles for stars displaying a constant-pressure inner layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Typical pressure and density profiles for stars displaying a constant-pressure inner layer [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Regions of regular solutions for different compactness values. The shaded green area repre [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Pictorial representation of the matching of the inner Minkowskian or AdS core with the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    In particular, both f ′ and h are continuous at r = R

    f (r) is at least a piecewiseC2 function, while h(r) is at least piecewiseC1. In particular, both f ′ and h are continuous at r = R. We integrate the equations from the centre r = 0 with given pressures and densities {ρc, pc} towards the surface r = R, defined by the condition p(R) = 0. From that point on ( r > R) we match an exterior (vacuum) Scwharzschi...

    work page

  2. [2]

    (1) For some purposes it is useful to use an alternative set of functions: f (r) = e2Φ(r), h (r) = 1 1 − 2m(r) r , (2) where Φ(r) is the redshift function and m(r) is the Misner-Sharp mass function [23, 24]. We want to study solutions representing a star composed by the stress-energy tensor (SET) of a perfect fluid, i.e., a tensor that reads: Tab = ρuaub ...

    work page

  3. [3]

    infinite pressure surface

    The density is a monotonically decreasing function. The continuity and monotonicity assumptions along with the boundary conditions require that ρ(r) ≥ 0. For any such solution, the compactness satisfies the inequality C(R) < 8/9. Proof: Demanding staticity automatically enforces 2 M/R ≤ 1, since C(R) = 1 will lead directly to a diverging pressure. This li...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The internal geometry has a vanishing mass function and, as such,h(r−) = 1 and the redshift function is given by f (r−) = (2πr2 − + 1/pc)2

    (48) The external Schwarzschild patch corresponds tof+(r+) = 1−2M/r+ and h+(r+) = 1/f (r+). The internal geometry has a vanishing mass function and, as such,h(r−) = 1 and the redshift function is given by f (r−) = (2πr2 − + 1/pc)2. (49) We locate the thin shell at r+ = r− = R. The matching is worked out in detail in Ap- pendix B, and we find that the shel...

    work page

  5. [5]

    In the core they have a negative density that makes the pressure exactly constant, such 29 -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 1 2 3 4 5 FIG. 9. ( u, v) diagram of bilayered stars with negative energy densities. The v(u) curves from the inner layer appear in green and those from the outer layer in blue. We have plotted two example solutions satisfying ρi + p = 0 and ρi + 3p =...

    work page

  6. [6]

    La Caixa

    In the core they have a negative density that makes the pressure exactly constant, such that p(r) = pi = −ρi/3. In the limit in which the outer thick layer becomes infinitesimally thin (distributional), we shall call these stellar configurations Einstein static stars . See Fig. 7 for a particular example in which the outer shell is thick. AdS stars are co...

  7. [7]

    Collmar, N

    W. Collmar, N. Straumann, S. K. Chakrabarti, G. ’t Hooft, E. Seidel, and W. Israel, in Black Holes: Theory and Observation, edited by F. W. Hehl, C. Kiefer, and R. J. Metzler (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 1998) pp. 481–489

    work page 1998

  8. [8]

    M. A. Abramowicz, W. Kluzniak, and J.-P. Lasota, Astron. Astrophys. 396, L31 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0207270

    arXiv 2002

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Carballo-Rubio, V

    R. Carballo-Rubio, V. Cardoso, and Z. Younsi, Phys. Rev. D 106, 084038 (2022), arXiv:2208.00704 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Nauenberg, Journal for the History of Astronomy 39, 297 (2008)

    M. Nauenberg, Journal for the History of Astronomy 39, 297 (2008)

    2008

  3. [11]

    Chandrasekhar, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 11, 592 (1931), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786443109461710

    S. Chandrasekhar, The London, Edinburgh, and Dublin Philosophical Magazine and Journal of Science 11, 592 (1931), https://doi.org/10.1080/14786443109461710

    1931 doi

  4. [12]

    Chandrasekhar, Astrophys

    S. Chandrasekhar, Astrophys. J. 74, 81 (1931)

    1931

  5. [13]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  6. [14]

    U. S. Nilsson and C. Uggla, Annals of Physics 286, 292 (2000)

    2000

  7. [15]

    H. A. Buchdahl, Phys. Rev. 116, 1027 (1959)

    1959

  8. [16]

    Bondi, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

    H. Bondi, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 282, 303 (1964)

    1964

  9. [17]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984)

    1984

  10. [18]

    Schwarzschild, in Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wis- senschaften zu Berlin(1916) pp

    K. Schwarzschild, in Sitzungsberichte der K¨ oniglich Preussischen Akademie der Wis- senschaften zu Berlin(1916) pp. 424–434

    1916

  11. [19]

    Andr´ easson and G

    H. Andr´ easson and G. Rein, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 1809 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0611053

    2007 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Israel, Nuovo Cim

    W. Israel, Nuovo Cim. B 44S10, 1 (1966), [Erratum: Nuovo Cim.B 48, 463 (1967)]

    1966

  13. [21]

    T. W. Baumgarte and A. D. Rendall, Classical and Quantum Gravity 10, 327 (1993)

    1993

  14. [22]

    M. Mars, M. M. Martin-Prats, and J. M. M. Senovilla, Phys. Lett. A 218, 147 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/0202003. 42

    1996 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Karageorgis and J

    P. Karageorgis and J. G. Stalker, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 195021 (2008), arXiv:0707.3632 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  16. [24]

    P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Universe 9, 88 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    U. H. Danielsson, G. Dibitetto, and S. Giri, JHEP 10, 171 (2017), arXiv:1705.10172 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Arrechea, C

    J. Arrechea, C. Barcel´ o, R. Carballo-Rubio, and L. J. Garay, Phys. Rev. D 104, 084071 (2021), arXiv:2105.11261 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Arrechea, C

    J. Arrechea, C. Barcel´ o, R. Carballo-Rubio, and L. J. Garay, Phys. Rev. D 109, 104056 (2024), arXiv:2310.12668 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. M. Martin-Garcia, A. Garc ´ ıa-Parrado, A. Stecchina, B. Wardell, C. Pitrou, D. Brizuela, et al., http://www.xact.es (latest version Oct. 2021)

    2021

  21. [29]

    C. W. Misner and D. H. Sharp, Phys. Rev. 136, B571 (1964)

    1964

  22. [30]

    Hernandez, Walter C

    J. Hernandez, Walter C. and C. W. Misner, Astrophys. J. 143, 452 (1966)

    1966

  23. [31]

    Bardeen, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity (1968) p

    J. Bardeen, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity (1968) p. 87

    1968

  24. [32]

    S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D53, 1938 (1996), arXiv:gr-qc/9408002 [gr-qc]

    1996 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Dymnikova, Gen

    I. Dymnikova, Gen. Rel. Grav. 24, 235 (1992)

    1992

  26. [34]

    Lindblom, Astrophys

    L. Lindblom, Astrophys. J. 278, 364 (1984)

    1984

  27. [35]

    B. V. Ivanov, Phys. Rev. D 65, 104011 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0201090

    2002 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D. E. Barraco, V. H. Hamity, and R. J. Gleiser, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064003 (2003)

    2003

  29. [37]

    C. G. Boehmer and T. Harko, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 6479 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0609061

    2006 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Andr´ easson, J

    H. Andr´ easson, J. Diff. Eq.245, 2243 (2008), arXiv:gr-qc/0702137

    2008 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Urbano and H

    A. Urbano and H. Veerm¨ ae, JCAP04, 011 (2019), arXiv:1810.07137 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Carballo-Rubio, Phys

    R. Carballo-Rubio, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 061102 (2018), arXiv:1706.05379 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Wyman, Phys

    M. Wyman, Phys. Rev. 75, 1930 (1949)

    1949

  34. [42]

    Einstein, Sitzungs

    A. Einstein, Sitzungs. K¨ onig. Preuss. Akad., 142 (1917)

    1917

  35. [43]

    Jampolski and L

    D. Jampolski and L. Rezzolla, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 065014 (2024), arXiv:2310.13946 [gr- qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Cardoso and P

    V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Ayzenberg et al., (2023), arXiv:2312.02130 [astro-ph.HE]

    D. Ayzenberg et al., (2023), arXiv:2312.02130 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    J. a. L. Rosa and P. Pi¸ carra, Phys. Rev. D 102, 064009 (2020), arXiv:2006.09854 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    A. Alho, J. Nat´ ario, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D 105, 044025 (2022), [Erratum: 43 Phys.Rev.D 105, 129903 (2022)], arXiv:2107.12272 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    A. Alho, J. Nat´ ario, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D 106, L041502 (2022), arXiv:2202.00043 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  41. [49]

    A. Alho, J. Nat´ ario, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064037 (2024), arXiv:2306.16584 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  42. [50]

    A. Alho, J. Nat´ ario, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 073002 (2024), arXiv:2307.03146 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Barraco and V

    D. Barraco and V. H. Hamity, Phys. Rev. D 65, 124028 (2002)

    2002

  44. [52]

    Hawking, Commun

    S. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 18, 301 (1970)

    1970

  45. [53]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2023)

    2023

  46. [54]

    W. W.-Y. Wong, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 215008 (2011), arXiv:1011.3029 [math-ph]

    2011 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Babichev, V

    E. Babichev, V. Mukhanov, and A. Vikman, JHEP 02, 101 (2008), arXiv:0708.0561 [hep-th]

    2008 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Geroch, AMS/IP Stud

    R. Geroch, AMS/IP Stud. Adv. Math. 49, 59 (2011), arXiv:1005.1614 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Barcel´ o, J

    C. Barcel´ o, J. E. S´ anchez, G. Garc ´ ıa-Moreno, and G. Jannes, Eur. Phys. J. C82, 299 (2022), arXiv:2201.11072 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Curiel, Einstein Stud

    E. Curiel, Einstein Stud. 13, 43 (2017), arXiv:1405.0403 [physics.hist-ph]. 44

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.