Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

GRMHD Study of Accretion onto time-like Naked Singularities

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper establishes that naked singularities—solutions of Einstein's equations with a singularity but no event horizon—stop rotating accreting matter behind a centrifugal barrier, causing gas to accumulate near the singularity and launch

desk verdict A useful comparative GRMHD study of three naked singularity spacetimes that is honest about its main limitation—the JNW runs miss the repulsive core—so the generic conclusions should be read as provisional. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.09288 v1 pith:WK55NATE submitted 2025-09-11 astro-ph.HE

Akhil Uniyal , Indu K. Dihingia , Yosuke Mizuno , W{l}odek Kluźniak This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords accretionnakedsingularitiesGRMHDsimulationscentrifugalbarrierjetsandoutflowseffectivepotentialcosmiccensorshipsuperspinars
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 uses 3D general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations of magnetized accretion tori to ask whether naked singularities produce flows recognizably different from black holes. It studies three classes of naked singularities—superspinars (Kerr with spin >1), JMN spacetimes, and JNW spacetimes—and finds that rotating matter cannot fall straight in: an effective-potential barrier reflects it, so gas accumulates around the singularity and much of it is expelled as wind or jets. The study argues that matter buildup and powerful outflows are generic features of accretion onto naked singularities, with the outflow energy drawn from released gravitational potential energy rather than from rotational-energy extraction. If true, these are dynamical signatures that could distinguish naked singularities from black holes even when their shadows look alike.

What carries the argument

The effective potential Φ_eff for matter with specific angular momentum λ, built from the metric's g_tt, g_tφ, and g_φφ components. A rise in Φ_eff toward small radius constitutes the centrifugal barrier; where forces balance there is a zero-gravity surface on which fluid can rest, allowing matter to pile up. The same potential determines which equipotential surfaces are unbound, shaping the funnel and the outflow geometry around the singularity.

What would settle it

Move the inner boundary of the JNW simulations to within a small fraction of a gravitational radius of the singularity (as the authors do approximately in 2D) and check whether the density at the boundary drops toward zero and the jet power saturates, confirming the reflective wall—or whether matter streams through the boundary and the barrier disappears. Observationally, a naked-singularity candidate showing a cool infalling photosphere rather than a hot accumulating shell would argue against this picture.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central finding is that all five naked-singularity models studied—two Kerr superspinars, two JMN spacetimes, and two JNW spacetimes—exhibit a centrifugal barrier in the effective potential for rotating matter with specific angular momentum λ=1.65, whereas a Kerr black hole's potential is monotonic down to the horizon. Matter therefore does not fall into the singularity; it accumulates in a dense shell or torus just outside the barrier. Near the singularity the gravitational force becomes repulsive, and the pressure gradients this creates, together with the released binding energy, drive outflows. Jets with power comparable to black-hole jets form even in spacetimes without an ergoregion,

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that placing the inner computational boundary just outside the singularity, with an inflow boundary condition, does not itself create the centrifugal barrier or artificially choke off accretion; the paper acknowledges this boundary can mimic a black-hole horizon for the JNW models.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Matter accumulates near naked singularities rather than crossing an event horizon, producing a distinctive density enhancement absent in black-hole accretion flows.
  • Powerful outflows or jets are generic outcomes of accretion onto naked singularities, and their power can rival black-hole jets even when no ergoregion exists.
  • The energy driving these outflows comes from gravitational potential energy released as matter is driven toward the barrier, not from extraction of the central object's rotational energy.
  • For the JNW spacetime, the jet power depends on the inner computational boundary's proximity to the singularity, but the bulk flow dynamics are largely insensitive to that choice once the boundary is reasonably close.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If matter really accumulates in optically thick shells around naked singularities, the shadow images that make these objects black-hole mimickers could be partially hidden by the shell's own emission, altering how lensed photons reach an observer.
  • A natural observational test is variability: the oscillating accretion rates and recirculating flows around naked singularities should imprint quasi-periodic modulations on light curves that differ from black-hole state transitions.
  • The strong boundary dependence of JNW jet power suggests that fully 3D simulations with the inner boundary pushed closer to the singularity are needed before quoting a reliable jet-power number for JNW spacetimes.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents 3D GRMHD simulations, performed with BHAC, of magnetized accretion flows onto three families of time-like naked singularities: Kerr superspinars (a*=1.01, 1.50), JMN spacetimes (Rb=5, 8), and JNW spacetimes (scalar charges ν=0.3, 0.6). Using the horizon-penetrating Azreg-Aïnou form of the metric, the authors compute effective potentials, accretion rates, jet/wind powers, density maps, Lorentz factors, and magnetizations. They argue that, unlike black holes, NkSs possess a centrifugal barrier that prevents direct accretion, that matter accumulates near the singularity, and that powerful outflows are generic, powered by gravitational potential energy rather than by horizon or Blandford-Znajek extraction. The paper includes a resolution test (Appendix A) and a dedicated 2D inner-boundary study for the JNW cases (Appendix C), where the authors acknowledge that the fiducial 3D JNW runs place the inner boundary outside the repulsive region and that the boundary 'mimics a black hole horizon.'

Significance. If the results hold, the paper would provide concrete dynamical discriminators between black holes and naked singularities, with implications for cosmic censorship tests and BH-mimicker interpretation. The analytic effective-potential analysis in §2.4 is a useful, parameter-free diagnostic: it shows a centrifugal barrier for all NkS families independent of the numerical setup, and the JMN/SS runs show density accumulation and outflows consistent with that barrier. The numerical study is carefully set up with a fixed torus mass, common inner torus radius, SANE initial conditions, and a resolution check, and no parameters are fitted to the output. These are genuine strengths. However, the headline conclusion is currently broader than the evidence: the 3D JNW runs are dominated by an absorbing inner boundary placed outside the repulsive core, and the boundary study that partially addresses this is only 2D. The paper is therefore a promising foundation, not yet a definitive demonstration of the claimed generic behavior.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4.3 and Table 1] The 3D JNW simulations do not capture the reflective potential wall that is central to the paper's thesis. For JNW0.3 and JNW0.6 the inner computational boundary is at r_in,edge=3.00 and 5.21 r_g, while the singularity is at r_sing=2.86 and 5.00 r_g, respectively. Fig. 2 explicitly shows that the centrifugal barrier is cut off by this numerical boundary, and §4.3 states that the absorbing boundary 'mimics a black hole horizon.' Consequently, the density maps in Fig. 8 for the JNW cases show a monotonically increasing density toward an absorbing wall, and the weak jets in Fig. 5 are attributed by the authors to this boundary placement. Since JNW is one of the three NkS families used to support the generic conclusion in §6, the 3D JNW results cannot currently serve as evidence for matter accumulation or jet generation. The manuscript needs either a 3D run with r_in,edge placed inside the r
  2. [§6 and Appendix C] The abstract and conclusion claim that 'matter buildup near the singularity and the production of powerful outflows are generic characteristics of accretion flows onto NkSs.' Appendix C shows for JNW0.6 that moving the inner boundary inward from 5.21 to 5.03 r_g amplifies the jet power, while the authors state that 'it remains to be determined whether this enhancement will be the same in fully 3D simulations.' Thus the powerful-outflow part of the generic claim is not yet established for JNW in 3D. Moreover, the matter-buildup signature in the JNW 3D runs is absent and only inferred from the 2D boundary study. The conclusion should be softened accordingly, or the missing 3D simulation with a boundary closer to the singularity should be provided.
  3. [§4.2 and Fig. 6] The statement that 'in all our simulation cases, matter cannot reach the NkS because of the infinite potential wall at the singularity' is presented as a general result, but for the JNW runs the wall is outside the computational domain and the absorbing boundary removes matter before any reflection can occur. Please make the caveat explicit at this point, not only in the later sections, because the sentence is used to support the conclusion that outflows are powered by gravitational potential energy rather than by interaction with the central object.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§2.2 and Table 1] The text in §2.4 says the spin is fixed at a*=0.9375 for all JMN and JNW models, but Table 1 lists JMN5 with spin 0.9735. Please reconcile, or clarify that the effective mass differs in the JMN5 case.
  2. [§4.1] The model name 'JWN0.3' appears to be a typo for 'JNW0.3'.
  3. [§4.3] The averaging interval is written as 't=8000−1000t_g' in the first sentence of §4.3; this should presumably read 't=8000−10000t_g'.
  4. [Fig. 5 caption] The caption refers to 'panels (b) and (c)' without specifying the sub-index; please refer explicitly to panels (b1)/(b2) and (c1)/(c2) to avoid ambiguity.
  5. [Eq. (16)] Please define the specific enthalpy h explicitly and check the index/sign convention in the definition of T^r_t. The expression is standard, but a brief statement about the chosen signature would help readers apply the same formula.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central claims rest on independent 3D GRMHD simulations plus analytic effective-potential diagnostics, not on fitted outputs or self-citation chains; the JNW inner-boundary caveat is an admitted numerical limitation, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is not circular. The central claims—centrifugal barriers, matter accumulation near naked singularities, and jet/outflow production—come from evolving a standard Fishbone-Moncrief torus with MRI perturbations in the BHAC code for each NkS metric. No parameter is fitted to the output and then renamed a prediction: the effective potential (Eqs. 12–13) is an analytic diagnostic computed from the metric, and the observed accumulation near potential minima is an emergent simulation result, not an input. The JNW cases are explicitly flagged as numerically compromised because the inner boundary lies outside the repulsive core and 'the absorbing boundary at the inner edge of the computational domain mimics a black hole horizon' (Sec. 2.4); the authors test boundary sensitivity in Appendix C and concede that jet power is amplified when the boundary is moved inward, with the 3D extrapolation 'remains to be determined.' This is a genuine numerical limitation but not circularity: the limitation is disclosed and does not reduce a claimed result to an assumed input. Self-citations (Dihingia et al. 2025, Kluźniak & Krajewski 2024, Mishra et al. 2024) are used as supporting references for analogous effects in other spacetimes, but the present work's own multi-model simulations independently carry the main conclusions. There is no fitted parameter called a prediction, no imported uniqueness theorem, and no ansatz smuggled in by citation. The admitted JNW boundary issue weakens the generality of the JNW-specific statements but does not make the derivation circular.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest mostly on assumed spacetimes, the ideal GRMHD idealization, and the numerical boundary treatment. The inner boundary placement is the weak link, as the paper itself demonstrates for JNW, and the model parameters are inputs chosen by hand rather than fitted quantities.

free parameters (5)
  • inner computational boundary radius r_in,edge = SS1.01: 0.37, SS1.50: 0.23, JMN5/8: 0.11, JNW0.3: 3.00, JNW0.6: 5.21 (in r_g)
    Chosen by hand to avoid coordinate singularity; for JNW the boundary sits outside the reflective potential wall, so the 3D runs suppress the centrifugal barrier and Table 1 and Appendix C show jet power and density respond to this choice.
  • spin a* = 1.01, 1.50, 0.9375
    Model inputs selecting Kerr naked singularity values and a fixed spin for JMN and JNW; not fitted, but the superspinar conclusions depend on the two chosen values.
  • JMN matching radius R_b = 5.0, 8.0
    Model parameter varied to produce JMN5 and JMN8; JMN8 behaves differently with a strong reflective wall and no magnetization, so conclusions for the JMN class depend on this choice.
  • JNW scalar charge nu-hat = 0.3, 0.6
    Model parameter varied to set the singularity size; larger nu-hat gives a larger singularity and different funnel and jet behavior.
  • initial torus configuration = r_in = 10 r_g, r_max = 20 r_g
    Fixed across all models to feed the accretion flow consistently; it is an input chosen by hand rather than fitted to data, but it sets where the disk begins.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The naked singularity solutions, meaning Kerr with a > 1, JMN, and JNW, are valid time-like naked singularity spacetimes with no horizon and can be used as fixed backgrounds for GRMHD.
    Section 2 defines the metrics and Section 1 frames them as possible outcomes of gravitational collapse; this is the premise of the entire study.
  • domain assumption Treating the accreting plasma as an ideal, single-fluid general-relativistic MHD in these backgrounds is adequate, with no radiative cooling or self-gravity included.
    Section 3 sets an ideal gas equation of state, a magnetic loop, SANE torus, and floors; the paper does not test sensitivity to radiation or self-gravity.
  • standard math The horizon-penetrating Azreg-Ainou metric form in Eq. 1 with the listed f, g, R^2 functions faithfully represents the three spacetimes outside the singularity.
    Section 2 uses the Kocherlakota et al. 2023 transformation; the validity is assumed from the cited derivation, not re-derived here.
  • ad hoc to paper Excision of the singularity by an inner boundary with inflow boundary conditions does not dominate the qualitative accretion dynamics.
    Section 3 says an inflow boundary condition is used for all cases; Appendix C shows JNW jet power is sensitive to boundary placement, so this assumption is only partially satisfied and is load-bearing.
  • domain assumption The MRI is sufficiently resolved at the fiducial resolution of 256 x 80 x 64, with one high-resolution check at 512 x 160 x 128.
    The resolution test in Appendix A covers only SS1.01; convergence for JMN and JNW is not demonstrated.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of GRMHD Study of Accretion onto time-like Naked Singularities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WK55NATE

@misc{pith2026250909288,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: GRMHD Study of Accretion onto time-like Naked Singularities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WK55NATE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.09288}
}
read the original abstract

Naked singularities (NkS) are solutions to the Einstein field equations that violate the cosmic censorship conjecture. Recent studies indicate that these objects may serve as compelling mimickers of black hole shadows. In this work, we investigate the accretion dynamics of selected time-like naked singularities using general relativistic magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations. Our objective is to determine whether naked singularities exhibit distinct signatures compared to black holes. We find that, unlike black holes, naked singularities exhibit a centrifugal barrier that prevents direct accretion of rotating matter onto the NkS. Despite reduced magnetization in the funnel region, these objects are capable of generating jet powers comparable to those observed in black holes. Additionally, we observe that accreting matter releases gravitational energy as it is driven towards the NkS, powering the strong outflow via local fluid pressure gradient or magnetic pressure forces.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.09288 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Effective potential in the poloidal plane for zero specific angular momentum, λ = 0. A Kerr black hole and five different naked singularities are shown. The expression for the effective potential can be given as (Kozlowski et al. 1978; Dihingia et al. 2018), Φ eff = 1 + 1 2 ln ϕ, (12) and, ϕ = g 2 tϕ − gttgϕϕ (gϕϕ + 2λgtϕ + λ2gtt) . (13) where λ = −uϕ/ut is the specific angular momentum. For [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figure… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Ergosphere (the blue contour) and angular velocity color map in the poloidal plane for each NkS space-time. two models that can mimic the general structure of the space-time with a fixed spin for each case. In interpreting our simulation results, it will be help￾ful to know whether these space-times are endowed with an ergoregion (named by analogy with the ergosphere of the Kerr BH). When present, it can help to und… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. The volume integrated mass accretion rate (M˙ ), normalized magnetic flux (ϕ/q |M˙ |), and magnetic flux (ϕ) for different NkS at r = 10 rg are shown in panels (a1), (a2) and (a3), respectively. A black dashed horizontal line in panel (a2) corresponds to the MAD limit (ϕ/q |M˙ |=15) (Narayan et al. 2003; Tchekhovskoy & McKinney 2012; McKinney et al. 2012). the superspinar SS1.01 case. It is only in SS1.01 that the (… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (10 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of integrated outflows (jet and wind) at r = 10 rg for different naked singularity objects. The jet and wind power are shown in (a), and their corresponding integrated electromagnetic and mass flux are shown in panels (b) and (c), respectively [PITH_FUL…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Time averaged (t = 8000 − 10000 tg) logarithmic acceleration by gas pressure (agas), magnetic pressure (amag) and gravity (ag) for different naked singularity objects. In each panel, the small-scale structure is shown by a close-up view around the singularity in the lo…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Azimuthal and time averaged (t = 8000 − 10000 tg) logarithmic density (ρ) for different naked singularity objects. The black and dashed white lines represent σ = 1 and −hut = 1.02 respectively. son to the contributions from gas pressure and magnetic pressure. This furt…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Time averaged (t = 8000 − 10000 tg) logarithmic density (ρ) distribution at equatorial plane for different naked singularity objects. In each panel, the small-scale structure is shown by a close-up view around the singularity in the lower-right corner. JNW space-time, …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: 3D volume rendering of magnetization (σ) for (a) fiducial (256 × 80 × 64) and (b) high-resolution (512 × 160 × 128) SS1.01 cases within radii r = 20 rg at simulation time t = 5000 tg. The solid tubes correspond to the magnetic field lines. sity and magnetization exhib…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Time-averaged (t = 8000 − 10000 tg) radial pro￾files for density (ρ), lorentz factor (γ−1), magnetization (σ), and gas temperature (θ) for different naked singularity ob￾jects. stand the possible impacts of inner boundary locations on the simulation results [PITH_FUL…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The surface integrated mass accretion rate (M˙ ), normalized magnetic flux (ϕ/q |M˙ |), and magnetic flux (ϕ) for JNW0.6 NkS at r = 10 rg for different inner boundary location (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_13.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Time evolution of integrated outflows (jet and wind) at r = 10 rg for JNW0.6 naked singularity for different inner boundary location (see [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_15.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    ex l @ @ @ @ @g OgoOvg| *e|.g ) ]` 8C n! @ @ @ @ d?O&l lzϖ|l ??֍yDϟ*?C q <[` 8C , 0

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    arXiv 2021

  4. [4]

    2019, Astrophys

    Akiyama, K., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L1, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 2019

  5. [5]

    2022, Astrophys

    ---. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L12, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674 2022

  6. [6]

    2014 a , Eur

    Azreg-A\" nou, M. 2014 a , Eur. Phys. J. C, 74, 2865, 10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2865-8

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-014-2865-8 2014

  7. [7]

    2014 b , Phys

    ---. 2014 b , Phys. Rev. D, 90, 064041, 10.1103/PhysRevD.90.064041

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.064041 2014

  8. [8]

    2020, Phys

    Bhattacharya, K., Dey, D., Mazumdar, A., & Sarkar, T. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 101, 043005, 10.1103/PhysRevD.101.043005

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.101.043005 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Bhattacharya, S., Goswami, R., & Joshi, P. S. 2010, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 20, 1123. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:118551015

    2010

  2. [10]

    D., & Znajek, R

    Blandford, R. D., & Znajek, R. L. 1977, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 179, 433, 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  3. [11]

    E., & Salehi, K

    Broderick, A. E., & Salehi, K. 2024, Astrophys. J., 977, 249, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad90aa

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    Buchdahl, H. A. 1959, Phys. Rev., 116, 1027, 10.1103/PhysRev.116.1027

    1959 doi

  5. [13]

    2025, , 981, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb421

    C emelji \'c , M., Klu \'z niak , W., Mishra , R., & Wielgus , M. 2025, , 981, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/adb421

    2025 doi

  6. [14]

    1985, The mathematical theory of black holes

    Chandrasekhar, S. 1985, The mathematical theory of black holes

    1985

  7. [15]

    1984, Commun

    Christodoulou, D. 1984, Commun. Math. Phys., 93, 171, 10.1007/BF01223743

    1984 doi

  8. [16]

    1994, Annals Math., 140, 607, 10.2307/2118619

    ---. 1994, Annals Math., 140, 607, 10.2307/2118619

    1994 doi

  9. [17]

    Dey, D., Shaikh, R., & Joshi, P. S. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 024015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.024015

    2021 doi

  10. [18]

    K., Das, S., Maity, D., & Chakrabarti, S

    Dihingia, I. K., Das, S., Maity, D., & Chakrabarti, S. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 083004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.083004

    2018 doi

  11. [19]

    K., Uniyal, A., & Mizuno, Y

    Dihingia, I. K., Uniyal, A., & Mizuno, Y. 2025, Astrophys. J., 978, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad9600

    2025 doi

  12. [20]

    M., & Smarr, L

    Eardley, D. M., & Smarr, L. 1979, Phys. Rev. D, 19, 2239, 10.1103/PhysRevD.19.2239

    1979 doi

  13. [21]

    G., & Moncrief, V

    Fishbone, L. G., & Moncrief, V. E. 1976, The Astrophysical Journal, 207, 962. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:123095496

    1976

  14. [22]

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

    1948 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Foglizzo, T., & Henriksen, R. N. 1993, Phys. Rev. D, 48, 4645, 10.1103/PhysRevD.48.4645

    1993 doi

  16. [24]

    2005, Class

    Giambo, R. 2005, Class. Quant. Grav., 22, 2295, 10.1088/0264-9381/22/11/023

    2005 doi

  17. [25]

    Giambo, R., Giannoni, F., Magli, G., & Piccione, P. 2004. gr-qc/0405059

    2004 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Goswami, R., & Joshi, P. S. 2002, Class. Quant. Grav., 19, 5229, 10.1088/0264-9381/19/20/314

    2002 doi

  19. [27]

    N., & Yazadjiev, S

    Gyulchev, G. N., & Yazadjiev, S. S. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 083004, 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.083004

    2008 doi

  20. [28]

    1998, Phys

    Harada, T. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 104015, 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.104015

    1998 doi

  21. [29]

    2004, Pramana, 63, 741, 10.1007/BF02705196

    ---. 2004, Pramana, 63, 741, 10.1007/BF02705196

    2004 doi

  22. [30]

    Hartle, J. B. 2003, Gravity: An introduction to Einstein's general relativity

    2003

  23. [31]

    I., Newman, E

    Janis, A. I., Newman, E. T., & Winicour, J. 1968, Phys. Rev. Lett., 20, 878, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.20.878

    1968 doi

  24. [32]

    B., Dey, D., Joshi, P

    Joshi, A. B., Dey, D., Joshi, P. S., & Bambhaniya, P. 2020, Phys. Rev. D, 102, 024022, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.024022

    2020 doi

  25. [33]

    Joshi, P. S. 2007, (No Title)

    2007

  26. [34]

    S., Malafarina, D., & Narayan, R

    Joshi, P. S., Malafarina, D., & Narayan, R. 2011, Class. Quant. Grav., 28, 235018, 10.1088/0264-9381/28/23/235018

    2011 doi

  27. [35]

    2024, Phys

    Klu\'zniak, W., & Krajewski, T. 2024, Phys. Rev. Lett., 133, 241401, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.241401

    2024 doi

  28. [36]

    2023, Astrophys

    Kocherlakota, P., Narayan, R., Chatterjee, K., Cruz-Osorio, A., & Mizuno, Y. 2023, Astrophys. J. Lett., 956, L11, 10.3847/2041-8213/acfd1f

    2023 doi

  29. [37]

    2010, Phys

    Kovacs, Z., & Harko, T. 2010, Phys. Rev. D, 82, 124047, 10.1103/PhysRevD.82.124047

    2010 doi

  30. [38]

    Kozlowski , M., Jaroszynski , M., & Abramowicz , M. A. 1978, , 63, 209

    1978

  31. [39]

    C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R

    McKinney, J. C., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Blandford, R. D. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 423, 3083, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21074.x

    2012

  32. [40]

    2024, Phys

    Mishra, R., Krajewski, T., & Klu\'zniak, W. 2024, Phys. Rev. D, 110, 124030, 10.1103/PhysRevD.110.124030

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    V., & Abramowicz, M

    Narayan, R., Igumenshchev, I. V., & Abramowicz, M. A. 2003, Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap., 55, L69, 10.1093/pasj/55.6.L69

    2003 doi

  34. [42]

    M., Porth , O., et al

    Nathanail , A., Fromm , C. M., Porth , O., et al. 2020, , 495, 1549, 10.1093/mnras/staa1165

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    2019, Astron

    Olivares, H., Porth, O., Davelaar, J., et al. 2019, Astron. Astrophys., 629, A61, 10.1051/0004-6361/201935559

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    1987, Phys

    Ori, A., & Piran, T. 1987, Phys. Rev. Lett., 59, 2137, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.59.2137

    1987 doi

  37. [45]

    1990, Phys

    ---. 1990, Phys. Rev. D, 42, 1068, 10.1103/PhysRevD.42.1068

    1990 doi

  38. [46]

    1969, Riv

    Penrose, R. 1969, Riv. Nuovo Cim., 1, 252, 10.1023/A:1016578408204

    1969 doi

  39. [47]

    2017, Comput

    Porth, O., Olivares, H., Mizuno, Y., et al. 2017, Comput. Astrophys. Cosmol., 4, 1, 10.1186/s40668-017-0020-2

    2017 doi

  40. [48]

    2023, Nuclear Physics B, 992, 116229, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116229

    Pugliese , D., & Stuchl \' k , Z. 2023, Nuclear Physics B, 992, 116229, 10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2023.116229

    2023

  41. [49]

    2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press), 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528906.001.0001

    Rezzolla, L., & Zanotti, O. 2013, Relativistic Hydrodynamics (Oxford University Press), 10.1093/acprof:oso/9780198528906.001.0001

    2013

  42. [50]

    Shaikh, R., Kocherlakota, P., Narayan, R., & Joshi, P. S. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 482, 52, 10.1093/mnras/sty2624

    2019 doi

  43. [51]

    P., & Joshi, P

    Singh, T. P., & Joshi, P. S. 1996, Class. Quant. Grav., 13, 559, 10.1088/0264-9381/13/3/019

    1996 doi

  44. [52]

    Tchekhovskoy, A., & McKinney, J. C. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 423, 55, 10.1111/j.1745-3933.2012.01256.x

    2012

  45. [53]

    K., & Mizuno, Y

    Uniyal, A., Dihingia, I. K., & Mizuno, Y. 2024, Astrophys. J., 970, 172, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5b5b

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    Vieira , R. S. S., & Klu \'z niak , W. 2023, , 523, 4615, 10.1093/mnras/stad1718

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    F., & Wang, A

    Villas da Rocha, J. F., & Wang, A. 2000, Class. Quant. Grav., 17, 2589, 10.1088/0264-9381/17/13/310

    2000 doi

  48. [56]

    Wald, R. M. 1984, General Relativity (Chicago, USA: Chicago Univ. Pr.), 10.7208/chicago/9780226870373.001.0001

    1984

  49. [57]

    1972, Gravitation and Cosmology : Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (New York: John Wiley and Sons)

    Weinberg, S. 1972, Gravitation and Cosmology : Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity (New York: John Wiley and Sons)

    1972

  50. [58]

    1981, Phys

    Wyman, M. 1981, Phys. Rev. D, 24, 839, 10.1103/PhysRevD.24.839

    1981 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.