Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Anisotropic Neutrino Emission from Spinning, Moving, and Charged Primordial Black Holes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Spinning, charged black holes in motion beam neutrinos forward

desk verdict The paper's central boost transformation is wrong by a factor of roughly γ^2(1+β cosθ')^3, so the advertised beamed-neutrino predictions and detection rates are unsupported. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.14510 v1 pith:YZYXAZAC submitted 2025-08-20 astro-ph.CO hep-ph

Arnab Chaudhuri This is my paper
classification astro-ph.COhep-ph
keywords primordialblackholesHawkingradiationneutrinoemissionKerr–NewmanDopplerbeaminggreybodyfactorsanisotropicfluxdarkmatterprobes
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

Primordial black holes are usually modeled as static, neutral, non-rotating objects radiating isotropically. This paper asks what happens to the neutrinos they emit when the black hole also spins, carries a small electric charge, and moves at relativistic speed. It argues that these three effects together concentrate the emitted neutrino flux into a narrow forward cone, harden the spectrum along the direction of motion, and make both the total flux and the burst duration sensitive to black-hole parameters. The payoff is that a single evaporating black hole could appear as a short, aimed neutrino burst whose angular and spectral shape encodes the mass, spin, charge, and velocity of the source. The paper closes by estimating event rates in current and planned neutrino detectors and by arguing that such bursts would stand out against the diffuse supernova neutrino background.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the Kerr–Newman Hawking emission rate written as a mode sum over (l,m): each mode's rest-frame rate is the greybody factor Gamma_{s l m}(omega) times a Fermi-Dirac occupation with the rotation-shifted energy omega - m Omega_H, multiplied by the angular pattern |sS_{l m}(theta; a omega)|^2 from the spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics. Relativistic motion enters through the Lorentz-transformation Jacobian, whose (1 + beta cos theta')^{-2} factor does the Doppler beaming, and charge enters through the Hawking temperature T_H and the greybody factors; neutrino neutrality removes the q Phi_H term. The named object doing the work is the Doppler-beaming Jacobian combined with the sp

What would settle it

Compute the exact spin-weighted spheroidal-harmonic angular distributions and greybody factors for s = ±1/2 in the Kerr–Newman background and rebuild the boosted lab-frame flux; if the true fermionic pattern shifts the dominant emission angle or changes the forward-cone width by more than the detector event-rate estimates can tolerate, this paper's specific burst profiles would have to be revised. A purely observational check would be a targeted search for short neutrino bursts from nearby evaporating PBHs: an absence of events within the predicted fluence range would constrain the abundance,

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the lab-frame neutrino emission from an evaporating Kerr–Newman primordial black hole is not a boosted isotropic thermal spectrum. Rotation makes the rest-frame emission anisotropic through the angular structure of spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics and the mode-dependence of greybody factors; relativistic bulk motion Lorentz-transforms that pattern into a cone of width roughly gamma^{-1}, amplifying the forward intensity by roughly (1 - beta cos theta)^{-3}; and electric charge lowers the Hawking temperature, softens the spectrum, suppresses the overall flux, and extends the evaporation time. Combining all three, the paper predicts short, highly directional neutrin

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rest-frame angular pattern of emitted neutrinos can be approximated by scalar spherical harmonics |Y_lm(theta,0)|^2, with the spin-weight of spin-1/2 neutrinos neglected; the paper states this explicitly, and the predicted lab-frame burst morphology follows from that pattern.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • When the spin axis is aligned with the velocity, the spin anisotropy and Doppler beaming reinforce, giving the most strongly collimated burst; anti-aligned and perpendicular configurations broaden the cone or split it into an asymmetric two-lobed pattern.
  • Relativistic motion hardens the lab-frame neutrino spectrum: a black hole with beta ~ 0.9 produces a significant high-energy tail above its rest-frame Hawking temperature, raising the fraction of neutrinos above typical detector thresholds.
  • Electric charge at the level Q/M >~ 0.1 lowers the temperature, suppresses the neutrino flux and fluence, and lengthens the black hole lifetime, delaying the final burst and softening the spectrum.
  • A single nearby (~kpc) evaporating PBH in the mass range 10^11-10^14 g could generate a detectable burst in water-Cherenkov and liquid-argon neutrino detectors, and a clustered population moving in the same direction would appear as a localized directional excess.
  • Directional neutrino observations could constrain the PBH mass function, abundance, velocity distribution, and spin orientation, complementing gamma-ray, microlensing, and gravitational-wave probes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper adopts scalar |Y_lm|^2 for the rest-frame angular pattern and semi-analytic greybody factors, the precise beam shape and lobe structure it plots are approximations; redoing the decomposition with true s = ±1/2 spheroidal harmonics is the natural next calculation and would sharpen or correct the quantitative maps.
  • The same boosted Kerr–Newman emission framework applies to photons and gravitons, so a coincident gamma-ray burst with matching angular and temporal structure would be a direct multi-messenger test that separates PBH evaporation from astrophysical transients.
  • If PBHs inherit correlated velocities from the same formation patch, for example inside a dark-matter subhalo, their individual bursts would stack into a persistent directional excess rather than a single flash; targeted stacking searches would then be more sensitive than single-burst triggers.
  • The charge-induced delay of the final explosion means that the burst arrival time relative to formation is itself a probe of Q: a detected burst lasting longer than the neutral-evaporation expectation would indicate that charged-particle emission was inefficient enough to keep the black hole charged.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a framework for computing anisotropic neutrino emission from Kerr-Newman primordial black holes with spin, electric charge, and relativistic bulk motion. It combines Hawking spectra with greybody factors, rest-frame angular harmonics, and Lorentz boosts, then uses the result to produce lab-frame angular maps, energy spectra, and detector event-rate estimates. The central claim is that moving, spinning PBHs can produce highly directional neutrino bursts whose angular and spectral structure encodes the PBH mass, spin, charge, and velocity.

Significance. If correct, the work would extend recent studies of beamed Hawking radiation to spinning and charged PBHs and would provide a useful starting point for directional neutrino searches. The paper correctly states the Kerr-Newman thermodynamic identities and sets up the mode-sum formalism. However, the central quantitative result relies on an incorrect Lorentz-transformation Jacobian, and the advertised spin-weighted angular treatment is not actually implemented. These issues undermine the claimed predictions, including the direction of the beaming effect and all derived spectra and event rates.

major comments (4)
  1. [§4.1, Eq. (4.5)] The Lorentz-transformation Jacobian is incorrect. From Eq. (4.2), d cosθ/d cosθ' = γ^{-2}(1+β cosθ')^{-2}; since φ is unchanged, dΩ'/dΩ = γ^2(1+β cosθ')^2. Combining with dt' = dt/γ and dE'/dE = [γ(1+β cosθ')]^{-1}, the product (dt'/dt)(dE'/dE)(dΩ'/dΩ) equals (1+β cosθ'), not [γ^2(1+β cosθ')^2]^{-1}. The correct boosted rate is d³N/(dt dE dΩ) = (1+β cosθ') d³N'/(dt' dE' dΩ'). The paper's factor is smaller by γ²(1+β cosθ')³, which at θ'=0, β=0.9 is a factor ≈36, and it decreases with cosθ', so Eq. (4.5) actually predicts backward, not forward, enhancement. All lab-frame distributions, spectra, and event rates in Secs. 6–7 and Figs. 2–5 inherit this error.
  2. [§3.1, Eqs. (3.3)–(3.5), (4.3), (4.6)] The rest-frame angular profile is taken to be |Y_{ℓm}(θ,0)|², the scalar spherical harmonic, although the paper's stated framework and Sec. 3.1 identify neutrino modes as spin-1/2 and the correct angular eigenfunctions as spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics sS_{ℓm}(θ;aω). The text explicitly acknowledges that this 'neglects the spin-weight of emitted particles.' Because the spin-induced angular anisotropy is a central claimed result, the spin-dependent part of the prediction is not actually computed. A revision would need to use sS_{ℓm}(θ;aω), or a quantitatively justified approximation, and redo the boosted profiles.
  3. [§6–§7, Figs. 3–6] The absolute normalization of the lab-frame flux is never specified. Eq. (7.1) requires a physical φ(E,θ), but the spectra are shown as 'Normalized dN/dE' (Fig. 3) and 'Normalized Flux (a.u.)' (Fig. 6), and Fig. 4's y-axis reads 'Differential Event Rate' without any derivation of the absolute rate from the emission model. The detection-rate claims and the comparison with the DSNB therefore cannot be checked or reproduced.
  4. [§5, App. A] The claimed charge dependence of neutrino emission is not computed. The greybody factors for Kerr-Newman with both a and Q are only 'semi-analytic approximations,' and the Appendix states that a fully accurate computation is left for future study. The charge effects on neutrino spectra are described only qualitatively (lower Hawking temperature and 'modified metric'), with no quantitative result. Since charge is one of the three parameters in the title, the paper's quantitative statements about Q are unsupported.
minor comments (5)
  1. [§6.1, Fig. 2 text] The text mentions a beaming half-angle with β=0.7, while the figure uses β=0.9; please reconcile.
  2. [Fig. 4] The x-axis is labeled 'Neutrino Energy E [GeV]' but the text says the event rate is shown as a function of PBH mass; clarify the abscissa.
  3. [§4.1, opening paragraph vs Eq. (4.3)] The opening paragraph says the rest-frame distribution is governed by spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics, but Eq. (4.3) immediately uses Y_{ℓm}; this inconsistency should be fixed.
  4. [Eq. (4.6)] The rotated angles (θ'_rot, φ'_rot) are not defined precisely; please specify the rotation that maps the spin axis to the velocity direction.
  5. [Ref. [30]] Ref. [30] is an unpublished preprint by the author and collaborators; the manuscript should clarify which results are taken from that work and which are new here.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central beaming prediction follows from a Lorentz transform of an assumed rest-frame spectrum; the only self-citation is background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The paper's central claim — that a moving Kerr-Newman PBH emits a beamed, anisotropic neutrino flux — is obtained by taking the rest-frame angular spectrum (Eq. 4.3) and applying a Lorentz transformation (Eqs. 4.1–4.2) to obtain the lab-frame differential rate (Eq. 4.5). This is a mathematical consequence of the assumed rest-frame physics, not a restatement of it: the beaming factor and angular compression are derived from aberration and Doppler shifting, and no parameter is fitted to any target observable. The spin-induced anisotropy is likewise an input model (Eq. 3.3) propagated through the transform; the prediction of 'directional bursts' is not definitionally identical to the input angular distribution, since it depends on the nontrivial boost. The only self-citation [30] is cited as background for the fact that moving PBHs produce anisotropic lab-frame emission; the paper's own derivation in Sec. 4 does not rest on that citation, so it is not load-bearing. There are substantial correctness concerns — the Jacobian in Eq. (4.5) appears to omit a factor (1 + β cos θ′), and the text uses scalar |Y_lm|^2 rather than spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics, with the latter acknowledged in Sec. 3.1 and App. A — but these are errors of computation/approximation, not circularity. No equation reduces by construction to its inputs.

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

The central claim rests on two approximations the paper itself flags: scalar-harmonic angular profiles in place of fermionic spheroidal harmonics, and semi-analytic greybody factors. Additionally, the boost transformation in Eq. (4.5) appears inconsistent with the text's beaming claim in Sec. 6.1.

assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption Kerr-Newman geometry describes spinning charged PBHs
    Used throughout Sec. 2.1; assumes PBHs can be treated as Kerr-Newman black holes.
  • standard math Hawking radiation formula Eq. (2.12) applies with greybody factors
    Standard result from black hole quantum field theory, cited to refs. [14,15,36-38].
  • ad hoc to paper Angular emission pattern of spin-1/2 neutrinos is approximated by scalar spherical harmonics |Y_lm(theta,0)|^2
    Sec. 3.1 and Eq. (4.3) replace spin-weighted spheroidal harmonics by scalar harmonics; the paper admits this is an approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The Lorentz boost Jacobian in Eq. (4.5) is correct
    The text relies on this to derive the boosted spectrum; standard aberration gives a different factor. If the Jacobian is wrong, the beaming amplitude and spectral shape are incorrect.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Anisotropic Neutrino Emission from Spinning, Moving, and Charged Primordial Black Holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/YZYXAZAC

@misc{pith2026250814510,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Anisotropic Neutrino Emission from Spinning, Moving, and Charged Primordial Black Holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/YZYXAZAC}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.14510}
}
read the original abstract

The angular and spectral features of neutrinos emitted from primordial black holes (PBHs) carry key imprints of the black hole's fundamental properties. This work investigates the directional emission of neutrinos from Kerr-Newman PBHs undergoing Hawking evaporation, accounting for the combined effects of spin, motion, and electric charge. Rotation induces anisotropic fluxes through axisymmetric geometry and spin-dependent greybody factors, while relativistic motion leads to pronounced Doppler beaming along the direction of travel. Electric charge modifies the thermodynamic evolution and suppresses the emission of like-charged particles, altering the overall spectrum and burst duration. The resulting neutrino flux exhibits rich angular structure, energy dependence, and time profiles that vary with PBH parameters. These directional signatures enhance the prospects for detection at current and future neutrino observatories, and offer new multi-messenger probes of PBH populations in the early universe.

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 7 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Y. B. Zel’dovich and I. D. Novikov, Sov. Astron.10 (1967), 602

    work page 1967

  2. [2]

    Hawking, Mon

    S. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.152 (1971), 75 doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75

    doi:10.1093/mnras/152.1.75 1971

  3. [3]

    B. J. Carr and S. W. Hawking, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.168 (1974), 399-415 doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 – 20 –

    doi:10.1093/mnras/168.2.399 1974

  4. [4]

    B. J. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010), 104019 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.104019 [arXiv:0912.5297 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Carr and F

    B. Carr and F. Kuhnel, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci.70 (2020), 355-394 doi:10.1146/annurev-nucl-050520-125911 [arXiv:2006.02838 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  6. [6]

    A. M. Green and B. J. Kavanagh, J. Phys. G48 (2021) no.4, 043001 doi:10.1088/1361-6471/abc534 [arXiv:2007.10722 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Garcia-Bellido, A

    J. Garcia-Bellido, A. D. Linde and D. Wands, Phys. Rev. D54 (1996), 6040-6058 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.54.6040 [arXiv:astro-ph/9605094 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv 1996

  8. [8]

    Kawasaki, A

    M. Kawasaki, A. Kusenko, Y. Tada and T. T. Yanagida, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.8, 083523 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.083523 [arXiv:1606.07631 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2016

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Sasaki, T

    M. Sasaki, T. Suyama, T. Tanaka and S. Yokoyama, Class. Quant. Grav.35 (2018) no.6, 063001 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aaa7b4 [arXiv:1801.05235 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Clesse and J

    S. Clesse and J. García-Bellido, Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.2, 023524 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.023524 [arXiv:1501.07565 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  3. [11]

    B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.201 (1975), 1-19 doi:10.1086/153853

    1975 doi

  4. [12]

    C. T. Byrnes, E. J. Copeland and A. M. Green, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012), 043512 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.86.043512 [arXiv:1206.4188 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2012 arXiv

  5. [13]

    A. M. Green, Phys. Rev. D94 (2016) no.6, 063530 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.063530 [arXiv:1609.01143 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  6. [14]

    S. W. Hawking, Nature248 (1974), 30-31 doi:10.1038/248030a0

    1974 doi

  7. [15]

    S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.43 (1975), 199-220 [erratum: Commun. Math. Phys. 46 (1976), 206] doi:10.1007/BF02345020

    1975 doi

  8. [16]

    J. H. MacGibbon and B. J. Carr, Astrophys. J.371 (1991), 447-469 doi:10.1086/169909

    1991 doi

  9. [17]

    Barrau, D

    A. Barrau, D. Blais, G. Boudoul and D. Polarski, Annalen Phys.13 (2004), 115-123 doi:10.1002/andp.200310067 [arXiv:astro-ph/0303330 [astro-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  10. [18]

    B. J. Carr, [arXiv:astro-ph/0511743 [astro-ph]]

    arXiv

  11. [19]

    Arbey and J

    A. Arbey and J. Auffinger, Eur. Phys. J. C79 (2019) no.8, 693 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-7161-1 [arXiv:1905.04268 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R. Dong, W. H. Kinney and D. Stojkovic, JCAP10 (2016), 034 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2016/10/034 [arXiv:1511.05642 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Laha, Phys

    R. Laha, Phys. Rev. Lett.123 (2019) no.25, 251101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.123.251101 [arXiv:1906.09994 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Bugaev and P

    E. Bugaev and P. Klimai, Phys. Rev. D79 (2009), 103511 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.79.103511 [arXiv:0812.4247 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Lunardini and Y

    C. Lunardini and Y. F. Perez-Gonzalez, JCAP08 (2020), 014 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/014 [arXiv:1910.07864 [hep-ph]]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Dasgupta, R

    B. Dasgupta, R. Laha and A. Ray, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) no.14, 141105 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.141105 [arXiv:2009.01825 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Abe �� ���[Super-Kamiokande], Phys

    K. Abe �� ���[Super-Kamiokande], Phys. Rev. D102 (2020) no.7, 072002 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.072002 [arXiv:2005.05109 [hep-ex]]

    2020

  18. [26]

    Abe �� ���[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

    K. Abe �� ���[Hyper-Kamiokande], [arXiv:1805.04163 [physics.ins-det]]

    arXiv

  19. [27]

    Abi �� ���[DUNE], [arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]]

    B. Abi �� ���[DUNE], [arXiv:2002.03005 [hep-ex]]

    2002

  20. [28]

    S. Y. Guo, M. Khlopov, X. Liu, L. Wu, Y. Wu and B. Zhu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.67 (2024) no.11, 111011 doi:10.1007/s11433-024-2445-1 [arXiv:2306.17022 [hep-ph]]. – 21 –

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Coogan, L

    A. Coogan, L. Morrison and S. Profumo, Phys. Rev. Lett.126 (2021) no.17, 171101 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.171101 [arXiv:2010.04797 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Chaudhuri, P

    A. Chaudhuri, P. Mishra and R. Mohanta, [arXiv:2507.20207 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv

  23. [31]

    Chiba and S

    T. Chiba and S. Yokoyama, PTEP2017 (2017) no.8, 083E01 doi:10.1093/ptep/ptx087 [arXiv:1704.06573 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  24. [32]

    De Luca, V

    V. De Luca, V. Desjacques, G. Franciolini, A. Malhotra and A. Riotto, JCAP05 (2019), 018 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/018 [arXiv:1903.01179 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Harada, C

    T. Harada, C. M. Yoo, K. Kohri and K. I. Nakao, Phys. Rev. D96 (2017) no.8, 083517 [erratum: Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.6, 069904] doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.083517 [arXiv:1707.03595 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G. W. Gibbons, Commun. Math. Phys.44 (1975), 245-264 doi:10.1007/BF01609829

    1975 doi

  27. [35]

    B. V. Lehmann, S. Profumo and J. Yant, JCAP04 (2018), 007 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/04/007 [arXiv:1801.00808 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976), 198-206 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.13.198

    1976 doi

  29. [37]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D14 (1976), 3260-3273 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.14.3260

    1976 doi

  30. [38]

    D. N. Page, Phys. Rev. D16 (1977), 2402-2411 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.16.2402

    1977 doi

  31. [39]

    Duffy, C

    G. Duffy, C. Harris, P. Kanti and E. Winstanley, JHEP09 (2005), 049 doi:10.1088/1126-6708/2005/09/049 [arXiv:hep-th/0507274 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Grain, A

    J. Grain, A. Barrau and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. D72 (2005), 104016 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.72.104016 [arXiv:hep-th/0509128 [hep-th]]

    2005 arXiv

  33. [41]

    R. A. Konoplya, A. F. Zinhailo and Z. Stuchlík, Phys. Rev. D99 (2019) no.12, 124042 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.124042 [arXiv:1903.03483 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Brito, V

    R. Brito, V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Physics,” Lect. Notes Phys.906 (2015), pp.1-237 2020, ISBN 978-3-319-18999-4, 978-3-319-19000-6, 978-3-030-46621-3, 978-3-030-46622-0 doi:10.1007/978-3-319-19000-6 [arXiv:1501.06570 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  35. [43]

    E. T. Newman, E. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash and R. Torrence, J. Math. Phys. 6 (1965), 918-919 doi:10.1063/1.1704351

    1965 doi

  36. [44]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.185 (1973), 635-647 doi:10.1086/152444

    1973 doi

  37. [45]

    Lunardini, Phys

    C. Lunardini, Phys. Rev. D73 (2006), 083009 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.73.083009 [arXiv:hep-ph/0601054 [hep-ph]]

    2006 arXiv

  38. [46]

    S. K. Acharya and R. Khatri, JCAP06 (2020), 018 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/06/018 [arXiv:2002.00898 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Mittal, A

    S. Mittal, A. Ray, G. Kulkarni and B. Dasgupta, JCAP03 (2022), 030 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/03/030 [arXiv:2107.02190 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    C. W. Misner, Phys. Rev. D8 (1973), 3271-3285 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.8.3271

    1973 doi

  41. [49]

    Seidel, Class

    E. Seidel, Class. Quant. Grav.6 (1989), 1057 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/6/7/012

    1989 doi

  42. [50]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J.193 (1974), 443-461 doi:10.1086/153180

    1974 doi

  43. [51]

    Cardoso, Gen

    V. Cardoso, Gen. Rel. Grav.45 (2013), 2079-2097 doi:10.1007/s10714-013-1584-z [arXiv:1307.0038 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  44. [52]

    W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D10 (1974), 3194-3205 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.10.3194

    1974 doi

  45. [53]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D81 (2010), 124036 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.81.124036 [arXiv:1004.1284 [hep-th]]. – 22 –

    2010 arXiv

  46. [54]

    B. Carr, K. Kohri, Y. Sendouda and J. Yokoyama, Rept. Prog. Phys.84 (2021) no.11, 116902 doi:10.1088/1361-6633/ac1e31 [arXiv:2002.12778 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2021 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Aalsma and W

    L. Aalsma and W. Sybesma, JHEP05 (2021), 291 doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2021)291 [arXiv:2104.00006 [hep-th]]

    2021 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Kohri and J

    K. Kohri and J. Yokoyama, Phys. Rev. D61 (2000), 023501 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.61.023501 [arXiv:astro-ph/9908160 [astro-ph]]. – 23 –

    2000 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.