Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Homothetic Killing horizons in generic Vaidya spacetimes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-02 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper shows that Vaidya-like spacetimes, including rotating Kerr-Vaidya, admit homothetic Killing vectors exactly when mass, charge, and rotation parameters are linear functions of advanced null time; for the rotating case both mass and

desk verdict The Kerr-Vaidya HKV result with ratio condition M/μ=a0/a1 is new and worth refereeing, but the iff claim outruns the restricted ansatz; the spherical Husain-type part is solid. read the letter →

arxiv 2604.09760 v2 pith:MW62G6EN submitted 2026-04-10 gr-qc hep-th

Ritwika Ghoshal , Nilay Kundu , Srijit Bhattacharjee This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th PACS 04.70.-s04.20.Jb04.70.Dy
keywords VaidyaspacetimehomotheticKillingvectorconformalhorizonKerr-Vaidyablackholethermodynamicssurfacegravityself-similarchargedHawkingradiation
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

Vaidya spacetimes describe black holes accreting or losing null matter, and in general they have no timelike Killing vector, so the usual Killing-horizon thermodynamics does not apply. This paper asks when such dynamical spacetimes still admit a conformal symmetry—specifically a homothetic Killing vector, for which the conformal factor is a constant. The answer the authors defend is that the symmetry exists only if the mass (and charge or rotation parameter) is linear in the advanced null time v; for Kerr-Vaidya, both the mass m(v) and rotation parameter a(v) must be dynamic and satisfy the matching condition M/μ = a0/a1. When that holds, a conformal transformation takes the dynamical metric to a stationary one, the homothetic Killing horizon (the null surface where the symmetry vector's norm vanishes) carries explicit surface gravities, and a flux-balance first law δE = T_eff δA/4 can be written. A reader should care because it supplies a concrete way to do black hole thermodynamics in models of rotating collapse and evaporation, where Killing horizons are absent.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the homothetic Killing vector: a solution of the conformal Killing equation Lξg = 2λg with constant λ. From this, together with the Einstein equations and the resulting condition LξT = 0, the paper derives that any admissible ξ must have the form {c v, c r, 0, const} (up to constants), and that the only parameter functions supporting it are linear in v. The matching conditions ∂v m/m = ∂v α/α = ∂v a/a = ∂v ξv/ξv act as a single 'screening' relation that ties accretion rates of mass, charge, and rotation to the initial values of those parameters.

What would settle it

Compute the full conformal Killing equation for the Kerr-Vaidya metric (58) without assuming ξθ = 0 or axisymmetry; any nontrivial solution that exists for a mass or rotation function not linear in v would refute the classification. Equivalently, check the unpublished Kerr-Vaidya stress tensor: if LξT_ab = 0 fails for the claimed linear profiles, the homotheticity argument loses its Einstein-equation support.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is a theorem-like classification: for Husain-type (spherically symmetric) Vaidya metrics and for Kerr-Vaidya, the conformal Killing equation Lξg = 2λg is solved by a vector ξ = {m(v)/M, μ r/M, 0, const} with constant λ if and only if the fractional rates of change of all parameters coincide, ∂v m/m = ∂v α/α = ∂v a/a = ∂v ξv/ξv, which forces m(v) = M + μ(v−v0) (and analogous linear relations for charge and rotation) together with the parameter screening condition M/μ = α0/α1 = a0/a1. The vector is therefore homothetic, not merely conformal. The paper then shows that with such a vector one can conformally map the dynamical spacetime to a stationary

Load-bearing premise

The classification relies on a restricted vector ansatz that excludes θ-components and on an unprinted stress-tensor computation, so if a conformal Killing vector with θ-dependence exists, the 'only if' claim is not proven.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, every Kerr-Vaidya-type spacetime satisfying the linearity and matching conditions can be mapped conformally to a stationary spacetime, allowing Killing-horizon techniques to be applied to a non-stationary model.
  • The three surface-gravity definitions, κ1, κ2, κ3, are not equivalent on a conformal Killing horizon, but for a homothetic Killing vector they differ by the constant λ, and κ1 is conformally invariant.
  • The flux-balance law δE = T_eff δA/4, with T_eff = 4 LξE / LξA, reduces to the expected Hawking temperature in the static limit and gives a v^-1 scaling in the dynamical phase.
  • The maximal analytic extension of the charged self-similar Vaidya spacetime attaches a future null infinity and separates the massless scalar wave equation, so a mode-decomposition Hawking calculation becomes possible; the paper expects non-thermal radiation.
  • The conformally related stationary metric is not a solution of the same Einstein equations and is generally not asymptotically flat, so thermodynamic notions defined on the HKH should be read as quasi-local rather than asymptotic.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to solve the full conformal Killing equation for Kerr-Vaidya without the restricted ansatz; a solution with nonzero θ-component would break the claimed 'iff' classification.
  • Because the Kerr-Vaidya stress tensor is quoted from an unpublished computer-algebra calculation, an independent closed-form derivation of T_ab and of LξT_ab = 0 would either close the only gap in the proof or reveal corrections at higher order in the rotation parameter.
  • The matching condition M/μ = a0/a1 has a direct physical reading—the initial specific angular momentum equals the ratio of accretion rates—and could be checked against astrophysical models of rotating collapse, where it would predict a preferred relation between spin and mass-growth histories.
  • The paper's universal structure across spherical and rotating cases hints at an underlying self-similarity; if that is more than form-level, one could expect homothetic Killing vectors in other self-similar collapse solutions, and probing that would be a natural next step.
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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the conformal Killing equation for Vaidya-type dynamical spacetimes, including the spherically symmetric Husain class and the Kerr-Vaidya metric. It claims that these spacetimes admit a unique homothetic Killing vector (HKV) when the mass, charge, and rotation parameters are linear functions of the advanced null time v, with the Kerr-Vaidya case requiring both m(v) and a(v) to be dynamical and to satisfy M/μ = a0/a1. The paper then defines the homothetic Killing horizon (HKH), computes associated surface gravities, proposes a flux-balance first law, and constructs a maximal analytic extension of charged Vaidya spacetime. The existence direction is developed explicitly by solving the CKE under stated ansätze, and the authors are transparent about some computational limitations, notably the unshown Mathematica stress tensor for Kerr-Vaidya. However, the global 'iff' classification and certain uniqueness claims are not established as stated, and some intermediate steps need correction.

Significance. If the classification were established in full, it would provide a useful family of dynamical black-hole spacetimes admitting a homothetic vector, allowing a conformal map to a stationary spacetime and giving explicit horizon and surface-gravity data. The paper also connects to earlier work on conformal Killing horizons [22,23,25,26] and extends it to Husain-type and rotating metrics. The explicit CKE calculations for the restricted ansätze and the construction of the self-similar charged Vaidya extension are concrete and partly checkable. The central significance is conditional, however, because the necessity half of the Kerr-Vaidya 'iff' claim rests on an unproven ansatz and an unshown stress-energy tensor, and because the spherically symmetric uniqueness proposition is contradicted by standard rotational Killing vectors unless the notion of homothetic vector is qualified.

major comments (4)
  1. [Abstract; §IV A, Eq. (59)] The claim that for Kerr-Vaidya 'the solution to the conformal Killing equation exists iff both mass and rotation parameters become dynamic' is not correct as a literal existence statement. For any metric of the form (58), the axial Killing vector ∂_φ satisfies L_{∂_φ}g=0, hence Eq. (27) with λ=0, regardless of m(v) and a(v). The derivation in §IV A is really about a particular class of CKVs, those of the restricted form (59) with a timelike/radial part that reduces to the stationary Kerr vector in the static limit. This restriction is not stated in the abstract. Moreover, no argument is given that every CKV with the desired properties must have ξ^θ=0 and no θ-dependence. Thus the necessity half of the claimed iff is incomplete. The paper should either prove that no θ-dependent CKVs exist, or explicitly state the classification as being within a specified ansatz, and should state whether
  2. [§III C, Eqs. (49)-(52)] The proposition that any HKV in a spherically symmetric Vaidya spacetime must be of the form ξ={cv,cr,0,const} is not supported and, as stated, is false. The text asserts that 'Spherical symmetry implies components of ξ should be independent of θ and φ.' This is not true for vector fields: a spherically symmetric metric admits the three rotational Killing vectors, which have non-trivial ξ^θ and ξ^φ components and satisfy L_ξg=0, i.e., Eq. (43) with λ=0. Under the paper's own definition, these are homothetic Killing vectors with constant zero conformal factor. If the intended statement concerns only proper homothetic vectors with λ≠0, or only vectors invariant under the SO(3) action, this must be stated and the proof must be rewritten. As it stands, the uniqueness claim in the spherical case is overbroad.
  3. [§IV A, after Eq. (73)] The proof that homotheticity implies linear mass and rotation for Kerr-Vaidya relies on the condition L_ξT=0, but the stress-energy tensor T_ab of the Kerr-Vaidya metric is never displayed. The text says the analysis was done in Mathematica and the expressions are 'not illuminating enough,' so they are omitted. This is a load-bearing step: without the components of T_ab, or a reproducible supplementary calculation, the reader cannot verify the necessity argument. Unlike the Husain case, where T_vv is given in Eq. (53), the Kerr-Vaidya analogue is absent. Please provide at least the relevant T_ab components, or a script/notebook, so this part of the proof is checkable.
  4. [§IV A, Eq. (62)] Equation (62) contains a likely typo or an error in the first condition: a(v)(∂_rξ^r + ∂_vξ^v) − 2 ∂_vξ^v ∂_v a(v) = 0. As printed, the second term has ∂_vξ^v rather than ξ^v, and the equation does not directly imply the stated conclusion ∂_vξ^v/ξ^v = ∂_v a/a in Eq. (63). This makes the Kerr-Vaidya derivation difficult to follow. Please check the equation and show the intermediate steps leading to (63). If the displayed equation is not a typo, additional explanation is needed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§II A, Eq. (5)] Equation (5) appears garbled: the middle equality L_ξ̄g_ab = ξ^c ∇̄_c ln Ω² is not the conformal Killing equation itself, and the final expression 2(∇̄_cξ^c)/D ̄g_ab is missing the metric factor. Please rewrite this chain of equalities carefully.
  2. [§III B, Eqs. (41)-(42)] The notation c4(v,r)=c4(r/m(v)) overloads the symbol c4. Use a different letter for the function of r/m(v), or define it explicitly.
  3. [§IV B, Eqs. (69) and (81)] In the full Kerr-Vaidya case the CKE gives ξ^φ=constant, Eq. (69). In the slow-rotation section, however, ξ^φ=a(v)/(4M^2) is used, Eq. (81), and is said to satisfy the CKE only up to linear order in a1. The relationship between these two choices and the order of truncation should be stated explicitly to avoid the appearance of inconsistency.
  4. [§IV B, Eq. (83)] The horizon radius r|_CKH = a(v)/(4a1)[1 ± sqrt(1−16μ)] assumes a1 ≠ 0. Since the existence of the CKV already requires a1 ≠ 0 in the rotating case, this is acceptable, but it should be noted.
  5. [§V C, Figures 1 and 2] Figures 1 and 2 are referenced in the text but do not appear in the manuscript version provided. Please include the figures or remove the references.
  6. [§V A, Eq. (85)] The surface-gravity formulas (85) are stated without derivation. If they come from a Mathematica computation, it would be helpful to show at least one representative calculation or provide the notebook, especially since the relation (87) is used to identify κ1 as the conformally invariant surface gravity.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

Central CKV/HKV classification is a genuine solution of the conformal Killing equation; only a minor definitional first-law identity and two completeness gaps prevent a 0.

  1. self definitional [Sec. V B, Eqs. (91)-(94)]
    "Tef f= δm(v)/δA/4 = 4Lξm(v)/LξA . ... This relation (94) can be regarded as a first law for HKH in a spherical setting, δE(v, r) = Tef f δA/4."

    The 'temperature' is defined as the ratio 4LξE/LξA (with E=m(v) for Vaidya), so the stated first law δE = T_eff δA/4 is just that defining ratio rearranged. It is a flux-balance identity by construction, not a relation derived from independent physics. The paper itself calls the definition empirical, and this step is not part of the CKV/HKV classification, so the circularity is minor.

full rationale

The central load-bearing derivation is self-contained. For Husain-type spherical Vaidya metrics, substituting the generic ansatz (31) into the CKE gives ξ^v linear in v and Eq. (37), ∂_v m/m = ∂_v α/α = ∂_v ξ^v/ξ^v, which integrates to linear mass and charge-like functions; the same structure for Kerr-Vaidya is obtained by solving the CKE with ansatz (59), yielding Eq. (66) and hence (67)-(68). Existence and necessity within the ansatz are direct algebraic consequences of the CKE, not of a fitted parameter or of the paper's own prior results. The dynamics section gives an independent route: homotheticity plus LξT=0 and the explicit T_vv of Eq. (53) force m and ψ to be linear in v. Self-citations ([23], [25], [26]) are background/normalization references and are not load-bearing. Two limitations should be weighed but are not circularity: the Kerr-Vaidya 'iff' is established only under the restricted ansatz (59), with no proof excluding θ-dependent CKVs, and the claimed Kerr-Vaidya stress tensor satisfying LξT=0 is relegated to an unshown Mathematica computation. The only reduction-by-construction found is the first-law mimic in Sec. V B, where T_eff is defined as the flux ratio and then the first law is written as that ratio; because the paper labels this empirical and it does not enter the main existence proof, the overall score is low.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on a specific parameter family (linear-in-v mass/charge/rotation with proportionality conditions) and on the existence of Einstein stress tensors for the metrics; the paper's main algebraic contribution is solving the conformal Killing equation within that family.

free parameters (5)
  • μ (mass accretion rate) = μ (symbolic; real, constrained by μ ≤ 1/16 for real horizons)
    Central existence result requires m(v) linear with slope μ; μ is chosen as a constant rate, not derived.
  • α1 or q1 (charge accretion rate) = α1 = μ α0 / M (Eq. 30) or q1 = μ q0 / M (Eq. 40)
    Ad hoc constraint needed for CKVs when profiles have non-zero initial values; emerges from Eq. (37) but is a parameter relation.
  • a1 (rotation parameter rate) = a1 = μ a0 / M (Eq. 68)
    Kerr-Vaidya CKV/HKV requires both mass and rotation linear with matching ratios; a1 is set by this relation.
  • k (Husain exponent / equation-of-state parameter) = k (symbolic; k > 1/2 for asymptotic flatness)
    Defines the Husain-type metric family (Eq. 23); results are k-dependent but no value is fixed.
  • v0 (transition time) = v0 (symbolic)
    Initial time at which the black hole becomes dynamical in profiles (29) and (67); a coordinate constant, but part of the parameter family.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Husain and Kerr-Vaidya metrics (23), (58), (76) admit a stress-energy tensor T_ab such that Einstein equations hold; for Kerr-Vaidya this is asserted but not displayed.
    The dynamic proof of linearity and the thermodynamics use LξT_ab=0, which presupposes Einstein equations with the stated spacetime as a solution.
  • ad hoc to paper In the uniqueness/iff proofs, CKVs are assumed to have the restricted forms (31) and (59): no θ-component and no θ dependence.
    Exhaustiveness is not proven; rotational Killing vectors make literal uniqueness false.
  • standard math For an HKV with constant conformal factor λ, LξT_ab=0 follows from Einstein equations (Eqs. 44-46); no cosmological constant is present in the main derivations.
    Tensor identity used to derive linear profiles; fails if a cosmological constant is included, as the authors note.
  • ad hoc to paper Boundary conditions m(0)=0 and ψ(0)=0 are imposed to remove integration constants, forcing the 'eternal' linear profiles (55), (57).
    The profile m(v)=μv instead of m0+μv is chosen by boundary condition, not by the Killing equation.
  • domain assumption Energy conditions for Husain-type matter (μ≥0, ρ≥0, 0≤P≤ρ) are assumed to hold, restricting mass and charge functions.
    Used to justify physical relevance; Kerr-Vaidya is acknowledged to violate classical energy conditions (footnote 4).
invented entities (1)
  • Homothetic Killing horizon (HKH)
    purpose: Null surface where the norm of the HKV vanishes; used as the dynamical analogue of a Killing horizon to define surface gravity and a flux-balance law.
    Introduced and named in this paper; no observational handle or externally verifiable prediction is given beyond the geometric definition.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Homothetic Killing horizons in generic Vaidya spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/MW62G6EN

@misc{pith2026260409760,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Homothetic Killing horizons in generic Vaidya spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/MW62G6EN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2604.09760}
}
read the original abstract

We study the conformal Killing equation for generic Vaidya-like spacetimes, including those with rotation. We show that these spacetimes admit a unique class of conformal Killing vectors that are homothetic for mass, charge, or rotation parameters being linear functions of the advanced null-time. For the Kerr-Vaidya metric, the solution to the conformal Killing equation exists iff both mass and rotation parameters become dynamic. The presence of a homothetic Killing vector (HKV) for such a spacetime enables one to conformally map the original dynamical spacetime to a stationary spacetime, enabling access to the standard methods pertaining to a Killing horizon. The surface where an HKV becomes null is termed the homothetic Killing horizon. We discuss the thermodynamic properties of such homothetic Killing horizons and formulate a version of the first law (or flux balance law) for spherically symmetric Vaidya spacetimes. We further study the maximal analytic extension of a charged Vaidya metric and indicate its implications for studying particle creation in such backgrounds.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2604.09760 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The region [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_2.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Bekenstein-Hawking temperature from the Schwarzian

    gr-qc 2026-05 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    Bekenstein-Hawking temperature is completely determined from the projective structure on the Killing horizon because the Schwarzian of the affine parameter equals minus half the square of surface gravity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 15 linked inside Pith · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    (97) As we see from above,m(v) andq(v) are linear functions ofvin 0≤v≤v 0

    Reissner–Nordstr¨ om-Vaidya: Let us start by writing again the metric for the spher- ically symmetric charged Vaidya spacetime, ds2 =− 1− 2m(v) r + q2(v) r2 dv2 + 2dv dr(95) +r 2 dθ2 + sin2 θ dϕ2 , with the mass and charge functions given by m(v) =    0 ifv≤0, µ vif 0≤v≤v 0 , Mifv≥v 0 , (96) and q(v) =    0 ifv≤0, q1 vif 0≤v≤v 0 , Qifv≥v 0 . (97...

    2022

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102

    2016

  3. [3]

    Abbott et al

    R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Phys. Rev. Lett.125, 101102 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.125.101102

    2020

  4. [4]

    T. E. H. T. Collaboration, K. Akiyama, A. Alberdi, W. Alef, K. Asada, R. Azulay, A.-K. Baczko, D. Ball, M. Balokovi´ c, J. Barrett, et al., The Astrophysical Jour- nal Letters875, L1 (2019), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    2019

  5. [5]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commu- nications in mathematical physics31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  6. [6]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Physical Review D7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  7. [7]

    S. W. Hawking, Communications in mathematical physics43, 199 (1975)

    1975

  8. [8]

    R. M. Wald, Living Rev. Rel.4, 6 (2001), gr-qc/9912119

    arXiv 2001

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Hawking and G

    S. Hawking and G. Ellis, Cambridge Univ. Press (1973)

    1973

  2. [11]

    Pound and B

    A. Pound and B. Wardell (2021), 2101.04592

    2021 arXiv

  3. [12]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev.56, 455 (1939), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.56.455

    1939

  4. [13]

    Ashtekar and B

    A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, Living Rev. Rel.7, 10 (2004), gr-qc/0407042

    2004 arXiv

  5. [15]

    Booth and S

    I. Booth and S. Fairhurst, Phys. Rev. Lett.92, 011102 (2004), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevLett.92.011102

    2004

  6. [16]

    Chunilal Vaidya, Current Science12, 183 (1943)

    P. Chunilal Vaidya, Current Science12, 183 (1943)

    1943

  7. [17]

    Chunilal Vaidya, Proc

    P. Chunilal Vaidya, Proc. Indian Acad. Sci. (Math. Sci.) 33, 264 (1951)

    1951

  8. [18]

    I. H. Dwivedi and P. S. Joshi, Classical and Quan- tum Gravity6, 1599 (1989), URLhttps://doi.org/10. 1088/0264-9381/6/11/013

    1989

  9. [20]

    Dyer and E

    C. Dyer and E. Honig, Journal of Mathematical Physics 20, 409 (1979)

    1979

  10. [21]

    Jacobson and G

    T. Jacobson and G. Kang, Class. Quant. Grav.10, L201 (1993), gr-qc/9307002

    1993 arXiv

  11. [22]

    Sultana and C

    J. Sultana and C. Dyer, Journal of Mathematical Physics 45, 4764 (2004)

    2004

  12. [23]

    A. B. Nielsen, Galaxies2, 62 (2014), ISSN 2075-4434, URLhttps://www.mdpi.com/2075-4434/2/1/62

    2014

  13. [24]

    A. B. Nielsen and A. A. Shoom, Class. Quant. Grav.35, 105008 (2018), 1708.08015

    2018 arXiv

  14. [25]

    W. B. Bonnor and P. C. Vaidya, Gen. Rel. Grav.1, 127 (1970)

    1970

  15. [26]

    Tarafdar and S

    A. Tarafdar and S. Bhattacharjee, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 205017 (2023), 2210.15246

    2023 arXiv

  16. [27]

    S. Koh, M. Park, and A. M. Sherif, JHEP24, 028 (2020), 2309.17398

    2020 arXiv

  17. [28]

    P. C. Vaidya and L. K. Patel, Phys. Rev. D7, 3590 (1973)

    1973

  18. [29]

    Husain, Phys

    V. Husain, Phys. Rev. D53, 1759 (1996), gr-qc/9511011

    1996 arXiv

  19. [30]

    Creelman and I

    B. Creelman and I. Booth, Phys. Rev. D95, 124033 (2017), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.95.124033

    2017

  20. [31]

    P. K. Dahal and D. R. Terno, Phys. Rev. D102, 124032 (2020), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.102.124032

    2020

  21. [32]

    Murenbeeld and J

    M. Murenbeeld and J. R. Trollope, Phys. Rev. D 1, 3220 (1970), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10. 1103/PhysRevD.1.3220

    1970

  22. [33]

    Hammad, ´E

    F. Hammad, ´E. Mass´ e, and P. Labelle, Phys. Rev. D98, 104049 (2018), 1811.12201

    2018 arXiv

  23. [34]

    Landsberg and G

    P. Landsberg and G. Tonge, Journal of Applied Physics 51, R1 (1980)

    1980

  24. [35]

    Casas-V´ azquez and D

    J. Casas-V´ azquez and D. Jou, Reports on Progress in Physics66, 1937 (2003)

    1937

  25. [36]

    H. Kodama, Progress of Theoretical Physics63, 1217 (1980), ISSN 0033- 068X, https://academic.oup.com/ptp/article- pdf/63/4/1217/5243205/63-4-1217.pdf, URL https://doi.org/10.1143/PTP.63.1217

    1980 doi

  26. [37]

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

    1964

  27. [38]

    S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D53, 1938 (1996), URLhttps://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevD. 53.1938

    1938 doi

  28. [39]

    Abreu and M

    G. Abreu and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D82, 044027 (2010), 1004.1456

    2010 arXiv

  29. [40]

    Dorau and R

    P. Dorau and R. Verch, Class. Quant. Grav.41, 145008 (2024), 2402.18993

    2024 arXiv

  30. [41]

    Chatterjee and A

    A. Chatterjee and A. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D91, 064054 (2015), 1412.5115

    2015 arXiv

  31. [42]

    Chatterjee and A

    A. Chatterjee and A. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D92, 044003 (2015), 1502.07128

    2015 arXiv

  32. [43]

    W. A. Hiscock, L. G. Williams, and D. M. Eardley, Phys. Rev. D26, 751 (1982)

    1982

  33. [44]

    B. C. Nolan, Class. Quant. Grav.24, 177 (2007), gr- qc/0608040

    2007

  34. [45]

    Ojako, R

    S. Ojako, R. Goswami, S. D. Maharaj, and R. Narain, Class. Quant. Grav.37, 055005 (2020), 1904.08120

    2020 arXiv

  35. [46]

    Capuano, L

    L. Capuano, L. Santoni, and E. Barausse, Phys. Rev. D 110, 084081 (2024), 2407.06009

    2024 arXiv

Pith tools

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