Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Pure electromagnetic radiation, sufficiently intense, can collapse under its own gravity into a black hole, and just below collapse it persists as a horizonless ultracompact state whose measured compactness exceeds the hoop-conjecture bound

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 22:23 UTC pith:T6NGHNAZ

load-bearing objection A legitimate numerical experiment on collapse of focused EM radiation with a real data release; the hoop-conjecture compactness number is shakier than the abstract claims. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15761 v1 pith:T6NGHNAZ submitted 2026-07-17 gr-qc

The weight of light: colliding pulses of radiation in General Relativity

Jorge Exp\'osito Pati\~no , Vitor Cardoso , Hannes R. R\"uter This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C0583C3583C5783C75 PACS 04.25.D-04.30.-w04.70.Bw
keywords gravitational collapseelectromagnetic pulseshoop conjecturecritical collapsenumerical relativityEinstein-Maxwell systemultracompact objectsringdown
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper asks whether pure electromagnetic radiation, by its own gravitational attraction, can concentrate enough to form a black hole, and what happens just before it does. Using fully nonlinear solutions of the Einstein–Maxwell equations, it finds that a single focused pulse of light collapses when its dimensionless amplitude exceeds A* ≈ 0.5271, and that the black hole formed is moving fast and has a horizon mass that shrinks toward zero at threshold, so there is no mass gap. Below threshold, the pulse does not simply disperse: it lingers as a very compact, horizonless state whose measured compactness (up to 2.32) exceeds the value the hoop conjecture allows. For head-on collisions of two pulses, amplitudes above A ≈ 0.383 can produce two collapse-bound black holes or one large one, while near-threshold collisions form two ultracompact states with a double ringdown. If right, this means light itself can form long-lived self-gravitating structures and challenges the idea that only matter above a fixed compactness collapses.

Core claim

The evolutions show a single focused pulse with amplitude above A* ≈ 0.5271 forms an apparent horizon and a fast black hole (coordinate speed 0.64), whose early horizon mass drops toward zero at threshold — no mass gap. Below threshold (A = 0.5271) the pulse lingers: ringdown implies a light ring at r ≈ 3.2a, luminosity decays slowly, and ellipsoidal compactness reaches 2.32, above the hoop value 1. Head-on collisions with A ≳ 0.383 form one or two apparent horizons depending on tuning; subcritical collisions make one compact state that splits into two, with a double ringdown at more than twice the first frequency.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is a family of focused, causal electromagnetic pulses built from Hertz potentials, with a dimensionless amplitude A that sets the initial energy (made constraint-satisfying via the conformal thin-sandwich equations), evolved as a fully nonlinear Einstein–Maxwell system. The paper's three key diagnostics are: (1) apparent-horizon formation time and horizon mass; (2) gravitational and electromagnetic waveforms, whose higher multipoles are fit to the eikonal relation ω ≃ Ω_c l − i(n+1/2)λ to infer light-ring radii; and (3) a compactness estimator C_B = 2M/(3V/4π)^{1/3} measured on coordinate ellipsoids built from intersecting spectral elements. This estimator is what carri

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the ellipsoidal compactness proxy C_B — computed by summing whole spectral elements that intersect coordinate ellipsoids, with proper lengths matched only along principal directions — faithfully measures the hoop-conjecture compactness; the authors explicitly note these are not exactly spheres in the slice, and if the proxy overestimates the true compactness near threshold, the claim of beating the hoop bound and the existence of the ultrac

What would settle it

Take the same near-critical initial data (e.g. single pulse, A = 0.5271) and recompute compactness on surfaces that are exact spheres in the spatial slice geometry (or on the outer boundary of a trapped-surface search), with volume and mass measured inside those surfaces. If no such surface has 2M/R > 1 — or if a higher-resolution run (more collocation points per element, or an independent evolution code) produces no apparent horizon and C ≤ 1 at all times — the central claim collapses. Conversely, finding one such surface with C > 1 in data without an apparent horizon would confirm it.

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A single pulse above A* ≈ 0.5271 produces a fast black hole whose initial mass tends to zero at the threshold; the authors find no mass gap for massless fields, in line with critical collapse.
  • Subcritical pulses form horizonless states with compactness above 1 (up to 2.32 in one simulation), so the hoop conjecture's maximum compactness is not a sufficient condition for horizon formation and ultracompact matter can exist without horizons.
  • Head-on collisions above A ≈ 0.383 form one or two black holes depending on tuning; near threshold, two ultracompact states emerge and their gravitational waveforms show a double ringdown with radii a few times smaller than in the single-pulse case.
  • Measured electromagnetic luminosities approach the Dyson–Thorne upper bound, so these processes are extremely efficient radiators in both EM and gravitational channels.
  • The nonlinear interaction transfers energy to high-frequency modes, meaning a substantial fraction of the incoming energy is moved to small length scales rather than simply being absorbed.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the compactness measurement survives a proper-sphere check, light alone could support long-lived horizonless configurations — a classical, dynamical counterpart to Wheeler's geon idea, which the paper says it will address later.
  • These ultracompact states should have distinctive gravitational-wave signatures (ringdown with lower quality factors than black holes, plus a second, higher-frequency ringdown in collisions); searching for such double ringdowns in detector data is a targeted test, though far outside current sensitivity for these scales.
  • The critical amplitudes themselves are scale-free: rescaling a changes the physical field strength and mass while preserving A; choosing a large enough keeps electric fields below the Schwinger threshold, allowing classical collapse results to hold without invoking pair production — the paper notes its system can always be scaled below that limit.
  • One could test the interpretation by tracking whether the inferred light-ring radius shrinks to zero as A → A* from below; the paper's eikonal fits suggest it does not vanish, which would mean the near-critical compact state has a finite size set by a, not by the horizon.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. This paper reports numerical-relativity evolutions of focused, self-gravitating electromagnetic pulses, both single pulses and head-on collisions, using the BAMPS pseudospectral code. The authors determine a subcritical/supercritical amplitude threshold for black-hole formation (A* ≈ 0.5271 for a single pulse, A ≈ 0.383 for collisions), identify long-lived, horizonless ultracompact states near threshold, and report a compactness measurement of C = 2.32 for a close-to-critical single-pulse configuration, which they claim exceeds the hoop-conjecture maximum. The paper also documents apparent-horizon properties, ringdown waveforms with eikonal fits, electromagnetic luminosity behavior, and a resolution study.

Significance. If the main claims hold, the paper provides a clean demonstration that pure classical electromagnetic radiation can self-gravitate into horizonless ultracompact configurations and, above a threshold, into black holes. This is relevant to the hoop conjecture, ultrarelativistic collision physics, and the long-standing question of geons/compact self-gravitating objects made of massless fields. The authors should be credited for making the simulation parameter files, waveforms, luminosity curves, and compactness data publicly available on Zenodo, and for including a resolution comparison indicating about 1% waveform error at peak. The eikonal analysis of the ringdown and the Dyson-Thorne luminosity comparison are also useful supporting diagnostics. However, as detailed below, the advertised hoop-violation conclusion rests on a compactness proxy whose relation to the hoop conjecture is not established.

major comments (3)
  1. [Appendix D, Eq. (D1)] The headline compactness claim is not yet supported. The quantity C_B is computed by summing mass and volume over entire spectral elements that intersect a coordinate ellipsoid, with proper lengths matched only along principal directions. As the text itself notes, these are 'not exactly spheres in the slice geometry, which are the regions considered in the hoop conjecture.' This construction can overcount matter well outside the intended region, and no error bar or conservative bound is given for the reported C = 2.32. Since the abstract's 'above the maximum value proposed by the hoop conjecture' depends entirely on this measurement, the claim should either be replaced by a measurement on actual spheres in the slice geometry, or supplemented by a rigorous bound showing that the proxy cannot change the inequality, together with an uncertainty estimate.
  2. [Head-on collisions and Appendix D] The same proxy is used for the collision compactness values (C = 0.77 and C = 1.09 for the states in the A = 0.38 simulation). If the ellipsoid-element overcounting is upward-biased, the claimed formation of two horizonless states with compactness above unity is not demonstrated either. The existence of such states is also argued from ringdown and delayed EM luminosity, which are independent and valuable, but those diagnostics do not by themselves establish a hoop-violating compactness. Please either apply the corrected sphere-based measurement to the collision case as well, or clearly separate the robust existence claim from the quantitative hoop comparison.
  3. [Single Pulse, Table I] The statement that the horizon mass tends to zero at threshold, and hence that there is no mass gap, is inferred from a small number of amplitudes (A = 0.528, 0.6, 0.7, ...). No near-critical scaling analysis is presented, and no uncertainty is given for the critical amplitude A* ≈ 0.5271. This does not affect the existence of the threshold, but the 'zero mass BH at threshold' claim should be softened unless supported by a dedicated critical-collapse study.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Framework, Eq. (4)] Typo: 'Introducing the the timelike normal' should read 'Introducing the timelike normal'.
  2. [Appendix B] Typo: 'light-ring four our dynamical' should read 'light-ring for our dynamical'.
  3. [Abstract / Introduction] The phrase 'maximum value proposed by the hoop conjecture' is unusual; the hoop conjecture is usually phrased as a threshold C = 1, not a maximum value. Consider rewording for precision.
  4. [Appendix C] The resolution study shown in Fig. 7 is for the subcritical A = 0.5 single-pulse waveform. It would strengthen the paper to include a similar convergence statement for the near-threshold horizon-formation time and for the compactness measurement.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circular derivation found: thresholds and compactness are measured outputs; the ellipsoid-vs-sphere caveat is a validity issue, not a circular step.

full rationale

The paper's central results are obtained by fully nonlinear numerical evolutions of the Einstein-Maxwell system with explicitly stated initial data (Hertz-potential causal pulses) and a battery of diagnostics: apparent-horizon formation, Weyl scalar ringdown fits, EM luminosity, and compactness integrals. The threshold amplitudes (A*≈0.5271 for a single pulse, A≈0.383 for head-on collisions) are measured outputs of the simulations, not inputs tuned to reproduce the conclusions. Likewise, the compactness values reported in Appendix D are computed after evolution from the evolved metric and stress-energy tensor; they are not fitted parameters recycled as predictions. The paper explicitly concedes that the coordinate ellipsoids used in Eq. (D1) 'are not exactly spheres in the slice geometry, which are the regions considered in the hoop conjecture.' This is an important limitation on whether the hoop-violation claim is fully established, but it is not circularity: C_B is not defined in terms of the claim, and the paper does not assert that the ellipsoids are spheres. Self-citations to BAMPS and the Einstein-Maxwell implementation ([27,37,38]) are tool references supported by a public data release and a resolution comparison; they do not import a uniqueness theorem or a fitted ansatz that forces the physical conclusions. The use of the Schwarzschild relation r_light=3M to interpret ringdown frequencies of horizonless states is an interpretive extrapolation, not an input defining the measured compactness or the black-hole threshold. Overall, no load-bearing circular step was found; the main concern is the external validity of the compactness proxy, which belongs to correctness/robustness rather than circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

All input numbers (a, A, t0, extraction radius) are setup choices, not fits to the target. The physical claim assumes classical GR/EM and an approximate compactness proxy; no invented entities or new forces are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Amplitude parameter A = scanned 0.010–1.0; thresholds A*=0.5271 / ~0.383 are results
    Controls pulse strength in Hertz-potential initial data (Eq. 6); the critical values are measured, not fit.
  • Normalization constant c̃ = chosen so M_ADM/a = A^2 in the linear regime
    Defines the amplitude scale; physical results are invariant under rescaling with a.
  • Initial time t0 = -8a
    Selected so the simulation starts effectively in the linear regime; too small or large changes computational cost and residual nonlinearity.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Classical Einstein-Maxwell equations (Eqs. 1–3) describe the pulses; quantum pair creation is neglected.
    The Discussion explicitly defers the Schwinger effect to future work and notes scales can be chosen below the Schwinger limit.
  • standard math Hertz-potential conformal EM fields satisfying linear constraints also satisfy the full nonlinear EM constraints.
    Invoked in the Framework section, following Refs. [23,27].
  • domain assumption Apparent horizon detection marks black-hole formation in these slices.
    Tables I–II use first detected apparent horizons as collapse diagnostics.
  • domain assumption The eikonal relation ω≈Ω_c l − i(n+1/2)λ and the Schwarzschild light-ring formula r_light=3M apply to the dynamical horizonless compact states.
    Appendix B uses these to convert measured ringdown frequencies into light-ring radii; the paper itself notes the spacetime is not stationary.
  • domain assumption The hoop-conjecture compactness benchmark C=2M/R=1 (Eq. 7) is the right threshold to compare against.
    Used to interpret compactness data; Appendix D admits the measured ellipsoids are not exactly the spheres of that conjecture.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 11393 in / 12957 out tokens · 105534 ms · 2026-08-01T22:23:50.796690+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We study the gravitational interaction of very strong pulses of electromagnetic radiation, up to and beyond gravitational collapse. We demonstrate the existence of very compact states close to the threshold of collapse, both for a single pulse, and a head-on collision of such pulses, and we measure their compactness to be above the maximum value proposed by the hoop conjecture. For a single pulse above the threshold of collapse, a fast black hole is produced. Depending on the amount of tuning, head-on collisions can form two horizonless states, two small black holes or one big black hole. Our results show that the gravitational interaction of massless fields can lead to nontrivial final or intermediate states, while giving rise to extremely high luminosity and compactness.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.15761 by Hannes R. R\"uter, Jorge Exp\'osito Pati\~no, Vitor Cardoso.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Evolution of a single pulse for a close-to-critical amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Radiation properties during the evolution of a single EM pulse, for different amplitudes. All of the plots are rescaled [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Same setup as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spin-weighted spherical harmonic mode con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radiation in head-on pulse collisions for different amplitudes, extracted at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Fit of the measured ringdown frequencies to the eikonal approximation, see equation ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Waveform error for the Ψ 40 4 mode for the subcriti￾cal single pulse simulation with A = 0.5. The solid line shows the absolute value of Ψ 40 4 for a simulation with 19 collocation points per dimension in each spectral element. Dashed and dash-dotted lines show the absolute value of the difference to the result from simulation with 15 and 17 collocation points respectively. Appendix C: Resolution compariso… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Nonlinear Dynamics near the Threshold of Gravitational Collapse

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0

    Perturbation theory around flat space fails before black hole formation once peak luminosity exceeds ~10^-2 L_Planck; near criticality the spectrum flattens to 1/ω, matching the prediction from discrete self-similarity.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

54 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    Banks and W

    T. Banks and W. Fischler, A Model for high-energy scat- tering in quantum gravity (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9906038

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  2. [2]

    S. B. Giddings and S. D. Thomas, High-energy colliders asblackholefactories: TheEndofshortdistancephysics, Phys. Rev. D65, 056010 (2002), arXiv:hep-ph/0106219

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  3. [3]

    Sperhake, E

    U. Sperhake, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and F. Pretorius, 6 Universality, maximum radiation and absorption in high- energycollisionsofblackholeswithspin,Phys.Rev.Lett. 111, 041101 (2013), arXiv:1211.6114 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Cardoso, L

    V. Cardoso, L. Gualtieri, C. Herdeiro, and U. Sper- hake, Exploring New Physics Frontiers Through Nu- merical Relativity, Living Rev. Relativity18, 1 (2015), arXiv:1409.0014 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  5. [5]

    K. S. Thorne, The theory of gravitational radiation: an introductory review, inLes Houches Summer School on Gravitational Radiation(North-Holland., Amsterdam (Netherlands), 1983) pp. 1—-57

    1983

  6. [6]

    Flanagan, Hoop conjecture for black-hole horizon for- mation, Phys

    E. Flanagan, Hoop conjecture for black-hole horizon for- mation, Phys. Rev. D44, 2409 (1991)

    1991

  7. [7]

    Szekeres, Colliding gravitational waves, Nature228, 1183 (1970)

    P. Szekeres, Colliding gravitational waves, Nature228, 1183 (1970)

    1970

  8. [8]

    K. A. Khan and R. Penrose, Scattering of two impulsive gravitational plane waves, Nature229, 185 (1971)

    1971

  9. [9]

    Penrose, presented at the Cambridge University Sem- inar, Cambridge, England, 1974 (unpublished) (1974)

    R. Penrose, presented at the Cambridge University Sem- inar, Cambridge, England, 1974 (unpublished) (1974)

    1974

  10. [10]

    Luk and I

    J. Luk and I. Rodnianski, Nonlinear interaction of impul- sive gravitational waves for the vacuum Einstein equa- tions (2013), arXiv:1301.1072 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  11. [11]

    D. M. Eardley and S. B. Giddings, Classical black hole production in high-energy collisions, Phys. Rev. D66, 044011 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0201034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  12. [12]

    Gonzalez, The High-energy collision of two black holes, Phys

    U.Sperhake, V.Cardoso, F.Pretorius, E.Berti,andJ.A. Gonzalez, The High-energy collision of two black holes, Phys. Rev. Lett.101, 161101 (2008), arXiv:0806.1738 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  13. [13]

    Sperhake, V

    U. Sperhake, V. Cardoso, F. Pretorius, E. Berti, T. Hin- derer, and N. Yunes, Cross section, final spin and zoom- whirl behavior in high-energy black hole collisions, Phys. Rev. Lett.103, 131102 (2009), arXiv:0907.1252 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  14. [14]

    Shibata, H

    M. Shibata, H. Okawa, and T. Yamamoto, High-velocity collision of two black holes, Phys. Rev. D78, 101501 (2008), arXiv:0810.4735 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  15. [15]

    W. E. East and F. Pretorius, Ultrarelativistic black hole formation, Phys. Rev. Lett.110, 101101 (2013), arXiv:1210.0443 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  16. [16]

    Healy, I

    J. Healy, I. Ruchlin, C. O. Lousto, and Y. Zlochower, HighEnergyCollisionsofBlackHolesNumericallyRevis- ited, Phys. Rev. D94, 104020 (2016), arXiv:1506.06153 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  17. [17]

    Healy, A

    J. Healy, A. Ciarfella, and C. O. Lousto, Maximum radiated energy and final spin of high speed collision of two black holes, Phys. Rev. D111, 084077 (2025), arXiv:2410.20239 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  18. [18]

    Bozzola, Does Charge Matter in High-Energy Col- lisions of Black Holes?, Phys

    G. Bozzola, Does Charge Matter in High-Energy Col- lisions of Black Holes?, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 071101 (2022), arXiv:2202.05310 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  19. [19]

    H. Zhu, F. Pretorius, and J. M. Stone, Trap- ping, Irregular Waveforms, and Efficient Radiation in Ultra-relativistic Black Hole Encounters (2026), arXiv:2604.26253 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  20. [20]

    T. W. Baumgarte, C. Gundlach, and D. Hilditch, Crit- ical phenomena in the gravitational collapse of electro- magnetic waves, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, 171103 (2019), arXiv:1909.00850 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  21. [21]

    M. F. P. Mendoza and T. W. Baumgarte, Critical phe- nomena in the gravitational collapse of electromagnetic dipole and quadrupole waves, Phys. Rev. D103, 124048 (2021), arXiv:2104.03980 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  22. [22]

    G. D. Reid and M. W. Choptuik, Universality in the crit- ical collapse of the Einstein-Maxwell system, Phys. Rev. D108, 104021 (2023), arXiv:2308.03943 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  23. [23]

    Alcubierre, J

    M. Alcubierre, J. C. Degollado, and M. Salgado, The Einstein-Maxwell system in 3+1 form and initial data for multiple charged black holes, Phys. Rev. D80, 104022 (2009), arXiv:0907.1151 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  24. [24]

    Alcubierre,Introduction to 3+1 Numerical Relativity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2008)

    M. Alcubierre,Introduction to 3+1 Numerical Relativity (Oxford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2008)

    2008

  25. [25]

    T. W. Baumgarte and S. L. Shapiro,Numerical Relativ- ity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  26. [26]

    Gourgoulhon, 3+1 formalism and bases of numerical relativity (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0703035

    E. Gourgoulhon, 3+1 formalism and bases of numerical relativity (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0703035

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  27. [27]

    Expósito Patiño, H

    J. Expósito Patiño, H. R. Rüter, and D. Hilditch, Pseu- dospectral implementation of the Einstein-Maxwell sys- tem, SciPost Phys.19, 112 (2025), arXiv:2504.11069 [gr- qc]

    arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Baumgarte and S

    T. Baumgarte and S. Shapiro,Numerical Relativity: Solving Einstein’s Equations on the Computer(Cam- bridge University Press, 2010)

    2010

  29. [29]

    Varga and P

    P. Varga and P. Török, The gaussian wave solution of maxwell’s equations and the validity of scalar wave ap- proximation, Optics Communications152, 108 (1998)

    1998

  30. [30]

    J. D. Jackson,Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed. (Wiley, New York, 1999)

    1999

  31. [31]

    Lekner, Electromagnetic pulses, localized and causal, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Math- ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences474, 10.1098/rspa.2017.0655 (2018)

    J. Lekner, Electromagnetic pulses, localized and causal, Proceedings of the Royal Society A: Math- ematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences474, 10.1098/rspa.2017.0655 (2018)

    arXiv 2017

  32. [32]

    Busza, K

    W. Busza, K. Rajagopal, and W. van der Schee, Heavy ion collisions: The big picture and the big questions, Annual Review of Nuclear and Particle Science68, 339 (2018), arXiv:1802.04801 [hep-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  33. [33]

    Schoen and S

    R. Schoen and S. T. Yau, The existence of a black hole due to condensation of matter, Commun. Math. Phys. 90, 575 (1983)

    1983

  34. [34]

    Hirsch, D

    S. Hirsch, D. Kazaras, M. Khuri, and Y. Zhang, Spec- tral Torical Band Inequalities and Generalizations of the Schoen–Yau Black Hole Existence Theorem, Int. Math. Res. Not.2024, 3139 (2024), arXiv:2301.08270 [math.DG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  35. [35]

    Bizon, E

    P. Bizon, E. Malec, and N. O’Murchadha, Trapped sur- faces due to concentration of matter in spherically sym- metric geometries, Class. Quant. Grav.6, 961 (1989)

    1989

  36. [36]

    Gundlach, D

    C. Gundlach, D. Hilditch, and J. M. Martín-García, Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse (2025), arXiv:2507.07636 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [37]

    Hilditch, A

    D. Hilditch, A. Weyhausen, and B. Brügmann, Pseu- dospectral method for gravitational wave collapse, Phys. Rev. D93, 063006 (2016), arXiv:1504.04732 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  38. [38]

    Renkhoff, D

    S. Renkhoff, D. Cors, D. Hilditch, and B. Brügmann, Adaptive hp refinement for spectral elements in nu- merical relativity, Phys. Rev. D107, 104043 (2023), arXiv:2302.00575 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  39. [39]

    J.ExpósitoPatiño, H.R.Rüter,andV.Cardoso,Electro- magnetic and gravitational waveforms from strong ampli- tude laser simulations, 10.5281/zenodo.20025598 (2026)

    work page doi:10.5281/zenodo.20025598 2026

  40. [40]

    Boyle, Transformations of asymptotic gravitational- wave data, Phys

    M. Boyle, Transformations of asymptotic gravitational- wave data, Phys. Rev. D93, 084031 (2016), arXiv:1509.00862 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  41. [41]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and A. O. Starinets, Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 163001 (2009), arXiv:0905.2975 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  42. [42]

    Bertiet al., Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]

    E. Bertiet al., Black hole spectroscopy: from theory to experiment (2025), arXiv:2505.23895 [gr-qc]. 7

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  43. [43]

    Cardoso, T

    V. Cardoso, T. Ikeda, C. J. Moore, and C.-M. Yoo, Re- marks on the maximum luminosity, Phys. Rev. D97, 084013 (2018), arXiv:1803.03271 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  44. [44]

    Capuano, T

    L. Capuano, T. Lovo, G. Prieto-Varela, S. Sarkar, A. Kuntz, E. Barausse, and D. Kothawala, When the Ringing Stops: Purely Imaginary Modes in the Ringdown Spectrum of Dynamical Black Holes (2026) arXiv:2605.28951 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  45. [45]

    Dyson, Gravitational Machines, inInterstellar Com- munication: A Collection of Reprints and Original Con- tributions(1963) p

    F. Dyson, Gravitational Machines, inInterstellar Com- munication: A Collection of Reprints and Original Con- tributions(1963) p. 115, arXiv:2305.10470 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1963

  46. [46]

    K. S. Thorne, The theory of gravitational radiation - an introductory review, inGravitational Radiation, edited by N. Deruelle and T. Piran (1983) pp. 1–57

    1983

  47. [47]

    Cardoso, Black hole bombs and explosions: from as- trophysics to particle physics, General Relativity and Gravitation45, 2079–2097 (2013), arXiv:1307.0038 [gr- qc]

    V. Cardoso, Black hole bombs and explosions: from as- trophysics to particle physics, General Relativity and Gravitation45, 2079–2097 (2013), arXiv:1307.0038 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2079

  48. [48]

    J. A. Wheeler, Geons, Phys. Rev.97, 511 (1955)

    1955

  49. [49]

    Álvarez-Domínguez, L

    A. Álvarez-Domínguez, L. J. Garay, E. Martín-Martínez, and J. Polo-Gómez, No black holes from light, Phys. Rev. Lett.133, 041401 (2024), arXiv:2405.02389 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  50. [50]

    D. N. Page, Light Black Holes from Light, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 261402 (2025), arXiv:2505.16202 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  51. [51]

    D. P. Marrone, J. M. Moran, J.-H. Zhao, and R. Rao, An Unambiguous Detection of Faraday Rotation in Sagit- tarius A*, the Astrophysical Journal Letters654, L57 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0611791 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  52. [52]

    Shibata and K

    M. Shibata and K. Taniguchi, Merger of binary neutron stars to a black hole: Disk mass, short gamma-ray bursts, and quasinormal mode ringing, Physical Review D73, 064027 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0603145 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  53. [53]

    W. H. Press, Long Wave Trains of Gravitational Waves from a Vibrating Black Hole, Astrophys. J. Lett.170, L105 (1971)

    1971

  54. [54]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Quasinormal modes of stars and black holes, Living Rev. Rel.2, 2 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9909058. 8 A t AH/a zK/a mAH/a˙m AH MADM/a mAH/MADM 0.528 4.84 3.78 0.0564 1.0 0.277 0.20 0.6 0.51 1.34 0.0989 4.9 0.355 0.54 0.7 -0.40 1.21 0.171 3.5 0.484 0.35 0.8 -0.92 0.978 0.227 7.8 0.630 0.36 0.9 -1.29 0.961 0.351 6.9 0.795 0.44 1....

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999