Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Geodesic structure of a rotating regular black hole

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The geodesic motion around the rotating Hayward regular black hole is integrable through a Carter-like fourth constant, and its largest departures from Kerr occur for slowly rotating holes with a large regularization length.

desk verdict The Carter-type constant for rotating Hayward is probably solid, but the printed sign in the θ-evolution equation undercuts the out-of-plane numerical comparison. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.01886 v1 pith:622JGF3E submitted 2019-08-05 gr-qc

Brandon Bautista-Olvera , Juan Carlos Degollado , Gabriel German This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.Dy04.62.+v11.10.Kk
keywords rotatingregularblackholesHaywardmetricCarterconstantgeodesicintegrabilityeffectivepotentialtimelikeorbitsKerrcomparisongravitational-waveemission
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper establishes that timelike geodesics in the rotating Hayward regular black hole spacetime are completely integrable: in addition to energy, axial angular momentum, and rest-mass normalization, there is a fourth constant of motion analogous to the Kerr Carter constant. The authors derive the separated radial and polar equations from a Hamilton-Jacobi ansatz, classify the possible polar motion by the sign of this constant, and simulate orbits both in and out of the equatorial plane. The payoff is a concrete way to compare this regular black hole with Kerr: differences in trajectories appear mainly for slowly rotating holes with large values of the regularization length $g$, where particles that would fall into a Kerr black hole can instead be trapped in bound orbits. If correct, this gives observational routes, such as accretion dynamics and gravitational-wave emission, to constrain $g$.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Hamilton-Jacobi separation ansatz $S=\tfrac12\tau-Et+L_z\varphi+S_r(r)+S_\theta(\theta)$ applied to the rotating Hayward metric (2.3). This ansatz produces the Carter-like constant $Q$ and reduces the geodesic problem to first-order quadratures in $r$ and $\theta$. Two effective-potential tools carry the analysis: the radial potential $V_\pm$ obtained by squaring the radial equation, and the polar quartic $f(u)=Q+Au^2+Bu^4$ in $u=\cos\theta$, whose roots decide whether an orbit crosses the equatorial plane. For numerical trajectories the paper switches to the Hamiltonian form of the geodesic equations to avoid the sign ambiguities of square roots at turning points.

What would settle it

Take a generic timelike geodesic off the equatorial plane in metric (2.3), integrate the full second-order equations, and evaluate the separated expression $k=Q+(aE-L_z)^2$ along the orbit; if it drifts by more than numerical error, the separation ansatz is false. A complementary check is to insert the metric into the field equations with an exact nonlinear-electrodynamics stress-energy tensor and see whether $M(r)=m r^3/(r^3+g^3)$ remains a solution without extra terms.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the rotating Hayward metric proposed by Bambi and Modesto, which has the Kerr form with a radial mass function $M(r)=m r^3/(r^3+g^3)$, the Hamilton-Jacobi equation separates in Boyer-Lindquist-like coordinates. The paper claims there exists a fourth integral $Q$, defined through the separation constant by $Q=k-(aE-L_z)^2$, that governs out-of-equatorial-plane motion just as Carter's constant does for Kerr. The radial and polar motions are governed by the squared potentials $R(r)$ and $\Theta(\theta)$, and the polar equation reduces to a quartic in $u=\cos\theta$ whose turning-point structure classifies the orbits according to the sign of $Q$. Numerical integration of the first-order equations shows that, compared with Kerr, the largest trajectory differences occur for slowly spinning black holes and large $g$; the precession rate increases with $g$, and bound-versus-plunge outcomes can switch purely by changing $g$.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the Bambi-Modesto rotating metric (2.3) is a physically valid regular black hole spacetime; the paper itself notes that its matter source is only an approximation to the Hayward magnetic-monopole solution, so the orbit results inherit that approximation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Geodesic motion in this rotating regular black hole spacetime is completely integrable, so every timelike orbit can be labeled by the four constants $(E,L_z,Q,\mu)$ in the same way as in Kerr.
  • Out-of-equatorial-plane orbits are classified by the sign of $Q$: $Q>0$ oscillates through the equatorial plane, $Q<0$ stays on one side, and $Q=0$ confines motion to the equator or to a constant polar angle.
  • For a fixed spin, increasing $g$ shifts the horizons and reshapes the effective potential so that a particle with fixed energy and angular momentum can switch from plunging into the hole to following a bound precessing orbit.
  • Measurable differences from Kerr, such as faster precession, shifted polar turning angles, and altered bound-plunge boundaries, are largest for slowly rotating black holes with large $g$, making $g$ the natural target for observational constraints.
  • Because these trajectory differences would modulate gravitational-wave emission from a small companion, the comparison provides a template for testing regular black holes against Kerr with future observations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A direct test the paper leaves implicit is to integrate the full second-order geodesic equations for a generic off-equatorial orbit and verify numerically that the separated combination $k=Q+(aE-L_z)^2$ remains constant; this would confirm the fourth constant without relying on the separation ansatz.
  • If the Bambi-Modesto metric is treated as an effective spacetime, the same $Q$-based machinery applies to black-hole shadow calculations, where off-equatorial photon orbits would probe $g$ through the shadow's shape and size.
  • Because the paper notes the matter source is only an approximation to the Hayward magnetic-monopole solution, the integrability result may not survive in an exact rotating solution of nonlinear electrodynamics; the fourth constant could be specific to the chosen mass function.
  • The bound-versus-plunge switching induced by $g$ suggests that accretion-disk inner edges and quasi-periodic oscillations in low-spin systems could encode $g$, a testable extension the paper does not pursue.
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 manuscript studies timelike geodesics in the rotating Hayward regular black hole of Bambi and Modesto. It analyzes the horizon and ergosphere structure, claims the existence of a fourth Carter-like constant of motion via Hamilton-Jacobi separation, classifies radial and polar motion using effective potentials, and presents numerical trajectories in and out of the equatorial plane, comparing them with the Kerr spacetime. The central assertion is that departures from Kerr are most pronounced for slowly rotating holes with large values of the characteristic length parameter g.

Significance. If the derivation is correct, the paper provides a useful extension of Carter's integrability to a family of regular rotating metrics and one of the first systematic comparisons of out-of-plane geodesics in such spacetimes with Kerr, a topic relevant for gravitational-wave dephasing estimates. The Hamilton-Jacobi machinery is standard, the effective-potential analysis is pedagogically useful, and no parameters are fitted to data, so the fourth-constant claim is not circular. However, several inconsistencies in the printed equations currently prevent the results from being reproduced as written, and at least one typo appears to affect every subsequent formula.

major comments (4)
  1. [II, Eq. (2.4)] The mass function is printed as M(r)=m r^2/(r^3+g^3). With this definition the g=0 limit gives M(r)=m/r and Δ=r^2+a^2-2m, not the Kerr Δ=r^2+a^2-2mr, contradicting the statement that the metric reduces to Kerr for g=0; the a=0 limit also differs from the Hayward f(r) in Eq. (2.2). The correct Bambi-Modesto mass function is M(r)=m r^3/(r^3+g^3) (with the usual denominator r^3+2mℓ^2 in Hayward's notation). Because M(r) enters Δ, R, the effective potentials, and all numerical integrations, this is a load-bearing error and every subsequent equation must be re-examined after the correction.
  2. [III.1, Eqs. (3.5)-(3.8)] The text states Q=k-(aE-L_z)^2, but the printed R(r) and Θ(θ) are not the separation results for that relation: with Q=k-(aE-L_z)^2 the angular equation acquires an extra -2aE L_z term and the radial equation differs by -2aE L_z Δ. The pair (3.7)-(3.8) is instead consistent with Q=k-a^2E^2-L_z^2. Since the separation step is not shown, the reader cannot resolve the discrepancy. Please present the separation explicitly and use a consistent definition of the Carter constant.
  3. [IV, Eq. (4.7)] In the Hamiltonian equations, p_t=-E and p_φ=L_z, so the cross term in H is -2g^{tφ}E L_z; hence ∂H/∂θ contains -2g^{tφ}_{,θ}E L_z and ˙pθ should have -2g^{tφ}_{,θ}E L_z inside the bracket after the minus sign. Equation (4.7) prints +2g^{tφ}_{,θ}E L_z. Since the θ-momentum equation is the term that makes the motion leave the equatorial plane, the out-of-plane trajectories in Figs. 15 and 16 are not reproducible from the printed system. Correct the sign and regenerate the affected figures, or supply the code and initial data.
  4. [III.B, Eq. (3.23) and following] The quantity written as f'(1) in the Q<0 case is not f'(1); the expression (Q+L_z^2-a^2(E^2-1))^2+4a^2(E^2-1)Q is the discriminant of the quadratic B v^2+A v+Q in v=u^2. Moreover, the stated inequality '≤0' appears to have the wrong sign for the existence of two positive roots (for a downward-opening parabola one needs a nonnegative discriminant). The classification of Q<0 polar motion is therefore not correctly derived.
minor comments (6)
  1. [III.1] The separation ansatz (3.4) and the passage from Eq. (3.5) to Eqs. (3.6)-(3.8) are skipped; please show the algebra so the claimed fourth constant can be verified directly.
  2. [III.B] The Q=0 case is described in a confusing sentence: 'There is a solution in which θ is constant at the equatorial plane u=0 if L_z<a^2(E^2-1).' This condition is not derived and should be clarified or removed.
  3. [Fig. 8 caption] The caption reads 'Potential function, V+ for a = with g = 0.2 and Lz = −2.5'; the value of a is missing and should be supplied.
  4. [II, Eq. (2.2) vs (2.4)] The parameter is ℓ in Eq. (2.2) and g elsewhere; the paper should state the identification used (for example g^3=2mℓ^2) or use a single symbol consistently.
  5. [V] The abstract and Section V claim that departures from Kerr are most visible for slowly rotating holes with large g, but no quantitative measure is given; a quantitative comparison (e.g., precession-angle difference or trajectory separation) would strengthen this claim.
  6. [II, after Eq. (2.3)] The paper acknowledges in Refs. [16-18] that the matter source is only approximate; this caveat should be stated explicitly where the metric is introduced, since it delimits the physical interpretation of the subsequent geodesic results.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the fourth constant is derived from the stated metric by Hamilton–Jacobi separation, and the orbit comparisons are parameter scans rather than fitted predictions.

full rationale

The paper's central claim—a fourth constant of motion analogous to Carter's constant—is obtained by substituting the inverse metric (2.5) into the Hamilton–Jacobi equation (3.1), adopting the separated ansatz (3.4), and deriving explicit functions R(r) and Θ(θ) in Eqs. (3.6)–(3.8). This is a standard sufficiency argument: once the separated equations are written down and checked, the separation constant is a bona fide conserved quantity. The result is therefore an output of the geodesic Hamiltonian for the Bambi–Modesto metric, not an input fitted to the trajectories or equivalent by definition to the claim being tested. No parameter is fitted to the orbit data used for the Kerr comparisons; the paper scans fixed values of a, g, E, and Lz. The cited metric [14], regularity analysis [25], and earlier equatorial-plane studies [29] are external inputs, and none of these citations is to the present authors' own prior work, so no self-citation chain is load-bearing. A possible sign inconsistency in the printed Hamilton equation (4.7) would be a reproducibility/correctness issue if confirmed, but it does not reduce any derived quantity to an assumed input. Accordingly, no circular step can be quoted and exhibited, and the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central content rests on a known metric from prior literature, a standard separability argument, and an implicit mass normalization. No new particles, fields, or fitted parameters are introduced by this paper, but the physical validity of the metric and the unproven separation step are load-bearing.

free parameters (1)
  • Hayward length parameter g = varied: 0, 0.2, 0.49, 0.7, 0.9
    Controls the deviation from Kerr through M(r)=m r^3/(r^3+g^3); not measured or fitted, but every potential plot and orbit comparison depends on the chosen g values.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Bambi-Modesto metric (2.3) with M(r)=m r^3/(r^3+g^3) is a regular rotating black hole spacetime.
    Used throughout Sections II and III; regularity relies on Ref. [25], while the physical matter source is only approximate per Refs. [16-18].
  • standard math The Hamilton-Jacobi ansatz (3.4) separates in r and theta for this metric, yielding the conserved constant Q.
    The Carter-type separation for Kerr-like metrics with r-dependent mass is standard, but the paper states the result without showing the full separation step between Eqs. (3.5) and (3.8).
  • ad hoc to paper Numerical plots implicitly set the ADM mass m=1.
    Threshold values such as g=1.058 in Fig. 1 only make sense with m=1, but this normalization is not stated explicitly in Section II.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Geodesic structure of a rotating regular black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/622JGF3E

@misc{pith2026190801886,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Geodesic structure of a rotating regular black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/622JGF3E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.01886}
}
read the original abstract

We examine the dynamics of particles around a rotating regular black hole. In particular we focus on the effects of the characteristic length parameter of the spinning black hole on the motion of the particles by solving the equation of orbital motion. We have found that there is a fourth constant of motion that determines the dynamics of orbits out the equatorial plane similar as in the Kerr black hole. Through detailed analyses of the corresponding effective potentials for massive particles the possible orbits are numerically simulated. A comparison with the trajectories in a Kerr spacetime shows that the differences appear when the black holes rotate slowly for large values of the characteristic length parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.01886 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Possible spacetime structures for rotating regular black holes depend on the values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Surface ∆ as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The ergoregion is delimited by the limit surface defined by equation (2.8). The Kerr black hole corresponds [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (13 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The ratio between the length of the pole to pole geodesic and the equatorial circle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Potential function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Potential function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Potential function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Potential function, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Motion of particles is permitted in the region where [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Motion of a particle with energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Orbits for the radial potential with different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Orbits for particles with different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: Trajectories of particles orbiting a black hole with different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: Orbits of particles moving in the equatorial plane around black holes with spin [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: Different views of the trajectories of particles moving in spacetimes with different [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: Two views of the trajectories of particles moving around rotating black holes. The spin of the black holes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_16.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    (2.6) This equation allows for real solutions for the radius depending on the values of the parametersa andg

    Horizons The horizons are defined by the relation grr→∞ which is equivalent to set ∆ =r2− 2M(r)r +a2 = 0 . (2.6) This equation allows for real solutions for the radius depending on the values of the parametersa andg. The outermost radius determines the event horizon location. In the limit g→ 0 there are two horizons for values 0 <a<m . In the extreme case,...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The static limit

    Ergosphere There is another important surface of rotating black holes. The static limit. When a particle crosses the static limit the nature of the particle changes; a timelike geodesic becomes spacelike and a spacelike geodesic becomes timelike. The static limit surface is defined by the equation gtt =r2 +a2 cos2θ− 2M(r)r = 0 . (2.8) The ergosphere is a r...

    work page

  3. [3]

    There are two obvious conserved quantities given by the symmetries of the spacetime; the energy and the azimuthal angular momentum

    Hamilton Jacobi approach In the stationary and axially symmetric Kerr spacetime the geodesic equations are completely integrable. There are two obvious conserved quantities given by the symmetries of the spacetime; the energy and the azimuthal angular momentum. Furthermore, the condition pµpµ =−µ2 gives another integral of motion and a fourth integral was...

    work page

  4. [4]

    Motion in the equatorial plane To start, let us focus on the radial motion of particles moving in the potential described in Fig. 5. We solve the equations of motion numerically setting up the initial conditions in such a way that the particles have the energies E1 and E2 that correspond to the horizontal lines in Fig. 5. In Fig. 10, we show the trajector...

    work page

  5. [5]

    Agujeros Negros y Ondas Gravitatorias

    Motion out the equatorial plane Some studies of geodesics in the equatorial plane have been done for regular black holes [21]. Nevertheless, there are not such studies for the motion out the equatorial plane. It is important to make a fully study of the orbits out of the plane in order to make accurate comparisons with the Kerr black hole and the data obt...

    work page 2020

  6. [6]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 178 (1972) 347

    work page 1972

  7. [7]

    Barrab` es and V.P

    C. Barrab` es and V.P. Frolov.Phys. Rev. D , 53:3215, 1996

    work page 1996

  8. [8]

    M. Mars, M. M. Mart´ ın-Prats, and J. M. M. Senovilla. Class. Quant. Grav. , 13:L51, 1996

    work page 1996

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Cabo and E

    A. Cabo and E. Ay´ on-Beato.Int. J. Mod. Phys. A , 14:2013, 1999

    2013

  2. [10]

    K. A. Bronnikov, H. Dehnen, and V. N. Melnikov. Gen Relativ Gravit., 39:973, 2007

    2007

  3. [11]

    Dymnikova

    I. Dymnikova. Gen Relativ Gravit., 24:235, 1992. 18

    1992

  4. [12]

    Dymnikova, Class

    I. Dymnikova, Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 4417 [gr-qc/0407072]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Balart and E

    L. Balart and E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. D 90 (2014) no.12, 124045 [arXiv:1408.0306 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ay´ on-Beato and A

    E. Ay´ on-Beato and A. Garc´ ıa.Phys. Rev. Lett., 80:5056, 1998

    1998

  7. [15]

    Burinskii and S.R

    A. Burinskii and S.R. Hildebrandt. Phys. Rev., D65:104017, 2002

    2002

  8. [16]

    S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. Lett. 96 (2006) 031103 [gr-qc/0506126]

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Z. Y. Fan, Eur. Phys. J. C 77, no. 4, 266 (2017) [arXiv:1609.04489 [hep-th]]

    2017 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Z. Y. Fan and X. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 94, no. 12, 124027 (2016) [arXiv:1610.02636 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Bambi and L

    C. Bambi and L. Modesto, Phys. Lett. B 721 (2013) 329 [arXiv:1302.6075 [gr-qc]]

    2013 arXiv

  12. [20]

    S. P. Drake and P. Szekeres, Gen. Rel. Grav. 32, 445 (2000) [gr-qc/9807001]

    2000 arXiv

  13. [21]

    M. E. Rodrigues and E. L. B. Junior, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 12, 128502 (2017) [arXiv:1712.03592 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Toshmatov, Z

    B. Toshmatov, Z. Stuchlk and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 8, 084037 (2017) [arXiv:1704.07300 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Toshmatov, Z

    B. Toshmatov, Z. Stuchlk and B. Ahmedov, arXiv:1712.04763 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  16. [24]

    Hackmann and C

    E. Hackmann and C. Lammerzahl, (Anti-) de Sitter Spacetimes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 100 (2008) 171101 [arXiv:1505.07955 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Hackmann, C

    E. Hackmann, C. Lammerzahl, V. Kagramanova and J. Kunz, Phys. Rev. D 81 (2010) 044020 [arXiv:1009.6117 [gr-qc]]

    2010 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Abbas and U

    G. Abbas and U. Sabiullah, Astrophys. Space Sci. 352 (2014) 769 [arXiv:1406.0840 [gr-qc]]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. J. Valtonen et al., Nature 452 (2008) 851 [arXiv:0809.1280 [astro-ph]]

    2008 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration], Astrophys. J. 875 (2019) no.1, L1

    2019

  21. [29]

    Cardoso and L

    V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) no.17, 174001 [arXiv:1607.03133 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Torres and F

    R. Torres and F. Fayos, Gen. Rel. Grav. 49 (2017) no.1, 2 [arXiv:1611.03654 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  23. [31]

    F. Lamy, E. Gourgoulhon, T. Paumard and F. H. Vincent, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) no.11, 115009 [arXiv:1802.01635 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14 (1965) 57

    1965

  25. [33]

    Pourhassan and U

    B. Pourhassan and U. Debnath, arXiv:1506.03443 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    M. Amir, F. Ahmed and S. G. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. C 76 (2016) no.10, 532 [arXiv:1607.05063 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Carter, Phys

    B. Carter, Phys. Rev. 174 (1968) 1559

    1968

  28. [36]

    S. V. Fuerst and K. W. Wu, Astron. Astrophys. 424, 733 (2004) [astro-ph/0406401]

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Chiba and M

    T. Chiba and M. Kimura, PTEP 2017, no. 4, 043E01 (2017) [arXiv:1701.04910 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  30. [38]

    J. P. Hu, L. L. Shi, Y. Zhang and P. F. Duan, Astrophys. Space Sci. 363 (2018) no.10, 199

    2018

  31. [39]

    J. P. Hu, Y. Zhang, L. L. Shi and P. F. Duan, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50 (2018) no.7, 89

    2018

  32. [40]

    and Thorne, K.S

    Misner, C.W. and Thorne, K.S. and Wheeler, J.A. Gravitation. Princeton University Press. 1970

    1970

  33. [41]

    The Mathematical theory of black hole

    Chandrasekhar, S. The Mathematical theory of black hole. Oxford University Press. 1983

    1983

  34. [42]

    S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 63 (2001) 064016 [gr-qc/0101023]

    2001 arXiv

  35. [43]

    https://reference.wolfram.com

  36. [44]

    S. A. Hughes, Phys. Rev. D 61, no. 8, 084004 (2000)

    2000

  37. [45]

    Sasaki and H

    M. Sasaki and H. Tagoshi, Living Rev. Rel. 6 (2003) [gr-qc/0306120]

    2003 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.