Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Critical phenomena in gravitational collapse with two competing massless matter fields

T0 review · 3 major / 4 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 For sufficiently fine-tuned collapse with two massless matter fields, the scalar field always wins at small scales, and the two fields share a single quasi-discretely self-similar critical solution.

desk verdict Solid numerical discovery of scalar-field takeover in two-field critical collapse, with an under-documented Floquet-eigenvalue argument behind the universal claim. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.05971 v2 pith:RRQHJ226 submitted 2019-08-16 gr-qc

Carsten Gundlach , Thomas W. Baumgarte , David Hilditch This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords criticalcollapsetypeIIphenomenadiscreteself-similarityscalarfieldYang-Millsblackholethresholdquasi-discretelyself-similarsolutiongravitationalwavetoymodel
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 asks what happens at the threshold of black hole formation when two independent massless matter fields—a scalar field and a Yang-Mills field—are coupled only through gravity. It claims that, for sufficiently good fine-tuning, the scalar field always dominates on sufficiently small scales, regardless of the initial mixture. To explain this, the authors conjecture a 'quasi-discretely self-similar' (QSS) solution that looks like the Yang-Mills critical solution at large scales and like the Choptuik scalar critical solution at small scales, with the scalar progressively taking over in between. Because this QSS solution would have only one unstable mode, it would act as the critical solution for any mixture of the two fields. The point of the toy model is to ask whether, in real axisymmetric collapse, gravitational waves might similarly lose a small-scale competition to matter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the conjectured 'quasi-discretely self-similar' (QSS) solution: a nonlinear spacetime that is exactly discretely self-similar only in the two scale limits, with period $\Delta_{\mathrm{YM}}\simeq0.6$ at large scales and $\Delta_{\mathrm{scal}}\simeq3.44$ at small scales, and only quasiperiodic in between. The mechanism that selects the scalar field is the linear mode asymmetry computed on each single-field critical background: a scalar perturbation of the Yang-Mills solution grows like $e^{0.09T}$, while a Yang-Mills perturbation of the scalar solution decays like $e^{-0.40T}$. This one-growing-mode structure is what gives the QSS solution its single unstable direction and makes it the attractor for mixed initial data.

What would settle it

Compute the dominant perturbation spectrum with an independent method and error estimates: if a scalar perturbation on the Yang-Mills critical background has $\operatorname{Re}(\lambda)<0$, or a Yang-Mills perturbation on the scalar background has $\operatorname{Re}(\lambda)>0$, the scalar-dominance conclusion collapses. A cheaper numerical test is to fine-tune mixed data beyond the current $|p-p_*|\sim10^{-15}$ and check whether the mass-scaling exponent continues to break toward the scalar value; if the exponent stays at the Yang-Mills value at all accessible scales, the QSS conjecture is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the type II critical solution for the combined Einstein-scalar-Yang-Mills system is not a new two-field solution but a scale-dependent takeover. At large scales the spacetime approaches the known Yang-Mills DSS critical solution, with period $\Delta_{\mathrm{YM}}\simeq0.6$; as $T\to\infty$ and scales shrink, the scalar field's stress-energy grows and the solution approaches the Choptuik scalar critical solution, with period $\Delta_{\mathrm{scal}}\simeq3.44$. The evidence is an asymmetry in the linear mode problem: a scalar test field on the Yang-Mills critical background grows as $\lambda=0.09+4.2i$, while a Yang-Mills test field on the scalar background decays as $\lambda=-0.40+3.7i$. In mixed near-critical evolutions the two fields share one accumulation point $u_*$, and the mass scaling exponent breaks from a Yang-Mills-like value ($\gamma\simeq0.25$) at low fine-tuning to a larger scalar-like value (roughly $0.33$ to $0.37$) at high fine-tuning. The authors conjecture a one-parameter family of QSS solutions connecting the two single-field critical solutions, each with exactly one unstable mode.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reported linear-mode rates are correct—specifically that the scalar mode on the Yang-Mills background grows with $\operatorname{Re}\lambda=0.09$ while the Yang-Mills mode on the scalar background decays with $\operatorname{Re}\lambda=-0.40$—but the paper gives these numbers without describing the boundary-value calculation or providing error estimates.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Any one-parameter fine-tuning of mixed scalar/Yang-Mills data that contains a nonzero scalar component should produce the same QSS critical solution, so there is no separate two-field critical solution to find.
  • The pure Yang-Mills critical solution acquires a second unstable mode once the scalar field is allowed, while the pure scalar critical solution keeps one, so the scalar end is the generic small-scale endpoint.
  • The effective black-hole-mass exponent in mixed evolutions is not a constant but drifts from the Yang-Mills value toward the scalar value as fine-tuning improves, with the break location depending on the initial scalar amplitude.
  • In the QSS picture, curvature and mass scaling oscillations should become quasiperiodic in the intermediate regime, showing broadened frequency peaks rather than the sharp peaks of either single-field DSS solution.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the QSS picture transfers to axisymmetric Einstein-matter collapse, matter may always dominate gravitational waves at the smallest scales, with a purely gravitational critical solution appearing only when matter is exactly absent; the paper leaves this as an open question.
  • The asymmetry between the two growth rates may be linked to the ratio of the two DSS periods: the faster-oscillating Yang-Mills solution, with smaller $\Delta$, is the one that is destabilised. This could be tested by pairing other matter models with different periods.
  • A nonlinear boundary-value construction of the QSS solution itself would be a direct check: its eigenvalue spectrum should reproduce the one growing mode and predict the $q$-dependent effective critical exponents that the paper currently fits by eye.
  • The same numerical setup could measure whether the takeover scale shifts with the initial scalar amplitude in the way the one-growing-mode picture predicts, which would be a sharper test of the conjectured family than the present data.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper investigates type II critical collapse in spherical symmetry for a system containing two massless matter fields, a scalar field and a magnetic SU(2) Yang-Mills field, coupled only gravitationally. For each field separately the critical solution is discretely self-similar, with known periods and critical exponents. The authors evolve a two-parameter family of initial data (p,q) with a double-null code and adaptive mesh refinement down to |p-p*|≈10^-15. In the mixed cases q≈0.9–0.93 they find a single 'shared' critical solution in which the Yang-Mills field dominates at large scales and the scalar field takes over at small scales, with a corresponding break in the scaling exponents; for q=0.95 the available fine-tuning shows only Yang-Mills dominance. The scalar takeover is explained by test-field mode results reported after Eq. (44): the scalar grows on the Yang-Mills background while the Yang-Mills decays on the scalar background. On this basis the authors conjecture a quasi-periodically self-similar (QSS) solution connecting the two single-field critical solutions, with one unstable mode, and propose that it governs critical collapse for generic mixtures of the two fields.

Significance. This is a well-executed numerical study with a surprising central observation. The authors fine-tune down to |p-p*|≈10^-15, verify the single-field benchmarks (echo counts and exponents for the scalar and Yang-Mills critical solutions), and document a clean stress-energy switchover with a shared accumulation point in the mixed case q=0.92. The test-field mode analysis is a genuinely independent ingredient that, if correct, explains the scalar dominance in a simple way. The two proposed phase-space pictures (Figs. 12 and 13) are useful for framing the result and for guiding future work on competing massless degrees of freedom. If the missing eigenvalue documentation is supplied and the extrapolation to all q is either substantiated or made explicitly conjectural, the paper would be a valuable contribution to critical collapse.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI, after Eq. (44)] The central claim that the scalar field always dominates on sufficiently small scales is load-bearing and is supported, beyond the observed q≈0.9–0.93 cases, by the two test-field eigenvalues reported in the paragraph after Eq. (44): λ=0.09+4.2i for the scalar on the Yang-Mills background and λ=-0.40+3.7i for the Yang-Mills on the scalar background. The manuscript does not describe the boundary-value problem used to compute these modes, the discretization, the boundary conditions at the regular centre and the past light cone, or any error estimates, and it does not specify whether the background is the numerical asymptotic Yang-Mills solution or the exactly DSS solution of the truncated model (37)-(38); footnote 4 states that an exact DSS Yang-Mills solution exists only in the truncated model. Because a change of sign of either real part would reverse the conclusion, these missing details are load-bearing and must be supplied, or the universal statement must be explicitly downgraded to a conjecture.
  2. [Section VI, q=0.95 paragraph] The universal statement is not directly observed for all mixtures, since for q=0.95 the authors report a constant exponent 0.22 with Yang-Mills dominance throughout the fine-tuning range down to |p-p*|≈10^-15. The claim that scalar dominance sets in 'for sufficiently good fine-tuning' is therefore an extrapolation based on the test-field eigenvalues and the conjectured QSS solution, rather than an observed result. Please either add an explicit test of the nonlinear evolution for a case with no observed break, or state clearly that the universal small-scale statement is a conjecture motivated by the test-field calculation.
  3. [Section VII, phase-space paragraph] The statement that the QSS solution 'has only one unstable mode, and so acts as the critical solution' is not established by the numerical evolutions presented, because no linear perturbation analysis of the QSS solution itself is given and the QSS solution is not constructed. The numerical results show a shared accumulation point and stress-energy switchover for an intermediate range of q, but the one-unstable-mode property and the resulting global attractor claim are part of the conjecture. Please mark this distinction explicitly in the abstract and conclusions, or provide a perturbation analysis of the QSS solution.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VII, first paragraph of 'Our main evidence...'] The phrase 'at small q the YM field dominates' appears inconsistent with the definition q=0 (pure scalar) and q=1 (pure Yang-Mills) and with the reported q=0.95 behavior; please check whether 'small' and 'large' should be interchanged.
  2. [Abstract and Section VII] The abstract uses 'quasi-discretely self-similar (QSS)' while the conclusions define 'quasi-periodically self-similar (QSS)'; please use one consistent term throughout.
  3. [Section VI, Fig. 10] The axis label 'min/max(Ttilde1/2)' is ambiguous; write explicitly that the plotted curves are the minimum and maximum over x of \tilde T_{(1)} and \tilde T_{(2)}.
  4. [Section VI, paragraph after Fig. 8] The quoted mixed exponents (0.25, 0.33, 0.37, 0.23, 0.27) are described as 'fitted by eye'; if these values are intended as quantitative results, describe the fitting procedure and give uncertainties.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the two-field scalar-dominance claim is new numerical and test-field content, and the QSS explanation is explicitly conjectural.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is not forced by its inputs. The single-field critical solutions and exponents are used as background data, but they are external published benchmarks, not the mechanism that produces the claimed scalar domination in the mixed system. The test-field mode analysis in Sec. VI is presented as a boundary-value problem: the text states that the complex frequency lambda arises from solving a boundary value problem with periodicity and regularity conditions, and the numerical evolutions are then said to be compatible with those lambda values. Nothing in the paper fits a parameter from the mixed evolutions and then renames it a prediction. The QSS solution and its single unstable mode are introduced explicitly as conjectures, with a schematic phase-space picture; a conjecture is not a disguised input-output loop. Self-citations appear only as support for single-field results and gravitational-wave stability context, which are independent published calculations and do not carry the two-field conclusion. The main weaknesses are evidential rather than circular: the reported Floquet exponents are not derived in detail and carry no error estimates; for q = 0.95 no crossover is observed in the accessible fine-tuning range; and footnote 4 notes that the Yang-Mills starting solution is exact only for the truncated model (37,38). These are correctness or completeness risks, not circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central results rest on standard critical-collapse reference points from prior literature, on the assumed asymptotic DSS of the Yang-Mills solution at small scales, and on the accuracy of the custom double-null code. No code or data are shipped, and the QSS solution is a conjectured entity without independent evidence.

free parameters (2)
  • critical parameter p*(q) = approximately 1 for q=0 and q=1; q-dependent otherwise
    Fine-tuned via bisection for each initial data family; this defines the threshold rather than being a scientific constant.
  • mixed critical exponents gamma(q) = q=0.90: 0.25 to 0.37; q=0.92: 0.25 to 0.33; q=0.93: 0.23 to 0.27; q=0.95: 0.22
    Read by eye from scaling plots in Section VI; these support the scaling-break evidence but carry no error bars and are not derived from a first-principles calculation.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The single-field scalar and Yang-Mills critical solutions are DSS with periods Delta_scal approximately 3.44 and Delta_YM approximately 0.6 and exponents gamma_scal approximately 0.37 and gamma_YM approximately 0.2.
    Taken from prior literature [1,18,19,20], including self-citations; used as the reference for the pure-field limits and as the background for test-field perturbations.
  • domain assumption The Yang-Mills self-coupling becomes negligible at sufficiently small scales, so the YM critical solution is asymptotically DSS as encoded in Eq. (37).
    Used to justify the DSS ansatz and the interpretation of the observed periodicity; the authors deliberately do not truncate the equation but rely on fine-tuning.
  • domain assumption The custom double-null numerical code with regridding is second-order accurate and stable under the chosen Courant-like condition with C=0.1.
    All numerical results depend on this; the code is described following Garfinkle [26], but no convergence study is shown for the nonlinear runs and no code is shipped.
invented entities (1)
  • Quasi-periodically self-similar (QSS) critical solution
    purpose: Proposed intermediate attractor linking the Yang-Mills critical solution at large scales to the scalar Choptuik solution at small scales, with one unstable mode, explaining the observed scalar dominance.
    No direct construction is given; the evidence is indirect, from scaling-break slopes, a common accumulation point u*, and the stress-energy switchover, all within this paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Critical phenomena in gravitational collapse with two competing massless matter fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RRQHJ226

@misc{pith2026190805971,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Critical phenomena in gravitational collapse with two competing massless matter fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RRQHJ226}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.05971}
}
read the original abstract

In the gravitational collapse of matter beyond spherical symmetry, gravitational waves are necessarily present. On the other hand, gravitational waves can collapse to a black hole even without matter. One might therefore wonder whether the interaction and competition between the matter fields and gravitational waves affects critical phenomena at the threshold of black hole formation. As a toy model for this, we study type II critical collapse with two matter fields in spherical symmetry, namely a scalar field and a Yang-Mills field. On their own, both display discrete self-similarity (DSS) in type II critical collapse, and we can take either one of them as a toy model for gravitational waves. To our surprise, in numerical time evolutions we find that, for sufficiently good fine-tuning, the scalar field always dominates on sufficiently small scales. We explain our results by the conjectured existence of a "quasi-discretely self-similar" (QSS) solution shared by the two fields, equal to the known Yang-Mills critical solution at infinitely large scales and the known scalar field critical solution (the Choptuik solution) at infinitely small scales, with a gradual transition from one field to the other. This QSS solution itself has only one unstable mode, and so acts as the critical solution for any mixture of scalar field and Yang-Mills initial data.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.05971 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic plot of the numerical domain in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The scalar field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The compactness (2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Mass and curvature scaling laws for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Mass and curvature scaling laws for the mixed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The compactness 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: illustrates this switchover from T˜ (2,3) to T˜ (1) during the evolution of near-subcritical ini￾tial data with q = 0.92 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. An alternative hypothetical phase space pic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

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

  1. A Nonlinear Endpoint of Charged Horizon Instabilities

    gr-qc 2026-02 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Charged scalar collapse can form dynamical extremal black holes whose horizons show divergent energy density and constant charge hair, with universal near-threshold scaling.

  2. Critical phenomena in the gravitational collapse of electromagnetic waves

    gr-qc 2019-09 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    In axisymmetric collapse of electromagnetic waves, the threshold of black hole formation shows approximate power-law scaling with exponent gamma ~ 0.145 and approximate echoing period Delta ~ 0.55, but the critical so...

  3. Critical Phenomena in Gravitational Collapse

    gr-qc 2025-07 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    An authoritative review of critical collapse, updated with results on nonspherical vacuum collapse and rigorous PDE blowup.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

36 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    M. W. Choptuik, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 9 (1993)

    1993

  2. [2]

    C. R. Evans and J. S. Coleman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 1782 (1994)

    work page 1994

  3. [3]

    for a review). It is of great interest to explore whether the critical collapse scenario continues to hold beyond spherical symmetry, and in particular in the pres- ence of angular momentum or in the collapse of gravitational waves in vacuum. Going beyond spherical symmetry, we have in- vestigated critical phenomena in gravitational col- lapse for rotatin...

    work page

  4. [4]

    (29) The truncations indicated denote generically non- vanishing terms that depend on the next order ex- pansion coefficients

    +O(R3), (26) R,u =−1 2− π 3ψ2 1R2 +O(R3), (27) ψ,u = 1 2ψ1 +O(R), (28) χ,u = 1 2χ1 +O(R). (29) The truncations indicated denote generically non- vanishing terms that depend on the next order ex- pansion coefficients. This expansion is used for the first three grid points with R >0 to start up the integration. For the remaining grid points, the integralI is d...

    work page

  5. [5]

    shared” by the two matter fields. There is complementary evidence for this from the scal- ing laws (varying p) on the one hand and from single “best

    We identify the formation of a black hole by the time step going below a predefined threshold, and we approximate the (Hawking) mass of the first outer-trapped sphere by R/2 at the gridpoint where R,v is minimal. Following Garfinkle, [26], we use a very sim- ple form of mesh refinement adapted to the spe- cific problem of critical collapse in spherical sym- me...

    work page

  6. [6]

    sphaleronic

    and [7], see also [8–10]. Critical phenomena in axisymmetric vacuum collapse were reported in [11], and partly confirmed much more recently in [12], see also [13–17] for other attempts in the in- terval between these two papers. The vacuum case is the most interesting, since it mostly cleanly displays the matter-independent properties of general relativity...

    arXiv 1908

  7. [7]

    T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D 98, 084012 (2018)

    2018

  8. [8]

    Gundlach and J

    C. Gundlach and J. M. Mart´ ın-Garc´ ıa, Living Rev. Relativity, 2007-05 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 36 references
  1. [9]

    T. W. Baumgarte and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221103 (2016); C. Gundlach and T. W. Baumgarte, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084012 (2016); T. W. Baumgarte and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 97, 064006 (2018)

    2016

  2. [10]

    T. W. Baumgarte and P. J Montero, Phys. Rev. D 92, 124065 (2015); J. Celestino and T. W. Baum- garte, Phys. Rev. D 98, 024053 (2018)

    2015

  3. [11]

    M. W. Choptuik, E. W. Hirschmann, S. L. Liebling and F. Pretorius, Phys. Rev. D 68, 044007 (2003)

    2003

  4. [12]

    Hilditch, A

    D. Hilditch, A. Weyhausen and B. Br¨ ugmann, Phys. Rev. D 93, 063006 (2016)

    2016

  5. [13]

    Healy and P

    J. Healy and P. Laguna, Gen. Relativ. Grav. 46, 1722 (2014)

    2014

  6. [14]

    Deppe, L

    N. Deppe, L. E. Kidder, M. A. Scheel and S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. D 99, 024018 (2019)

    2019

  7. [15]

    Clough and E

    K. Clough and E. A. Lim, arXiv:1602.02568, un- published

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    A. M. Abrahams and C. R. Evans, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2980 (1993); Phys. Rev. D 49, 3998 (1994)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Hilditch, T

    D. Hilditch, T. W. Baumgarte, A. Weyhausen, T. Dietrich, B. Br¨ ugmann, P. J. Montero and E. M¨ uller, Phys. Rev. D88, 103009 (2013)

    2013

  10. [18]

    Alcubierre, G

    M. Alcubierre, G. Allen, B. Br¨ ugmann, E. Sei- del and W.-M. Suen, Phys. Rev. D, 62, 124011 (2000)

    2000

  11. [19]

    Garfinkle and G.C

    D. Garfinkle and G.C. Duncan, Phys. Rev. D, 63, 044011 (2001)

    2001

  12. [20]

    Rinne, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2005, available as gr-qc/0601064

    O. Rinne, PhD thesis, University of Cambridge, 2005, available as gr-qc/0601064

    2005 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Sorkin, Class

    E. Sorkin, Class. Quant. Grav. 28, 025011 (2011)

    2011

  14. [22]

    Maliborski and O

    M. Maliborski and O. Rinne, Phys. Rev. D 97, 044053 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Gundlach, Phys

    C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 55, 695 (1997)

    1997

  16. [24]

    M. W. Choptuik, T.Chmaj and P. Biz´ on, Phys. Rev. Lett. 77, 424 (1996)

    1996

  17. [25]

    Gundlach, Phys

    C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6002 (1997)

    1997

  18. [26]

    We represent our fields on a grid at fixed values of v, and numerically advance in the retarded time u

    (for similar, but not the same, field equations). We represent our fields on a grid at fixed values of v, and numerically advance in the retarded time u. At every time step, we make a least-squares fit ψ≃ψ0 +ψ1R+O(R2), andχ≃χ0 +χ1R+O(R2) to the four innermost grid points where R >...

  19. [27]

    Kain, Phys

    B. Kain, Phys. Rev. D 99, 104017 (2019)

    2019

  20. [28]

    Bartnik and J

    R. Bartnik and J. Mckinnon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 61, 141 (1988)

    1988

  21. [29]

    D. S. Goldwirth and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D 36, 3575 (1987)

    1987

  22. [30]

    Gundlach, R

    C. Gundlach, R. Price and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 890 (1994)

    1994

  23. [31]

    Garfinkle, Phys

    D. Garfinkle, Phys. Rev. D 51, 5558 (1995)

    1995

  24. [32]

    G´ omez, P

    R. G´ omez, P. Papadopoulos, and J. Winicour, J. Math. Phys. 35, 4184 (1994)

    1994

  25. [33]

    Hod and T

    S. Hod and T. Piran, Phys. Rev. D 55, 440 (1997)

    1997

  26. [34]

    M. W. Choptuik, R. Masachs and B. Way, arXiv:1904.02168

    1904 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Gundlach, Phys

    C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 65, 084021 (2002)

    2002

  28. [36]

    J. M. Mart´ ın-Garc´ ıa and C. Gundlach, Phys. Rev. D 59, 064031 (1999). 6 Assuming a linear equation of state P =kρ, for the pa- rameter range 0 <k ≲ 0.49. 7 In fact, they are stable against all non-spherical per- turbations, except for one unstable 𝓁 = 1 perturbation associa...

    1999

Pith tools

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