Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 94 references

A class of charged-Taub-NUT-scalar metrics via Harison and Ehlers Transformations

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper constructs exact charged Taub-NUT-scalar metrics and derives their gravitational-lensing deflection angles and quasinormal-mode frequencies.

desk verdict Central exactness claim unsupported: η is not invariant under Ehlers, and the paper's own Eq. (67) shows it; without a substitution check, the metric family and its QNM/lensing formulas are not established. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.11934 v1 pith:WPUQ3SGP submitted 2025-01-21 gr-qc

Mahnaz Tavakoli Kachi , Behrouz Mirza , Fatemeh Sadeghi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords Taub-NUTmetricscalarfieldHarrisontransformationEhlersgravitationallensingquasinormalmodesEinstein-Maxwell-scalartheoryexactsolutions
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 sets out to build a new family of exact solutions to Einstein's equations: axially symmetric, charged Taub-NUT spacetimes with a massless scalar field that depends only on the polar angle theta. Starting from a known static seed metric, the authors use Harrison transformations to switch on electric and magnetic charges and Ehlers transformations to switch on the NUT parameter. They derive the final line element, Eq. (61), together with its vector potential and scalar field, and they work out two observable signatures: the gravitational deflection angle (via the Gauss-Bonnet method) and the quasinormal-mode frequencies (via the eikonal light-ring method). The interest is that exact charged solutions with gravomagnetic NUT charge are scarce, and the formulas here give concrete lensing and ringdown predictions that reduce to Schwarzschild when charge, NUT parameter, and scalar field vanish.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Lewis-Weyl-Papapetrou form of a stationary axisymmetric metric, which reduces the field equations to two complex potential equations (the Ernst equations) plus a decoupled massless scalar equation. The Harrison transformation is the step that adds electric and magnetic charges, and the Ehlers transformation is the step that adds the NUT parameter; a duality rotation of the electromagnetic potential is used to fix the final vector potential. The argument carries because the scalar equation separates from the rest, so the transformations are used unchanged, and because the conformal factor $\eta$ of the Lewis-Weyl-Papapetrou metric is assumed to stay the same under both transformations.

What would settle it

A direct substitution of Eq. (61) (with f, k, and the vector potential) into the field equations (2) at generic (r,theta) would either confirm or destroy the exact-solution claim: any nonzero residual in the Einstein, Maxwell, or scalar equations falsifies it. A more targeted check is to recompute the Lewis-Weyl-Papapetrou conformal factor eta after the Ehlers transformation and compare it with Eq. (67); if eta changes at order n, the transformation chain used to produce the metric is invalid even if the metric happens to solve the equations.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the metric (61), with $$$ds^{2}$=-f(r)(dt+2n\cos\$\theta$\,d\varphi)^2+k(r,\$\theta$)^\$\sigma$\left(\frac{$dr^{2}$}{f(r)}+($r^{2}$+$n^{2}$)d\$theta^{2}$\right)+($r^{2}$+$n^{2}$)\$sin^{2}$\$\theta$\,d\$varphi^{2}$,$$ $$f(r)=\frac{\Delta_n}{$r^{2}$+$n^{2}$},\qquad \Delta_n=$r^{2}$-2mr+$q^{2}$-$n^{2}$,$$ and $k(r,\theta)$ as in Eq. (62), is an exact Einstein-Maxwell-scalar solution, with vector potential $A=\frac{qr}{r^2+n^2}(dt+2n\cos\theta\,d\varphi)$ and scalar field $\psi(\theta)=\sqrt{2\sigma}\ln(\tan(\theta/2))$. The paper claims the derivation is valid because the scalar-field equation decouples from the Ernst equations, so the Harrison and Ehlers transformations can be applied in their standard form. It further shows that for $0\le\sigma\le1$ the curvature singularities lie only on the symmetry axes $\theta=0,\pi$, matching the Taub-NUT case, and it supplies explicit formulas for the deflection angle and quasinormal frequencies.

Load-bearing premise

Everything hangs on the claim that the Harrison and Ehlers transformations leave the Lewis-Weyl-Papapetrou conformal factor eta unchanged; if eta must be recomputed, the final metric in Eq. (61) does not follow from the stated transformations.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The new metric reduces to Schwarzschild when q=n=sigma=0, so the charged Taub-NUT-scalar family contains the standard black-hole solution as a limit.
  • For 0<=sigma<=1 the curvature singularity structure is the same as Taub-NUT: only the axial singularities theta=0,pi, so the scalar field does not introduce additional singular surfaces.
  • The deflection angle falls as the impact parameter grows, with the NUT charge and scalar parameter sigma shifting the curve more than the electric charge does (Fig. 1).
  • The eikonal quasinormal-mode frequency gains a real-part shift proportional to q^2 - (5/3)n^2 and an imaginary-part shift proportional to sigma ln 2, giving a concrete signature that distinguishes these solutions from Schwarzschild.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The exactness claim can be tested by numerical substitution before any physics is built on it; if Eq. (61) passes, the same Harrison/Ehlers pipeline should carry any seed with a decoupled scalar equation into a charged NUT family, so the method generalises beyond the specific seed.
  • The predicted positive sigma ln 2 shift in the quasinormal-mode damping rate is a sharp, testable signature; a time-domain ringdown simulation of this spacetime would show whether the eikonal formula misses scalar-field backreaction.
  • Because the paper flags the order-of-transformations subtlety, applying Ehlers first and Harrison second to the same seed would provide a consistency check and may yield a distinct spacetime family.
  • The analytic deflection angle is derived with expansions in 1/r and small sigma; exact numerical ray tracing around the metric would map where those formulas break down for strong lensing.
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 / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a new family of stationary, axially symmetric charged-Taub-NUT metrics with a theta-dependent massless scalar field. Starting from the static seed metric (8), the authors apply Harrison transformations to introduce electric and magnetic charges and then Ehlers transformations to add the NUT parameter. They claim that the resulting metric (61), together with the scalar field (41) and vector potential (64), is an exact solution of the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar equations. The paper also computes curvature singularities, gravitational lensing deflection angles via the Gauss-Bonnet method, and quasi-normal modes in the eikonal limit using the light-ring method.

Significance. If the exactness claim were established, the metric family (61) would be a useful addition to the known Taub-NUT-scalar solutions, and the analytic lensing and QNM formulas would provide concrete, falsifiable predictions. The paper is clearly organized and the computations of the Ernst potentials, the deflection angle, and the eikonal QNMs are explicit and self-contained. However, the central derivation relies on an unproved and, as shown below, generally false invariance of the metric function eta under the Harrison and Ehlers transformations. No direct substitution of the final metric into the field equations is provided. Because the exactness of (61) is the foundation for all subsequent physical results, the paper's central claim is currently unsupported.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 3, Eqs. (45), (59), and (67)] The statement after Eq. (28) that 'the parameter eta ... remain the same' under Harrison transformations and the statement before Eq. (59) that 'the Ehlers transformation does not change the function eta' are not correct for the Lewis-Weyl-Papapetrou reduction used here. In the LWP metric (11), e^{2eta} is not an independent free function; it is determined by f, omega, and rho through the field equations (14)-(17). Once an Ehlers transformation changes f and omega, as it does through Eqs. (49) and (54), eta must be recomputed. The paper's own Eq. (67) shows this: for the q=0 case of the final metric (61), the conformal factor in Weyl coordinates is different from the corresponding factor (45) of the seed, after using the coordinate relations (70). Therefore the metric (61) is not obtained from (35) by the stated Ehlers transformation, and the claimed derivation of (61) is invalid.
  2. [Abstract and Secs. 3, 6] The paper asserts in the abstract and conclusion that the metric (61) represents exact solutions to Einstein's equations, but it never substitutes (61), (41), and (64) into the field equations (2) and (3). This is not a mere presentation gap: because the transformation step is invalid, the exactness claim has no support other than assertion. A direct verification, or a corrected transformation with the recomputed eta, is required before any of the subsequent lensing and QNM results can be regarded as predictions of the theory.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eqs. (77) and (78)] The step from the double integral in Eq. (77) to the expanded deflection angle in Eq. (78) is not shown. As printed, the argument of the radial derivative in Eq. (77) appears typographically garbled, and no boundary evaluation at r = r0 and r = infinity is displayed. Even if the integrand were a total derivative, the result would depend on the boundary terms, whereas Eq. (78) simply replaces the integrand with an expansion around r0 and performs a trivial phi integration. The derivation of the central lensing result is therefore incomplete as it stands.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Title and throughout] The title contains 'Harison' instead of 'Harrison'; several other typographical errors appear, including 'fallowing' in the text before Eq. (32) and 'arXiv:arXiv:2307.09328' in reference [67].
  2. [Eqs. (33), (77), and (88)] Several displayed equations have unbalanced parentheses or missing terms: Eq. (33), Eq. (77), and Eq. (88) are difficult to parse as printed and need careful typesetting and proofreading.
  3. [Sec. 5, after Eq. (88)] The expansion in Eq. (88) drops terms of order sigma n, sigma q, n q^2, and n q without stating the assumed hierarchy among sigma, q, and n; a small-parameter ordering should be specified.
  4. [Sec. 3, after Eq. (64)] The sentence discussing the alternative order of Harrison and Ehlers transformations and the commutativity reference [93] is unclear; the precise sense in which the transformations commute for the same LWP metric should be stated explicitly.
  5. [Sec. 3.1, Eq. (71)] The Ricci scalar in Eq. (71) is used to locate singularities, but the discussion should also clarify the behavior at theta = 0, pi, where the coordinate singularity of the Taub-NUT form requires interpretation rather than merely an infinite Ricci scalar.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the metric is obtained by Harrison/Ehlers transformations of a seed, and the lensing and QNM outputs are analytic consequences of that metric, not fitted inputs.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that Eq. (61) is an exact Einstein-Maxwell-scalar solution obtained from the seed Eq. (8) by Harrison and Ehlers transformations. The derivation chain is: seed metric -> Ernst potentials -> Harrison transform to add charge -> Ehlers transform to add NUT charge -> coordinate and parameter redefinitions -> final metric. The gravitational lensing angle (Eq. 78) and QNMs (Eq. 116) are then computed by applying the Gauss-Bonnet and light-ring methods to that metric; m, q, n and sigma are free parameters throughout, with no parameter fitted to data and no output used to determine an input. The scalar field psi(theta) is carried from the seed ansatz and checked against the scalar equation for the transformed metric, not derived from the lensing or QNM outputs. The statements that eta is unchanged under the transformations are invariance assumptions: they are not circular reductions, because the final metric is not defined in terms of those assumptions and would not be made correct by them; if false, the derivation would be invalid on correctness grounds, not circularity grounds. The self-citations [67,68] are background references for earlier metrics and are not load-bearing for the exactness claim, which rests on the standard Ernst/Harrison/Ehlers machinery and on external references [42,93]. No uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no known result is merely renamed. Accordingly, no circular step can be exhibited from the paper's own equations.

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

The construction's validity depends on the decoupling of the scalar from the Ernst system and on the invariance of η; the latter is explicitly contradicted by Eq. (67) in the same paper, and no direct field-equation check is provided.

free parameters (3)
  • Harrison parameter α
    Complex parameter chosen to generate electric and magnetic charges; later remapped to q_e and q_m via Eq. (34).
  • Ehlers parameter c
    Real parameter chosen to generate NUT charge; remapped to n via Eq. (60).
  • Scalar parameter σ
    Parameter inherited from the seed metric controlling the θ-dependent scalar field; constrained to 0 ≤ σ ≤ 1.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The massless scalar field equation decouples from the Ernst equations, so Harrison and Ehlers transformations act unchanged in the Einstein-Maxwell-scalar system.
    Invoked in Sec. 2 around Eq. (19) with citation to [42]; if false, the transformed metrics do not solve the Einstein-scalar-Maxwell equations.
  • ad hoc to paper The metric function η is invariant under Harrison and Ehlers transformations.
    Stated after Eq. (28) and before Eq. (59). This is not generally true and is contradicted by Eq. (67), where the LWP η depends on the NUT parameter n.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar field ψ(θ) = sqrt(2σ) ln(tan θ/2) and the field equations are satisfied by the final metric without explicit verification.
    The paper asserts the scalar field is found from □ψ=0 for the new metric but never shows the computation or checks the Einstein equations.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A class of charged-Taub-NUT-scalar metrics via Harison and Ehlers Transformations." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WPUQ3SGP

@misc{pith2026250111934,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A class of charged-Taub-NUT-scalar metrics via Harison and Ehlers Transformations},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WPUQ3SGP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.11934}
}
abstract

We consider a class of axially symmetric solutions to Einstein's equations incorporating a $\theta$-dependent scalar field and extend these solutions by introducing electric and magnetic charges via Harrison transformations. Subsequently, we enhance the charged metrics by incorporating the NUT parameter through Ehlers transformations, yielding a novel class of charged-Taub-NUT metrics that represent exact solutions to Einstein's equations. Finally, we investigate some of astrophysical aspects of the charged-Taub-NUT metrics, focusing on phenomena such as gravitational lensing and quasi-normal modes (QNMs).

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.11934 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The deflection angle α as a function of impact parameter b. (a): We have considered σ = 0.02, n = 3.00 and q = 0.82 with two different values of mass i.e. m = 1.97 (solid blue curve) and 1.49 (dashed red curve). (b): σ = 0.02, m = 1.97 and n = 3.00 for q = 0.00 ( solid blue curve) and q = 1.27 (dashed red curve). (c): σ = 0.02, m = 1.97 and q = 0.82 for n = 2.00 (solid blue curve) and n = 3.00 (dashed red curve). (d… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

94 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [42]

    Astorino, Embedding hairy black holes in a magnetic u niverse, Physical Review D 87 (8) (2013) 084029

    M. Astorino, Embedding hairy black holes in a magnetic u niverse, Physical Review D 87 (8) (2013) 084029. arXiv:1301.6794

    arXiv 2013

  2. [1]

    S. W. Hawking, Black holes in general relativity, Commun ications in Mathematical Physics 25 (1972) 152–166

    1972

  3. [2]

    I. D. Novikov, K. S. Thorne, Astrophysics of black holes, Black holes (Les astres occlus) 1 (1973) 343–450

    1973

  4. [3]

    B. J. Carr, S. W. Hawking, Black holes in the early univers e, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 168 (2) (1974) 399–415

    1974

  5. [4]

    Preskill, Do black holes destroy information, in: Pro ceedings of the International Symposium on Black Holes, Mem branes, Wormholes and Superstrings, S

    J. Preskill, Do black holes destroy information, in: Pro ceedings of the International Symposium on Black Holes, Mem branes, Wormholes and Superstrings, S. Kalara and DV Nanopoulos, eds.(World S cientific, Singapore, 1993) pp, World Scientific, 1992, pp. 2 2–39

    1993

  6. [5]

    E. F. Taylor, J. A. Wheeler, Exploring black holes, V ol. 9 8, Addison Wesley Longman San Francisco, 2000

    2000

  7. [6]

    D. M. Alexander, R. C. Hickox, What drives the growth of bl ack holes?, New Astronomy Reviews 56 (4) (2012) 93–121. arXiv:1112.1949

    arXiv 2012

  8. [7]

    Novikov, V

    I. Novikov, V . Frolov, Physics of black holes, V ol. 27, Springer Science & Business Media, 2013

    2013

Show all 94 references
  1. [8]

    Penrose, Naked singularities, Annals of the New Y ork A cademy of Sciences 224 (1) (1973) 125–134

    R. Penrose, Naked singularities, Annals of the New Y ork A cademy of Sciences 224 (1) (1973) 125–134

    1973

  2. [9]

    S. L. Shapiro, S. A. Teukolsky, Formation of naked singul arities: the violation of cosmic censorship, Physical Revi ew Letters 66 (8) (1991) 994

    1991

  3. [10]

    Joshi, I

    P . Joshi, I. Dwivedi, The structure of naked singularit y in self-similar gravitational collapse, Communications in mathematical physics 146 (1992) 333–342. arXiv:gr-qc/9302008

    1992 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Christodoulou, Examples of naked singularity forma tion in the gravitational collapse of a scalar field, Annals o f Mathematics 140 (3) (1994) 607–653

    D. Christodoulou, Examples of naked singularity forma tion in the gravitational collapse of a scalar field, Annals o f Mathematics 140 (3) (1994) 607–653

    1994

  5. [12]

    de Felice, Y

    F. de Felice, Y . Y unqiang, Turning a black hole into a nak ed singularity, Classical and Quantum Gravity 18 (7) (2001) 1235

    2001

  6. [13]

    Harada, H

    T. Harada, H. Iguchi, K.-i. Nakao, Physical processes i n naked singularity formation, Progress of Theoretical Physics 107 (3) (2002) 449–524. arXiv:gr-qc/0204008

    2002 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Goswami, P

    R. Goswami, P . S. Joshi, P . Singh, Quantum evaporation o f a naked singularity, Physical Review Letters 96 (3) (2006) 031302. arXiv:gr-qc/0506129

    2006 arXiv

  8. [15]

    P . S. Joshi, Naked singularities, Scientific American 3 00 (2) (2009) 36–43

    2009

  9. [16]

    Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 152 (1) (1971) 75–78

    S. Hawking, Gravitationally collapsed objects of very low mass, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 152 (1) (1971) 75–78

    1971

  10. [17]

    Sorkin, T

    E. Sorkin, T. Piran, Formation and evaporation of charg ed black holes, Physical Review D 63 (12) (2001) 124024. arXiv:gr-qc/0103090

    2001 arXiv

  11. [18]

    S. Ray, A. L. Espindola, M. Malheiro, J. P . Lemos, V . T. Za nchin, Electrically charged compact stars and formation of charged black holes, Physical Review D 68 (8) (2003) 084004. arXiv:astro-ph/0307262

    2003 arXiv

  12. [19]

    H. J. M. Cuesta, A. Penna-Firme, A. P´ erez-Lorenzana, C harge asymmetry in the brane world and the formation of charg ed black holes, Physical Review D 67 (8) (2003) 087702. arXiv:hep-ph/0203010

    2003 arXiv

  13. [20]

    Hwang, D.-H

    D.-I. Hwang, D.-H. Y eom, Internal structure of charged black holes, Physical Review D 84 (6) (2011) 064020. arXiv:1010.2585

    2011 arXiv

  14. [21]

    Hwang, H

    D.-I. Hwang, H. Kim, D.-H. Y eom, Dynamical formation an d evolution of (2 + 1)-dimensional charged black holes, Classical and Quantum Gravity 29 (5) (2012) 055003. arXiv:1105.1371

    2012 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Newman, L

    E. Newman, L. Tamburino, T. Unti, Empty-space generali zation of the schwarzschild metric, Journal of Mathematica l Physics 4 (7) (1963) 915–923

    1963

  16. [23]

    Kramer, H

    D. Kramer, H. Stephani, Exact solutions of Einstein’s fi eld equations, General Relativity and Gravitation 1980 (19 83) 75

    1980

  17. [24]

    R. P . Kerr, Gravitational field of a spinning mass as an ex ample of algebraically special metrics, Physical review le tters 11 (5) (1963) 237

    1963

  18. [25]

    E. T. Newman, T. Adamo, Kerr-Newman metric, Scholarped ia 9 (10) (2014) 31791

    2014

  19. [26]

    Ramaswamy, A

    S. Ramaswamy, A. Sen, Comment on” gravitomagnetic pole and mass quantization”, Physical Review Letters 57 (8) (198 6) 1088

  20. [27]

    C. W. Misner, The flatter regions of Newman, Unti, and Tam burino’s generalized Schwarzschild space, Journal of Math ematical Physics 4 (7) (1963) 924–937

    1963

  21. [28]

    Misner, Contribution to lectures in applied mathema tics, vol

    C. Misner, Contribution to lectures in applied mathema tics, vol. 8, in: Am. Math. Soc, 1967, p. 160

    1967

  22. [29]

    W. B. Bonnor, A new interpretation of the NUT metric in ge neral relativity, in: Mathematical Proceedings of the Camb ridge Philosophical Society, V ol. 66, Cambridge University Press, 1969, pp. 145–151

    1969

  23. [30]

    Manko, E

    V . Manko, E. Ruiz, Physical interpretation of the NUT fa mily of solutions, Classical and Quantum Gravity 22 (17) (20 05) 3555

  24. [31]

    R. L. Zimmerman, B. Y . Shahir, Geodesics for the NUT metr ic and gravitational monopoles, General relativity and gra vitation 21 (1989) 821–848

    1989

  25. [32]

    Lynden-Bell, M

    D. Lynden-Bell, M. Nouri-Zonoz, Classical monopoles: Newton, NUT space, gravomagnetic lensing, and atomic spectra, Reviews of Modern Physics 70 (2) (1998) 427. arXiv:gr-qc/9612049

    1998 arXiv

  26. [33]

    Nouri-Zonoz, D

    M. Nouri-Zonoz, D. Lynden-Bell, Gravomagnetic lensin g by NUT space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soc iety 292 (3) (1997) 714–722

    1997

  27. [34]

    Rahvar, M

    S. Rahvar, M. Nouri-Zonoz, Gravitational microlensin g in NUT space, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Soc iety 338 (4) (2003) 926–930. arXiv:astro-ph/0204282

    2003 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Chakraborty, S

    C. Chakraborty, S. Bhattacharyya, Does the gravitomag netic monopole exist? a clue from a black hole x-ray binary, P hysical Review D 98 (4) (2018) 043021. arXiv:1712.01156

    2018 arXiv

  29. [36]

    S. W. Hawking, Gravitational instantons, Physics Lett ers A 60 (2) (1977) 81–83

    1977

  30. [37]

    Arratia, C

    E. Arratia, C. Corral, J. Figueroa, L. Sanhueza, Hairy T aub-NUT/bolt-AdS solutions in Horndeski theory, Physical Review D 1 03 (6) (2021) 064068. arXiv:2010.02460

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Barrientos, A

    J. Barrientos, A. Cisterna, C. Corral, M. Oyarzo, Gravi tational instantons with conformally coupled scalar fields , Journal of High Energy Physics 2022 (5) (2022) 1–28. arXiv:2202.13854

    2022 arXiv

  32. [39]

    D. R. Brill, Electromagnetic fields in a homogeneous, no nisotropic universe, Physical Review 133 (3B) (1964) B845. 15

    1964

  33. [40]

    F. J. Ernst, New formulation of the axially symmetric gr avitational field problem, Physical Review 167 (5) (1968) 11 75

    1968

  34. [41]

    F. J. Ernst, New formulation of the axially symmetric gr avitational field problem. ii, Physical Review 168 (5) (1968 ) 1415

    1968

  35. [43]

    Astorino, Stationary axisymmetric spacetimes with a conformally coupled scalar field, Physical Review D 91 (6) ( 2015) 064066

    M. Astorino, Stationary axisymmetric spacetimes with a conformally coupled scalar field, Physical Review D 91 (6) ( 2015) 064066. arXiv:1412.3539

    2015 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Barrientos, A

    J. Barrientos, A. Cisterna, Ehlers transformations as a tool for constructing accelerating nut black holes, Physi cal Review D 108 (2) (2023) 024059. arXiv:2305.03765

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Cisterna, K

    A. Cisterna, K. M¨ uller, K. Pallikaris, A. Vigan` o, Exa ct rotating wormholes via Ehlers transformations, Physica l Review D 108 (2) (2023) 024066. arXiv:2306.14541

    2023 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Astorino, Enhanced Ehlers transformation and the Ma jumdar-Papapetrou-NUT spacetime, Journal of High Energy P hysics 2020 (1) (2020) 1–38

    M. Astorino, Enhanced Ehlers transformation and the Ma jumdar-Papapetrou-NUT spacetime, Journal of High Energy P hysics 2020 (1) (2020) 1–38. arXiv:1906.08228

    2020 arXiv

  39. [47]

    Darmois, M´ emorial des sciences math´ ematiques, Fascicule XXV (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1927) (1927)

    G. Darmois, M´ emorial des sciences math´ ematiques, Fascicule XXV (Gauthier-Villars, Paris, 1927) (1927)

    1927

  40. [48]

    G. Erez, N. Rosen, The gravitational field of a particle p ossessing a multipole moment, Tech. rep., Israel Inst. of Te ch., Haifa (1959)

    1959

  41. [49]

    D. M. Zipoy, Topology of some spheroidal metrics, Journ al of Mathematical Physics 7 (6) (1966) 1137–1143

    1966

  42. [50]

    V oorhees, Static axially symmetric gravitational fi elds, Physical Review D 2 (10) (1970) 2119

    B. V oorhees, Static axially symmetric gravitational fi elds, Physical Review D 2 (10) (1970) 2119

    1970

  43. [51]

    Lora-Clavijo, G

    F. Lora-Clavijo, G. Prada-M´ endez, L. Becerra, E. Bece rra-V ergara, The q-metric naked singularity: a viable explanation for the nature of the central object in the milky way, Classical and Quantum Gravi ty 40 (24) (2023) 245012. arXiv:2311.06653

    2023 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Destounis, G

    K. Destounis, G. Huez, K. D. Kokkotas, Geodesics and gra vitational waves in chaotic extreme-mass-ratio inspirals : the curious case of Zipoy-V oorhees black-hole mimickers, General Relativityand Gravitation 55 (6) (2023) 71. arXiv:2301.11483

    2023 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Richterek, J

    L. Richterek, J. Novotn` y, J. Horsk` y, Einstein-Maxwe ll fields generated from the γ-metric and their limits, Czechoslovak journal of physics 52 (2002) 1021–1040. arXiv:gr-qc/0209094

    2002 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Chakrabarty, C

    H. Chakrabarty, C. A. Benavides-Gallego, C. Bambi, L. M odesto, Unattainable extended spacetime regions in confor mal gravity, Journal of High Energy Physics 2018 (3) (2018) 1–12. arXiv:1711.07198

    2018 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Toshmatov, D

    B. Toshmatov, D. Malafarina, N. Dadhich, Harmonic osci llations of neutral particles in the γ metric, Physical Review D 100 (4) (2019) 044001. arXiv:1905.01088

    2019 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Allahyari, H

    A. Allahyari, H. Firouzjahi, B. Mashhoon, Quasinormal modes of a black hole with quadrupole moment, Physical Revie w D 99 (4) (2019) 044005. arXiv:1812.03376

    2019 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Chakrabarty, D

    H. Chakrabarty, D. Borah, A. Abdujabbarov, D. Malafari na, B. Ahmedov, E ffects of gravitational lensing on neutrino oscillation in γ- spacetime, The European Physical Journal C 82 (1) (2022) 24

    2022

  50. [58]

    Fisher, Scalar mesostatic field with regard for gravi tational effects, Zh

    I. Fisher, Scalar mesostatic field with regard for gravi tational effects, Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz 18 (1948) 636. arXiv:gr-qc/9911008

    1948 arXiv

  51. [59]

    A. I. Janis, E. T. Newman, J. Winicour, Reality of the Sch warzschild singularity, Physical Review Letters 20 (16) (1 968) 878

  52. [60]

    Wyman, Static spherically symmetric scalar fields in general relativity, Physical Review D 24 (4) (1981) 839

    M. Wyman, Static spherically symmetric scalar fields in general relativity, Physical Review D 24 (4) (1981) 839

    1981

  53. [61]

    K. S. Virbhadra, G. F. Ellis, Gravitational lensing by n aked singularities, Physical Review D 65 (10) (2002) 103004

    2002

  54. [62]

    D. Chen, Y . Chen, P . Wang, T. Wu, H. Wu, Gravitational lensing by transparent Janis–Newman–Winicour naked singular ities, The European Physical Journal C 84 (6) (2024) 584. arXiv:2309.00905

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    D. N. Solanki, P . Bambhaniya, D. Dey, P . S. Joshi, K. N. Pa thak, Shadows and precession of orbits in rotating Janis–Ne wman–Winicour spacetime, The European Physical Journal C 82 (1) (2022) 77. arXiv:2109.14937

    2022 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Stashko, O

    O. Stashko, O. Savchuk, V . Zhdanov, Quasinormal modes o f naked singularities in presence of nonlinear scalar fields , Physical Review D 109 (2) (2024) 024012. arXiv:2307.04295

    2024 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Virbhadra, S

    K. Virbhadra, S. Jhingan, P . Joshi, Nature of singulari ty in Einstein-massless scalar theory, International Jour nal of Modern Physics D 6 (03) (1997) 357–361. arXiv:gr-qc/9512030

    1997 arXiv

  58. [66]

    A. N. Chowdhury, M. Patil, D. Malafarina, P . S. Joshi, Ci rcular geodesics and accretion disks in Janis-Newman-Wini cour and gamma metric, Physical Review D (2011). arXiv:1112.2522

    2011 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Azizallahi, B

    A. Azizallahi, B. Mirza, A. Hajibarat, H. Anjomshoa, Th ree parameter metrics in the presence of a scalar field in four and higher dimensions, Nuclear Physics B 998 (2024) 116414. arXiv:arXiv:2307.09328

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Mirza, P

    B. Mirza, P . K. Kangazi, F. Sadeghi, A class of rotating m etrics in the presence of a scalar field, The European Physica l Journal C 83 (12) (2023) 1–12. arXiv:2307.13588

    2023 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Toktarbay, H

    S. Toktarbay, H. Quevedo, A stationary q-metric, Gravi t. Cosmol. 20 (4) (2014) 252–254. arXiv:1510.04155

    2014 arXiv

  62. [70]

    Frutos-Alfaro, M

    F. Frutos-Alfaro, M. So ffel, On relativistic multipole moments of stationary space– times, R. Soc. Open Sci. 5 (7) (2018) 180640. arXiv:1606.07173

    2018 arXiv

  63. [71]

    Bogush, D

    I. Bogush, D. Gal’tsov, Generation of rotating solutio ns in Einstein-scalar gravity, Phys. Rev. D 102 (12) (2020) 124006. arXiv:2001.02936

    2020 arXiv

  64. [72]

    S. H. Mazharimousavi, Nonspherically-symmetric blac k hole in Einstein-massless scalar theory, The European Phy sical Journal C 83 (2023)

    2023

  65. [73]

    B. K. Harrison, New solutions of the Einstein-Maxwell e quations from old, Journal of Mathematical Physics 9 (11) (1 968) 1744–1752

  66. [74]

    Ehlers, Konstruktionen und charakterisierungen vo n l¨ osungen der Einsteinschen gravitationsfeldgleichungen, Ph.D

    J. Ehlers, Konstruktionen und charakterisierungen vo n l¨ osungen der Einsteinschen gravitationsfeldgleichungen, Ph.D. thesis, Hamburg Ham- burg, Germany (1958)

    1958

  67. [75]

    Schneider, J

    P . Schneider, J. Ehlers, E. E. Falco, P . Schneider, J. Eh lers, E. E. Falco, Gravitational lenses as astrophysical to ols, Gravitational Lenses (1992) 467–515

    1992

  68. [76]

    Wambsganss, Gravitational lensing in astronomy, Li ving Reviews in Relativity 1 (1998) 1–74

    J. Wambsganss, Gravitational lensing in astronomy, Li ving Reviews in Relativity 1 (1998) 1–74. arXiv:astro-ph/9812021

    1998 arXiv

  69. [77]

    Narayan, M

    R. Narayan, M. Bartelmann, Gravitational lensing, For mation of Structure in the Universe (1999) 360 arXiv:1010.3829

    1999 arXiv

  70. [78]

    Schneider, C

    P . Schneider, C. Kochanek, J. Wambsganss, Gravitation al lensing: strong, weak and micro: Saas-Fee advanced cours e 33, V ol. 33, Springer Science & Business Media, 2006

    2006

  71. [79]

    Straumann, General relativity, Springer Science & B usiness Media, 2012

    N. Straumann, General relativity, Springer Science & B usiness Media, 2012

    2012

  72. [80]

    Nollert, About the significance of quasinormal mo des of black holes, Physical Review D 53 (8) (1996) 4397

    H.-P . Nollert, About the significance of quasinormal mo des of black holes, Physical Review D 53 (8) (1996) 4397. arXiv:gr-qc/9602032

    1996 arXiv

  73. [81]

    Nollert, Quasinormal modes: the characteristic sound’of black holes and neutron stars, Classical and Quant um Gravity 16 (12) (1999) 16 R159

    H.-P . Nollert, Quasinormal modes: the characteristic sound’of black holes and neutron stars, Classical and Quant um Gravity 16 (12) (1999) 16 R159

    1999

  74. [82]

    K. D. Kokkotas, B. G. Schmidt, Quasi-normal modes of sta rs and black holes, Living Reviews in Relativity 2 (1999) 1–7 2. arXiv:gr-qc/9909058

    1999 arXiv

  75. [83]

    Dreyer, Quasinormal modes, the area spectrum, and bl ack hole entropy, Physical Review Letters 90 (8) (2003) 0813 01

    O. Dreyer, Quasinormal modes, the area spectrum, and bl ack hole entropy, Physical Review Letters 90 (8) (2003) 0813 01. arXiv:gr-qc/0211076

    2003 arXiv

  76. [84]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V . Cardoso, A. O. Starinets, Quasinormal mode s of black holes and black branes, Classical and Quantum Grav ity 26 (16) (2009) 163001. arXiv:0905.2975

    2009 arXiv

  77. [85]

    Denef, S

    F. Denef, S. A. Hartnoll, S. Sachdev, Black hole determi nants and quasinormal modes, Classical and Quantum Gravity 27 (12) (2010) 125001. arXiv:0908.2657

    2010 arXiv

  78. [86]

    Konoplya, A

    R. Konoplya, A. Zhidenko, Quasinormal modes of black ho les: From astrophysics to string theory, Reviews of Modern P hysics 83 (3) (2011)

    2011

  79. [87]

    Flachi, J

    A. Flachi, J. P . Lemos, Quasinormal modes of regular bla ck holes, Physical Review D 87 (2) (2013) 024034. arXiv:1211.6212

    2013 arXiv

  80. [88]

    Matyjasek, M

    J. Matyjasek, M. Opala, Quasinormal modes of black hole s: The improved semianalytic approach, Physical Review D 96 (2) (2017) 024011. arXiv:1704.00361

    2017 arXiv

  81. [89]

    Ferrari, B

    V . Ferrari, B. Mashhoon, New approach to the quasinorma l modes of a black hole, Physical Review D 30 (2) (1984) 295

    1984

  82. [90]

    Ferrari, B

    V . Ferrari, B. Mashhoon, Oscillations of a black hole, P hysical Review Letters 52 (16) (1984) 1361

    1984

  83. [91]

    Mashhoon, Stability of charged rotating black holes in the eikonal approximation, Physical Review D 31 (2) (1985 ) 290

    B. Mashhoon, Stability of charged rotating black holes in the eikonal approximation, Physical Review D 31 (2) (1985 ) 290

    1985

  84. [92]

    Barrientos, A

    J. Barrientos, A. Cisterna, M. Hassaine, J. Oliva, Revi siting Buchdahl transformations: new static and rotating b lack holes in vacuum, double copy, and hairy extensions, The European Physical Journal C 84 (10) (2024) 1011

    2024

  85. [93]

    Magnetic

    J. Barrientos, A. Cisterna, I. Kol´ aˇ r, K. M¨ uller, M. Oyarzo, K. Pallikaris, Mixing “Magnetic” and “Electric” Ehl ers–Harrison transformations: the electromagnetic swirling spacetime and novel type i bac kgrounds, The European Physical Journal C 84 (7) (2024) 724

    2024

  86. [94]

    Gibbons, M

    G. Gibbons, M. Werner, Applications of the Gauss–Bonne t theorem to gravitational lensing, Classical and Quantum G ravity 25 (23) (2008) 235009. arXiv:0807.0854. 17

    2008 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.