Physical and Theoretical Challenges to Integrable Singularities

Hooman Neshat; Julio Arrechea; Stefano Liberati; Vania Vellucci

REVIEW 2 major objections 4 minor 4 cited by

Physical and Theoretical Challenges to Integrable Singularities

T0 review · 2 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that integrable black-hole singularities lose their integrability once generic scalar-field perturbations are included.

desk verdict A genuinely new Frobenius analysis of scalar perturbations on integrable-singularity backgrounds, with a sound l>0 non-integrability result, but marred by an l=0 sector error, a prefactor slip, and a load-bearing excitation assumption that is acknowledged but unproven. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.17863 v2 pith:4VDXFDJD submitted 2025-04-24 gr-qc

Julio Arrechea , Stefano Liberati , Hooman Neshat , Vania Vellucci This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C75 PACS 04.70.-s04.20.-q

keywords integrablesingularitiesscalarfieldperturbationsFrobeniusmethodenergydensitynon-integrabilityblackholeinteriorstraversablesingularityconjugatepointsextendedbodies

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

Black holes whose central singularity is only integrable — the metric stays finite and tidal forces stay finite, but curvature diverges — look like a middle path between Schwarzschild and regular black holes. This paper argues that the middle path closes when perturbations are included. In a spherically symmetric background with mass function $m(r)=m_1 r+O(r^2)$, a massless scalar test field grows like $\ln r$ for spherical modes but like $r^{-\beta}$ with $\beta\ge 1/2$ for all $l>0$ modes. The energy density of those non-spherical modes scales as $\rho\sim r^{-2(\beta+1)}$, so its integral up to $r=0$ is infinite: the integrability that the background was built to satisfy fails for generic perturbing fields. The paper adds that the singularity is a focusing point for every causal geodesic, and that extended bodies will not follow the finely tuned radial geodesics for which the singularity is weak, so traversability is doubtful.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the radial wave equation for a massless scalar on the fixed background, written near $r=0$ as $$\Psi''+\frac{P}{r}\Psi'+\frac{Q}{$r^{2}$}\Psi=0,$$ with $P$ and $Q$ obtained from $m(r)=m_1r+m_2r^2+O(r^3)$. Since $r=0$ is a regular singular point, the method of power-series solutions gives indicial roots $R_{1,2}=\frac12\left(1\pm\sqrt{1-\frac{4l(l+1)}{\alpha}}\right)$ with $\alpha=2m_1-1>0$, and hence $\Phi_0\propto r^{R-1}$. These roots are what convert the background's mild divergence into a field-mode divergence $r^{-\beta}$, $\beta\ge1/2$, and then into the non-integrable density $\rho\sim r^{-2(\beta+1)}$. The same geometry gives the null expansion $\Theta\to-\infty$, making $r=0$ a focusing point and, in any extension, a conjugate point to every point of the trapped region, meaning a point where neighboring geodesics refocus.

What would settle it

Take the metric $f(r)=1-2(m_1r+\dots)/r$ with $m_1>1/2$, place smooth initial data for a massless scalar field on a spacelike surface inside the horizon, and evolve the mode equation numerically for $l=0$ and $l>0$. If for generic data the divergent coefficients, such as the $r^{-1/2}$ or complex-power modes, vanish for every $l>0$, the non-integrability claim collapses; if they are nonzero, the energy-density integral over a small ball should diverge as $\int_0^\epsilon \rho r^2 dr\sim \epsilon^{1-2\beta}$ for $\beta>1/2$.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the integrability condition encoded in the background spacetime does not survive contact with test fields. For $l=0$ the scalar field diverges only logarithmically, $\Phi_0\propto\ln r$, and the observer-measured energy density $\rho\sim r^{-2}$ is still integrable. For every $l>0$, the power-series analysis of the radial mode equation gives a leading term $\Phi_0\propto r^{-\beta}$ with $\beta\ge 1/2$; when $l$ is large the roots become complex and the field oscillates inside an $r^{-1/2}$ envelope. Either way $\rho\sim r^{-2(\beta+1)}$ and $\int \rho r^2 dr$ diverges at $r=0$. Because $r=0$ is a moment in time inside the horizon rather than a spatial boundary, the divergent mode cannot be discarded by the regularity boundary condition used in stellar interiors; it can be removed only by fine-tuning the initial data. The paper concludes that generic perturbations would backreact strongly enough to threaten the integrable-singularity background, and that the focusing geometry makes the singularity a universal conjugate point and an effective barrier for extended objects.

Load-bearing premise

The argument assumes that the divergent power-series mode is genuinely excited by smooth, generic initial data at horizon crossing, rather than being absent because its coefficients are fine-tuned to zero for all $l$ and $k$, and that the interior really has $m_1>1/2$ so the trapped region reaches an integrable singularity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Any generic massless scalar perturbation with angular number $l>0$ carries a non-integrable energy density toward $r=0$, so the test-field approximation breaks down before the singularity and backreaction must be considered.
The focusing property makes $r=0$ a conjugate point for every causal geodesic in the trapped region, so a spacetime that includes $r=0$ in the manifold cannot be globally hyperbolic.
The weakness of the singularity for radial geodesics does not extend to realistic bodies: spin–curvature coupling and internal stresses send parts of an extended object onto non-radial trajectories for which the singularity is strong.
A falling extended object encounters a finite but enormous mass-energy concentrated near the singularity; for a stellar-mass example the enclosed energy exceeds the rest mass of a 10-meter water sphere by about 21 orders of magnitude.
The paper concludes that, without a backreaction or isotropization mechanism that eliminates non-spherical modes, integrable singularities are not a robust alternative to regular black holes.

Reading between the lines

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

Beyond the paper, the same regular-singular-point structure should make any massless higher-spin field, or any non-spherical extension of the metric, produce a similar or stronger divergence, since the effect comes from the indicial exponents rather than from scalar-field self-coupling.
If the universal-conjugate-point picture is correct, any extension through $r=0$ would behave like a Cauchy horizon collapsed to a point; one might expect nonlinear instabilities analogous to mass inflation, although the paper does not prove this.
A concrete extension the paper leaves open: evolving the scalar field from smooth initial data inside the horizon would settle whether the divergent coefficients are generically nonzero for all $l$, turning the present claim into a quantitative statement.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The main new thing here is a Frobenius analysis of scalar test fields on integrable-singularity backgrounds. For l>0 modes the paper shows the field goes like r^{-β} with β≥1/2, making the energy density ρ~r^{-2(β+1)} non-integrable at r=0. That calculation is basically right, and it is a genuine new application to this background class. The paper is also honest: footnote 10 concedes the divergent solution might not be excited for all l,k, though they think fine-tuning would be needed.

The soft spots are real. First, the l=0 sector is mishandled. The general Frobenius solution (V.15) includes a constant term in Ψ from the second solution; that gives Φ~1/r, not ln r. The paper discards it without argument. If that constant is generically present, even spherical perturbations have non-integrable energy density, which contradicts the Introduction's claim that spherical modes are consistent with integrability. Second, the prefactor in Eq (V.22) is off by 1/2 — the coefficient should be 1/2 + m1, not m1. This doesn't affect integrability but is sloppy. Third, the mass estimate in Sec VI.B uses a length-to-mass conversion that looks wrong; I get a few times 10^28 kg for their example, not 8.6×10^27 kg. These are fixable.

The larger issue is conceptual. The non-integrability conclusion for l>0 depends on the divergent Frobenius solution being generically excited by smooth initial data at horizon crossing. Because r=0 in the interior is a focusing point rather than a boundary, the authors argue you can't impose regularity and must keep both solutions. That's plausible, and their contrast with stellar cores is well made, but it is still an assumption, and the l=0 error shows how much the result changes when you keep or drop a solution.

What the paper does well, besides the core calculation, is frame r=0 as a Cauchy point — a Cauchy horizon shrunk to a point — and the discussion of C2-inextendibility is clear. The MPD and extended-object arguments are more qualitative but reasonable.

I'd send this to peer review. The l>0 result is new and likely correct modulo the excitation assumption; the l=0 error and prefactor mistake are correctable. Just read the l=0 section with care. It deserves a serious referee.

Referee Report

2 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies spherically symmetric black holes with integrable singularities, characterized by a mass function m(r)=m1 r+O(r^2) near r=0. It argues, first, that such singularities are focusing points whose inclusion in an extension would violate global hyperbolicity; second, that scalar test-field perturbations on these backgrounds have a non-integrable energy density for l>0 modes, whereas the paper claims l=0 modes remain integrable; and third, that extended physical observers would face severe obstacles due to deviations from geodesic motion and the large energy encountered near the singularity. The overall conclusion is that integrable singularity models face serious theoretical and practical challenges as alternatives to regular black holes.

Significance. If the central perturbative claim were established, the paper would be a significant contribution to the current debate on integrable singularities, because it would show that the integrability condition imposed on the background source does not automatically extend to dynamical fields. The manuscript is transparent about its assumptions, uses standard Frobenius and geodesic-deviation machinery, and explicitly flags residual possibilities. However, the main conclusion is currently conditional: the l>0 non-integrability result depends on an unproven genericity assumption about the excitation of the divergent Frobenius solution, and the l=0 analysis contains a concrete error. The paper's significance is therefore real but provisional.

major comments (2)

[Sec. V.A, Eqs. (V.15)-(V.17)] The l=0 Frobenius solution is not handled correctly. The second independent solution in (V.15) is Ψ2 = ln(r) r Σ a_n r^n + Σ b_n r^n, so it contains a constant term b_0. Hence the generic leading behavior is Φ0 = Ψ0/r ∼ A2 b_0/r plus subleading A2 ln r, not Φ0 ∼ ln r as stated in (V.17). The corresponding energy density is ρ ∼ r^{-4}, so ∫ρ r^2 dr diverges; the claim that spherical modes are integrable is therefore wrong. This error does not weaken the general thrust of the paper; if anything, it shows that the constant Frobenius mode would make even l=0 modes non-integrable, but the l=0 discussion as written must be corrected.
[Sec. V.A and footnote 10] The central claim that l>0 scalar perturbations have non-integrable energy density depends on the divergent Frobenius solution being the one selected by generic Cauchy data. The manuscript computes only the two local solutions near r=0 and does not compute the excitation coefficients from horizon-crossing initial data; footnote 10 explicitly states that the authors 'have not ruled out' that A1,A2 vanish for all l,k. Because r=0 is a future focusing point rather than a boundary where regularity conditions can be imposed, the paper needs an argument that smooth, generic initial data produce a nonzero coefficient for the r^{-β} mode. Without such an argument, Eqs. (V.24)-(V.25) describe a possible mode, not necessarily the physical field selected by evolution. This is load-bearing: fine-tuned suppression of the divergent mode would invalidate the main conclusion.

minor comments (4)

[Sec. V.A, Eq. (V.22)] The prefactor in (V.22) is incorrect. Using (V.21) with f=1-2m(r)/r and m≈m1 r, the contribution from the radial derivative is 1/2(∂rΦ)^2 and the u^r term contributes m1(∂rΦ)^2, giving ρ ≈ (1+α/2)(∂rΦ)^2, not (1+α)/2(∂rΦ)^2. The divergence rates are unaffected.
[Sec. VI.B] The numerical estimate m(a=10 m)≈8.6×10^27 kg corresponds to C0=1 in (II.8), but the paper does not state the value used. Since Fig. 1 uses C0=3, the same calculation with that value gives roughly 2.6×10^28 kg for M≈10^30 kg; please clarify the choice of C0.
[Eqs. (V.14) and (A.1)] The formula for the indicial roots is typographically unclear: the term involving α√α is written without indicating the division that makes the argument dimensionless. Please rewrite the roots in an unambiguous form.
[Sec. IV.B] The notion of a 'Cauchy point' is introduced informally. Since the argument about the loss of global hyperbolicity relies on this concept, it would be helpful to give a precise definition or a supporting reference.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the perturbation analysis derives non-integrability from the stated integrable-singularity background using standard Frobenius theory, without fitting parameters or importing the conclusion from self-citations.

full rationale

The central derivation in Sec. V.A is not equivalent to its inputs by construction. The paper assumes an integrable-singularity background with m(r) = m1 r + O(r^2), writes the scalar test-field equation near r = 0, solves the indicial equation, and computes the resulting energy density. The conclusion that the l > 0 energy density is non-integrable follows algebraically from the Frobenius exponents and the integral of r^{-2(beta+1)} r^2; it is not a renamed input or a fitted result. No parameter is fitted to produce the divergence: the coefficients A1, A2 are left undetermined, and the divergent behavior is a property of the Frobenius basis itself. The background integrability condition is the object under test, not a premise that forces the conclusion. References to prior work involving coauthor Liberati (e.g., [5, 18, 19, 27]) concern regular black holes and Cauchy-horizon instabilities and are contextual, not load-bearing for the perturbation calculation. The main genuine limitation is explicitly acknowledged in footnote 10: the authors state they have not ruled out that initial data yield vanishing A1, A2 for all l and k, leaving the generic excitation of the divergent mode as an assumption rather than a proof. That is a dynamical solution-selection gap, not circularity, because the conclusion does not reduce to the model's input or to a self-citation chain. The appendix's complex-root case likewise follows from the indicial equation and does not import the result from prior work. The paper is therefore self-contained against external benchmarks for the claim it actually establishes, with the caveat about generic excitation flagged by the authors themselves.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard Frobenius theory, the specific background family, and a genericity assumption about initial data. There are no fitted parameters in the paper; m1 and C0 are inherited from the models under scrutiny. The paper invokes no new entities.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Background metrics are static, spherically symmetric, with g_tt = -1/g_rr and m(r)=m1 r + O(r^2), m1>1/2.
The paper restricts to this family (Sec II, V); the trapped interior m1>1/2 is required for the focusing point argument and for the initial-value problem without boundary conditions at r=0.
standard math The wave operator near r=0 has a regular singular point, so Frobenius series apply.
Sec V.A uses this to obtain indicial exponents; this is a standard theorem for second-order ODEs with analytic P and Q.
domain assumption Smooth initial data at horizon crossing generically excite both Frobenius solutions; the divergent solution is not fine-tuned away.
The paper states it has not ruled out fine-tuned initial conditions making A1,A2 vanish, but considers this unlikely (Sec V.A, bullet after Eq V.15). This genericity is necessary for the non-integrability claim.
domain assumption Test-field approximation is valid up to the point where T_μν backreaction becomes important; a divergent T_μν signals instability of the background.
The paper is classical and treats perturbations linearly; the conclusion is an inference about backreaction, not a full nonlinear calculation (Sec V.A, final paragraphs).
standard math Penrose's singularity theorem, global hyperbolicity, and Tipler-Ori strength criteria are used as benchmarks.
Sec IV.B and III rely on these established results to argue r=0 is a focusing point and C2-inextendible.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Physical and Theoretical Challenges to Integrable Singularities." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VDXFDJD

@misc{pith2026250417863,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Physical and Theoretical Challenges to Integrable Singularities},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VDXFDJD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.17863}
}

read the original abstract

Black hole spacetimes that exhibit integrable singularities have gained considerable interest as alternatives to both regular and singular black holes. Unlike most known regular black hole solutions, these models evade the formation of an inner horizon, thereby circumventing the well-known instability issues associated with such structures. Moreover, it has been suggested that the finite tidal forces near integrable singularities, may allow for a traversable extension beyond them. In this work, we present a set of arguments -- both theoretical, concerning test-field perturbations and the accumulation of matter at the singularity, and practical, related to the behavior of physical probes and extended objects -- with the aim of assessing the validity of the proposed integrability condition, and the feasibility of traversing such singularities. Our analysis highlights key subtleties that challenge the viability of said extensions as alternatives to regular black holes, and underscores the need for a more rigorous investigation of their physical implications.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.17863 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 4 Pith papers

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

Coherent quantum hairy black holes from gravitational decoupling: regularity, geodesics, and scalar ringdown
hep-th 2026-02 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Gaussian-smearing the gravitational-decoupling hairy black hole produces a regular core and modified photon rings, lensing, and a claimed but absent ringdown spectrum.
Timelike convergence condition in regular black-hole spacetimes with (anti-)de Sitter core
gr-qc 2025-09 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

In spherical symmetry the timelike convergence condition reduces to three mass-function inequalities, and the new one forces every smooth de Sitter core regular black hole to violate the TCC near the core.
Topological regular black holes without Cauchy horizon
gr-qc 2025-05 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

Hyperbolic and toroidal black hole metrics are constructed with finite curvature invariants and a single horizon, so no Cauchy horizon, and a generalized areal radius extends this to spherical topology.
Reissner Nordstrom black holes with integrable singularity interiors supported by string distributions
gr-qc 2026-02 reject novelty 4.0 of 10

A fluid-of-strings cloud is proposed as an integrable-singularity interior for the Reissner–Nordström exterior, but the field equations for the new model do not close.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 30 canonical work pages · cited by 4 Pith papers

[1]

Visser, Phys

M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 90, 127502 (2014), arXiv:1407.7295 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2014
[2]

integrability

(V.19) We can now calculate the energy density associated with the field and see how it behaves as a function of r. We start by writing the energy-momentum tensor for a massless scalar field Tµν =∂µΦ0∂νΦ0− 1 2gµνgαβ∂αΦ0∂βΦ0, (V.20) 9 A calculation for the case of a collapsing star has been done in [58]. 10 There remains the possibility that evolving a phy...

work page
[3]

Four Attitudes Towards Singularities in the Search for a Theory of Quantum Gravity

K. Crowther and S. De Haro, Four Attitudes Towards Singularities in the Search for a Theory of Quantum Gravity (2021), arXiv:2112.08531 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021
[4]

S. W. Hawking, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes (2014), arXiv:1401.5761 [hep-th]. 27

arXiv 2014
[5]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, and P. Singh, Regular black holes from Loop Quantum Gravity (2023), arXiv:2301.01309 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023
[6]

Carballo-Rubio, F

R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124009 (2018), arXiv:1809.08238 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018
[7]

Cardoso and P

V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019
[8]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016

Show all 66 references

[9]

Akiyama et al

K. Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

2019 arXiv
[10]

Bardeen, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Rela- tivity (1968) p

J. Bardeen, in Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Rela- tivity (1968) p. 87

1968
[11]

Dymnikova, Gen

I. Dymnikova, Gen. Rel. Grav. 24, 235 (1992)

1992
[12]

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

2006 arXiv
[13]

Ansoldi, in Conference on Black Holes and Naked Singularities (2008) arXiv:0802.0330 [gr-qc]

S. Ansoldi, in Conference on Black Holes and Naked Singularities (2008) arXiv:0802.0330 [gr-qc]

2008 arXiv
[14]

O. B. Zaslavskii, Phys. Lett. B 688, 278 (2010), arXiv:1004.2362 [gr-qc]

2010 arXiv
[15]

S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Series A 314, 529 (1970)

1970
[16]

Geroch, Annals of Physics 48, 526 (1968)

R. Geroch, Annals of Physics 48, 526 (1968)

1968
[17]

G. F. Ellis and B. G. Schmidt, General Relativity and Gravitation 8, 915 (1977)

1977
[18]

Curiel, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , edited by E

E. Curiel, in The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy , edited by E. N. Zalta and U. Nodelman (Meta- physics Research Lab, Stanford University, 2023) Summer 2023 ed

2023
[19]

Carballo-Rubio, F

R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 14 (2020), arXiv:1908.03261 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[20]

Carballo-Rubio, F

R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 101, 084047 (2020), arXiv:1911.11200 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[21]

Poisson and W

E. Poisson and W. Israel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 1663 (1989)

1989
[22]

Poisson and W

E. Poisson and W. Israel, Phys. Rev. D 41, 1796 (1990)

1990
[23]

Ori, Phys

A. Ori, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 789 (1991)

1991
[24]

McMaken, Phys

T. McMaken, Phys. Rev. D 107, 125023 (2023), arXiv:2303.03562 [gr-qc]

2023 arXiv
[25]

Dafermos, Commun

M. Dafermos, Commun. Pure Appl. Math. 58, 0445 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0307013

2005 arXiv
[26]

Dafermos, Contemp

M. Dafermos, Contemp. Math. 350, 99 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0209052

2004 arXiv
[27]

Dafermos and J

M. Dafermos and J. Luk, The interior of dynamical vacuum black holes I: The C 0-stability of the Kerr Cauchy horizon (2017), arXiv:1710.01722 [gr-qc]

2017
[28]

Carballo-Rubio, F

R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 181402 (2024), arXiv:2402.14913 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[29]

Sbierski, Journal of Differential Geometry 108, 319 (2018)

J. Sbierski, Journal of Differential Geometry 108, 319 (2018)

2018
[30]

V. N. Lukash and V. N. Strokov, Geometries with integrable singularity - black/white holes and astro- genic universes (2011), arXiv:1109.2796 [astro-ph.CO]. 28

2011 arXiv
[31]

V. N. Lukash and V. N. Strokov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 28, 1350007 (2013), arXiv:1301.5544 [gr-qc]

2013 arXiv
[32]

Casadio, Gen

R. Casadio, Gen. Rel. Grav. 56, 129 (2024)

2024
[33]

J. Daas, C. Laporte, F. Saueressig, and T. van Dijk, Zooming into the horizon region of black hole-type objects (2025), arXiv:2502.13230 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[34]

Bonanno, B

A. Bonanno, B. Koch, and A. Platania, Class. Quant. Grav. 34, 095012 (2017), arXiv:1610.05299 [gr-qc]

2017 arXiv
[35]

Bonanno, B

A. Bonanno, B. Koch, and A. Platania, Found. Phys. 48, 1393 (2018), arXiv:1710.10845 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[36]

Estrada, Annals Phys

M. Estrada, Annals Phys. 477, 169985 (2025), arXiv:2411.01253 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[37]

Jacobson, Class

T. Jacobson, Class. Quant. Grav. 24, 5717 (2007), arXiv:0707.3222 [gr-qc]

2007 arXiv
[38]

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

1964
[39]

W. C. Hernandez Jr and C. W. Misner, Astrophysical Journal, vol. 143, p. 452 143, 452 (1966)

1966
[40]

Casadio, A

R. Casadio, A. Giusti, and J. Ovalle, JHEP 05, 118, arXiv:2303.02713 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[41]

F. J. Tipler, Physics Letters A 64, 8 (1977)

1977
[42]

B. C. Nolan, Physical Review D 60, 024014 (1999)

1999
[43]

Ori, Physical Review D 61, 064016 (2000)

A. Ori, Physical Review D 61, 064016 (2000)

2000
[44]

B. C. Nolan, Phys. Rev. D 62, 044015 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0001026

2000 arXiv
[45]

Estrada, G

M. Estrada, G. Alencar, T. M. Crispim, and C. R. Muniz, JCAP 06, 042, arXiv:2310.01734 [gr-qc]

arXiv
[46]

Padmanabhan, Gravitation: Foundations and frontiers (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

T. Padmanabhan, Gravitation: Foundations and frontiers (Cambridge University Press, 2014)

2014
[47]

Visser, Universe 9, 521 (2023)

M. Visser, Universe 9, 521 (2023)

2023
[48]

R. M. Wald, General relativity (University of Chicago press, 2010)

2010
[49]

Penrose, Physical Review Letters 14, 57 (1965)

R. Penrose, Physical Review Letters 14, 57 (1965)

1965
[50]

Penrose, General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, 1980) pp

R. Penrose, General Relativity: An Einstein Centenary Survey (Cambridge University Press, 1980) pp. 581–638

1980
[51]

Van de Moortel, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13180 (2025)

M. Van de Moortel, arXiv preprint arXiv:2501.13180 (2025)

2025
[52]

Landsman, Foundations of Physics 51, 1 (2021)

K. Landsman, Foundations of Physics 51, 1 (2021)

2021
[53]

Cardoso, J

V. Cardoso, J. a. L. Costa, K. Destounis, P. Hintz, and A. Jansen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 031103 (2018), arXiv:1711.10502 [gr-qc]

2018 arXiv
[54]

O’Neill, Pure and Applied Mathematics/Academic Press, Inc (1983)

B. O’Neill, Pure and Applied Mathematics/Academic Press, Inc (1983)

1983
[55]

S. W. Hawking and G. F. Ellis, The large scale structure of space-time (Cambridge university press, 2023)

2023
[56]

C. J. Clarke, The analysis of space-time singularities , 1 (Cambridge University Press, 1993)

1993
[57]

L. M. Burko and A. Ori, Physical Review D 56, 7820 (1997)

1997
[58]

Doroshkevich and I

A. Doroshkevich and I. Novikov, Zhurnal Eksperimental’noi i Teoreticheskoi Fiziki 74, 3 (1978)

1978
[59]

Patashinskil, V

A. Patashinskil, V. Pinus, and A. Khar’kov, Zh. Eksp. Teor Fiz 66, 393 (1974)

1974
[60]

Gundlach, R

C. Gundlach, R. H. Price, and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 883 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9307009

1994 arXiv
[61]

Casadio, Physics Letters B 843, 138055 (2023)

R. Casadio, Physics Letters B 843, 138055 (2023)

2023
[62]

Mathisson, Acta Phys

M. Mathisson, Acta Phys. Polon. 6, 163 (1937). 29

1937
[63]

Papapetrou, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London

A. Papapetrou, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London. Series A. Mathematical and Physical Sciences 209, 248 (1951)

1951
[64]

W. G. Dixon, Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series A, Mathematical and Physical Sciences 277, 59 (1974)

1974
[65]

F. W. Cotton, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 162 (2021)

2021
[66]

L. M. Burko, Physical Review D 60, 104033 (1999)

1999

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [1]

Visser, Phys

M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 90, 127502 (2014), arXiv:1407.7295 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2014

[2] [2]

integrability

(V.19) We can now calculate the energy density associated with the field and see how it behaves as a function of r. We start by writing the energy-momentum tensor for a massless scalar field Tµν =∂µΦ0∂νΦ0− 1 2gµνgαβ∂αΦ0∂βΦ0, (V.20) 9 A calculation for the case of a collapsing star has been done in [58]. 10 There remains the possibility that evolving a phy...

work page

[3] [3]

Four Attitudes Towards Singularities in the Search for a Theory of Quantum Gravity

K. Crowther and S. De Haro, Four Attitudes Towards Singularities in the Search for a Theory of Quantum Gravity (2021), arXiv:2112.08531 [gr-qc]

work page Pith review arXiv 2021

[4] [4]

S. W. Hawking, Information Preservation and Weather Forecasting for Black Holes (2014), arXiv:1401.5761 [hep-th]. 27

arXiv 2014

[5] [5]

Ashtekar, J

A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, and P. Singh, Regular black holes from Loop Quantum Gravity (2023), arXiv:2301.01309 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2023

[6] [6]

Carballo-Rubio, F

R. Carballo-Rubio, F. Di Filippo, S. Liberati, and M. Visser, Phys. Rev. D 98, 124009 (2018), arXiv:1809.08238 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2018

[7] [7]

Cardoso and P

V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Living Rev. Rel. 22, 4 (2019), arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2019

[8] [8]

B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2016