Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 2 cited by

Barotropic Equation of State and Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Dynamical Black Hole Spacetimes

T0 review · 5 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 For a barotropic equation of state with $\alpha\in(1/2,1)$, the additional integration constant $D(v)$ in the Husain dynamical black hole is shown to be a nonlinear-electrodynamics charge parameter—magnetic, electric, or both.

desk verdict The paper's attempt to interpret D(v) as nonlinear-electrodynamics charges is undone by sign errors and an unverified static-to-dynamic step; the idea is worth engaging, the execution is not. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.20882 v1 pith:OK6J7YIR submitted 2025-04-29 gr-qc

Vitalii Vertogradov , Dmitriy Kudryavtcev This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C2283C1583C30 PACS 95.30.Sf04.70.-s97.60.Lf04.50.Kd
keywords BlackholeDynamicalspacetimeVaidyaHusainsolutionKiselevNonlinearelectrodynamicsBarotropicequationofstateElectricandmagneticcharges
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 tries to pin down the physical meaning of the extra integration constant $D(v)$ that appears in Husain's dynamical black hole solution alongside the mass. Working with a barotropic equation of state $P=\alpha\rho$ and the physically relevant range $\alpha\in(1/2,1)$, the authors reconstruct a nonlinear electrodynamics Lagrangian whose static spherically symmetric solutions reproduce the Husain mass function. They conclude that $D(v)$ represents a magnetic charge, an electric charge, or a combination of both, depending on which sector of the nonlinear electrodynamics is turned on. The point of the identification is that violations of null energy conditions—and the associated shrinkage or growth of the black hole shadow during accretion—can then be read as physical charge dynamics rather than an artifact of an uninterpreted parameter.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is Lagrangian reverse engineering: start from a given mass function $m(r)=M_0+Dr^{1-2\alpha}$, substitute it into the Einstein equations coupled to nonlinear electrodynamics, use the electromagnetic invariants $\mathcal{F}=2(B_r^2-E_r^2)$ and $\mathcal{G}=4E_rB_r$ together with $B_r=P/r^2$ to invert $r$ as a function of $\mathcal{F}$ and $\mathcal{G}$, and thereby solve for the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$. Two consistency requirements carry the argument: the reconstructed Lagrangian must not depend explicitly on the coordinate $v$ once $D$ becomes $D(v)$, and its weak-field limit must match Maxwell theory ($\mathcal{L}\to -\mathcal{F}/4$). These requirements fix the charge dependence of $D(v)$ and the dimensionless prefactor. The barotropic relation $\alpha=\tfrac12(3\omega+1)$ connects the parameter to the more physical averaged pressure.

What would settle it

Compute the full $v$-dependent Einstein tensor for the metric with $M(v,r)=M_0(v)+1/(1-2\alpha)\,(Q(v)^2/\xi)^\alpha r^{1-2\alpha}$ and compare it with the stress-energy of the reconstructed Lagrangian; if the equations force additional terms beyond $r^{1-2\alpha}$, or if the generalized Maxwell equation $\nabla_a(\mathcal{L}_{\mathcal{F}}F^{ab})=0$ with the electric field (50) holds only for special $Q(v)$, the interpretation fails. A simpler check is to require the dynamical Bianchi identities for arbitrary $M_0(v)$, $Q(v)$, and $P(v)$ and see whether they are identically satisfied.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the function $D(v)$ in the Husain solution, for equation-of-state parameter $\alpha\in(1/2,1)$, is not a free phenomenological parameter but a combination of electric and magnetic charges sourced by nonlinear electrodynamics. The authors show this by substituting the Husain mass function $m(r)=M_0+Dr^{1-2\alpha}$ into the Einstein equations for a static, spherically symmetric nonlinear electrodynamics model, inverting the field invariants to reconstruct the Lagrangian $\mathcal{L}(\mathcal{F},\mathcal{G})$, and fixing the normalization so that the weak-field Maxwell limit is recovered. In the purely magnetic case they obtain $D\equiv -(2P^2)^{(\alpha+1)/2}/[4(1-2\alpha)]$ with Lagrangian $\mathcal{J} = -\tfrac14 \mathcal{F}^{(\alpha+1)/2}$; in the purely electric case they obtain an analogous charge-dependent expression; and in the dyonic case both charges enter. Promoting the constants to functions of advanced time $v$ then yields dynamical Husain metrics whose apparent-horizon behavior mimicks charged Vaidya spacetimes, and for $\alpha=1$ the known Bonnor-Vaidya and dyonic Vaidya solutions are recovered.

Load-bearing premise

The whole interpretation rests on assuming that the static nonlinear-electrodynamics reconstruction remains valid when $D$, $Q$, and $P$ are promoted to functions of advanced time $v$, without re-verifying the full dynamical Einstein field equations after that promotion.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For $\alpha\in(1/2,1)$, $D(v)$ ceases to be an unconstrained integration constant: it is determined by the electric and/or magnetic charge and by $\alpha$, so constraints on charges become constraints on $D(v)$.
  • The two apparent horizons, their merging, and their disappearance in the Husain spacetime can be understood through the charged-black-hole analogy, linking horizon dynamics to charge-to-mass evolution during accretion.
  • A decreasing black hole shadow during accretion can be interpreted as the charge growing faster than the mass, violating null energy conditions; conversely, charge neutralization ($\dot D<0$) with growing mass restores the null energy conditions and enlarges the shadow.
  • The $\alpha=1$ limit reproduces the Bonnor-Vaidya charged Vaidya metric in the electric case and the dyonic Vaidya metric in the electromagnetic case, providing concrete consistency checks for the construction.
  • The reconstructed nonlinear electrodynamics Lagrangians give explicit matter models for Husain spacetimes, enabling further study of collapse, energy conditions, and shadow evolution within a definite field theory.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the static-to-dynamic promotion is valid, the same reverse-engineering route could be applied to the analogous extra parameter in Kiselev's spacetime, potentially giving that parameter an electromagnetic origin as well.
  • The requirement that $D(v)$ not appear explicitly in the Lagrangian effectively selects a one-parameter family of nonlinear electrodynamics models labeled by $\alpha$; these models could be tested through predicted quasinormal-mode frequencies or shadow time evolution.
  • The consistency conditions for $Q(v)$, $P(v)$, and $M_0(v)$ in the full dynamical Einstein and Maxwell equations are not derived in the paper, so checking them is the direct next step that would convert the charge interpretation into a fully dynamical theorem.
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.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper considers dynamical, spherically symmetric black holes in generalized Vaidya form with a barotropic equation of state P = αρ, focusing on Husain's solution whose mass function contains an extra integration constant D(v). The authors aim to identify D(v) as a combination of electric and magnetic charges by reconstructing a nonlinear electrodynamics Lagrangian L(F, G) from the static Husain mass function and then promoting the constants D, Q, P to functions of v. The central claim is that for α ∈ (1/2, 1), D(v) represents a combination of electric and magnetic charges, with consequences for null-energy-condition violations and the evolution of the black hole shadow.

Significance. If established, the identification would give a physical interpretation to an otherwise obscure parameter in Husain spacetimes and connect dynamical black-hole accretion models to nonlinear electrodynamics, a topic of current astrophysical interest. The paper uses a legitimate reverse-engineering strategy and correctly insists on a Maxwell weak-field anchor, which are strengths. However, the manuscript does not deliver an independent derivation: the static reconstruction contains sign and normalization inconsistencies, the dyonic field-strength inversion is incorrect, and the step from static to dynamical solutions is asserted rather than verified. The central claim is therefore not supported in its present form, and no falsifiable prediction is provided that would distinguish the proposed interpretation from other parametrizations.

major comments (5)
  1. [IV.A, Eqs. (36)–(40)] The magnetic reconstruction is internally inconsistent. For α ∈ (1/2, 1), Eq. (39) gives D = −(2P²)^((α+1)/2) / [4(1−2α)] > 0 because 1−2α < 0, contradicting the weak-energy-condition requirement D < 0 stated in Section II and also the α = 1 Maxwell limit D = −P²/2 of Eq. (38). Substituting Eq. (39) into Eq. (36) yields J(F) = +1/4 F^((α+1)/2), not −1/4 as claimed in Eq. (40). The identification of D with the magnetic charge is therefore contradicted by the paper's own equations.
  2. [IV.B, Eqs. (53)–(58)] The electric reconstruction has the same class of error. The inversion in Eq. (53) raises a negative quantity to the non-integer power 1/(4α), so the expression is not well-defined without a branch choice. At α = 1, Eq. (54) evaluates to J = −Q²F/(8D), while Eq. (55) states J = +Q²F/(8D); these lead to opposite signs for D in Eq. (56). Moreover, Eqs. (57)–(58) do not reduce to Eq. (56): inserting α = 1 into Eq. (58) gives ξ = 1/2, so Eq. (57) gives D = −2Q² rather than D = −Q²/2. The electric-charge identification is therefore not consistently derived.
  3. [IV.C] The dyonic case uses an incorrect solution for the field strengths. From the invariants in Eqs. (19)–(20), the two radial field magnitudes satisfy E_r² = (√(F²+G²)−F)/4 and B_r² = (√(F²+G²)+F)/4, not the identical expressions printed for E_r and B_r in Section IV.C. The subsequent derivation sets E_r = B_r = S/2, which forces F = 0 and contradicts the assumed non-trivial invariant. In addition, the α = 1 limit of the dyonic construction is inconsistent: the matching condition gives D = −P²−QP, while the general formula from Eqs. (57)–(58) with the adjusted ξ gives D = −2(Q²+P²), and the final mass function quoted in Section IV.C corresponds to yet another value, D = −(P²+QP)/Q². These errors invalidate the dyonic generalization that underlies the 'combination of electric and magnetic charges' claim.
  4. [IV.A–IV.C, Eqs. (41)–(42), (59)–(60)] The static-to-dynamic promotion is an unverified assumption. The NED reconstruction is performed for the static metric (15), and the paper then writes M(v,r) = M0(v) + D(v) r^{1−2α} without checking the dynamical Einstein equations or the NED field equations for the v-dependent metric. This is not a formality: in the magnetic case the natural v-dependent two-form F = P(v) sinθ dθ ∧ dφ has dF = P'(v) dv ∧ sinθ dθ ∧ dφ ≠ 0, so it is not closed and cannot represent a standard magnetic charge. A v-dependent electric charge similarly requires additional field components or currents. The central claim about the dynamical Husain solution therefore rests on assertion rather than on a solution of the dynamical field equations.
  5. [Abstract and Conclusion] The claim that D(v) 'represents' a combination of electric and magnetic charges is an interpretive choice rather than a falsifiable result of the construction. The constants in Eqs. (38), (39), (56)–(58) are fixed by requiring the reconstructed Lagrangian to approach Maxwell's theory in the weak-field limit and to have no explicit v dependence; no independent observable or stress-energy check is provided that would distinguish this interpretation from other parametrizations of the same mass function. The paper should either reframe the conclusion as a conditional construction or provide such an independent check.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Throughout] There are numerous typographical issues, including 'Reissner-Nordstrm' instead of 'Reissner–Nordström' and a missing reference marked '[ ? ]' in the Introduction; these should be corrected in any revision.
  2. [II and IV.A] The symbol P is used both for pressure in Eq. (2) and for magnetic charge beginning in Section IV.A; this is confusing and should be changed, for example by using q_m for the magnetic charge.
  3. [IV.B, Eq. (49)] The notation in Eq. (49) mixes m(r) with v-dependent D(v); if the static derivation is retained, the v dependence should be introduced only after clearly stating that the promotion is an ansatz.
  4. [IV.C] The phrase 'From the provided derivations' introducing the identical formulas for E_r and B_r is unclear; a derivation from F and G should be shown, and the formulas should be corrected as noted in the major comments.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 7.0 of 10

The paper defines D(v) to be a charge combination so that the reconstructed Lagrangian is v-independent and normalized; the claimed demonstration restates that definition.

  1. self definitional [Section IV.A, Eqs. (36)-(42), especially Eq. (39) and following paragraph]
    "Therefore, we identify D with the magnetic charge via: D≡− (2P^2)^{(α+1)/2}/[4(1−2α)]. ... We must explain why the parameter D was chosen in the form specified in (39). The reason lies in the transition to the dynamic case, where D becomes a function D(v). Consequently, D cannot explicitly appear in the Lagrangian J because the field Lagrangian should not depend explicitly on the coordinate v."

    Equation (36) gives J(F) with a combined prefactor containing both D and P. The paper imposes a normalization (for α=1, the Maxwell limit; for α in (1/2,1), merely a dimensionless prefactor set to −1/4) and solves for D. The resulting Eq. (39) is therefore a definition of D in terms of the magnetic charge, not a consequence of the Husain metric or of the field equations. Substituting this defining relation back into the mass function yields Eq. (42), and the statement that D plays the role of the magnetic charge is just the defining relation restated.

  2. self definitional [Section IV.B, Eqs. (49)-(60), especially Eq. (57)]
    "In the general case, when α∈ (1/2,1], we must ensure that D(v) does not appear explicitly in the Lagrangian and that the coefficient of the field invariant F is −1/4 to satisfy the Maxwell limit (27) for α=1. In this case: D(v)≡ 1/(1−2α)(ξ/Q^2)^{-α} ... Here, M0(v) represents the black hole mass, and Q(v) its electric charge."

    The electric field E_r is first solved in terms of D and Q, and J(F) is constructed from those quantities. Then D(v) is defined to be the displayed function of Q(v) so that the Lagrangian contains no explicit D(v) and has the chosen prefactor. The mass function (60) is the original Husain ansatz with this defining expression substituted for D. Thus the assertion that D(v) is the electric charge is an input of the construction, not an output of the dynamical Einstein-NED field equations.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that D(v) in the Husain solution represents a combination of electric and magnetic charges. Tracing the derivation, the static section reconstructs a NED Lagrangian from M(r)=M0+Dr^{1−2α}. That reconstruction contains a free prefactor involving D and the charge parameters. The paper then imposes two conditions: the Lagrangian must have no explicit v-dependence when constants are promoted to functions, and its prefactor must be normalized to −1/4. These conditions are used to define D as a function of P and/or Q (Eqs. (38), (39), (57), and the dyonic definition). Substituting these definitions into the Husain mass function produces Eqs. (42) and (60), and the conclusion that D(v) represents charges is exactly the defining relation read backward. No independent benchmark, external NED theory, or dynamical field-equation check is provided; the statement after Eq. (15) that the static results extend directly to the dynamical case is an assertion, and the paper never verifies the dynamical Einstein equations or the closure of F=P(v)sinθdθ∧dφ. These are correctness risks as well, but the definitional circularity is already present in the static identification. There is no load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem; the circularity is self-definition, not citation. Score 7 reflects that the central identification reduces by construction, even though the algebraic reconstruction of the Lagrangian is internally carried out.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on reverse-engineering a Lagrangian from a known metric, with the identification of D as charge imposed by hand to satisfy the Maxwell limit. The dynamic extension is assumed without proof. No new particles or fields are introduced.

free parameters (3)
  • Magnetic charge identification D = D = - (2P^2)^((α+1)/2) / [4(1-2α)]
    Chosen so that J(F) has prefactor -1/4 and matches the Maxwell limit at α=1; yields D>0 for α>1/2, contradicting the weak energy condition stated in Section II.
  • Electric charge identification D = D = 1/(1-2α) (ξ/Q^2)^(-α)
    Chosen to eliminate D from the Lagrangian and set the prefactor to -1/4; at α=1 gives D=-2Q^2, contradicting the Bonnor-Vaidya result D=-Q^2/2 of Eq. (56).
  • Dimensionless constant ξ = ξ = 4α [1/(2(α+1)^2)]^((α+1)/(2α))
    Introduced ad hoc to make the Lagrangian prefactor dimensionless and match the Maxwell limit; in the dyonic case it is further multiplied by Q^2/(Q^2+P^2).
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Husain mass function M(v,r) = M0(v)+D(v) r^(1-2α) is the solution to Einstein's equations with barotropic equation of state.
    Taken from Husain [12]; the paper relies on it without re-deriving it.
  • ad hoc to paper The NED Lagrangian is separable: L(F,G) = J(F)+K(G).
    Introduced in Eq. (26) without physical motivation; restricts the class of theories to separable ones.
  • domain assumption The weak-field expansion J(F) = -F/4 + 4κF^2 + ... and K(G) = 7κG^2 + ... as F,G → 0.
    Assumed to connect NED to Maxwell in weak fields, stated in Eq. (27).
  • ad hoc to paper The static reconstruction generalizes to dynamic Vaidya-type spacetimes by promoting D, Q, P to functions of v.
    No derivation of the dynamical Einstein equations is provided; this is the weakest premise in the paper.
  • domain assumption For α>1/2, weak energy conditions require D<0, so D is assumed negative.
    Stated in Section II; used to select the sign of D in the reconstructions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Barotropic Equation of State and Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Dynamical Black Hole Spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OK6J7YIR

@misc{pith2026250420882,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Barotropic Equation of State and Nonlinear Electrodynamics in Dynamical Black Hole Spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OK6J7YIR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.20882}
}
read the original abstract

Models of black holes that differ from idealized vacuum and electrovacuum solutions of Einstein's equations often contain parameters whose physical interpretation is unclear. However, to propose a black hole model for experimental verification, we must clearly understand which parameters describe the black hole and what physical constraints can be imposed on each parameter. When considering dynamical black holes with a barotropic equation of state, an additional integration constant arises, the nature of which remains unclear except for a few specific values of the equation of state coefficient. Nevertheless, when examining solutions such as Husain or Kiselev, we can observe remarkable effects related to black hole evaporation, which are associated with the violation of null energy conditions. However, the main issue lies in the fact that while violations of energy conditions may occur in nature, the ambiguity in the values of parameters describing black holes makes it difficult to determine whether such violations result from natural physical processes or are purely mathematical artifacts that should be excluded from consideration. Moreover, energy conditions play a crucial role in the evolution of a black hole shadow - a characteristic that can potentially be observed experimentally. In this article, we elucidate the parameter arising in Husain's and Kiselev's solutions using nonlinear electrodynamics. We demonstrate that for physically relevant equations of state, the additional parameter represents a combination of electric and magnetic charges.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.20882 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. The plot illustrates the apparent horizons for the Husain black hole with parameters λ = 1, α = 4/5, M0 = 1, D0 = 0.1. This case corresponds to the choice of functions given by Eq. (14), which violate the null energy conditions. As a result, the outer apparent horizon, despite the increasing mass, turns out to be a timelike hypersurface that shrinks over time (blue curve), while the inner horizon is also timelike bu… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

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

  1. Shadow of the generalized Vaidya black hole

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    For self-similar Husain black holes, the barotropic index α controls the shadow: α<1/2 enlarges it, α>1/2 shrinks it, with a quasistatic influx criterion for the time-dependent case.

  2. Regular Black Hole Formation and Gamma-Ray Burst from Matter Conversion

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    The formation of a regular black hole could release gamma-ray-burst-scale energy only if its singularity-avoiding core is a weak perturbation of Schwarzschild.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    If α< 1 2 , the weak energy conditions require D(v)> 0

    work page

  2. [2]

    In the dynamical case, the event horizon cannot be defined

    If α> 1 2 , the weak energy conditions require D(v)< 0. In the dynamical case, the event horizon cannot be defined. Instead, the boundary of the black hole is determined by the marginal trapping hypersurface, which serves as the apparent horizon. Initially, it was assumed that the apparent horizon is a spacelike hypersurface; however, the application of H...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Exact regular black hole solutions with de sitter cores and hagedorn fluid,

    Vitalii Vertogradov and Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, “Exact regular black hole solutions with de sitter cores and hagedorn fluid,” Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 025024 (2025), arXiv:2408.02699 [gr-qc]. 12

    arXiv 2025

  4. [4]

    First m87 event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole,

    Kazunori Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), “First m87 event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Motivated by this, we proceed under the assumptions α> 1 2 and D(v)< 0

    (14) The presence of two apparent horizons, analogous to the Reissner-Nordstrm solution, suggests that the nature of D(v) might be linked to electric or magnetic charges arising from nonlinear electrodynamics. Motivated by this, we proceed under the assumptions α> 1 2 and D(v)< 0. Figure 1. The plot illustrates the apparent horizons for the Husain black h...

    work page

  6. [6]

    First sagittarius a* event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center of the milky way,

    Kazunori Akiyama et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), “First sagittarius a* event horizon telescope results. i. the shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center of the milky way,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

  7. [7]

    Vacuum nonsingular black hole,

    I. Dymnikova, “Vacuum nonsingular black hole,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 24, 235–242 (1992)

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    Non-singular general relativistic gravitational collapse,

    James Bardeen, “Non-singular general relativistic gravitational collapse,” Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Gravitation and the Theory of Relativity , , 87 (1968)

    work page 1968

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    Regular black holes with a nonlinear electrodynamics source,

    Leonardo Balart and Elias C. Vagenas, “Regular black holes with a nonlinear electrodynamics source,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 124045 (2014), arXiv:1408.0306 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Regular charged black holes, energy conditions, and quasinormal modes,

    Leonardo Balart, Grigoris Panotopoulos, and ´Angel Rinc´ on, “Regular charged black holes, energy conditions, and quasinormal modes,” Fortsch. Phys. 71, 2300075 (2023), arXiv:2309.01910 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Formation and evaporation of regular black holes,

    Sean A. Hayward, “Formation and evaporation of regular black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 96, 031103 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0506126

    2006 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Formation of regular black hole from baryonic matter,

    Vitalii Vertogradov, Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, and Daniil Shatov, “Formation of regular black hole from baryonic matter,” (2025), arXiv:2502.00521 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Regular Black Hole from gravitational collapse of dust and radiation,

    Vitalii Vertogradov, “Regular Black Hole from gravitational collapse of dust and radiation,” Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101881 (2025), arXiv:2501.13739 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Regular Black Hole Models in the Transition from Baryonic Matter to Quark Matter,

    Vitalii Vertogradov and Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, “Regular Black Hole Models in the Transition from Baryonic Matter to Quark Matter,” (2025), arXiv:2504.07561 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Exact solutions for null fluid collapse,

    Viqar Husain, “Exact solutions for null fluid collapse,” Phys. Rev. D 53, 1759–1762 (1996), gr-qc/9511011

    1996 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Quintessence and black holes,

    V. V. Kiselev, “Quintessence and black holes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 20, 1187–1198 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0210040

    2003 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Surrounded vaidya black holes: apparent horizon properties,

    Y. Heydarzade and F. Darabi, “Surrounded vaidya black holes: apparent horizon properties,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 342 (2018), 1805.01022

    2018 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Surrounded vaidya solution by cosmological fields,

    Y. Heydarzade and F. Darabi, “Surrounded vaidya solution by cosmological fields,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 582 (2018), 1710.04485

    2018 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Surrounded bonnor–vaidya solution by cosmological fields,

    Y. Heydarzade and F. Darabi, “Surrounded bonnor–vaidya solution by cosmological fields,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 1004 (2018)

    2018

  12. [20]

    Non-singular black hole by gravitational decoupling and some thermodynamic properties,

    Maxim Misyura, Angel Rincon, and Vitalii Vertogradov, “Non-singular black hole by gravitational decoupling and some thermodynamic properties,” Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101717 (2024), arXiv:2405.05370 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Hairy black holes by gravitational decoupling,

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, E. Contreras, and A. Sotomayor, “Hairy black holes by gravitational decoupling,” Phys. Dark Univ. 31, 100744 (2021), arXiv:2006.06735 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Black holes by gravitational decoupling,

    J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, R. da Rocha, A. Sotomayor, and Z. Stuchlik, “Black holes by gravitational decoupling,” Eur. Phys. J. C 78, 960 (2018), arXiv:1804.03468 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    The generalized vaidya spacetime with polytropic equation of state,

    Vitalii Vertogradov, “The generalized vaidya spacetime with polytropic equation of state,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 56, 59 (2024), 2311.15671

    2024 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Avoiding singularities in lorentzian-euclidean black holes: The role of atemporality,

    Salvatore Capozziello, Silvia De Bianchi, and Emmanuele Battista, “Avoiding singularities in lorentzian-euclidean black holes: The role of atemporality,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 104060 (2024), arXiv:2404.17267 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Observational appearances of isolated stellar-mass black hole accretion theory and observations,

    Gregory Beskin, Anton Biryukov, Sergey Karpov, Vladimir Plokhotnichenko, and V. G. Debur, “Observational appearances of isolated stellar-mass black hole accretion theory and observations,” Advances in Space Research 42, 523–532 (2007)

    2007

  18. [26]

    Nonstatic solutions of einstein’s field equations for spheres of fluids radiating energy,

    P. C. Vaidya, “Nonstatic solutions of einstein’s field equations for spheres of fluids radiating energy,” Phys. Rev. 83, 10–17 (1951)

    1951

  19. [27]

    Generalized vaidya solutions,

    Anzhong Wang and Yumei Wu, “Generalized vaidya solutions,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 31, 107 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9803038

    1999 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Dynamical Black Holes: Apparent Horizon Versus Energy Conditions,

    Vitalii Vertogradov, “Dynamical Black Holes: Apparent Horizon Versus Energy Conditions,” (2024), arXiv:2410.10582 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Introductory notes on non-linear electrodynamics and its applications,

    Dmitri P. Sorokin, “Introductory notes on non-linear electrodynamics and its applications,” Fortsch. Phys. 70, 2200092 (2022), arXiv:2112.12118 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    The bardeen model as a nonlinear magnetic monopole,

    Eloy Ayon-Beato and Alberto Garcia, “The bardeen model as a nonlinear magnetic monopole,” Phys. Lett. B 493, 149–152 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0009077

    2000 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Gravitational collapse of generalized vaidya spacetime,

    Maombi D. Mkenyeleye, Rituparno Goswami, and Sunil D. Maharaj, “Gravitational collapse of generalized vaidya spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 064034 (2014), 1407.4309

    2014 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Naked singularity formation in generalized vaidya space-time,

    V. D. Vertogradov, “Naked singularity formation in generalized vaidya space-time,” Grav. Cosmol. 22, 220–223 (2016)

    2016

  25. [33]

    The structure of the generalized vaidya space–time containing the eternal naked singularity,

    Vitalii Vertogradov, “The structure of the generalized vaidya space–time containing the eternal naked singularity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250185 (2022), 2209.10953

    2022 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Conformal symmetries in generalised vaidya spacetimes,

    Samson Ojako, Rituparno Goswami, Sunil D. Maharaj, and Rivendra Narain, “Conformal symmetries in generalised vaidya spacetimes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 37, 055005 (2020), arXiv:1904.08120 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Generalized vaidya spacetime: Horizons, conformal symmetries, surface gravity and diagonalization,

    Vitalii Vertogradov and Dmitriy Kudryavcev, “Generalized vaidya spacetime: Horizons, conformal symmetries, surface gravity and diagonalization,” Mod. Phys. Lett. A 38, 2350119 (2023), arXiv:2212.07130 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Lagrangian reverse engineering for regular black holes,

    Ana Bokulic, Edgardo Franzin, Tajron Juric, and Ivica Smolic, “Lagrangian reverse engineering for regular black holes,” Phys. Lett. B 854, 138750 (2024), arXiv:2311.17151 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Spherically symmetric radiation of charge in einstein-maxwell theory,

    W. B. Bonnor and P. C. Vaidya, “Spherically symmetric radiation of charge in einstein-maxwell theory,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 1, 127–130 (1970)

    1970

  30. [38]

    A radiating dyon solution,

    A. Chamorro and K. S. Virbhadra, “A radiating dyon solution,” Pramana 45, 181–187 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9406148

    1995 arXiv

Pith tools

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