Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 62 references

Weak Cosmic Censorship with spinning particles in Kerr-(A)dS spacetimes

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An extremal Kerr-(A)dS black hole cannot be overspun by a spinning particle dropped along its axis.

desk verdict A clean analytic dS result plus an interesting AdS finite-size exclusion whose load-bearing size estimate and unreleased scan both deserve more support. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.10493 v2 pith:VFVWXTTF submitted 2025-07-14 gr-qc

Antonia M. Frassino , Jorge V. Rocha , Andrea P. Sanna This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C7583C10 PACS 04.70.-s04.70.Bw
keywords weakcosmiccensorshipspinningparticlesKerr-deSitterKerr-anti-deMathisson-Papapetrou-Dixonequationsoverspinningpoint-particleapproximation
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

The paper asks whether a particle with intrinsic spin, dropped onto an extremal rotating black hole in a universe with a cosmological constant, can destroy the event horizon and expose the singularity. The answer it argues is no: for Kerr-de Sitter, any particle that the black hole actually captures automatically leaves the horizon intact. For Kerr-anti-de Sitter the linear analysis seems to allow finely tuned particles to overspin, but the apparent window closes once one enforces that the particle be point-like and injected from outside the horizon. The work extends the classic flat-space test-particle thought experiment to spacetimes that are not asymptotically flat, which is where cosmological and holographic applications live.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Mathisson-Papapetrou-Dixon (MPD) system, supplemented by the Tulczyjew condition $p_\mu S^{\mu\nu}=0$, which fixes the particle's center of mass and makes the spin magnitude $s$ and mass $m$ conserved. On the axis the 4-momentum is parallel to the tangent vector, so the energy shift from spin-curvature coupling takes the explicit form $p_t = -E + as(2Mr/(a^2+r^2)^2 \mp 1/L^2)$, and the comparison of the capture bound $\hat{s}<\hat{s}_1$ with the horizon-preservation bound $\hat{s}\le \hat{s}_2$ decides the fate of the horizon. The final ingredient is the finite-size constraint $r_0\sim s/m$: an object cannot spin faster than light, so a particle small enough to fit between the injection point and the horizon is also small enough that it cannot carry the dangerous spin.

What would settle it

Find a single set of parameters $(a/L,\, s/m,\, r_{\rm inj}-r_H)$ with $r_{\rm inj}-r_H > s/m$ for which the MPD equations allow a captured particle with $\hat{s}$ between $\hat{s}_1$ and $\hat{s}_2$ to produce $\delta\Delta_r > 0$; alternatively, demonstrate that a physical spinning body can have size smaller than $s/m$ without any surface speed exceeding the speed of light.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, using the Mathisson-Papapetrou-Dixon equations with the Tulczyjew spin condition for a spinning timelike particle dropped along the rotation axis of an extremal Kerr-(A)dS black hole, the authors derive two competing bounds on the spin-to-energy ratio $\hat{s}=s/E$: one that a particle must satisfy to be captured and one that must hold for the horizon to survive. For de Sitter asymptotics the capture bound is always the more restrictive one, so the black hole cannot be overspun. For anti-de Sitter asymptotics there is a finite overlap region in parameter space where both bounds are satisfied, but a numerical scan shows that in that region the particle's minimum physical size, estimated as $r_0 \sim s/m$, exceeds its injection distance from the horizon, $r_{\rm inj}-r_H$. The would-be overspinning particles would have had to be placed inside the black hole, so the weak cosmic censorship conjecture is preserved in both asymptotics under the point-particle approximation.

Load-bearing premise

The Kerr-AdS conclusion rests on the estimate that a spinning particle's minimum physical size is about its spin divided by its mass, $r_0 \sim s/m$, and on requiring that this size be smaller than the injection distance from the horizon, $r_0 < r_{\rm inj}-r_H$.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • In Kerr-dS, a spinning particle absorbed along the axis automatically satisfies the horizon-preservation bound; capture and overspinning are mutually exclusive.
  • In Kerr-AdS, every apparently dangerous particle in the linear analysis is excluded by finite size: it would have to be injected from inside the horizon.
  • The point-particle approximation, not just geodesic motion, is the deciding factor in AdS; dropping it would produce a false cosmic-censorship violation.
  • The results carry the flat-space conclusion over to cosmological and holographic asymptotics, consistent with existing theorems for Kerr-Newman-(A)dS.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the $r_0\sim s/m$ size bound is accepted as a general kinematic limit, the argument suggests a broader criterion: any spinning test body can threaten cosmic censorship only if its own size is smaller than the scale of the horizon gap it must cross.
  • The qualitative dS-versus-AdS asymmetry is tied to the confining AdS potential, which permits near-horizon turning points; repeating the scan for charged spinning particles or off-axis orbits would test whether the exclusion survives those generalizations.
  • A sharper derivation of the minimum size of a spinning body, from microphysical models rather than the light-speed estimate, would convert the AdS conclusion from a consistency argument into a fully first-principles one.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript generalizes Wald's overspinning thought experiment to extremal Kerr-(anti-)de Sitter black holes, considering spinning test particles falling along the rotation axis. The authors use the Mathisson-Papapetrou-Dixon equations with the Tulczyjew spin condition, compute the maximal spin-to-energy ratio for particle capture (Eqs. (14), (15)), and the threshold for horizon destruction via linear perturbations of the metric function (Eqs. (21), (23)). For Kerr-dS they prove analytically that the capture bound is more restrictive than the destruction bound, so no overspinning is possible. For Kerr-AdS the linear analysis leaves an overlap region; the authors exclude it by invoking a minimum particle size r0 ≳ s/m and comparing it with the injection distance from the horizon, supported by a numerical scan in Fig. 4. The paper concludes that the WCCC is preserved in both asymptotics.

Significance. The dS side is a clean, parameter-free analytic calculation that extends Wald and Needham to a nonzero cosmological constant and is a useful contribution on its own. Credit is due for deriving the inequalities directly from the MPD equations and for identifying the AdS overlap region and its possible resolution through finite-size effects. The overall conclusion is consistent with the NEC-based theorems of Refs. [15,22], which strengthens confidence in the broad claim. However, the AdS branch is not self-contained: the exclusion of the overlap region rests on a heuristic size estimate and a finite numerical scan rather than on a derived bound. If the paper is to claim a rigorous AdS result, that gap needs to be closed; as written, the AdS conclusion is conditional.

major comments (2)
  1. [Validity of the point particle approximation; Appendix, Eq. (24), Fig. 4] The Kerr-AdS conclusion is load-bearing on the estimate r0 ≳ s/m introduced in 'Validity of the point particle approximation' and used in the Appendix. This is an order-of-magnitude relation from v_max < 1, not a bound that follows from the MPD equations or from the multipole-expansion truncation that defines the pole-dipole model. The MPD model itself carries no scale that forces a physical body's effective radius to be at least s/m. If a physical realization allowed a smaller effective radius, the red 'size < distance' regions in Fig. 4 could overlap the blue overspinning regions, and the exclusion would collapse. Since this comparison is the only mechanism that removes the AdS overlap, the manuscript should either derive a rigorous lower bound on r0 for configurations where the MPD truncation is justified, or explicitly present the AdS result as conditional on this external modeling assumption.
  2. [Appendix, Fig. 4 and surrounding discussion] The claimed non-overlap between the red and blue regions in Fig. 4 is based on a numerical scan with cutoffs s/m ≤ 0.2 rH and rinj − rH ≥ 10^−3 rH, and no code or data are provided. A finite grid with these cutoffs cannot exclude a thin overspinning strip at injection distances below 10^−3 rH, nor can it establish convergence of the boundary of the blue region. The statement in the Appendix that particles capable of disrupting the horizon would have to be injected behind the horizon is therefore only as strong as the scan. Please provide an analytic argument, or release the numerical scan with adaptive refinement and a clear convergence test, to make the no-overlap claim robust.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Figures 2 and 3 captions] The figure captions cite incorrect equations: Fig. 2 refers to Eq. (22) where the dS threshold is Eq. (21), and Fig. 3 refers to Eq. (24) where the AdS threshold is Eq. (23). In both cases the curves are thresholds for horizon destruction; the captions should use 'threshold' rather than 'lower bound' to avoid confusion with the upper-bound inequalities on ŝ in the text.
  2. [Eqs. (20) and (22)] The positivity of the prefactors in front of the square brackets is asserted but not demonstrated; a one-line check over the allowed ranges (0 ≤ a/L ≤ 2−√3 for dS and 0 ≤ a/L < 1 for AdS) would make the argument easier to verify.
  3. [Figures 2 and 3] The axis labels appear garbled (e.g., 's2 dS/L'); they should be typeset as ŝ2^dS/L and ŝ2^AdS/L.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the paper's WCCC analysis is a direct calculation from the MPD equations and the Kerr-(A)dS metric, with the point-particle size bound entering as an independent physical input rather than as an output of the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is self-contained and does not reduce to its inputs. The central results are obtained by solving the MPD equations under the Tulczyjew condition, computing the conserved energy for particles dropped along the rotation axis, and then evaluating the linear shift of the metric function Delta_r induced by absorbing a particle with delta M = E and delta J = s. The de Sitter conclusion follows analytically from comparing the capture bound s-hat_1^{dS} with the horizon-preservation bound s-hat_2^{dS}, and the inequality s-hat_1^{dS} <= s-hat_2^{dS} is verified explicitly. The anti-de Sitter case is more subtle because the linear analysis exhibits an overlap region; the authors exclude that region by comparing the minimum physical particle size r0 ~ s/m (a causality bound on spinning objects) with the injection distance r_inj - r_H. This is an external physical modeling criterion, not a quantity fitted from the data or derived from the target conclusion. The numerical scan reported in Fig. 4 is a limitation with respect to reproducibility and exhaustive coverage, but this is a correctness risk, not circularity. The citations to Refs. [15,22] are to independent theorems by other authors and are not used to replace the calculation; the paper explicitly performs the specific calculation and finds consistency with those theorems. The authors' self-citations (e.g., Ref. [20]) are not load-bearing for the WCCC claim. No step was found where a prediction is equivalent by construction to a fitted input or where a self-citation chain forces the result.

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

The paper introduces no free parameters or new entities; it relies on standard MPD test-particle dynamics, the standard mapping of absorbed particle quantities to black hole charges, and the physical size constraint for spinning particles.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The Mathisson-Papapetrou-Dixon equations with the Tulczyjew spin condition describe the motion of a spinning test particle.
    Section 2; this gives the equations of motion (8) and the conserved spin magnitude s.
  • domain assumption The absorbed particle's energy E and spin angular momentum s equal the changes in the BH's mass and angular momentum charges (δM = E, δJ = s).
    Section 3, Eqs. (18)-(19); this neglects gravitational radiation and other losses, a conservative assumption for WCCC tests.
  • domain assumption A spinning object's surface cannot exceed the speed of light, implying a minimum size r0 ≥ s/m.
    Section 3, 'Validity of the point particle approximation'; this is the key constraint that excludes the Kerr-AdS overspinning region.
  • domain assumption The fate of the horizon is determined by the sign of the first-order perturbation δ∆r evaluated at the extremal minimum of the metric function.
    Section 3, Eqs. (16)-(17); this is the standard Wald linear analysis, ignoring quadratic backreaction.
  • standard math The Kerr-AdS and Kerr-dS metrics are related by the analytic continuation L^2 → -L^2, so results can be presented with a unified sign convention.
    Section 2, after Eq. (4).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak Cosmic Censorship with spinning particles in Kerr-(A)dS spacetimes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/VFVWXTTF

@misc{pith2026250710493,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak Cosmic Censorship with spinning particles in Kerr-(A)dS spacetimes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/VFVWXTTF}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.10493}
}
read the original abstract

We investigate the weak cosmic censorship conjecture by analyzing the dynamics of spinning timelike particles dropped along the rotational axis of an extremal Kerr (anti)de Sitter black hole. This idea was first considered in a seminal paper by Wald and later by Needham but both analyses were restricted to asymptotically flat spacetimes. We generalize these studies, involving spinning particles, to rotating spacetimes with non vanishing cosmological constant. We examine whether the absorption of such particles can overspin the black hole beyond extremality, potentially leading to the formation of a naked singularity. In asymptotically de Sitter spacetime, we find that particles that are captured cannot overspin the black hole. Similar conclusions hold also with anti-de Sitter asymptotics, but the analysis is more subtle, requiring careful consideration of the point particle approximation.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.10493 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Schematic representation of the setup considered. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Comparison, for the Kerr-dS case, between the upper [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Comparison, for the Kerr-AdS case, between the up [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Blue shaded regions in the parameter space [ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

62 extracted references · 32 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett. 14, 57 (1965). 6

    work page 1965

  2. [2]

    Penrose, Riv

    R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1, 252 (1969), [Gen. Rel. Grav.34,1141(2002)]

    work page 1969

  3. [3]

    Wald, Annals Phys

    R. Wald, Annals Phys. 82, 548 (1974)

    work page 1974

  4. [4]

    Sorce and R

    J. Sorce and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D96, 104014 (2017), arXiv:1707.05862 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9805201

    arXiv 1998

  6. [6]

    Perlmutter et al

    S. Perlmutter et al. (Supernova Cosmology Project), As- trophys. J. 517, 565 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812133

    arXiv 1999

  7. [7]

    Aghanim et al

    N. Aghanim et al. (Planck), Astron. Astrophys. 641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2, 231 (1998), arXiv:hep-th/9711200

    arXiv 1998

Show all 62 references
  1. [9]

    Aharony, S

    O. Aharony, S. S. Gubser, J. M. Maldacena, H. Ooguri, and Y. Oz, Phys. Rept. 323, 183 (2000), arXiv:hep- th/9905111

    2000

  2. [10]

    J. V. Rocha and V. Cardoso, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104037 (2011), arXiv:1102.4352 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Zhang and S

    Y. Zhang and S. Gao, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 23, 1450044 (2014), arXiv:1309.2027 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    J. V. Rocha, R. Santarelli, and T. Delsate, Phys. Rev. D 89, 104006 (2014), arXiv:1402.4161 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  5. [13]

    J. V. Rocha and R. Santarelli, Phys. Rev. D 89, 064065 (2014), arXiv:1402.4840 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Gwak and B.-H

    B. Gwak and B.-H. Lee, JCAP 02, 015, arXiv:1509.06691 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Nat´ ario, L

    J. Nat´ ario, L. Queimada, and R. Vicente, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 175002 (2016), arXiv:1601.06809 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Song, R.-H

    Y. Song, R.-H. Yue, M. Zhang, D.-C. Zou, and C.-Y. Sun, Commun. Theor. Phys. 69, 694 (2018), arXiv:1705.01676 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Gwak, JHEP 09, 081, arXiv:1807.10630 [gr-qc]

    B. Gwak, JHEP 09, 081, arXiv:1807.10630 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  10. [18]

    Zeng and H.-Q

    X.-X. Zeng and H.-Q. Zhang, Nucl. Phys. B 959, 115162 (2020), arXiv:1905.01618 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Chen, Eur

    D. Chen, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 353 (2019), arXiv:1902.06489 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  12. [20]

    A. M. Frassino, J. V. Rocha, and A. P. Sanna, JHEP 07, 226, arXiv:2405.04597 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    Gwak, Entropy 20, 855 (2018)

    B. Gwak, Entropy 20, 855 (2018)

    2018

  14. [22]

    Nat´ ario and R

    J. Nat´ ario and R. Vicente, Gen. Rel. Grav.52, 5 (2020), arXiv:1908.09854 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    P.-Y. Wu, H. Khodabakhshi, and H. Lu, Phys. Rev. D 110, 104019 (2024), arXiv:2408.09444 [gr-qc]

    2024

  16. [24]

    Additionally, small Kerr-AdS suffer from the superradiant instability, which also might impact the horizon stability and, thus, the WCCC [59–62]

    Nevertheless, exceptions have been reported: in partic- ular, charged models in AdS 4 have suggested that re- gions with arbitrarily large curvatures become visible to boundary observers in certain fine-tuned configura- tions [48, 49]. Additionally, small Kerr-AdS suffer from ...

  17. [25]

    L. F. O. Costa and J. Nat´ ario, Fund. Theor. Phys. 179, 215 (2015), arXiv:1410.6443 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

  18. [26]

    K. P. Tod, F. de Felice, and M. Calvani, Nuovo Cim. B 34, 365 (1976)

    1976

  19. [27]

    Needham, Phys

    T. Needham, Phys. Rev. D 22, 791 (1980)

    1980

  20. [28]

    Yoshida and K

    D. Yoshida and K. Yoshimura, Class. Quant. Grav. 42, 115008 (2025), arXiv:2411.19535 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Zhang and J

    M. Zhang and J. Jiang, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 890 (2020), arXiv:2009.07681 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Wang and J

    X.-Y. Wang and J. Jiang, JCAP 07, 052, arXiv:1911.03938 [hep-th]

    1911 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Carter, Commun

    B. Carter, Commun. Math. Phys. 10, 280 (1968)

    1968

  24. [32]

    Carter, in Les Houches Summer School of Theoretical Physics: Black Holes (1973) pp

    B. Carter, in Les Houches Summer School of Theoretical Physics: Black Holes (1973) pp. 57–214

    1973

  25. [33]

    M. M. Caldarelli, G. Cognola, and D. Klemm, Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 399 (2000), arXiv:hep-th/9908022

    2000 arXiv

  26. [34]

    G. W. Gibbons, M. J. Perry, and C. N. Pope, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 1503 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0408217

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    B. P. Dolan, D. Kastor, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann, and J. Traschen, Phys. Rev. D 87, 104017 (2013), arXiv:1301.5926 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Negative values can be considered by flipping the sign of a

    The restriction to non-negative values for a/L is only a matter of convention. Negative values can be considered by flipping the sign of a

  29. [37]

    Mathisson, Acta Phys

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

    1937

  30. [38]

    Papapetrou, Proc

    A. Papapetrou, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 209, 248 (1951)

    1951

  31. [39]

    W. G. Dixon, Nuovo Cim. 34, 317 (1964)

    1964

  32. [40]

    Tulczyjew, Acta Phys

    W. Tulczyjew, Acta Phys. Polon 18, 37 (1959)

    1959

  33. [41]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 6, 406 (1972)

    1972

  34. [42]

    Carmeli, C

    M. Carmeli, C. Charach, and M. Kaye, Phys. Rev. D 15, 1501 (1977)

    1977

  35. [43]

    Y. Mino, M. Shibata, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 53, 622 (1996), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 59, 047502 (1999)]

    1996

  36. [44]

    From the fact that, for spinning particles along the axis, pµ ∥ vµ, future directed particles also have pt > 0, implying pt = gttpt < 0

    Indeed, future directed motion implies vt = ˙t >0. From the fact that, for spinning particles along the axis, pµ ∥ vµ, future directed particles also have pt > 0, implying pt = gttpt < 0

  37. [45]

    W. G. Dixon, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314, 499 (1970)

    1970

  38. [46]

    Nat´ ario for pointing out this consideration

    We thank J. Nat´ ario for pointing out this consideration

  39. [47]

    G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Scripta T 117, 86 (2005), arXiv:hep-th/0312123

    2005 arXiv

  40. [48]

    G. T. Horowitz, J. E. Santos, and B. Way, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 195007 (2016), arXiv:1604.06465 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Crisford and J

    T. Crisford and J. E. Santos, Phys. Rev. Lett. 118, 181101 (2017), arXiv:1702.05490 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Engelhardt and G

    N. Engelhardt and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D 99, 126009 (2019), arXiv:1903.00555 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Engelhardt and A

    N. Engelhardt and A. Folkestad, JHEP 07, 066, arXiv:2012.11445 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  44. [52]

    A. M. Frassino, R. A. Hennigar, J. F. Pedraza, and A. Svesko, Quantum censors: backreaction builds hori- zons (2025), arXiv:2505.09689 [hep-th]

    2025

  45. [53]

    Penrose, Annals N

    R. Penrose, Annals N. Y. Acad. Sci. 224, 125 (1973)

    1973

  46. [54]

    Itkin and Y

    I. Itkin and Y. Oz, Phys. Lett. B 708, 307 (2012), arXiv:1106.2683 [hep-th]

    2012 arXiv

  47. [55]

    A. M. Frassino, R. A. Hennigar, J. F. Pedraza, and A. Svesko, Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 181501 (2024), arXiv:2406.17860 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Mars, Class

    M. Mars, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 193001 (2009), arXiv:0906.5566 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  49. [57]

    M. Amo, A. M. Frassino, and R. A. Hennigar, Phys. Rev. Lett. 131, 241401 (2023), arXiv:2307.03011 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Emparan, A

    R. Emparan, A. M. Frassino, and B. Way, JHEP11, 137, arXiv:2007.15999 [hep-th]

    2007 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Cardoso and O

    V. Cardoso and O. J. C. Dias, Phys. Rev. D 70, 084011 (2004), arXiv:hep-th/0405006

    2004 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Cardoso, O

    V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, and S. Yoshida, Phys. Rev. D 74, 044008 (2006), arXiv:hep-th/0607162

    2006 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Uchikata, S

    N. Uchikata, S. Yoshida, and T. Futamase, Phys. Rev. D 80, 084020 (2009)

    2009

  54. [62]

    B. E. Niehoff, J. E. Santos, and B. Way, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 185012 (2016), arXiv:1510.00709 [hep-th]. 7 Appendix In the following, we provide additional details concerning the calculations supporting the main text’s conclusion that spinning particles moving along the axis...

    2016 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.