Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 89 references

The paper claims GRB 090510 was a magnetized neutron-star binary merger whose remnant collapsed into a 2.36-solar-mass Kerr black hole, with each observed emission phase powered by a distinct physical reservoir.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 21:06 UTC pith:4NRCOTCK

load-bearing objection A coherent single-source framework for GRB 090510 with clean precursor scalings, but the headline BH and NS parameters all reduce to the GeV energy-budget identity, so the inference is exactly as strong as that single assumption. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2509.08172 v1 pith:4NRCOTCK submitted 2025-09-09 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Short GRB 090510: a magnetized neutron star binary merger leading to a black hole

J. A. Rueda , R. Ruffini , Yu Wang This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords short gamma-ray burstsneutron star mergersblack hole formationGRB 090510Kerr black holepair plasmadyadoregionmagnetic field amplification
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper argues that the short gamma-ray burst GRB 090510 was produced by the merger of two highly magnetized neutron stars, each near 1.2 solar masses, whose merger remnant quickly collapsed into a Kerr black hole of about 2.36 solar masses. The analysis assigns each observed phase of the burst—a sub-MeV precursor, a thermal MeV prompt phase, three closely spaced spikes, a long GeV tail, and an X-ray afterglow—to a distinct physical energy reservoir: magnetic energy of the merged star, an electron-positron pair plasma created by an overcritical electric field, Lense-Thirring precession of surrounding matter, extractable black-hole spin energy, and accretion onto the black hole. By matching the measured GeV energy to the extractable energy of a black hole whose irreducible mass is set by the neutron-star critical mass lower limit, the calculation fixes the black-hole mass, spin, disk mass, magnetic-field strength, and merger gravitational-wave output. If correct, the event becomes a consistent quantitative map from observed GRB light curves to the physical parameters of a neutron-star merger and its black-hole remnant, and it predicts that other high-energy short GRBs operate by the same mechanism.

Core claim

The central claim is that GRB 090510 is the electromagnetic signature of a magnetized NS-NS merger whose merged core exceeded the critical mass and collapsed to a Kerr black hole. The precursor is powered by magnetic energy released when the field is amplified to a few times 10^16 G; the main MeV pulse is the transparency of an ultra-relativistic electron-positron plasma created in the dyadoregion around the rotating magnetized merged object before collapse; the three post-peak spikes are tentatively attributed to roughly 40 ms Lense-Thirring precession of surrounding matter; the GeV emission is powered entirely by the extractable spin energy of the newborn black hole, with the irreducible m

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the dyadoregion of a rotating magnetic dipole: the region outside the merged star where the Faraday-induced electric field exceeds the QED critical field and spontaneously creates electron-positron pairs. This is coupled to the Kerr mass-energy formula, whose difference between total mass and irreducible mass is the extractable spin energy tapped by a test electromagnetic field around the black hole to power the GeV phase. Together with the observed light-curve phases, these objects form a closed energy budget from which the masses, spin, disk mass, magnetic field, and gravitational-wave output are inferred.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the GeV emission is powered entirely by the spin energy a newborn black hole can release while its irreducible mass stays fixed at 2.35 solar masses; if accretion powers the GeV light, or if the irreducible mass grows during emission, the derived black-hole mass, spin, and neutron-star masses no longer follow.

What would settle it

A gravitational-wave detection of a similar short GRB would settle the central claim: the inspiral signal should show two components near 1.19 solar masses each, and the merger should radiate about 3 x 10^52 erg before collapse. If the measured component masses differ substantially, or the merger gravitational-wave energy is far below the predicted value, the parameter chain collapses. A second direct test would be a GeV light curve whose energy exceeds the extractable energy of a 2.36-solar-mass black hole with irreducible mass 2.35 solar masses.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • All high-energy short GRBs with isotropic energy above about 10^52 erg should show the same phase sequence: magnetic precursor, pair-plasma prompt emission, black-hole-spin-powered GeV tail, and low-disk-mass X-ray afterglow; weaker short bursts would instead leave a neutron-star remnant and emit no GeV component.
  • The three spikes after the main pulse of GRB 090510 should be quasi-periodic at roughly 40 ms; confirming this would tie Lense-Thirring precession to a pre-collapse object of about 2.36 solar masses and spin 0.22.
  • The merger must have radiated on the order of 3 x 10^52 erg in gravitational waves, mostly before the black hole formed, with a total binary mass near 2.4 solar masses—an observable prediction for a nearby analogous event.
  • The GeV afterglow should decay as a smooth broken power law with pre- and post-break indices near -1.2 and -2.6, matching the observed class of short-GRB GeV tails and providing a clean observational discriminant from lower-energy mergers.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The model requires the magnetic field to fall by roughly five orders of magnitude at the moment of black-hole formation; this predicts a sharp cutoff in pair creation and a sudden transition in the gamma-ray spectrum that time-resolved analyses of similar bursts could test.
  • Because the GeV energy is tied to extractable spin energy, the same light-curve fitting could be inverted for other high-energy short GRBs to estimate each system's black-hole mass and spin, turning GRB data into a population-level census of black-hole formation from neutron-star mergers.
  • If the 40 ms spikes are Lense-Thirring precession, the inter-spike interval should drift as the merged object spins down before collapse; very high time-resolution data could look for that drift and distinguish precession from other spike mechanisms.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a unified physical model for the short GRB 090510 as a magnetized neutron-star (NS) binary merger that promptly collapses to a Kerr black hole (BH). It identifies the precursor with magnetic-energy release during merger, the UPE with repetitive transparencies of an e+e- pair plasma produced by an overcritical electric field in a rotating magnetic dipole, the three post-UPE spikes with Lense-Thirring precession, the GeV phase with energy extracted from the newborn BH, and the X-ray afterglow with disk accretion. Using Fermi/GBM/LAT and Swift/XRT data, the authors infer NS masses of about 1.2 Msun each, a BH mass of 2.36 Msun, a dimensionless spin of 0.22, a polar magnetic field of about 10^14-10^16 G, a disk mass of about 0.009 Msun, and a merger GW energy of about 3e52 erg.

Significance. The paper is an ambitious and clearly written attempt to connect every observed phase of a single short GRB to a specific physical reservoir. The precursor energetics (Eqs. 1-4) are internally consistent, the analytic dyadoregion model in Appendix A is a useful addition, and the inferred disk mass and field strengths can be compared with numerical-relativity simulations. These are genuine strengths. However, the central quantitative claims rest on a small set of externally imposed or assumed identities: Mirr is fixed to 2.35 Msun, E_GeV is identified with the BH extractable energy, and the UPE magnetic field is set so that the dyadoregion closes exactly at t_BH. The paper does not quantify how the inferred masses, spins, and field strengths respond to these choices, and it does not quantitatively contrast the GeV mechanism with standard external-shock or jet-dissipation alternatives. If the model is to be credible as a measurement rather than a consistency exercise, a robustness analysis is essential.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. 6, Eq. (8)] The load-bearing step is the identification E'_GeV = E_ext with Mirr fixed at 2.35 Msun. This is an energy-budget identity, not an independently tested prediction: the GeV luminosity is assumed to be powered entirely by BH spin energy extraction, with no microphysical model that quantitatively predicts the LAT light curve from the Wald mechanism, and no comparison with standard alternatives (external shocks, jet dissipation, accretion). The beaming factor theta_GeV ~ 60 deg (E_GeV,iso/2) is adopted from previous papers and directly scales M and alpha. Since M - Mirr ~ 0.014 Msun, a modest change in the beaming factor or in Mirr substantially changes the inferred BH spin and the NS masses. Please provide a sensitivity analysis and a concrete argument why the GeV emission cannot be powered by the disk or the jet.
  2. [Sec. 6, E_GeV integration] The quoted broken-power-law fit parameters (A = 1.97e51 erg/s, alpha1 = -1.194, alpha2 = -2.593, t_break = 2.018 s, delta = 0.333) do not reproduce the stated E_GeV,iso = 5.09e52 erg. Integrating the quoted L_GeV(t) from 0.5 s to 2 s and extending the post-break power law to infinity gives about 3e51 erg, more than an order of magnitude smaller. Please check the normalization A or the integration range; this value directly enters Eq. (8) and therefore affects M, alpha, and the NS masses.
  3. [Sec. 4, Eq. (5)] The UPE magnetic field Bp,min is computed by requiring the dyadoregion to close at t_BH, with Omega_crit inferred from the BH spin alpha=0.22 derived in Section 6 from the GeV energy budget. This creates a circular chain: the UPE field, the dyadoregion energy E_e+e-, and the inferred number of transparency events are not independent determinations. In addition, the field must drop from ~1e16 G in the precursor to ~2e14 G in the UPE and to <=1e11 G in the GeV phase; the paper lists possible mechanisms (counter-rotating currents, magnetic-field anchoring) but does not model this transition. A quantitative treatment, or an explicit statement that these are consistency constraints rather than measurements, is needed.
  4. [Sec. 8 and Table 2] The inference m1 = m2 ~ M/2 ~ 1.2 Msun relies on M_bin ~ M, and the paper correctly notes that GW and disk corrections are ~1%. However, the dominant uncertainty is the input Mirr = 2.35 Msun, which is the central value of PSR J0952-0607 with a 1-sigma error of 0.17 Msun. Using Mirr = 2.18 Msun (1-sigma lower) would shift the final BH mass and the NS masses by about 0.1 Msun, which is not addressed. More generally, Table 2 lists no uncertainties despite quoted statistical errors in the light-curve fits; please propagate the uncertainties through Eqs. (8), (9), and (12).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are typos: 'GRB 0905010' in the Introduction and Section 9, and 'GRB 090510A' in Section 9; the source is GRB 090510.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. 2] The mass of PSR J0952-0607 is 2.35 +/- 0.17 Msun and provides a lower limit to the critical NS mass. The paper should consistently phrase it as a lower limit, not as an exact measured value of the critical mass.
  3. [Fig. 1] The GeV and X-ray light curves are difficult to read on the linear prompt panel. Zoomed insets around 0.3-0.6 s and a log-log inset for the GeV/X-ray would help verify the three spikes and the GeV onset.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A.20)] The expression for r_d(theta=0) contains nested square roots that look prone to typographical errors; please double-check the formula against the quartic solution.
  5. [References] Reference [38] appears to have 'H. J. A. Rueda'; should be J. A. Rueda. Also, the citation 'Cherubini et al (2025, submitted)' should be updated or replaced.

Circularity Check

3 steps flagged

GeV energy budget fixes BH mass by construction: Eq. (8) sets M = Mirr + E'_GeV/c^2, so the inferred BH mass, spin, and NS masses reduce to the assumed energy identity.

specific steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 6, Eq. (8) and following text; Table 2]
    "The energy reservoir of the GeV emission is the BH extractable energy, i.e., E ext ≡(M−M irr)c2 =E ′ GeV, which we can use to estimate the BH mass M=M irr +E ′ GeVc2.(8) ... With all the above, we estimate M=2.36 M⊙ and α=0.22."

    E'_GeV is the measured GeV energy corrected by an assumed beaming factor. Setting E_ext = E'_GeV is the paper's central model assumption, not a derived relation. Equation (8) then makes the inferred BH mass a unit conversion of the observed energy plus the adopted M_irr. The subsequent NS masses m≈M/2≈1.2 M_sun (Sec. 8) inherit this identity through M_bin ≈ M. If the GeV emission were powered by accretion, jet dissipation, or any reservoir other than BH extractable spin energy, the inferred M, α, and NS masses would change. The paper presents no independent constraint that tests this assumed equality, so the headline 'prediction' is forced by construction.

  2. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 6, paragraph before Eq. (8); refs. [42,43]]
    "Using the Wald solution, it has been shown that the electric field induced by such a magnetic field and the BH rotation is sufficient to accelerate electrons whose radiation explains the GeV emission [40,41,42,43]. The outward acceleration of electrons occurs in a conical region with semi-aperture angle θ GeV ≈60 ◦ around the BH rotation axis [42,43]."

    The 60° cone geometry is imported from the authors' own prior papers (Moradi et al. 2021, Rueda et al. 2022) and enters the central mass estimate through E'_GeV = E_GeV,iso(1−cos60°) = E_GeV,iso/2. This 1/2 factor sets M−M_irr ≈ 0.014 M_sun; a different opening angle would move M and α substantially (e.g., θ≈30° would roughly halve M−M_irr). No independent derivation of θ_GeV, no microphysical calculation of the electron acceleration cone, and no external constraint is given in this paper. The central numerical results therefore rest on a self-cited ansatz rather than on a first-principles derivation.

  3. self definitional [Section 4, text near Eq. (5)]
    "This implies that, when Ω = Ω crit, ∆ d →0, or equivalently, ˜E(R)→E c (while at times t < tBH is overcritical). The magnetic field consistent with this request is given by Eq. (A.21) in Appendix A, which for the above critical angular velocity and fiducial radius leads to B p,min = 2.04×10 14 G."

    The 'inferred' magnetic field B_p,min is not derived from UPE observations; it is the value that makes the model's pair-creation region vanish exactly at the chosen BH-formation time t_BH. That choice of Ω_crit is itself obtained from the BH spin α=0.22, which comes from Eq. (8) and the GeV energy identity. Thus B_p,min is a consistency condition along the same assumed energy chain, and the later conclusion that the field is in the range 10^14–10^16 G is a restatement of these assumed thresholds plus the precursor energy fit, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central inference chain for GRB 090510 is: measure the GeV isotropic energy; halve it with a self-cited 60° beaming angle; set that energy equal to the BH extractable energy; adopt M_irr = 2.35 M_sun from the PSR J0952-0607 mass limit; then read off M = 2.36 M_sun and α = 0.22. The BH mass is therefore algebraically equivalent to the observed GeV energy under an assumed energy-reservoir identity, and the NS masses follow from M_bin ≈ M ≈ 2.36 M_sun. The spin and the binary masses are not independently tested: they are consequences of the same equality. External inputs (PSR J0952-0607 for M_irr, NICER radius for R=12 km, numerical-relativity simulations for consistency of B fields and disk masses) provide useful anchors and prevent the analysis from being wholly self-referential, but they do not validate the central Eq. (8) equality. The beaming factor and the energy-extraction mechanism are taken from prior papers by the same group; this is not circular per se, but it becomes load-bearing because the derived masses scale directly with the 60° cone and because no independent geometric or microphysical test is given. The UPE magnetic field is likewise set by a threshold condition tied to the same chain. This is a self-consistent modeling exercise, but the headline 'predictions' of BH mass, spin, and NS masses reduce, by the paper's own equations, to assumed energy-budget identities. I therefore assign a score of 6: partial circularity in the central claim, with external anchors preventing a higher score.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The model's outputs (BH mass/spin, NS masses, disk mass, field strengths) are derived by equating observed isotropic energies to theoretical energy reservoirs under several adopted inputs (R=12 km, Mirr=2.35 M_sun, beaming factors) and a boundary condition on the magnetic field. This is more an inversion of the model than an independent measurement.

free parameters (6)
  • Neutron star radius R = 12 km
    Adopted fiducial radius from NICER constraints; used throughout for magnetic energy, precursor timescale, and dyadoregion size.
  • Irreducible mass Mirr = 2.35 M_sun
    Adopted lower limit on NS critical mass from PSR J0952-0607; enters Eq. (8) to set BH mass and spin.
  • UPE beaming factor fb = ~1/3
    Taken from dyadoregion geometry (Appendix A); scales E_UPE to E'_UPE.
  • GeV beaming half-angle theta_GeV = 60 degrees
    From prior Wald-solution work; halves the GeV isotropic energy to E'_GeV.
  • UPE magnetic field Bp,min = 2.04e14 G
    Set by Eq. (5) so the dyadoregion disappears at t_BH; a chosen boundary condition rather than a measured quantity.
  • Moment of inertia form factor k = 2/5 (uniform sphere)
    Assumed I = (2/5) M R^2, which sets Omega_crit and the UPE dyadoregion properties.
axioms (7)
  • standard math Kerr metric and Christodoulou-Ruffini mass-energy formula relate M, Mirr, and J (Eq. 9).
    Standard general relativity result used to infer BH spin from mass and irreducible mass.
  • standard math Schwinger pair production occurs wherever the invariant electric field exceeds E_c (Eq. A.13).
    QED vacuum breakdown mechanism for the UPE phase; standard physics.
  • domain assumption The merged NS can be modeled as a perfectly conducting rotating magnetic dipole (Ruffini-Treves solution, Appendix A).
    Assumed electromagnetic field geometry before collapse; not validated for a hot, turbulent merger remnant.
  • domain assumption NS-NS mergers amplify magnetic fields above 1e14 G and produce low-mass disks of about 1e-2 M_sun (refs [27-29,80-81]).
    Numerical relativity results treated as ground truth; used to support the consistency of inferred parameters.
  • domain assumption GeV transparency requires the magnetic field around the BH to be below about 1e11 G (Section 6).
    From prior works [42,43]; forces a five-order-of-magnitude field drop that is not derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper The GeV emission energy equals the BH extractable energy, with Mirr constant during the GeV phase (Eq. 8).
    The central energy-budget identity; not tested against accretion or jet alternatives.
  • ad hoc to paper The dyadoregion closes exactly at t_BH, fixing Bp,min via Eq. (5).
    Boundary condition chosen so that pair creation ends when GeV emission begins, effectively fitting the magnetic field to the assumed timing.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 21645 in / 13596 out tokens · 135698 ms · 2026-08-04T21:06:58.276690+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Short GRB 090510: a magnetized neutron star binary merger leading to a black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4NRCOTCK

@misc{pith2026250908172,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Short GRB 090510: a magnetized neutron star binary merger leading to a black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4NRCOTCK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.08172}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We model the short gamma-ray bursts (GRB) 090510 as the product of a magnetized neutron star (NS) binary merger. Accounting for the NS critical mass constraint given by the mass of PSR J0952--0607, we infer that GRB 090510 was a highly-magnetized NS-NS merger that left as remnant a Kerr black hole (BH) of $2.4 M_\odot$ with a low-mass accretion disk. The gamma-ray precursor is powered by the magnetic energy released during the merger of the NSs. The prompt emission originates at the transparency of an ultra-relativistic $e^+e^-$ pair-plasma produced by the overcritical electric field induced by the rotating strong magnetic field around the merged object before it reaches the critical mass, the GeV emission by the extractable energy of the newborn BH, and the X-ray afterglow by accretion onto it. We derive the masses of the merging NSs, their magnetic fields, the BH mass, spin, and irreducible mass, the strength of the magnetic field, the disk mass, and obtain an estimate of the gravitational-wave emission during the merger phase preceding the prompt short GRB emission. The inferred parameters agree with up-to-date numerical relativity simulations, confirming that strong magnetic fields above $10^{14}$ G develop in NS-NS mergers and that mergers leading to a central BH remnant have low-mass disks of $\sim 10^{-2} M_\odot$. We also advance the possibility that quasi-period oscillations of tens of Hz of frequency due to Lense-Thirring precession of the matter surrounding the merged object before BH formation can explain the successive spikes following the prompt emission peak.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.08172 by J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, Yu Wang.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Rest-frame luminosity light curves of GRB 090510 observed by Fermi/GBM [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: GRB 090510 spectrum of the Fermi-GBM NaI-n6, n7 and the BGO-b1 detectors, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Light curve of the three spikes following the main pulse of the prompt emission [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Rest-frame 0.1–100 GeV isotropic luminosity of S-GRBs observed by Fermi-LAT. The black line indicates the common power-law behavior of the GeV emission with the slope −1.29 ± 0.06. Reproduced from [86] with the authors’ permission. accreting material that cannot sustain ultrastrong fields. Because of angular momentum conservation, a small-mass accretion disk of 0.009M⊙ forms around the BH. The accretion po… view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

89 extracted references · 56 canonical work pages · 39 internal anchors

  1. [1]

    C. E. Rhoades and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. Lett.32, 324 (1974)

    1974

  2. [2]

    R.W.Romani, D.Kandel, A.V.Filippenko, T.G.Brink, andW.Zheng, ApJ934, L17 (2022),2207.05124

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  3. [3]

    GRB-SN Association within the Binary-Driven Hypernova Model

    Y. Aimuratov, L. M. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. Cherubini, M. Della Valle, S. Filippi, L. Li, R. Moradi, F. Rastegarnia, J. A. Rueda, et al., ApJ955, 93 (2023),2303.16902

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  4. [4]

    Goodman, ApJ308, L47 (1986)

    J. Goodman, ApJ308, L47 (1986)

    1986

  5. [5]

    Paczynski, ApJ308, L43 (1986)

    B. Paczynski, ApJ308, L43 (1986)

    1986

  6. [6]

    Eichler, M

    D. Eichler, M. Livio, T. Piran, and D. N. Schramm, Nature340, 126 (1989). 29

    1989

  7. [7]

    Narayan, T

    R. Narayan, T. Piran, and A. Shemi, ApJ379, L17 (1991)

    1991

  8. [8]

    GRB 090510: a genuine short-GRB from a binary neutron star coalescing into a Kerr-Newman black hole

    R. Ruffini, M. Muccino, Y. Aimuratov, C. L. Bianco, C. Cherubini, M. Enderli, M. Kovacevic, R. Moradi, A. V. Penacchioni, G. B. Pisani, et al., ApJ831, 178 (2016),1607.02400

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  9. [9]

    R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett.11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  10. [10]

    On the Pair Electromagnetic Pulse of a Black Hole with Electromagnetic Structure

    R. Ruffini, J. D. Salmonson, J. R. Wilson, and S.-S. Xue, A&A350, 334 (1999),astro-ph/9907030

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  11. [11]

    On the pair-electromagnetic pulse from an electromagnetic Black Hole surrounded by a Baryonic Remnant

    R. Ruffini, J. D. Salmonson, J. R. Wilson, and S.-S. Xue, A&A359, 855 (2000),astro-ph/0004257

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2000

  12. [12]

    Moradi, J

    R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, L. Li, C. L. Bianco, S. Campion, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, Y. Wang, and S. S. Xue, Phys. Rev. D104, 063043 (2021)

    2021

  13. [13]

    The structure of the ultrarelativistic prompt emission phase and the properties of the black hole in GRB 180720B

    F.Rastegarnia, R.Moradi, J.A.Rueda, R.Ruffini, L.Li, S.Eslamzadeh, Y. Wang, and S. S. Xue, European Physical Journal C82, 778 (2022), 2208.14177

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  14. [14]

    Damour and R

    T. Damour and R. Ruffini, Physical Review Letters35, 463 (1975)

    1975

  15. [15]

    Preparata, R

    G. Preparata, R. Ruffini, and S.-S. Xue, A&A338, L87 (1998), astro-ph/9810182

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  16. [16]

    Ackermann, K

    M. Ackermann, K. Asano, W. B. Atwood, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, M. G. Baring, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, et al., ApJ716, 1178 (2010),1005.2141

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    Agile Detection of Delayed Gamma-Ray Emission from the Short Gamma-Ray Burst GRB 090510

    A. Giuliani, F. Fuschino, G. Vianello, M. Marisaldi, S. Mereghetti, M. Tavani, S. Cutini, G. Barbiellini, F. Longo, E. Moretti, et al., ApJ 708, L84 (2010),0908.1908

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  18. [18]

    E. A. Hoversten, S. D. Barthelmy, D. N. Burrows, M. M. Chester, D. Grupe, J. A. Kennea, H. A. Krimm, N. P. M. Kuin, D. M. Palmer, and T. N. Ukwatta, GRB Coordinates Network9331, 1 (2009)

    2009

  19. [19]

    A. Rau, S. McBreen, and T. Kruehler, GRB Coordinates Network9353, 1 (2009). 30

    work page 2009

  20. [20]

    GRB 090510: a disguised short GRB with the highest Lorentz factor and circumburst medium

    M. Muccino, R. Ruffini, C. L. Bianco, L. Izzo, A. V. Penacchioni, and G. B. Pisani, ApJ772, 62 (2013),1306.3467

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  21. [21]

    The onset of the GeV afterglow of GRB 090510

    G. Ghirlanda, G. Ghisellini, and L. Nava, A&A510, L7 (2010), 0909.0016

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  22. [22]

    Goldstein, J

    A. Goldstein, J. M. Burgess, R. D. Preece, and Fermi/GBM Sci- ence Team, inAmerican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts #219 (2012), vol. 219 ofAmerican Astronomical Society Meeting Abstracts, p. 149.09

    work page 2012

  23. [23]

    The First Fermi LAT Gamma-Ray Burst Catalog

    M. Ackermann, M. Ajello, K. Asano, M. Axelsson, L. Baldini, J. Ballet, G. Barbiellini, D. Bastieri, K. Bechtol, R. Bellazzini, et al., ApJS209, 11 (2013),1303.2908

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  24. [24]

    P. A. Evans, A. P. Beardmore, K. L. Page, L. G. Tyler, J. P. Osborne, M. R. Goad, P. T. O’Brien, L. Vetere, J. Racusin, D. Morris, et al., A&A469, 379 (2007),0704.0128

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  25. [25]

    J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, Y. Wang, Y. Aimuratov, U. Barres de Almeida, C. L. Bianco, Y. C. Chen, R. V. Lobato, C. Maia, D. Primorac, et al., JCAP2018, 006 (2018),1802.10027

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  26. [26]

    Aghanim, Y

    Planck Collaboration, N. Aghanim, Y. Akrami, M. Ashdown, J. Au- mont, C. Baccigalupi, M. Ballardini, A. J. Banday, R. B. Barreiro, N. Bartolo, et al., A&A641, A6 (2020),1807.06209

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  27. [27]

    D. J. Price and S. Rosswog, Science312, 719 (2006), astro-ph/0603845

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    R.Aguilera-Miret, J.-E.Christian, S.Rosswog, andC.Palenzuela, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2504.10604 (2025),2504.10604

    arXiv 2025

  29. [29]

    Bamber, A

    J. Bamber, A. Tsokaros, M. Ruiz, and S. L. Shapiro, Phys. Rev. D111, 044038 (2025),2411.00943

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Brandes and W

    L. Brandes and W. Weise, Phys. Rev. D111, 034005 (2025), 2412.05923

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  31. [31]

    The Coughing Pulsar Magnetosphere

    I. Contopoulos, A&A442, 579 (2005),astro-ph/0507201. 31

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  32. [32]

    Contopoulos and A

    I. Contopoulos and A. Spitkovsky, ApJ643, 1139 (2006), astro-ph/0512002

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  33. [33]

    Spitkovsky, ApJ648, L51 (2006),astro-ph/0603147

    A. Spitkovsky, ApJ648, L51 (2006),astro-ph/0603147

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  34. [34]

    Skiathas, C

    D. Skiathas, C. Kalapotharakos, Z. Wadiasingh, D. Kazanas, A. K. Harding, and P. T. Kolbeck, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2503.19884 (2025), 2503.19884

    work page arXiv 2025

  35. [35]

    E. T. Newman, E. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash, and R. Torrence, Journal of Mathematical Physics6, 918 (1965)

    1965

  36. [36]

    Reissner, Annalen der Physik355, 106 (1916)

    H. Reissner, Annalen der Physik355, 106 (1916)

    1916

  37. [37]

    Nordström, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings Series B Physical Sciences20, 1238 (1918)

    G. Nordström, Koninklijke Nederlandse Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings Series B Physical Sciences20, 1238 (1918)

    work page 1918

  38. [38]

    $e^-e^+$ pair creation by vacuum polarization around electromagnetic black holes

    C. Cherubini, A. Geralico, H. J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D79, 124002 (2009),0905.3274

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  39. [39]

    Ruffini and A

    R. Ruffini and A. Treves, Astroph. Lett.13, 109 (1973)

    work page 1973

  40. [40]

    On the GeV emission of the type I BdHN GRB 130427A

    R. Ruffini, R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. Cheru- bini, S. Filippi, Y. C. Chen, M. Karlica, N. Sahakyan, et al., ApJ886, 82 (2019),1812.00354

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  41. [41]

    J.A.RuedaandR.Ruffini, EuropeanPhysicalJournalC80, 300(2020), 1907.08066

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  42. [42]

    The newborn black hole in GRB 191014C proves that it is alive

    R. Moradi, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and Y. Wang, A&A649, A75 (2021),1911.07552

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [43]

    J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and R. P. Kerr, ApJ929, 56 (2022), 2203.03471

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  44. [44]

    Cipolletta, C

    F. Cipolletta, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D92, 023007 (2015),1506.05926

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  45. [45]

    M. D. Duez, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, M. Shibata, and B. C. Stephens, Physical Review Letters96, 031101 (2006),astro-ph/0510653

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  46. [46]

    Magnetized hypermassive neutron star collapse: a central engine for short gamma-ray bursts

    M. Shibata, M. D. Duez, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, and B. C. Stephens, Physical Review Letters96, 031102 (2006),astro-ph/0511142. 32

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  47. [47]

    M. D. Duez, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, M. Shibata, and B. C. Stephens, Phys. Rev. D73, 104015 (2006),astro-ph/0605331

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  48. [48]

    B. C. Stephens, M. D. Duez, Y. T. Liu, S. L. Shapiro, and M. Shibata, Classical and Quantum Gravity24, S207 (2007),gr-qc/0610103

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  49. [49]

    B. C. Stephens, S. L. Shapiro, and Y. T. Liu, Phys. Rev. D77, 044001 (2008),0802.0200

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  50. [50]

    Rezzolla, B

    L. Rezzolla, B. Giacomazzo, L. Baiotti, J. Granot, C. Kouveliotou, and M. A. Aloy, ApJ732, L6 (2011),1101.4298

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2011

  51. [51]

    Magnetic field screening in strong crossed electromagnetic fields

    S. Campion, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and S. S. Xue, Physics Letters B 820, 136562 (2021),2002.11681

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  52. [52]

    Magnetic Hair and Reconnection in Black Hole Magnetospheres

    A. Bransgrove, B. Ripperda, and A. Philippov, Phys. Rev. Lett.127, 055101 (2021),2109.14620

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  53. [53]

    D. I. Pontin and E. R. Priest, Living Reviews in Solar Physics19, 1 (2022)

    work page 2022

  54. [54]

    G. D. Fleishman, D. E. Gary, B. Chen, N. Kuroda, S. Yu, and G. M. Nita, Science367, 278 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, ApJ492, L59 (1998),astro-ph/9709085

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1998

  56. [56]

    kHz Quasi Periodic Oscillations in Low Mass X-ray Binaries as Probes of General Relativity in the Strong Field Regime

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 17 (1999), astro-ph/9812124

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  57. [57]

    Stella, M

    L. Stella, M. Vietri, and S. M. Morsink, ApJ524, L63 (1999), astro-ph/9907346

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  58. [58]

    On the last stable orbit around rapidly rotating neutron stars

    F. Cipolletta, C. Cherubini, S. Filippi, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D96, 024046 (2017),1612.02207

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  59. [59]

    S. E. Motta, T. Munoz-Darias, A. Sanna, R. Fender, T. Belloni, and L. Stella, MNRAS439, L65 (2014),1312.3114

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  60. [60]

    H. Gao, W. H. Lei, S. Xiao, Z. P. Zhu, L. Lan, S. K. Ai, A. Li, N. Xu, T. C. Wang, B. Zhang, et al., ApJ985, 33 (2025),2508.00278

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  61. [61]

    J. M. Bardeen and J. A. Petterson, ApJ195, L65 (1975). 33

    work page 1975

  62. [62]

    A search for periodic activity in multi-peaked long gamma-ray bursts

    C. Guidorzi, M. Orlandini, R. Maccary, L. Amati, L. Bazzanini, M. Bulla, L. Ferro, F. Frontera, M. Maistrello, W. J. Tan, et al., A&A 697, A228 (2025),2504.07550

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  63. [63]

    J. A. Rueda and R. Ruffini, EPJC83, 960 (2023),2303.07760

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [64]

    J. A. Rueda and R. Ruffini, EPJC84, 1166 (2024),2410.04776

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  65. [65]

    VLT observations of GRB 990510 and its environment

    K. Beuermann, F. V. Hessman, K. Reinsch, H. Nicklas, P. M. Vreeswijk, T.J.Galama, E.Rol, J.vanParadijs, C.Kouveliotou, F.Frontera, etal., A&A352, L26 (1999),astro-ph/9909043

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  66. [66]

    Christodoulou, Phys

    D. Christodoulou, Phys. Rev. Lett.25, 1596 (1970)

    work page 1970

  67. [67]

    Christodoulou and R

    D. Christodoulou and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D4, 3552 (1971)

    work page 1971

  68. [68]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 1344 (1971)

    1971

  69. [69]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D10, 1680 (1974)

    1974

  70. [70]

    R. S. Hanni and R. Ruffini, Nuovo Cimento Lettere15, 189 (1976)

    work page 1976

  71. [71]

    Podolsky and H

    J. Podolsky and H. Ovcharenko, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2507.05199 (2025), 2507.05199

    arXiv 2025

  72. [72]

    Ruffini and J

    R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, ESRO SP52, 45 (1971)

    work page 1971

  73. [73]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, ApJ178, 347 (1972)

    work page 1972

  74. [74]

    M. Rees, R. Ruffini, and J. A. Wheeler,Black holes, gravitational waves, and cosmology : an introduction to current research(New York: Gordon and Breach, 1974)

    work page 1974

  75. [75]

    T. Liu, B. Zhang, Y. Li, R.-Y. Ma, and L. Xue, Phys. Rev. D93, 123004 (2016),1512.07203

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  76. [76]

    On the induced gravitational collapse scenario of gamma-ray bursts associated with supernovae

    L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, and R. Ruffini, ApJ 833, 107 (2016),1606.02523

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  77. [77]

    Neutrino Oscillations Within the Induced Gravitational Collapse Paradigm of Long Gamma-Ray Bursts

    L. Becerra, M. M. Guzzo, F. Rossi-Torres, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, and J. D. Uribe, ApJ852, 120 (2018),1712.07210. 34

    work page internal anchor Pith review Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  78. [78]

    J. D. Uribe, E. A. Becerra-Vergara, and J. A. Rueda, Universe7, 7 (2021)

    work page 2021

  79. [79]

    V. S. Berezinskii and O. F. Prilutskii, A&A175, 309 (1987)

    work page 1987

  80. [80]

    Zappa, S

    F. Zappa, S. Bernuzzi, D. Radice, A. Perego, and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. Lett.120, 111101 (2018),1712.04267

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

Showing first 80 references.