Formation of the Kerr black hole: an exact model

J Ovalle

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 48 references

Formation of the Kerr black hole: an exact model

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An exact analytical spacetime carries a rotating collapse all the way to the Kerr black hole.

desk verdict A constructive, honest exact model that asymptotes to Kerr, but the black-hole-formation claim rests on an unproven trapped-surface assumption and boundary conditions that put Kerr in by hand. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.06519 v1 pith:OI4YYPZT submitted 2026-08-06 gr-qc astro-ph.SRhep-thmath-phmath.MP

J Ovalle This is my paper · ORCID

classification gr-qcastro-ph.SRhep-thmath-phmath.MP MSC 83C5783C7583C20 PACS 04.20.-q04.70.Bw

keywords Kerrblackholeformationaxisymmetricgravitationalcollapsetime-dependentrotationparameterexactanalyticalmodelquasi-extremalregimetrappedsurfacetransientexteriorcurvaturecosmiccensorship

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 constructs an exact analytical spacetime that is meant to describe the final stage of axisymmetric gravitational collapse, the stage immediately before a Kerr black hole forms. The central object is a time-dependent metric that depends only on the total mass $\mathcal{M}$ and a rotation parameter $a(v)$, with no additional charges or hairs. Suitable smooth interpolations drive the system from a regular Schwarzschild-like state at $v\to -\infty$ to the exact Kerr solution at $v\to +\infty$, and the same family covers both extremal Kerr and a quasi-extremal regime in which the two horizons nearly coincide while $a$ stays well below $\mathcal{M}$. If the model is correct, rotating collapse can be followed analytically to the Kerr endpoint, and the collapse leaves a transient anisotropic exterior curvature decaying as $1/r^2$ that could be observable. The main unsupported step is the claim that the singularity remains enclosed in a trapped region, which the paper argues for from the two roots of $\Delta(v,r)=0$ but does not rigorously prove.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Eddington-Finkelstein-like axisymmetric metric (17), built by promoting the mass and spin in the stationary metric (1) to $\tilde{m}(v,r)$ and $a(v)$. The interior mass function (26) is chosen from the $C^N$ family, meaning it matches the constant exterior mass $M$ smoothly across the evolving radius $h(v)$; the rotation parameter (39) and the discrete labels $n_i(v)$ in (46)--(47) are coupled through a common interpolation. The labels control how close the interior is to the Kerr limit: the Kerr solution is recovered at $n_i=-1$, while $a(v)$ controls the horizon radii and the kinetic singularity. The two positive roots of $\Delta(v,r)=0$, namely $h_c(v)$ and $h(v)$, are the device that keeps the singularity candidate inside a trapped region, although a proof that a trapped surface actually exists is not carried out.

What would settle it

Take an explicit case such as $N=1$, $a_0=0$, $a_f=0.75M$, and check whether a trapped surface exists at intermediate $v$: if for any admissible $a(v)$ and $n(v)$ an outgoing null congruence starting just inside $h_c(v)$ reaches future null infinity, or if $\Delta(v,r)=0$ loses one of its two positive roots during the evolution, then the singularity is exposed and the model does not describe black hole formation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the line element (17), with mass function (24)--(26) and interpolations (39) and (46)--(47), is an exact analytical model of axisymmetric gravitational collapse leading to the formation of the Kerr black hole. During collapse the geometry is generically of Petrov type I, and it carries a curvature singularity at $r=0$ generated by the time dependence of $a(v)$. The author argues that this singularity is enclosed throughout the evolution by a trapped region associated with the evolving Kerr radius $h(v)=M+\sqrt{M^2-a(v)^2}$, because $\Delta(v,r)=0$ keeps two positive roots $h_c(v)<h(v)$; the rigorous trapped-surface analysis is left open. When $a(v)$ becomes constant and the interpolated labels reach $n_i(v)=-1$, the metric reduces exactly to Kerr, so the model terminates at the rotating black hole it was built to form. The construction is explicitly a description of the late stage of collapse, not of the preceding regular phase.

Load-bearing premise

The model assumes, rather than proves, that a trapped surface exists around the singularity at every stage of the collapse, so that the singularity never becomes naked; the paper's evidence is that $\Delta(v,r)=0$ has two positive roots, but the trapped-surface calculation is stated to lie beyond its scope.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Rotating collapse can be followed analytically from a regular Schwarzschild-like start to the exact Kerr endpoint, including intermediate singular stages, using only the two parameters $\{\mathcal{M}, a\}$.
The extremal Kerr black hole and a quasi-extremal state with $h_c\sim h\not\approx \mathcal{M}$ are both genuine endpoints of the same evolution, selected by the interpolation parameters.
During the collapse the exterior is not Kerr and carries an anisotropic curvature decaying as $1/r^2$, so the model predicts observable imprints of the formation stage.
The first-law-style relation $\delta A=-8\pi\Omega\,\delta J/\kappa$ holds along the evolution when $\delta M=0$, giving a thermodynamic consistency check on the sequence of apparent horizons.
If the trapped region is confirmed, the singularity at $r=0$ remains hidden and the weak cosmic censorship picture is preserved in this exact model.

Reading between the lines

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

The transient $1/r^2$ exterior curvature is a concrete prediction that could be searched for in numerical simulations of rotating collapse, since it would affect lensing and photon orbits before the Kerr state is reached.
The quasi-extremal regime with $h_c\sim h$ but $a_f\not\approx M$ provides a clean testbed for cosmic censorship: a small perturbation of the collapsed object could decide whether the near-coincident horizons form a true extremal limit or an exposed singularity.
Because the metric depends only on $\{M,a\}$, it could serve as a family of exact backgrounds for studying hairless final states, but the paper does not identify the physical matter source that would generate the geometry.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

The paper is a serious, clearly written construction of an exact time-dependent axisymmetric spacetime that interpolates from a regular Schwarzschild-like state to Kerr. The genuinely new piece is the time-dependent extension of the author's stationary regular rotating family, with explicit curvature scalars and an interpolation path that ends at the Kerr metric. The equations are explicit, the diagrams are helpful, and the author is upfront about what is and is not shown. That honesty matters.

The soft spot is load-bearing and acknowledged: the paper never proves that a trapped surface exists. Section III.A and Section V both say that a rigorous trapped-surface determination is beyond scope. The evidence offered is that Δ(v,r)=0 has two positive roots, but in this non-Kerr-Schild, explicitly time-dependent spacetime the location of the apparent horizon is set by the vanishing of null expansions, not by Δ=0. So the roots alone do not establish a trapping horizon. If no trapped surface exists, the singularity is naked and this is a model of a naked singularity, not black hole formation. That is the minimal condition for the headline claim, and it is unproven.

The other soft spot is that the final state is imposed rather than derived. Equation (47) fixes n(v) so that β=-1 yields the Kerr mass function in the future, and a(v) is chosen to reach a_f. So Kerr is put in by hand through boundary conditions. The first law (30) is asserted without derivation, though it looks like a kinematical relation following from the definitions of A, Ω, and κ on the Δ=0 surface, so that is a minor issue. No stress-energy tensor or field equations are solved, so the source is unknown—again, the author admits this.

On the positive side, the quasi-extremal regime with h_c ~ h not equal to M is a legitimate curiosity, and the transient exterior curvature decaying as 1/r^2 is a concrete, falsifiable signature if anyone can attach this geometry to real collapse. The paper is careful to call itself a model of the final stage, not a complete collapse scenario.

My take: this deserves peer review. A competent referee can push for a trapped-surface analysis for the specific interpolations used, or at least force the claim to be softened to 'a spacetime tending to Kerr with a plausibly hidden singularity.' I would bring it to a reading group because it is a useful foil for discussions of trapping horizons and exact collapse models. I would not cite it in my own work, but if I worked on rotating collapse I would want it on file.

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a time-dependent axisymmetric line element (17) with mass profile (24)-(26), an interpolating rotation parameter a(v) (39), and a rule (46)-(47) that sends a discrete label n(v) to -1 at late times, so that the geometry reduces to Kerr with spin a_f as v→+∞. It computes the scalar curvature (32)-(33), discusses the resulting singularities, claims that two positive roots of Δ(v,r)=0 enclose the singularity, derives a formal first law (30), and displays plots of Δ and R for representative N=1,2 cases. The paper explicitly states that identification of the matter source and a rigorous trapped-surface determination are left for future work.

Significance. If the construction were fully validated, it would be a valuable explicit model of the late stage of rotating collapse, complementing spherically symmetric Oppenheimer-Snyder-type models. The strengths include the compact closed-form metric, the transparent interpolating functions, the explicit scalar-curvature computation, and the concrete prediction of a transient exterior 1/r^2 curvature (36). The paper is also unusually candid about its open points. However, the headline claim—formation of the Kerr black hole—is not yet supported because the existence of a trapped region and the nature of the matter source are not established. At present the work supplies a candidate geometry rather than a demonstrated collapse model.

major comments (4)

[Section III.A; Section V; Eq. (17)] The central claim that Eq. (17) describes the formation of the Kerr black hole requires that the curvature singularity (33) remain behind a trapped surface throughout the evolution. The manuscript explicitly does not establish this: Section III.A states that a rigorous trapped-surface determination is 'beyond the scope,' and Section V only says that establishing such a surface 'would provide strong evidence' against nakedness. The two positive roots of Δ(v,r)=0 (Eq. (29)) do not imply a trapping horizon, because the metric is not Kerr-Schild (Eq. (23)) and is time-dependent; the apparent horizon is determined by the vanishing of null expansions. Without a trapped region the singularity could be naked, and the model would not describe black-hole formation. This is the minimal condition for the headline claim and is the weakest link in the argument.
[Sections II-IV; Eq. (17)] The manuscript never solves the Einstein field equations or writes down a stress-energy tensor; it postulates a line element and computes the scalar curvature. Any Lorentzian metric formally defines a T_ab through G_ab = 8π T_ab, but no explicit T_ab is given and no energy conditions are checked. The authors themselves list 'identify the source' as an open point in Section V. Thus the phrase 'exact analytical model of gravitational collapse' overstates what is demonstrated; at best this is a candidate exterior/interior geometry whose matter content is unspecified.
[Eqs. (29)-(31)] The 'first law' relation δM = κ/(8π) δA + Ω δJ is asserted without derivation. Since h(v) is defined by Δ(v,h(v))=0 and M ≡ m̃(v,h(v)) is constant by Eq. (21), the variation may be a definitional identity rather than a dynamical first law for a trapping or dynamic horizon in this non-stationary spacetime. Moreover, A, Ω, and κ are not defined before Eq. (30), and the paper does not show that the usual Kerr identifications remain valid for the time-dependent, non-Kerr-Schild geometry. This relation either needs a derivation or must be explicitly labeled as a formal analogy.
[Eqs. (39), (46)-(47), (52)] The abstract and Section III claim that the model depends only on {M, a(v)} and introduces no additional degrees of freedom. This is not supported: the interpolation (39) contains a0, af, and ω, and Eq. (46)-(47) contain α_i and β_i. Even after eliminating n_i(a) via Eq. (47), the timescale ω and the initial/final values remain free choices that affect the evolution. The claim that the collapse is 'entirely characterized' by {M, a(v)} should be clarified to mean that the final stationary black hole has no primary hair, not that the model has no additional evolutionary parameters.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (21)] The quantity M(v) in the condition M ≡ m̃(v,h(v)) ≠ M(v) is never defined; this notation is confusing and should be clarified or removed.
[Table I; Fig. 1] Configurations labeled 'EK' and 'EK-Mi' with fixed n_i>2 are not Kerr spacetimes; Kerr is recovered only when n_i=-1 (Section IV). The labels should be changed to 'extremal regular rotating' configurations to avoid implying the final state is exactly Kerr.
[Section III.B, Eq. (38)] The assertion that the bracketed expression in Eq. (38) is strictly positive throughout 0<r<h(v) for all admissible {n_i} is stated without proof; a proof or a reference would be needed to support the conclusion that ṁ(v,r)>0 during collapse.
[Abstract; Section V] The phrase 'trapped region close to h(v)' is imprecise: trapped surfaces are compact two-surfaces, and the paper should specify whether the intended claim concerns an apparent horizon, a dynamic horizon, or an event horizon.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Kerr final state is imposed by choosing β=-1 in Eq. (47), so the 'formation' claim is an input; the first-law relation is an identity by definition of h(v).

fitted input called prediction [Section IV, Eqs. (46)-(52)]
"In particular, the formation of the Kerr BH from an initially regular Schwarzschild configuration is described by Eqs. (39) and (47) with a 0 = 0 and β = −1, respectively, which reduce to a(v) = a_f/2 [1 + tanh(ωv)], n(v) = α − (1 + α) a_f/a(v)."

The final Kerr configuration is selected by hand through the condition β=-1. Since n=-1 makes the mass function (49)/(26) reduce to the Kerr mass M, the limit v→+∞ returns Kerr by construction. Thus the headline result 'formation of the Kerr BH' is not derived from collapse dynamics; it is a boundary condition built into the interpolating ansatz. Presenting this imposed endpoint as the model's outcome ('the system must necessarily pass through a transient ... before finally settling into the corresponding stationary Kerr configuration') is a fitted input renamed as a prediction.
self definitional [Section III, Eqs. (22), (29)-(31)]
"h(v) = M + sqrt(M^2 − a(v)^2), which, by construction, satisfies Δ(v,h(v)) = 0. ... since Δ(v, h(v)) = 0, we can carry out an analysis fully analogous to that of the Kerr BH, leading to δM = κ 8π δA + ΩδJ."

The evolving radius h(v) is defined as a root of Δ(v,r)=0, so Δ(v,h(v))=0 is an identity rather than a physical condition. The quantities A, Ω, κ are then defined in terms of h(v), making Eq. (30) a kinematic identity for any chosen function a(v). Presenting this as a first law of BH mechanics is a definitional consistency check, not an independent result of the collapse model.

full rationale

The central circular step is in Section IV: the Kerr end state is imposed by setting β=-1 in the n(v) interpolation, so the claim that the model 'leads to the formation of the Kerr BH' is built into the ansatz rather than derived. A secondary, minor self-definitional step is the first-law relation (30), which follows from defining h(v) to satisfy Δ=0 and defining A, Ω, κ from h(v). The paper's 1/r^2 transient curvature and the singularity structure are honest consequences of the chosen metric and free function a(v), and the self-citations to Refs. [23,29] supply the mass-function family as an input, not as a circular uniqueness argument. The paper also explicitly states that a rigorous trapped-surface determination 'lies beyond the scope of the present work,' so the black-hole-formation claim is not fully supported; that is a gap in evidence, not itself a circular reduction. Overall, the model is a legitimate exact construction, but its headline outcome is partly fixed by construction, warranting a partial circularity score of 6.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model adds no new particles or forces, but it does introduce free functions a(v) and n(v) and relies on the prior mass-function family and on unproven cosmic-censorship assumptions.

free parameters (3)

a(v) (rotation parameter evolution) = a0=0, af=M or 0.7M, omega=0.1 in examples
The entire evolution follows from the chosen smooth interpolation (39) or (51); the curvature signature (36) and all transient effects depend on this free function.
n(v) (mass function label evolution) = alpha=3, beta=-1 (Kerr endpoint)
Eq (46)-(47) defines n(v) via a(v); picking beta=-1 forces the spacetime to approach Kerr. This encodes the 'formation' as an input.
N and n_i family choice = N=1 or N=2 with l=n+1 in figures
The mass function (26) depends on the discrete family labels, chosen by hand to illustrate the model.

assumptions (4)

domain assumption The Gurses-Gursey form (1) with mass function (10) from the author's prior work is a valid starting point; the time-dependent generalization (17) is assumed to represent a collapsing spacetime.
Section II invokes Ref [29] as the stationary base; no independent derivation of this family is given here.
domain assumption The final state of complete collapse is a Kerr black hole (uniqueness theorem), so the endpoint n=-1, a=af is imposed.
Introduction cites uniqueness theorems; Section IV sets beta=-1.
ad hoc to paper The singularity remains clothed by a trapped surface (weak cosmic censorship), though no trapped surface is constructed.
Section III.A says this is 'expected' and 'strongly suggests' but defers the trapped-surface analysis to future work.
ad hoc to paper The interpolation functions tanh(omega v) for a(v) and linear coupling (47) for n(v) are physically meaningful evolution choices.
Eqs (39) and (47) are introduced by hand to connect boundary states; no dynamical equations select them.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Formation of the Kerr black hole: an exact model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OI4YYPZT

@misc{pith2026260806519,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Formation of the Kerr black hole: an exact model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OI4YYPZT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.06519}
}

abstract

We present an exact analytical model of axisymmetric gravitational collapse leading to the formation of the Kerr black hole. The model depends only on the total mass ${\cal M}$ and a time dependent rotation parameter $a(v)$, and incorporates both the extremal Kerr black hole and a novel quasi extremal regime without requiring $a\approx{\cal M}$. The evolution develops curvature singularities induced by $a(v)$, which are expected to remain enclosed within a trapped region close to the evolving Kerr radius $r=h(v)$. It also predicts a transient anisotropic exterior curvature decaying as $1/r^2$, which may imprint observable signatures associated with the formation of a rotating black hole. The present construction should therefore be interpreted as an exact analytical description of the final stage of rotational gravitational collapse, immediately preceding the formation of the Kerr black hole.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.06519 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages

[1]

and an extremal Kerr BH (a f =M) is described by a(v) = M 2 [1 + tanh(ωv)],(40) while the interpolation between a regular Schwarzschild BH (a 0 = 0) and an quasi-extremal Kerr BH witha f ̸≈ M, characterized byh c ∼h̸≈ M, is described by a(v) = af 2 [1 + tanh(ωv)] forn i → ∞ ∀i .(41) The corresponding results are summarized in Table I and displayed in Fig....

work page
[2]

Israel, Phys

W. Israel, Phys. Rev.164, 1776 (1967)

1967
[3]

Israel, Commun

W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys.8, 245 (1968)

work page 1968
[4]

Carter, Phys

B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

1971
[5]

Hawking, Commun

S. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.25, 152 (1972)

work page 1972
[6]

D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 905 (1975)

1975
[7]

Heusler,Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems(1996)

M. Heusler,Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems(1996)

work page 1996
[8]

P. T. Chrusciel, J. Lopes Costa, and M. Heusler, Living Rev. Rel.15, 7 (2012), arXiv:1205.6112 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2012

Show all 48 references

[9]

Penrose, Phys

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

1965
[10]

S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314, 529 (1970)

1970
[11]

S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The Large Scale Struc- ture of Space-Time, Cambridge Monographs on Mathe- matical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2011)

2011
[12]

Penrose, Riv

R. Penrose, Riv. Nuovo Cim.1, 252 (1969)

1969
[13]

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

1963
[14]

J. R. Oppenheimer and H. Snyder, Phys. Rev.56, 455 (1939)

1939
[15]

Christodoulou, Commun

D. Christodoulou, Commun. Math. Phys.93, 171 (1984)

1984
[16]

P. S. Joshi and I. H. Dwivedi, Phys. Rev. D47, 5357 (1993), arXiv:gr-qc/9303037

1993 arXiv
[17]

P. S. Joshi, N. Dadhich, and R. Maartens, Phys. Rev. D 65, 101501 (2002), arXiv:gr-qc/0109051

2002 arXiv
[18]

F. C. Mena, B. C. Nolan, and R. Tavakol, Phys. Rev. D 70, 084030 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0405041

2004 arXiv
[19]

P. D. Lasky and A. W. C. Lun, Phys. Rev. D74, 084013 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0606055

2006 arXiv
[20]

P. S. Joshi, ed.,Gravitational Collapse and Spacetime Singularities, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Cambridge University Press, 2012)

2012
[21]

Mosani, D

K. Mosani, D. Dey, and P. S. Joshi, Phys. Rev. D 101, 044052 (2020), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 107, 069903 (2023)], arXiv:2001.04367 [gr-qc]

2020 arXiv
[22]

A. B. Joshi, K. Mosani, and P. S. Joshi, Phys. Rev. D 109, 064019 (2024), arXiv:2310.01222 [gr-qc]

2024 arXiv
[23]

S. A. Teukolsky, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 124006 (2015), arXiv:1410.2130 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[24]

Ovalle, Phys

J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D109, 104032 (2024)

2024
[25]

Ovalle, (2025), arXiv:2509.00816 [gr-qc]

J. Ovalle, (2025), arXiv:2509.00816 [gr-qc]

2025 arXiv
[26]

Ovalle, R

J. Ovalle, R. Casadio, and A. Kamenshchik, Phys. Rev. D113, 064042 (2026), arXiv:2603.06451 [gr-qc]

2026
[27]

Casadio, A

R. Casadio, A. Giusti, A. Kamenshchik, and J. Ovalle, (2026), arXiv:2605.01808 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[28]

F. S. N. Lobo and M. E. Rodrigues, (2026), arXiv:2607.14079 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[29]

F. S. N. Lobo and M. E. Rodrigues, (2026), arXiv:2607.24349 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[30]

Ovalle, (2026), arXiv:2607.14910 [gr-qc]

J. Ovalle, (2026), arXiv:2607.14910 [gr-qc]

2026 arXiv
[31]

Gurses and F

M. Gurses and F. Gursey, J. Math. Phys.16, 2385 (1975)

1975
[32]

Casadio, A

R. Casadio, A. Kamenshchik, and J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D110, 044001 (2024)

2024
[33]

Casadio, A

R. Casadio, A. Kamenshchik, and J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D111, 064036 (2025)

2025
[34]

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

2013 arXiv
[35]

Ovalle, Phys

J. Ovalle, Phys. Rev. D107, 104005 (2023)

2023
[36]

Arrechea, S

J. Arrechea, S. Liberati, H. Neshat, and V. Vellucci, Phys. Rev. D112, 044024 (2025)

2025
[37]

Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol

S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, International Series of Monographs on Physics, Vol. 69 (Oxford University Press, New York, 1983)

1983
[38]

Stephani, D

H. Stephani, D. Kramer, M. A. H. MacCallum, C. Hoenselaers, and E. Herlt,Exact solutions of Ein- stein ’s field equations, Cambridge Monographs on Math- ematical Physics (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2003)

2003
[39]

J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter, and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.31, 161 (1973)

1973
[40]

S. A. Hayward, Phys. Rev. D49, 6467 (1994)

1994
[41]

Ashtekar and B

A. Ashtekar and B. Krishnan, Phys. Rev. D68, 104030 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0308033

2003 arXiv
[42]

J. M. M. Senovilla and R. Torres, Class. Quant. Grav.32, 085004 (2015), [Erratum: Class.Quant.Grav. 32, 189501 (2015)], arXiv:1409.6044 [gr-qc]

2015 arXiv
[43]

Ben Achour, A

J. Ben Achour, A. Cisterna, and M. Hassaine, JCAP06, 061 (2026), arXiv:2512.19542 [gr-qc]. 9

2026 arXiv
[44]

Penrose, inBattelle Rencontres: 1967 Lectures in Mathematics and Physics(W

R. Penrose, inBattelle Rencontres: 1967 Lectures in Mathematics and Physics(W. A. Benjamin, Inc., New York, 1968) pp. 121–235

1967
[45]

Poisson and W

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

1989
[46]

Ori, Phys

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

1991
[47]

Raychaudhuri, Phys

A. Raychaudhuri, Phys. Rev.98, 1123 (1955)

1955
[48]

Perlick, Living Rev

V. Perlick, Living Rev. Rel.7, 9 (2004)

2004

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

and an extremal Kerr BH (a f =M) is described by a(v) = M 2 [1 + tanh(ωv)],(40) while the interpolation between a regular Schwarzschild BH (a 0 = 0) and an quasi-extremal Kerr BH witha f ̸≈ M, characterized byh c ∼h̸≈ M, is described by a(v) = af 2 [1 + tanh(ωv)] forn i → ∞ ∀i .(41) The corresponding results are summarized in Table I and displayed in Fig....

work page

[2] [2]

Israel, Phys

W. Israel, Phys. Rev.164, 1776 (1967)

1967

[3] [3]

Israel, Commun

W. Israel, Commun. Math. Phys.8, 245 (1968)

work page 1968

[4] [4]

Carter, Phys

B. Carter, Phys. Rev. Lett.26, 331 (1971)

1971

[5] [5]

Hawking, Commun

S. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys.25, 152 (1972)

work page 1972

[6] [6]

D. C. Robinson, Phys. Rev. Lett.34, 905 (1975)

1975

[7] [7]

Heusler,Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems(1996)

M. Heusler,Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems(1996)

work page 1996

[8] [8]

P. T. Chrusciel, J. Lopes Costa, and M. Heusler, Living Rev. Rel.15, 7 (2012), arXiv:1205.6112 [gr-qc]

arXiv 2012