Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 34 references

Equilibrium models of Weyssenhoff spin fluid accretion tori around Kerr black holes

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Macroscopic fluid spin reshapes accretion tori around Kerr black holes.

desk verdict A solid Kerr extension of spin-fluid tori whose quantitative claims rest on an untested spin-density ansatz; deserves refereeing with a request for sensitivity analysis. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.19477 v1 pith:74HUDYC2 submitted 2025-06-24 gr-qc

Sergio Gimeno-Soler , Sayantani Lahiri , Claus Lämmerzahl This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C5583C10
keywords accretiontoriWeyssenhoffspinfluidKerrblackholesspin-curvaturecouplingequilibriummodelsconstantspecificangularmomentumrelativistichydrodynamics
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 stationary, axisymmetric equilibrium models of geometrically thick accretion tori made of a neutral Weyssenhoff spin fluid with constant specific orbital angular momentum around Kerr black holes. It claims that macroscopic fluid spin, encoded in a parameter $s_0$, changes the torus morphology in a systematic way: for co-rotating disks negative $s_0$ enlarges the torus and raises its peak energy density while positive $s_0$ compacts it, and counter-rotating disks show the opposite pattern, with the effects strengthening as the black-hole spin $a$ grows. The authors also map the allowed $(l_0, s_0)$ parameter space and find bounds beyond which equilibrium solutions cease to exist. A sympathetic reader would care because accretion torus models are used as initial data and interpretive tools for observations of supermassive black holes, and intrinsic spin is one physical ingredient usually omitted.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the spin-density ansatz, Eq. (26): $S(r,\theta)=s_0\,\epsilon^{\gamma-1} k(r,\theta)(1-\Omega l_0)$, with $s_0$ a constant spin parameter and $k$ a shape function fixed by a compatibility PDE, Eq. (29), that is independent of $\epsilon$ and normalized to $k(r,\pi/2)=1$. This ansatz makes the mixed-derivative compatibility condition for $\epsilon$ independent of $\epsilon$, so $k$ can be solved first by the method of characteristics and the energy density then integrated outward from the cusp. The other essential piece is the integrability framework inherited from the Schwarzschild predecessor, which reduces the momentum balance to an effective-potential equation $W-W_{\rm in}=\ln|u_t|-\ln|u_{t\rm in}|-\int \Omega\,dl/(1-\Omega l)$; all of the reported morphological changes trace back to $s_0$ acting through the geometry-fixed characteristic curves of $k$.

What would settle it

Compute the equilibrium spin-density distribution from a microscopic model of spinning particles with the Frenkel condition in the Kerr background, insert it into the momentum balance equation, and check whether the resulting tori reproduce the predicted shifts of $r_{\rm max}$, $r_{\rm cusp}$, and $\epsilon_{\rm max}$ with $s_0$; a sign reversal or an order-one deviation in magnitude would falsify the ansatz-based results.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that a neutral Weyssenhoff spin fluid, a continuum fluid whose elements carry intrinsic spin angular momentum, can form closed, non-self-gravitating tori with constant specific angular momentum in the Kerr spacetime, and that the spin-curvature coupling term systematically deforms them. For co-rotating motion, negative fluid spin $s_0$ pushes the density maximum $r_{\rm max}$ outward, moves the cusp inward, enlarges the radial extent and vertical thickness, and increases the peak energy density; positive $s_0$ does the reverse. Counter-rotating motion inverts the trend. The shifts grow with the Kerr spin parameter and are already visible at $a=0.55$ and pronounced at $a=0.95$. The solutions are built by solving the momentum balance equation with a polytropic equation of state ($\gamma=2$), a spin-density ansatz that decouples the shape function $k(r,\theta)$ from the energy density, and the method of characteristics; closed tori exist only in a bounded region of the $(a,l_0,s_0)$ parameter space.

Load-bearing premise

Everything rests on the assumed spin-density form $S(r,\theta)=s_0\,\epsilon^{\gamma-1} k(r,\theta)(1-\Omega l_0)$, chosen so the equations decouple rather than derived from microphysics; if a real spin fluid distributes its spin differently, the reported enlargement, shrinkage, and even the existence of the tori could change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the claim holds, general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations around Kerr black holes can be initialized with spin-fluid tori whose size, thickness, cusp position, and density peak depend on $s_0$ as well as on angular momentum and black-hole spin.
  • For co-rotating disks, negative $s_0$ moves the cusp closer to the horizon and pushes the density maximum outward, which changes where accretion begins and how much material sits at large radius, with direct consequences for the predicted emission region.
  • For counter-rotating disks the sign flips, so the same fluid spin parameter produces opposite morphological signatures; comparing tori that rotate with and against the black hole could in principle constrain $s_0$.
  • The existence bounds imply that spin-fluid equilibrium tori exist only in a finite region of $(l_0,s_0)$, so simulations with too large $|s_0|$ have no hydrostatic starting configuration.
  • Near the marginally stable orbit, spin can make a finite torus where the spinless model gives a point, and near the marginally bound orbit it can make a point where the spinless model gives an infinite disk, so spin changes which constant-$l$ tori are allowed.

Reading between the lines

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

  • I infer that the co- versus counter-rotating sign asymmetry could serve as an observational diagnostic: if real accretion flows carry net macroscopic spin, horizon-scale images of galactic-center black holes should show systematic differences between disks rotating with and against the hole.
  • A testable extension would be to derive $S(r,\theta)$ from a kinetic or field-theoretic spin-fluid model instead of postulating the ansatz; if the derived distribution differs, the morphological trends could change sign or magnitude.
  • I infer from the parameter-space maps that the disappearance of solutions at high $|s_0|$ may signal a real physical limit, spin-curvature forces overpowering pressure gradients, rather than a numerical artifact, meaning spin fluids could be unable to form equilibrium tori around rapidly spinning black holes beyond a threshold.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper constructs stationary, axisymmetric, non-self-gravitating equilibrium tori of a neutral Weyssenhoff spin fluid with constant specific orbital angular momentum in the Kerr spacetime, extending an earlier Schwarzschild construction. The model assumes circular flow, the Frenkel supplementary condition, a polytropic equation of state with gamma=2, and a spin-density ansatz. The authors solve a compatibility PDE for the function k(r,theta), integrate the momentum-balance equations numerically, and report how the fluid spin parameter s0 changes the cusp radius, center radius, outer edge, peak energy density, and isodensity surfaces for both co-rotating and counter-rotating disks. They also map the existence region in the (l0,s0) parameter plane and identify bounds beyond which equilibrium solutions do not exist.

Significance. If the results hold, they provide a useful extension of Polish-doughnut models to matter with macroscopic spin, showing that spin-curvature coupling can appreciably alter torus morphology in a rotating Kerr background and that such coupling imposes existence bounds on the spin parameter. The recovery of the standard spinless torus in the s0=0 limit, the use of the previously derived integrability conditions, and the explicit parameter-space exploration are genuine strengths. The central claim is not circular: s0 and l0 are input parameters, not fitted outputs. However, the quantitative trends are tied to the specific spin-density closure and to an arbitrary normalization of k, so the significance of the morphological claims is conditional on those choices.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III A, Eq. (26)] All reported morphological trends follow from the postulated spin-density ansatz (26), S(r,theta)=s0 epsilon^{gamma-1} k(r,theta)(1-Omega l0), but the paper neither derives this closure from the Weyssenhoff-fluid conservation laws nor tests the sensitivity of the results to alternative closures. With gamma=2 the spin terms in Eqs. (27)-(28) become independent of epsilon and k is fixed solely by the background and l0, so the sign and magnitude of the changes in r_cusp, r_max, r_out and epsilon_max in Figures 4-8 are properties of this particular closure. Please either derive the ansatz from an underlying condition or add sensitivity runs with a different spin-density form (for example, dropping the (1-Omega l0) factor, or using S proportional to epsilon^gamma), and restate the abstract's 'demonstrate' accordingly.
  2. [Sec. III B] The choice k(r,pi/2)=1 is an arbitrary normalization, and the text explicitly states that any other normalization can be reabsorbed into s0. As a result, the bounds on s0 shown in Fig. 9 and advertised in the abstract are not invariant under this rescaling; only the product s0 k(r,theta) enters the physical equations. Please state the normalization convention used and express the parameter-space constraints in a normalization-independent form, or clearly characterize them as convention-dependent results.
  3. [Sec. III B and Figs. 2-8] No convergence tests, resolution studies, or error estimates are reported for the method-of-characteristics solution of the PDE (29) or for the RK4 integrations of Eqs. (27)-(28). Without such tests, the reported changes in r_cusp, r_max, r_out and epsilon_max cannot be distinguished from numerical integration error. Please add at least a resolution study and an independent residual check of the PDE and of the equatorial-plane integration.
  4. [Sec. IV B, Fig. 9] The existence diagram includes a red-dashed region in which the code returns a solution that violates a boundary condition for epsilon, while the white no-solution region is determined by the same code without any stated tolerance or error analysis. As the parameter-space bounds on s0 are one of the paper's central results, the manuscript should specify how the valid/invalid boundary is detected and report the numerical tolerances used.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. IV B] The abstract and conclusions state constraints on s0 without noting that the existence analysis in Sec. IV B is explicitly restricted to co-rotating disks; please add this caveat wherever the constraints are advertised.
  2. [Figures 2, 4, 7, 8] Minus signs are rendered as '□' in several figure labels and axes (for example, 's0 = □0.01' in Fig. 2, the horizontal axis of Fig. 4, and '□0.045' in Figs. 7-8); these should be replaced with proper minus signs.
  3. [Fig. 9] The top-left panel of Fig. 9 contains a stray 'htb!' marker that should be removed.
  4. [Throughout] Please correct typographical errors, including 'characterstic' in the abstract, 'whith' in Sec. III B, 'compatify' in Sec. III B, 'paramaters' in Sec. III A, and the missing 's0' in 'parameters 0' in the abstract.
  5. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption's 'a0 = 0.55' and 'a0 = 0.97' should read 'a = 0.55' and 'a = 0.97'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the reported torus morphologies are solved outputs for specified input parameters (a, l0, s0), not fitted quantities or definitions renamed as predictions.

full rationale

The paper's construction takes as inputs the Kerr background, the constant specific angular momentum l0, the polytropic index gamma=2, and the spin parameter s0 in the explicitly stated spin-density ansatz (26). k(r,theta) is obtained from the compatibility PDE (29), whose coefficients depend only on the background and l0, and is normalized by k(r,pi/2)=1 with the rescaling freedom reabsorbed into s0; the energy density is then integrated from the cusp equation (34) outward using (27)-(28). None of the reported quantities (rcusp, rmax, rout, Delta r, epsilon_max, isodensity surfaces) is used to define or fit s0, l0, k, or the ansatz, so the morphological trends are genuine outputs of the differential system rather than identities. The paper does lean on the integrability conditions and the spin ansatz from the authors' earlier work [33], but those conditions are restated explicitly in the paper and the ansatz is openly declared as an assumption ('let us consider the following ansatz'), not presented as derived or unique; this is a normal use of prior published work and does not reduce the central claim to its inputs. The lack of a sensitivity test of ansatz (26) is a robustness/correctness limitation, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The construction has four adjustable inputs (s0, l0, kappa, gamma) plus a phenomenological ansatz for the spin distribution. No entity is invented beyond the existing Weyssenhoff model. The central results are existence and morphology of solutions within this chosen class, so the ledger is dominated by modeling choices rather than fitted constants.

free parameters (4)
  • s0 (fluid spin parameter) = scanned in [-0.2, 0.2]; not fitted to data
    Controls the spin-density amplitude through Eq. (26). Its allowed range is the main output of the parameter-space study, not an input fixed by independent physics. The arbitrary k=1 normalization is absorbed into s0.
  • l0 (constant specific orbital angular momentum) = e.g., 3.14 for a=0.55, 2.36 for a=0.95; chosen near l_ms
    Sets the torus's angular momentum distribution; values are chosen close to l_ms to produce closed tori and varied in the existence diagram.
  • kappa (polytropic constant) = 1
    Set to unity in the polytropic EOS p=kappa epsilon^gamma; affects normalization of the solution but is not independently determined.
  • gamma (polytropic index) = 2
    Chosen for tractability so the compatibility PDE for k decouples from epsilon; the authors note it is high for astrophysical systems. Results may depend on this choice.
assumptions (8)
  • standard math The method of characteristics and RK4 numerical integration yield valid solutions of the PDE system (29)-(32).
    Standard numerical methods are assumed to produce accurate solutions; no convergence proof is supplied.
  • domain assumption The Kerr spacetime is stationary and axisymmetric, and the fluid shares these symmetries with circular motion u^r=u^theta=0.
    Section II, Eqs. (8)-(10); this restricts the class of flows but is standard for equilibrium tori.
  • domain assumption The Weyssenhoff spin fluid with Frenkel SSC and energy-momentum tensor (1) describes the disk.
    Section II, Eqs. (1)-(2); the phenomenological spin-fluid model is taken as given from the prior literature.
  • domain assumption The integrability conditions (16) from [33] apply in Kerr spacetime.
    Section II uses these conditions without rederivation; if they fail in Kerr, the master equations (21)-(23) are not justified.
  • ad hoc to paper The spin-density ansatz S=s0 epsilon^(gamma-1) k(r,theta)(1-Omega l0) in Eq. (26).
    Chosen so the compatibility condition for epsilon decouples from k; not derived from microphysics, and all results depend on it.
  • domain assumption Polytropic equation of state p=kappa epsilon^gamma with gamma=2 and kappa=1.
    Section III.A; gamma=2 is selected for tractability and kappa is set to unity.
  • domain assumption The torus is critically filled, with inner edge coinciding with the cusp and epsilon=0 at inner and outer boundaries.
    Section III.A; this picks a specific family of equilibrium configurations.
  • domain assumption The spin vector is aligned perpendicular to the equatorial plane, S^nu = S delta^nu_theta.
    Section II, Eq. (14); this fixes the orientation of the macroscopic spin relative to the disk plane.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Equilibrium models of Weyssenhoff spin fluid accretion tori around Kerr black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/74HUDYC2

@misc{pith2026250619477,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Equilibrium models of Weyssenhoff spin fluid accretion tori around Kerr black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/74HUDYC2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.19477}
}
abstract

The construction of equilibrium models of accretion disks around compact objects has become a highly relevant topic in the recent times, thanks to the current understanding that indicates a direct relationship between these objects with the electromagnetic emission of supermassive compact objects residing at center of the galaxies M87 and Milky Way, both observed by the Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration. As the physical properties of the compact sources are estimated using the results of computer simulations of the system comprising of the disk plus the compact object, adding new physical ingredients to the initial data of the simulation is pertinent to enhance our knowledge about these objects. In this work, we thus present equilibrium solutions of geometrically thick, non-self-gravitating, constant orbital specific angular momentum, neutral Weyssenhoff spin fluid accretion tori in the Kerr spacetime, building upon a previous work that was restricted to the Schwarzschild geometry. Our models are obtained under the assumptions of stationarity and axisymmetry in the fluid quantities, circularity of the flow and a polytropic equation of state. We study how the deviations from an ideal no-spin fluid depend on both the magnitude of the macroscopic spin of the fluid and on the spin parameter of the Kerr black hole, carefully encompassing both the co-rotating and the counter-rotating cases. Our results demonstrate that the characterstic radii, the thickness and the radial extent of such a torus can change importantly in the presence of the macroscopic spin of the ideal fluid. We also find some limitations of our approach that constraint the amount of spin the fluid can have in the rotating Kerr background. Finally, we present a parameter space exploration that gives us additional constraints on the possible values of the fluid spin denoted by the parameter $s_0$.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.19477 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Characteristic curve structure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Energy density of a torus at the equatorial plane supported by the Weyssenho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Behaviour of the spin length function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Behaviour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The behaviour of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Closed equidensity surfaces of the spin fluid torus in the Kerr spacetime for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Closed equidensity surfaces of Weyssenho [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Parameter space existence region for the Schwarzschild case [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 20 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Abuteret al.(GRA VITY), Astron

    R. Abuteret al.(GRA VITY), Astron. Astrophys.615, L15 (2018), arXiv:1807.09409 [astro-ph.GA]

    arXiv 2018

  2. [2]

    A. M. Ghez, B. L. Klein, M. Morris, and E. E. Becklin, Astro- phys. J.509, 678 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9807210

    arXiv 1998

  3. [3]

    Magorrianet al., Astron

    J. Magorrianet al., Astron. J.115, 2285 (1998), arXiv:astro- ph/9708072

    work page arXiv 1998

  4. [4]

    V olonteri, Astron

    M. V olonteri, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.18, 279 (2010), arXiv:1003.4404 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [5]

    Kormendy and L

    J. Kormendy and L. C. Ho, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.51, 511 (2013), arXiv:1304.7762 [astro-ph.CO]

    arXiv 2013

  6. [6]

    B. L. Webster and P. Murdin, Nature (London)235, 37 (1972)

    work page 1972

  7. [7]

    J. E. McClintock and R. A. Remillard, Astrophys. J.308, 110 (1986)

    work page 1986

  8. [8]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

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

    arXiv 2019

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L5 (2019), arXiv:1906.11242 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  4. [12]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L16 (2022), arXiv:2311.09478 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L17 (2022), arXiv:2311.09484 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.964, L25 (2024)

    2024

  7. [15]

    M. A. Abramowicz and P. C. Fragile, Living Reviews in Rela- tivity16, 1 (2013), arXiv:1104.5499 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Abramowicz, M

    M. Abramowicz, M. Jaroszynski, and M. Sikora, Astron. As- trophys.63, 221 (1978)

    1978

  9. [17]

    Halbwachs, Progress of Theoretical Physics24, 291 (1960)

    F. Halbwachs, Progress of Theoretical Physics24, 291 (1960)

    1960

  10. [18]

    Weyssenhoffand A

    J. Weyssenhoffand A. Raabe, Acta Phys. Polon.9, 7 (1947)

    1947

  11. [19]

    F. A. E. Pirani, Acta Physica Polonica15, 389 (1956)

    1956

  12. [20]

    Frenkel, Z

    J. Frenkel, Z. Phys.37, 243 (1926)

    1926

  13. [21]

    W. M. Tulczyjew, Acta Phys. Pol.18, 393 (1959)

    1959

  14. [22]

    W. G. Dixon, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314, 499 (1970)

    1970

  15. [23]

    T. D. Newton and E. P. Wigner, Reviews of Modern Physics21, 400 (1949)

    1949

  16. [24]

    Kyrian and O

    K. Kyrian and O. Semerak, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.382, 1922 (2007)

    2007

  17. [25]

    J. R. Ray and L. L. Smalley, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1059 (1982), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 50, 623 (1983)]

    1982

  18. [26]

    H. P. de Oliveira and J. M. Salim, Class. Quant. Grav.8, 1199 (1991)

    1991

  19. [27]

    A. V . Minkevich and F. Karakura, Journal of Physics A: Math- ematical and General16, 1409–1418 (1983)

    1983

  20. [28]

    Y . N. Obukhov and V . A. Korotkii, Class. Quant. Grav.4, 1633 (1987)

    1987

  21. [29]

    Obukhov and O

    Y . Obukhov and O. Piskareva, Classical and Quantum Gravity 6, L15 (1989)

    1989

  22. [30]

    Mathisson, Acta Phys

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

    1937

  23. [31]

    Papapetrou, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Se- ries A209, 248 (1951)

    A. Papapetrou, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Se- ries A209, 248 (1951)

    1951

  24. [32]

    W. G. Dixon, Proceedings of the Royal Society of London Se- ries A314, 499 (1970)

    1970

  25. [33]

    Lahiri and C

    S. Lahiri and C. Laemmerzahl, Phys. Rev. D108, 123032 (2023), arXiv:2307.16292 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  26. [34]

    P. I. Jefremov, O. Y . Tsupko, and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D91, 124030 (2015), arXiv:1503.07060 [gr-qc]

    2015 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.