Exact charged and rotating toroidal black hole in the Einstein $SU(N)$-Skyrme model

Aldo Vera; Carla Henr\'iquez-Baez; Evelyn Rodr\'iguez; Marcela Lagos

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 73 references

Exact charged and rotating toroidal black hole in the Einstein $SU(N)$-Skyrme model

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read An exact charged and rotating toroidal black hole is constructed in the Einstein-SU(N)-Skyrme-Maxwell system, valid for any flavor number N.

desk verdict A plausible local construction of a charged rotating toroidal Skyrme black hole, but the boosted matter field is not single-valued on the torus for generic ω, leaving the global interpretation in doubt. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.12343 v1 pith:P7VXWS2E submitted 2024-12-16 hep-th gr-qcnucl-th

Carla Henríquez-Baez , Marcela Lagos , Evelyn Rodríguez , Aldo Vera This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-thgr-qcnucl-th PACS 04.70.Bw04.20.Jb12.39.Dc

keywords SkyrmemodeltoroidalblackholeexactsolutionrotatingchargedSU(N)flavorhairyasymptoticallyAdS

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper claims an exact charged and rotating toroidal black hole solution in the four-dimensional Einstein-SU(N)-Skyrme-Maxwell system, valid for any flavor number N. Starting from the known static toroidal black hole with Skyrme hair, rotation is added through an improper coordinate boost that also acts on the pion field, and electric charge is added via a U(1) gauge field. The combined metric, Skyrme field, and Maxwell potential solve all field equations, and the thermodynamic quantities computed from the Euclidean action are shown to satisfy the first law of thermodynamics. If these claims are correct, this is a fully analytic example of a hairy black hole with rotation, charge, and arbitrary internal flavor symmetry.

What carries the argument

The construction is carried by two objects. The first is the maximal embedding of SU(2) into SU(N) in Euler angles, which packages the flavor number into the single constant $a_N = N(N^2-1)/6$ that controls every matter contribution in the metric and thermodynamic quantities. The second is the improper coordinate transformation (25), a Lorentz boost in the $(t,\phi)$ plane, which turns the static toroidal black hole into a locally static but globally stationary rotating metric and must be applied to the Skyrme field as well; the Maxwell potential is transformed in the same way.

What would settle it

Check the holonomy of the Skyrme field $U$ around the nontrivial cycle $\phi \to \phi + 2\pi$ at fixed $t, r, \theta$: if $U$ does not return to its starting value for generic $\omega$, the field is not single-valued and the claimed global toroidal black hole does not exist.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that the stationary metric (26), with lapse function f(r) given by (46), together with the Skyrme field (27) and the Maxwell potential (53), is an exact solution of the complete Einstein-SU(N)-Skyrme-Maxwell equations. Rotation comes from applying the improper coordinate transformation (25) to the static seed solution, which boosts the t-phi plane and simultaneously rotates the pion field; charge is added through a minimal U(1) gauge field whose potential is also transformed. Because the electric charge and the Skyrme quartic term enter the lapse at the same power of 1/$r^{2}$, the two contributions can be absorbed into a single effective coupling. The authors then derive the Hawking temperature, free energy, mass, angular momentum, electric charge, and entropy from the regularized Euclidean action and verify the first law for the family.

Load-bearing premise

The solution assumes the boosted Skyrme field $F_3 = q(\phi - (\omega/\ell)t)/\sqrt{1-\omega^2}$ is single-valued on the torus, meaning it returns to itself when $\phi$ is identified modulo $2\pi$; the paper does not prove this, and without it the configuration is only a local solution.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

The first law of thermodynamics holds for the charged, rotating, hairy family, so the computed mass, angular momentum, charge, entropy, temperature, angular velocity, and electric potential are mutually consistent.
For $\lambda = Q = 0$, the hairy rotating black hole has lower Gibbs free energy than the vacuum rotating toroidal black hole at the same temperature and angular velocity, so the hairy solution globally dominates in the grand canonical ensemble.
Because the flavor number $N$ enters only through $a_N$, all solutions and thermodynamic quantities scale in a simple, predictable way with $N$.
In the limit $\omega \to 0$, the rotating charged solution reduces to the static charged hairy black hole, and in the limit $q \to 0$, the mass and angular momentum reproduce the known rotating toroidal black hole of Lemos.
The electric charge and the Skyrme quartic term contribute to the lapse at the same order in $1/r^2$, so the two can be combined into an effective coupling for the thermodynamic analysis.

Reading between the lines

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

If the global periodicity issue with the boosted Skyrme field is resolved, this family could serve as a holographic dual for rotating, charged, flavored boundary plasmas, a direction the paper's QGP motivation suggests but does not develop.
The same improper-boost technique might generate exact rotating solutions in other matter models whose fields depend linearly on the boosted coordinate, such as sigma models with spiral or helical boundary conditions.
The mass bound that follows from the paper's equations may admit a sharper extremal-limit estimate, and a dedicated study of the hairy extremal configuration could reveal whether a Penrose-like bound applies to this family.
The stability analysis is restricted to $\lambda = Q = 0$; extending it to the full charged, quartic case could reveal phase transitions between hairy and vacuum branches.

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

First thing: this is a straightforward extension of the known static toroidal Skyrme black hole. The authors use the Stachel boost to add rotation and a Maxwell field to add charge, then work out the thermodynamics in the grand canonical ensemble with explicit N dependence. The local solution is plausible and the thermodynamic formulas are internally consistent, including the first law.

The real problem is global. After the boost, the Skyrme field has F3 = qγ(φ − ωt/ℓ) with γ = 1/√(1−ω²). On the torus, φ is identified modulo 2π, so the field picks up a monodromy e^{2π qγ T3} under φ → φ+2π. For N=2 this is diag(e^{iπ qγ}, e^{−iπ qγ}), which is neither the identity nor even a central element unless qγ is an integer. The paper treats q as an integer and ω as a continuous parameter, with no periodicity condition. So for generic ω, the configuration is only a local solution on the universal cover, not a single-valued field on the toroidal black hole. The same issue already appears in the static seed with the θ period: 0 ≤ θ < π gives a monodromy e^{qπ T2}, which is not central for odd q. This is not a minor technicality; it undermines the claim that these are global toroidal black holes. The authors could fix it by quantizing ω (and possibly q) or by explicitly treating the matter field as a section with twisted boundary conditions. Neither is done.

Two smaller issues. The stability analysis is done only for λ=Q=0, but the conclusion is stated generally. And the 'one can check' steps for the field equations are not backed by any derivation; a referee will want at least some details or a companion notebook.

Bottom line: the local construction and thermodynamics are plausible, but the global validity has a load-bearing gap. A serious referee should see this, and the paper needs major revision. I wouldn't cite it as it stands.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript constructs a new exact family of four-dimensional asymptotically locally AdS black holes with toroidal horizon in the Einstein-SU(N)-Skyrme-Maxwell theory. The construction starts from the static toroidal Skyrme black hole of Ref. [36], adds rotation by applying the improper coordinate transformation (25), and adds electric charge through the U(1) gauge field (53). The metric is Eq. (26) with lapse (46), the matter field is Eq. (27), and the thermodynamics are computed in the grand canonical ensemble via a regularized Euclidean action. The paper further claims that the first law is satisfied and that, in the NLSM limit, the hairy rotating solution is globally preferred over the vacuum solution. The central claim is that Eqs. (26)-(27) and (53) constitute an exact global charged rotating toroidal black hole for arbitrary flavor number N.

Significance. If correct, this would be a valuable analytic example: exact charged and rotating hairy black holes in four dimensions are rare, and the explicit dependence on the flavor number N could be useful for holographic applications and for testing no-hair ideas outside spherical symmetry. The paper's strengths are the explicit forms of the metric, matter and gauge fields, the analytic thermodynamic expressions, and the explicit free-energy comparison in the grand canonical ensemble. However, the global validity of the matter field on the toroidal quotient is not established, and this issue is load-bearing for the central claim.

major comments (3)

[§III.A, Eqs. (26)-(27); §V.A] The central global-validity claim is not established. For the metric (12) to describe a toroidal horizon, the coordinates θ and φ must be periodically identified, but the paper never states the periods and never checks that the pionic field U(x) ∈ SU(N) is single-valued under those identifications. After the boost, at fixed t, φ → φ + 2π sends F3 to F3 + 2πq/√(1−ω²), so U → U·exp(2πqT3/√(1−ω²)). For N=2, exp(2πqT3/√(1−ω²)) = diag(e^{iπq/√(1−ω²)}, e^{−iπq/√(1−ω²)}), which is the identity only when q/√(1−ω²) is an even integer; for q=1, ω=1/2 it is not. Furthermore, the seed Ansatz (13) has F2=qθ, and under the torus identification θ ∼ θ+π the monodromy is e^{qπT2}, which for N=2, q=1 equals iσ_y and is not central; hence even the left-invariant current L is not single-valued. Thus Eqs. (26)-(27), and their charged version in §V.A, define at best a local solution on the universal cover, not a global toroidal black hole.
[§III.A; §V.A] The exactness claim is asserted rather than verified. Section III.A states that 'one can check' that the Einstein-Skyrme system is completely solved, and §IV.A states that it is a direct computation to check the Maxwell and Skyrme equations, but no components of the field equations are displayed. Because the construction uses a non-global coordinate transformation and the matter field is transformed nontrivially, the authors should provide the explicit verification of the full Einstein-Skyrme-Maxwell system, including the cross terms generated by the boost, before the solution can be accepted as exact.
[§III.B, Eqs. (36)-(40); §V.A, Eqs. (57)-(60)] The thermodynamic potentials E, J, S, and Q̃ are stated after 'some computations' with no derivation, and the first law is asserted without displaying the independent checks. In particular, the regularized Euclidean action (34)/(56) must be finite after the counterterm prescription (19) on the rotating background; this is not demonstrated. The authors should provide the on-shell evaluation of the Euclidean action and the derivation of the first law, especially because the global validity of the matter field is in question.

minor comments (4)

[Eq. (12)] The ranges 0 ≤ θ < π and 0 ≤ φ < 2π do not by themselves define a torus; the periodic identifications of θ and φ should be stated explicitly, since the toroidal topology is essential to the paper and to the periodicity issue raised above.
[Eqs. (35), (56)] There is a typographical inconsistency: 'Kκα_N' appears in Eqs. (35) and (56) where the coefficient should be Kκa_N, matching Eq. (11) and the surrounding formulas.
[Section II.B, after Eq. (11)] The text refers to 'the energy-momentum tensor in Eq. (6)', but Eq. (6) is the parametrization of U; the energy-momentum tensor appears after Eq. (5) and is not numbered. The cross-reference should be corrected.
[Acknowledgments] The heading 'Acknowlegdments' is misspelled and should read 'Acknowledgments'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the charged rotating black hole is an explicit improper-boost extension of a prior static seed, and the thermodynamic potentials are computed rather than fitted.

full rationale

The derivation chain starts from the static toroidal SU(N)-Skyrme solution of Ref. [36] (quoted in Eqs. (12)-(14)), applies the improper gauge transformation (25) to metric (12), matter field (13), and later the Maxwell potential (43), giving (26), (27), and (53) with f(r) in (46). None of these outputs is assumed in the input: the boost and U(1) coupling are external construction steps, and the solution is checked by substitution into the field equations. The thermodynamics are obtained from the Euclidean action (16)-(19), with counterterms citing both the present authors' Ref. [36] and the independent Ref. [67]; the free energies (35), (49), (56) and potentials (57)-(60) are closed-form expressions, and no parameter is fitted to the quantities later called predictions. The first-law statement is an algebraic consistency check on independently computed E, J, S, and Q rather than a manufactured identity. The only caveats are non-circular: Ref. [36] is shared with the present authors, so the seed is self-cited (though directly checkable), and the transformation (25) is admitted to be only locally a coordinate transformation, which raises a global single-valuedness question for (27) on the torus but is not a circularity. Overall, the central exact-solution claim has independent content despite reliance on a prior self-cited seed.

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

The paper introduces no new particles, forces, or dimensions. Its central claim rests on a specific ansatz for the Skyrme field, a known static seed solution, a standard coordinate transformation, and a standard Euclidean action prescription. The free parameters are physical charges and the winding number, not hidden fitting constants.

free parameters (3)

q (Skyrme winding / hair parameter) = integer (unspecified)
Integer parameter in the Skyrme ansatz F2=q*theta, F3=q*phi; it appears in the lapse function and thermodynamics and is not fixed by the field equations.
Q (electric charge parameter) = real constant
Charge parameter in the Maxwell potential A_mu = (-Q/r,0,0,0); it is a free parameter of the solution family.
omega (rotation parameter) = 0 <= omega^2 < 1
Rotation parameter of the improper boost in Eq. (25); it is chosen by hand and determines the angular momentum.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Maximal embedding ansatz (6)-(9) for the Skyrme field U(x)
Restricts to a spin-(N-1)/2 SU(2) embedding of SU(N); the solutions found are particular, not general, and the paper does not prove uniqueness.
domain assumption Seed static toroidal black hole (12)-(14) from Ref. [36]
The rotating and charged solutions are generated from this seed; its validity is taken from prior work by overlapping authors.
domain assumption Improper transformation (25) descends to the toroidal quotient and preserves the topology
Needed for the boosted metric and matter field to describe a genuine rotating toroidal black hole; the paper cites Stachel and MacCallum but does not prove the matter field remains single-valued on the quotient.
domain assumption Euclidean action with counterterms (16)-(19) yields the correct thermodynamic potentials
Relies on the holographic renormalization prescription from Refs. [36] and [67]; no independent derivation of the counterterm for the Skyrme field is given.
domain assumption Grand canonical free energy comparison with the q=0 vacuum is the correct stability criterion
Used in Sec. V B to conclude that the hairy rotating solution dominates; this assumes the vacuum solution is the relevant reference and that the grand canonical ensemble is the right setting.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Exact charged and rotating toroidal black hole in the Einstein $SU(N)$-Skyrme model." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/P7VXWS2E

@misc{pith2026241212343,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Exact charged and rotating toroidal black hole in the Einstein $SU(N)$-Skyrme model},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/P7VXWS2E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.12343}
}

abstract

In this paper, we construct an exact solution of the Einstein $SU(N)$-Skyrme model in $D=4$ space-time dimensions describing a charged and rotating black hole with toroidal horizon. Rotation is added by applying an improper coordinate transformation to the known static toroidal black hole with Skyrme hair, while the electric charge is supplemented by considering a $U(1)$ gauge field interacting with Einstein gravity. We perform the thermal analysis in the grand canonical ensemble, explicitly showing the role that the flavor number plays. Some discussions about stability are also considered.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.12343 by the authors.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 71 canonical work pages

[36]

Astorino, F

M. Astorino, F. Canfora, M. Lagos and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.12, 124032 (2018)

work page 2018
[1]

Ruffini and J

R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today 24, no.1, 30 (1971)

work page 1971
[2]

J. D. Bekenstein, [arXiv:gr-qc/9605059 [gr-qc]]

arXiv
[3]

Luckock and I

H. Luckock and I. Moss, Phys. Lett. B 176, 341-345 (1986)

work page 1986
[4]

S. Droz, M. Heusler and N. Straumann, Phys. Lett. B 268, 371-376 (1991)

work page 1991
[5]

Bizon, Phys

P. Bizon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2844-2847 (1990)

work page 1990
[6]

M. S. Volkov and D. V. Galtsov, JETP Lett. 50, 346-350 (1989)

work page 1989
[7]

B. R. Greene, S. D. Mathur and C. M. O’Neill, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2242-2259 (1993)

work page 1993

Show all 73 references

[8]

Torii and K

T. Torii and K. i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 48, 1643-1651 (1993)

1993
[9]

Heusler, S

M. Heusler, S. Droz and N. Straumann, Phys. Lett. B 285, 21-26 (1992)

1992
[10]

T. H. R. Skyrme, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 260, 127-138 (1961)

1961
[11]

T. H. R. Skyrme, Nucl. Phys. 31, 556-569 (1962)

1962
[12]

Manton and P

N. Manton and P. Sutcliffe, Topological Solitons, (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2007)

2007
[13]

E. J. Weinberg, Cambridge University Press, 2012, ISBN 978-0-521-11463-9, 978-1-139-57461-7, 978-0-521-11463-9, 978-1- 107-43805-7

2012
[14]

Witten, Nucl

E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 223, 422-432 (1983)

1983
[15]

G. S. Adkins, C. R. Nappi and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 228, 552 (1983)

1983
[16]

Bizon and T

P. Bizon and T. Chmaj, Phys. Lett. B 297, 55-62 (1992)

1992
[17]

Kleihaus, J

B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz and A. Sood, Phys. Lett. B 352, 247-253 (1995); T. Ioannidou, B. Kleihaus and J. Kunz, Phys. Lett. B 643, 213-220 (2006)

1995
[18]

Brihaye and T

Y. Brihaye and T. Delsate, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 21, 2043-2054 (2006)

2006
[19]

Sawado, N

N. Sawado, N. Shiiki, K. i. Maeda and T. Torii, Gen. Rel. Grav. 36, 1361-1371 (2004); N. Shiiki and N. Sawado, Phys. Rev. D 71, 104031 (2005); N. Shiiki and N. Sawado, Class. Quant. Grav. 22, 3561-3574 (2005); H. Sato and N. Sawado, Phys. Lett. B 660, 72-79 (2008)

2004
[20]

B. M. A. G. Piette and G. I. Probert, Phys. Rev. D 75, 125023 (2007)

2007
[21]

J. J. Blanco-Pillado, H. S. Ramadhan and N. Shiiki, Phys. Rev. D 79, 085004 (2009)

2009
[22]

Nelmes and B

S. Nelmes and B. M. A. G. Piette, Phys. Rev. D 84, 085017 (2011)

2011
[23]

C. Adam, C. Naya, J. Sanchez-Guillen, R. Vazquez and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Lett. B 742, 136-142 (2015)

2015
[24]

Brihaye, C

Y. Brihaye, C. Herdeiro, E. Radu and D. H. Tchrakian, JHEP 11, 037 (2017)

2017
[25]

Perapechka and Y

I. Perapechka and Y. Shnir, Phys. Rev. D 95, no.2, 025024 (2017)

2017
[26]

B. E. Gunara, F. T. Akbar, R. Fadli, D. M. Akbar and H. Susanto, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 25, no.2, 507-541 (2021); B. E. Gunara, E. S. Fadhilla and A. N. Atmaja, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 26, no.8, 2667-2695 (2022)

2021
[27]

Leask, M

P. Leask, M. Huidobro and A. Wereszczynski, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.5, 056013 (2024)

2024
[28]

Canfora and H

F. Canfora and H. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 87, no.8, 084049 (2013)

2013
[29]

Ayon-Beato, F

E. Ayon-Beato, F. Canfora and J. Zanelli, Phys. Lett. B 752, 201-205 (2016)

2016
[30]

Ay´ on-Beato, F

E. Ay´ on-Beato, F. Canfora, M. Lagos, J. Oliva and A. Vera, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.5, 384 (2020)

2020
[31]

Canfora, A

F. Canfora, A. Giacomini, M. Lagos, S. H. Oh and A. Vera, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.1, 55 (2021)

2021
[32]

Bonga and G

B. Bonga and G. Dotti, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.4, 044049 (2022)

2022
[33]

Astorino, F

M. Astorino, F. Canfora, A. Giacomini and M. Ortaggio, Phys. Lett. B 776, 236-241 (2018)

2018
[34]

Note that, according to Eq

and [35]) in the context of the SU (2)-NLSM. Note that, according to Eq. (46), the Skyrme field contributes in the same way as the Maxwell field, so that one can define an effective coupling constant and then apply all the results derived in Ref. [36]. B. Thermodynamics The te...
[35]

Henr ´ ıquez-B´ aez, M

C. Henr ´ ıquez-B´ aez, M. Lagos and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D106, no.6, 064027 (2022)

2022
[37]

P. D. Alvarez, F. Canfora, N. Dimakis and A. Paliathanasis, Phys. Lett. B 773, 401-407 (2017)

2017
[38]

Concha, C

P. Concha, C. Henr ´ ıquez-Baez, E. Rodr ´ ıguez and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D107, no.12, 124043 (2023)

2023
[39]

Canfora, S

F. Canfora, S. Carignano, M. Lagos, M. Mannarelli and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.7, 076003 (2021)

2021
[40]

Canfora, Eur

F. Canfora, Eur. Phys. J. C 78, no.11, 929 (2018); F. Canfora, S. H. Oh and A. Vera, Eur. Phys. J. C 79, no.6, 485 (2019); F. Canfora, M. Lagos and A. Vera, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.8, 697 (2020)

2018
[41]

Abbas, H

G. Abbas, H. Rehman, M. Usama and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.5, 422 (2023)

2023
[42]

Canfora, JHEP 11, 007 (2023)

F. Canfora, JHEP 11, 007 (2023)

2023
[43]

Al-Badawi, Y

A. Al-Badawi, Y. Sekhmani, J. Rayimbaev and R. Myrzakulov, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33, no.12, 2450043 (2024)

2024
[44]

Malik, S

A. Malik, S. Chaudhary and A. S. M. Metwally, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.6, 610 (2024)

2024
[45]

C. G. Huang and C. B. Liang, Phys. Lett. A 201, 27-32 (1995)

1995
[46]

J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Lett. B 353, 46-51 (1995)

1995
[47]

Vanzo, Phys

L. Vanzo, Phys. Rev. D 56, 6475-6483 (1997)

1997
[48]

R. G. Cai and Y. Z. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D 54, 4891-4898 (1996)

1996
[49]

D. R. Brill, J. Louko and P. Peldan, Phys. Rev. D 56, 3600-3610 (1997)

1997
[50]

R. B. Mann, Class. Quant. Grav. 14, L109-L114 (1997)

1997
[51]

M. M. Caldarelli, A. Christodoulou, I. Papadimitriou and K. Skenderis, JHEP 04 (2017), 001

2017
[52]

C. S. Peca and J. P. S. Lemos, J. Math. Phys. 41, 4783-4789 (2000). 12

2000
[53]

Anabal´ on, P

A. Anabal´ on, P. Concha, J. Oliva, C. Quijada and E. Rodr ´ ıguez, Phys. Lett. B835, 137521 (2022)

2022
[54]

Anabalon, D

A. Anabalon, D. Astefanesei, D. Choque and J. D. Edelstein, JHEP 07, 129 (2020)

2020
[55]

Papantonopoulos, Lect

E. Papantonopoulos, Lect. Notes Phys. 828 (2011), 1-438

2011
[56]

Bronnikov, N

K. Bronnikov, N. O. Santos and A. Wang, Class. Quant. Grav. 37, no.11, 113002 (2020)

2020
[57]

Bertini, S

S. Bertini, S. L. Cacciatori, B. L. Cerchiai, J. Math. Phys. (N.Y.) 47, 043510 (2006)

2006
[58]

McInnes, Nucl

B. McInnes, Nucl. Phys. B 989, 116126 (2023)

2023
[59]

T. E. Tilma and G. Sudarshan, J. Geom. Phys. 52, 263 (2004)

2004
[60]

S. L. Cacciatori, F. Dalla Piazza, and A. Scotti, Trans. Am. Math. Soc. 369, 4709 (2017)

2017
[61]

P. D. Alvarez, S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora and B. L. Cerchiai, Phys. Rev. D 101, no.12, 125011 (2020)

2020
[62]

S. L. Cacciatori and A. Scotti, Universe 8, no.10, 492 (2022)

2022
[63]

S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora, M. Lagos, F. Muscolino and A. Vera, Nucl. Phys. B 976, 115693 (2022)

2022
[64]

S. L. Cacciatori, F. Canfora, M. Lagos, F. Muscolino and A. Vera, JHEP 12, 150 (2021)

2021
[65]

G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2738-2751 (1977)

1977
[66]

Canfora, A

F. Canfora, A. Gomberoff, M. Lagos and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D 105, no.8, 084045 (2022)

2022
[67]

Flores-Alfonso and H

D. Flores-Alfonso and H. Quevedo, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, 154001 (2019)

2019
[68]

Here we show that this formalism can be applied to the toroidal black hole in Eq

and [69]. Here we show that this formalism can be applied to the toroidal black hole in Eq. (14) to get a rotating solution. However, in the present case, there is a subtlety regarding the matter field, which makes our construction different from other rotating black holes in ...
[69]

J. D. Brown and J. W. York, Jr., Phys. Rev. D 47 (1993), 1407-1419

1993
[70]

Stachel, Phys

J. Stachel, Phys. Rev. D 26, 1281-1290 (1982)

1982
[71]

M. A. H. MacCallum, Gen. Rel. Grav. 30, 131-150 (1998)

1998
[72]

Erices and C

C. Erices and C. Martinez, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.2, 024034 (2018)

2018
[73]

C´ ardenas, O

M. C´ ardenas, O. Fuentealba, C. Mart ´ ınez and R. Troncoso, JHEP02, 058 (2023)

2023

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [36]

Astorino, F

M. Astorino, F. Canfora, M. Lagos and A. Vera, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.12, 124032 (2018)

work page 2018

[2] [1]

Ruffini and J

R. Ruffini and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Today 24, no.1, 30 (1971)

work page 1971

[3] [2]

J. D. Bekenstein, [arXiv:gr-qc/9605059 [gr-qc]]

arXiv

[4] [3]

Luckock and I

H. Luckock and I. Moss, Phys. Lett. B 176, 341-345 (1986)

work page 1986

[5] [4]

S. Droz, M. Heusler and N. Straumann, Phys. Lett. B 268, 371-376 (1991)

work page 1991

[6] [5]

Bizon, Phys

P. Bizon, Phys. Rev. Lett. 64, 2844-2847 (1990)

work page 1990

[7] [6]

M. S. Volkov and D. V. Galtsov, JETP Lett. 50, 346-350 (1989)

work page 1989

[8] [7]

B. R. Greene, S. D. Mathur and C. M. O’Neill, Phys. Rev. D 47, 2242-2259 (1993)

work page 1993