Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 34 references

Force-free electrodynamics near rotation axis of a Kerr black hole

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rotating black-hole monopole magnetospheres cannot be continuously connected to the static monopole

desk verdict A genuinely new near-axis expansion that produces a real no-go obstruction for monopole-type FFE solutions in the alpha->0 limit, but the central claim is explicitly conditional on commuting limits and smoothness across the outer light surface, so the split-monopole conclusion is not airtight. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07227 v3 pith:RS4YFSH4 submitted 2019-08-20 gr-qc astro-ph.HEhep-th

Gianluca Grignani , Troels Harmark , Marta Orselli This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords force-freeelectrodynamicsKerrblackholemagnetosphereBlandford-Znajeksplitmonopolestreamequationrotationaxisexpansionastrophysicaljetsouterlightsurfacespin
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 tries to determine which stationary, axisymmetric force-free magnetospheres around a Kerr black hole can be built by expanding the governing Stream equation in the angular distance from the rotation axis. It claims that for monopole-type asymptotics, any non-trivial solution that is regular at the axis and the horizon and has non-zero flux at the horizon on the axis carries logarithmic terms that cannot be removed, and in the limit of vanishing rotation $\alpha \to 0$ the expansion inevitably diverges in negative powers of $\alpha$. Consequently no such solution can be continuously connected to the static split-monopole around Schwarzschild, which the paper takes as evidence against the standard perturbative construction of the Blandford-Znajek (split-)monopole. Paraboloidal asymptotics impose one integral condition, while vertical asymptotics impose none. The region near the axis matters because that is where relativistic jets are launched and where the force-free approximation is most trustworthy.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetic flux function $\psi(r,\theta)$, expanded near the rotation axis as $\psi = \sum_{n=1}^\infty \theta^{2n} \psi_n(r)$, with $\Omega(\psi)$ and $I(\psi)$ expanded in powers of $\psi$. The Stream equation (8) turns into a hierarchy: for any choice of $\psi_1(r)$ and the constants $\omega_n, i_n$, all higher $\psi_n(r)$ are determined, and monopole-type asymptotics amount to the coefficient conditions $c_{n,-2}=c_{n,-1}=0$ and $dc_{n,0}/dr=0$ at every order. Solving those conditions recursively produces functions $f_n(r)$ containing powers of $\log(r/r_0)$, with the largest-log terms $\theta^2 (n+1)(\frac{6}{7}\alpha\omega_0 \frac{r_0}{r}\log\frac{r}{r_0})^n$ that cannot be set to zero. Horizon regularity pins $\omega_0$ to half the black-hole angular velocity, and then the $\alpha \to 0$ analysis of the $f_n$ coefficients yields the incompatible equations.

What would settle it

Compute the $\alpha \to 0$ limit of the coefficients $f_n(r)$ for a candidate monopole-asymptotic solution with $\psi_1(r_+) \neq 0$, regular at the axis and horizon and smooth across the outer light surface; finding finite limits for all $n$, or even a single consistent solution, would refute the incompatibility. Equally, exhibiting a flux function for which the $\theta \to 0$ and $r \to \infty$ limits do not commute would show that the no-go assumption can be evaded.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a no-connection statement: under the assumptions of axis regularity, horizon regularity, commuting $\theta \to 0$ and $r \to \infty$ limits for the flux function in the inner region, and $\psi_1(r_+) \neq 0$, a solution of the Stream equation with monopole-type asymptotics (18) and finite rotation parameter $\alpha$ cannot tend, as $\alpha \to 0$, to a solution of the Schwarzschild Stream equation. Imposing the asymptotic conditions order by order in $\theta$ fixes the functions $f_n(r)$ in terms of $\alpha$, the horizon data, and the free coefficients of $\Omega(\psi)$ and $I(\psi)$; expressing those coefficients as power series in $\alpha$ leads to 191 equations, and after successive eliminations two polynomial equations remain that have no common root. The paper also derives the corresponding statements for the other asymptotic families: paraboloidal magnetospheres require condition (62) on the asymptotic fields, and vertical magnetospheres need no additional condition beyond the expansion itself.

Load-bearing premise

The result stands on the assumption that for the analytically extended flux function in the region inside the outer light surface, the limits $\theta \to 0$ and $r \to \infty$ commute, so the asymptotic conditions (27)-(30) apply.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the Blandford-Znajek (split-)monopole cannot be constructed as a small-$\alpha$ perturbation of the Schwarzschild monopole; any valid rotating analogue must break at least one of the listed assumptions.
  • The paper's proposed way out is a flux function that is not smooth across the outer light surface, so that the inner-region analytic extension has different asymptotics from the physical outer region.
  • For paraboloidal-type magnetospheres the asymptotic condition (62) is sufficient in the angular expansion, so this family remains analytically viable; vertical-type magnetospheres survive with no restrictions on $\psi_1(r)$.
  • Numerical simulations built around split-monopole initial data should be checked for consistency with these boundary conditions, since the paper's result would otherwise imply the simulated configurations sit in the excluded class.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension would be to run the same $\theta$-expansion for $\alpha \to 1$: near-extremal starting points may support families that the $\alpha \to 0$ obstruction does not constrain.
  • The incompatibility of the two polynomial equations suggests the obstruction is not an artifact of truncation order; a proof would require showing the same incompatibility persists at all orders, possibly through the closed form (48) for the highest-log coefficients.
  • If paraboloidal and vertical magnetospheres are the viable analytic families, jet-power estimates currently based on the monopole model may need to be re-derived from those asymptotics to test whether the radio loud/quiet dichotomy survives.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper develops an expansion of stationary, axisymmetric force-free electrodynamics (FFE) around the rotation axis of a Kerr black hole, writing the flux function as psi = sum_n theta^{2n} psi_n(r) and the current and angular velocity as series in psi. The authors show that after imposing regularity at the axis, the stream equation determines psi_n for n>=2 in terms of psi_1 and the series coefficients, so that a large family of axis-regular solutions exists. They then impose horizon regularity and three asymptotic behaviors: monopole-type, paraboloidal-type, and vertical-type. For monopole-type asymptotics they derive a sequence of necessary conditions at each order in theta; these force logarithmic terms in the psi_n, and a subsequent alpha->0 limit produces an overconstrained system whose consistency fails at the level of two polynomial equations in the first-order-in-alpha parameter omega_{1,1}. The paper concludes that, under its stated assumptions, no solution regular at the horizon and axis with monopole-type asymptotics can be continuously connected to a Schwarzschild split-monopole solution, and therefore that the perturbative Blandford-Znajek split-monopole cannot be constructed as a well-behaved asymptotic solution. The paraboloidal and vertical cases are also analyzed, yielding respectively a necessary asymptotic condition and no additional constraints.

Significance. If the main result holds, it is a substantial contribution to the long-standing question of whether the Blandford-Znajek split-monopole exists as a globally regular solution of force-free electrodynamics. The paper introduces a genuinely new angle-based expansion, and the necessary-condition analysis is logically transparent. The authors are explicit about the assumptions underlying the no-go statement and identify concrete loopholes, especially the behavior across the outer light surface and the commutation of limits. The displayed derivations through f3 are detailed, and the paper correctly distinguishes the parameter-free derivation of Eq. (26) from the later no-go computation, so there is no circularity. However, the strongest conclusion exceeds what is actually demonstrated: the no-go result is conditional on an unproved commuting-limits assumption and on a finite truncation of an infinite order-by-order procedure, and the full f1 through f11 computations are not included in the manuscript. These features make the paper a significant conditional result rather than a closed proof.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section VI; Section VII.D; Section X] The central no-go statement in Section VII.D and the first bullet of Section X is established only under the assumption that the limits theta->0 and r->infinity commute for the analytically extended flux function in the inner region r < r_OLS(theta). Section VI states this as an assumption rather than proving it for the class of solutions considered. This assumption is load-bearing because, for any fixed theta>0, the monopole asymptotics (18) probes r->infinity beyond the outer light surface, where the Stream equation (8) is singular and the analytic extension is exactly where a non-smooth solution could evade the asymptotic conditions (27)-(30). The supporting remark that 'all known solutions' satisfy the assumption is not decisive, since the perturbative Blandford-Znajek split-monopole is itself the solution whose asymptotic consistency is in question. The paper should either prove commutativity from the stated regularity assumptions or explicitly delimit the result as a conditional obstruction.
  2. [Section VII.D, Eqs. (52)-(54)] The alpha->0 no-go is based on a finite truncation: the functions f1,...,f11 are computed in Mathematica files that are only available on request, the divergence estimates (49) and (51) are observed rather than proved for all n, and the 191 equations are those originating from n<=11. Therefore the statement that 'any choice of solution of the Stream equation will diverge in negative powers of alpha' is stronger than what is demonstrated. A reader cannot verify the computation from the printed paper, and no general inductive proof is supplied. Please include the full computation as supplementary material and either provide a proof that the divergence pattern persists to all orders or state the result as a truncated-order obstruction rather than a complete no-go theorem.
  3. [Section VII.D, Eq. (52)] The no-go argument assumes that the parameters Upsilon, omega_k, and i_k can be expanded in integer powers of alpha, as written in Eq. (52). This is an ansatz that is not derived from the force-free equations or from the boundary conditions. If solutions exist whose parameters depend on alpha non-analytically, for instance through alpha^{1/2} or log(alpha), the contradiction obtained from the two polynomials in Eq. (54) may be evaded. Since the conclusion is intended to rule out all solutions in the stated regularity class, this restriction must either be proved or presented as part of the assumptions on which the theorem is conditional.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Section VII.D, Eq. (54)] The claim that the two polynomials in omega_{1,1} have no common roots is the algebraic punchline of the paper, but no resultant or explicit gcd computation is shown. Please include a short verification or state the resultant explicitly.
  2. [Section VII.C, Eq. (33)] The analysis selects the branch i1=2omega0 and asserts that the other branch i1=-2omega0 is obtained by replacing i_k with -i_k. Since the no-go conclusion is intended to cover both branches, this discrete symmetry should be justified from the Stream equation and the boundary conditions, or the restriction should be flagged.
  3. [Section VI] The sentence 'since it is possibly to study the inner light surface for small theta' contains a typo: 'possibly' should be 'possible'.
  4. [Section X] The sentence 'it's analytical realization' should read 'its analytical realization'.
  5. [Section VII.C] The paper states that the iterative procedure has been used to solve for f1,...,f11 and that the expressions are recorded in Mathematica files available upon request. For reproducibility, these files should be included as electronic supplementary material rather than provided only on request.
  6. [Section VII, Eq. (26)] Equation (26) is imported from Ref. [1] without a derivation. Since the present paper is otherwise self-contained, a brief derivation or a clear statement of the necessary-condition logic would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity; the no-go derivation is self-contained against the force-free equations.

full rationale

The central no-go result is derived directly from the Stream equation (12), the angular expansion (10)-(11), horizon regularity (14), and the monopole-type asymptotic conditions (27)-(30), with the α→0 obstruction appearing as explicit polynomial equations (54) that have no common roots. No quantity is fitted to the predicted conclusion. The only self-citation is Eq. (26), credited to Ref. [1], but the same condition i1 = ±2ω0 is obtained in Section VII.C independently by imposing c1,-2 = 0 computed from the Stream equation, so the citation is not load-bearing. The paper's stated assumptions, namely that the θ→0 and r→∞ limits commute in the inner region and that ψ is smooth or analytically extended across the outer light surface, are transparently listed as assumptions and possible loopholes; they limit the theorem's reach but do not make it circular. The remark that all known solutions commute is supporting context, not an input to the contradiction. Thus there is no circular step and the derivation is self-contained against the FFE equations.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new entities and fits no external data. The central claim rests on the assumed smoothness and commutation properties of the flux function and on the integer-power alpha-expansion of the solution parameters.

free parameters (3)
  • Upsilon (integration constant in f1)
    Arbitrary constant from solving the ODE for f1(r) in Eq. (40); part of the general solution family, not fitted to data.
  • omega_k for k>=1
    Coefficients of the expansion of Omega(psi) in Eq. (11); arbitrary in the solution family, and the paper proves the result for all choices.
  • i_k for k>=2
    Coefficients of the expansion of I(psi) in Eq. (11); arbitrary, and the paper proves the result for all choices.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Force-free electrodynamics (Eq. 3) is the correct description of the magnetosphere.
    The entire analysis is built on the FFE approximation, including neglecting plasma energy density.
  • domain assumption The solution is stationary and axisymmetric, sharing the Kerr symmetries.
    Assumed at the start of Section III and used throughout.
  • domain assumption The gauge potential is smooth at the rotation axis theta=0, giving the even-power expansion (10).
    Imposes psi=0 at theta=0 and no sources at the axis.
  • domain assumption The limits theta->0 and r->infinity commute for the analytically extended flux function in the inner region.
    Stated in Section VI and listed in Section X as an assumption; if false, the no-go conclusion does not apply.
  • domain assumption psi_1(r_+) is nonzero at the event horizon.
    If zero, horizon regularity forces the full solution to vanish, which is discarded as unphysical; stated in Section IV.
  • ad hoc to paper The solution parameters omega_k and i_k can be expanded in integer powers of alpha (Eq. 52).
    This restricts the possible alpha->0 limits to analytic families; non-analytic dependence on alpha is not covered by the proof.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Force-free electrodynamics near rotation axis of a Kerr black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/RS4YFSH4

@misc{pith2026190807227,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Force-free electrodynamics near rotation axis of a Kerr black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/RS4YFSH4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07227}
}
read the original abstract

Despite their potential importance for understanding astrophysical jets, physically realistic exact solutions for magnetospheres around Kerr black holes have not been found, even in the force-free approximation. Instead approximate analytical solutions such as the Blandford-Znajek (split-)monopole, as well as numerical solutions, have been constructed. In this paper we consider a new approach to the analysis and construction of such magnetospheres. We consider force-free electrodynamics close to the rotation axis of a magnetosphere surrounding a Kerr black hole assuming axisymmetry. This is the region where the force-free approximation should work the best, and where the jets are located. We perform a systematic study of the asymptotic region with (split-)monopole, paraboloidal and vertical asymptotic behaviors. Imposing asymptotics similar to a (split-)monopole, we find under certain assumptions that demanding regularity at the rotation axis and the event horizon restricts solutions of the stream equation so much that it is not possible for a solution to be continuously connected to the static (split-)monopole around the Schwarzschild black hole in the limit where the rotation goes to zero. On the one hand, this result provides independent evidence to the issues discovered with the asymptotics of the Blandford-Znajek (split-)monopole in Ref. [1]. On the other hand, we also point out possible caveats in our arguments that one could conceivably exploit to amend the perturbative construction of the Blandford-Znajek (split-)monopole.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

34 extracted references · 16 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    It is straightfor- ward to prove recursively using (14) that ψn(r+) = 0 for all n≥ 1

    From (15) we see that ψ1(r+) = 0. It is straightfor- ward to prove recursively using (14) that ψn(r+) = 0 for all n≥ 1. Using the Stream equation (12), order by or- der inθ, one can show this implies that the derivatives of ψ1(r) are zero at r =r+ [22]. Thus, we have shown that ψ1(r) = 0 and thereby ψ(r,θ ) = 0 at least in a region 4 that surrounds the ho...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Electromagnetic ex- tractions of energy from Kerr black holes,

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, “Electromagnetic ex- tractions of energy from Kerr black holes,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 179, 433–456 (1977)

    work page 1977

  3. [3]

    Blandford-Znajek mechanism versus Penrose process

    S. S. Komissarov, “Blandford-Znajek mechanism ver- 11 sus Penrose process,” APCTP Winter School on Black Hole Astrophysics 2008: Computational Methods in Black Hole Physics and High Energy Astrophysics around Black Hole Daejeon and Pohang, Korea, January 24- 29, 2008 , J. Korean Phys. Soc. 54, 2503–2512 (2009), arXiv:0804.1912 [astro-ph]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  4. [4]

    Existence of the Blandford-Znajek monopole for a slowly rotating Kerr black hole,

    Gianluca Grignani, Troels Harmark, and Marta Orselli, “Existence of the Blandford-Znajek monopole for a slowly rotating Kerr black hole,” Phys. Rev.D98, 084056 (2018), arXiv:1804.05846 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2018

  5. [5]

    Beskin, MHD Flows in Compact Astrophysical Objects, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer, Berlin, 2010)

    Vasily S. Beskin, MHD Flows in Compact Astrophysical Objects, Astronomy and Astrophysics Library (Springer, Berlin, 2010)

    work page 2010

  6. [6]

    Spacetime ap- proach to force-free magnetospheres,

    Samuel E. Gralla and Ted Jacobson, “Spacetime ap- proach to force-free magnetospheres,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 445, 2500–2534 (2014), arXiv:1401.6159 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2014

  7. [7]

    Extracting black- hole rotational energy: The generalized Penrose process,

    J. P. Lasota, E. Gourgoulhon, M. Abramowicz, A. Tchekhovskoy, and R. Narayan, “Extracting black- hole rotational energy: The generalized Penrose process,” Phys. Rev. D89, 024041 (2014), arXiv:1310.7499 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2014

  8. [8]

    Highly-collimated, magnetically-dominated jets around rotating black holes

    Zhen Pan and Cong Yu, “Highly-collimated, magnetically-dominated jets around rotating black holes,” (2014), arXiv:1406.4936 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2014

Show all 34 references
  1. [9]

    Electromagnetic Jets from Stars and Black Holes,

    Samuel E. Gralla, Alexandru Lupsasca, and Maria J. Rodriguez, “Electromagnetic Jets from Stars and Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D93, 044038 (2016), arXiv:1504.02113 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Extended monopole solution of the Blandford-Znajek mechanism: Higher order terms for a Kerr parameter,

    Kentarou Tanabe and Shigehiro Nagataki, “Extended monopole solution of the Blandford-Znajek mechanism: Higher order terms for a Kerr parameter,” Phys. Rev. D78, 024004 (2008), arXiv:0802.0908 [astro-ph]

    2008 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Black Hole Spin and the Ra- dio Loud/Quiet Dichotomy of Active Galactic Nuclei,

    Alexander Tchekhovskoy, Ramesh Narayan, and Jonathan C. McKinney, “Black Hole Spin and the Ra- dio Loud/Quiet Dichotomy of Active Galactic Nuclei,” Astrophys. J. 711, 50–63 (2010), arXiv:0911.2228 [astro- ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  4. [12]

    (35) This can alternatively be obtained from (26) at order θ4

    (34) Using the Stream equation (12) we compute for ψ3(r) c2,−2 =−1 4ω0 ( i2− 2ω1 + 1 3ω0− 2c1,0ω0 ) . (35) This can alternatively be obtained from (26) at order θ4. Using Eq. (34) and solving c2,−2 = 0 for i2 we get i2 = 2ω1− 1 2ω0. (36) We compute now c2,−1 =−ω2 0 48 ( 12αω0−...

  5. [13]

    Efficient Generation of Jets from Magnetically Arrested Accretion on a Rapidly Spin- ning Black Hole,

    Alexander Tchekhovskoy, Ramesh Narayan, and Jonathan C. McKinney, “Efficient Generation of Jets from Magnetically Arrested Accretion on a Rapidly Spin- ning Black Hole,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.418, L79– L83 (2011), arXiv:1108.0412 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    A Measurement of the electromagnetic luminosity of a Kerr black hole,

    Jonathan C. McKinney and Charles F. Gammie, “A Measurement of the electromagnetic luminosity of a Kerr black hole,” Astrophys. J. 611, 977–995 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0404512 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Direct numerical simulations of the Blandford-Znajek effect,

    S. S. Komissarov, “Direct numerical simulations of the Blandford-Znajek effect,” in Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, Volume 326, Issue 3 (2001) pp. L41–L44

    2001

  8. [16]

    Electrodynamics of black hole magne- tospheres,

    S. S. Komissarov, “Electrodynamics of black hole magne- tospheres,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.350, 407 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0402403 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  9. [17]

    The Force-Free Magneto- sphere of a Rotating Black Hole,

    Ioannis Contopoulos, Demosthenes Kazanas, and Demetrios B. Papadopoulos, “The Force-Free Magneto- sphere of a Rotating Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. 765, 113 (2013), arXiv:1212.0320 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    General relativistic force-free electrodynamics: a new code and applications to black hole magnetospheres,

    Jonathan C. McKinney, “General relativistic force-free electrodynamics: a new code and applications to black hole magnetospheres,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 367, 1797–1807 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601410 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Magnetospheres of Black Hole Sys- tems in Force-Free Plasma,

    Carlos Palenzuela, Travis Garrett, Luis Lehner, and Steven L. Liebling, “Magnetospheres of Black Hole Sys- tems in Force-Free Plasma,” Phys. Rev. D82, 044045 (2010), arXiv:1007.1198 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Fourth-order split monopole perturbation solutions to the Blandford-Znajek mecha- nism,

    Zhen Pan and Cong Yu, “Fourth-order split monopole perturbation solutions to the Blandford-Znajek mecha- nism,” Phys. Rev. D91, 064067 (2015), arXiv:1503.05248 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Black Hole Magnetospheres,

    Antonios Nathanail and Ioannis Contopoulos, “Black Hole Magnetospheres,” Astrophys. J. 788, 186 (2014), arXiv:1404.0549 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Nu- merically solving the relativistic Grad-Shafranov equa- tion in Kerr spacetimes: Numerical techniques,

    J. F. Mahlmann, P. Cerd-Durn, and M. A. Aloy, “Nu- merically solving the relativistic Grad-Shafranov equa- tion in Kerr spacetimes: Numerical techniques,” (2018), arXiv:1802.00815 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Efficiency of Magnetic to Kinetic En- ergy Conversion in a Monopole Magnetosphere,

    Alexander Tchekhovskoy, Jonathan C. McKinney, and Ramesh Narayan, “Efficiency of Magnetic to Kinetic En- ergy Conversion in a Monopole Magnetosphere,” Astro- phys. J. 699, 1789–1808 (2009), arXiv:0901.4776 [astro- ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Black hole electrodynamics and the Carter tetrad,

    R. L. Znajek, “Black hole electrodynamics and the Carter tetrad,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 179, 457–472 (1977)

    1977

  17. [25]

    However, since we are inter- ested in solutions that can work for a continuous range of values of α we can ignore this subtlety

    This is true except for isolated values of α where some derivatives can be non-zero. However, since we are inter- ested in solutions that can work for a continuous range of values of α we can ignore this subtlety

  18. [26]

    Force-Free Electrodynamics around Extreme Kerr Black Holes,

    Alexandru Lupsasca, Maria J. Rodriguez, and An- drew Strominger, “Force-Free Electrodynamics around Extreme Kerr Black Holes,” JHEP 12, 185 (2014), arXiv:1406.4133 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Rotating Magnetospheres: an Exact 3-D Solution,

    F. C. Michel, “Rotating Magnetospheres: an Exact 3-D Solution,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 180, L133 (1973)

    1973

  20. [28]

    The Extreme Kerr throat geometry: A Vacuum analog of AdS 2 × S2,

    James M. Bardeen and Gary T. Horowitz, “The Extreme Kerr throat geometry: A Vacuum analog of AdS 2 × S2,” Phys. Rev. D60, 104030 (1999), arXiv:hep-th/9905099 [hep-th]

    1999 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Near-horizon Ex- treme Kerr Magnetospheres,

    G. Comp` ere and R. Oliveri, “Near-horizon Ex- treme Kerr Magnetospheres,” Phys. Rev. D93, 024035 (2016), [Erratum: Phys. Rev.D93,no.6,069906(2016)], arXiv:1509.07637 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Exact So- lutions for Extreme Black Hole Magnetospheres,

    Alexandru Lupsasca and Maria J. Rodriguez, “Exact So- lutions for Extreme Black Hole Magnetospheres,” JHEP 07, 090 (2015), arXiv:1412.4124 [hep-th]

    2015 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Towards a deeper understanding of black holes with non-relativistic holography

    it was considered another limit to go near the hori- zon in a non-extremal case, to obtain the so called near- NHEK geometry, where the spinning parameterα is near 1, but not exactly 1. This geometry should describe black holes near extremality, like the spinning black holes t...

    2018

  24. [32]

    Near-horizon Kerr Magnetosphere,

    Samuel E. Gralla, Alexandru Lupsasca, and Andrew Strominger, “Near-horizon Kerr Magnetosphere,” Phys. Rev. D93, 104041 (2016), arXiv:1602.01833 [hep-th]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Disk accretion onto a black hole. 2. Evo- lution of the hole

    Kip S. Thorne, “Disk accretion onto a black hole. 2. Evo- lution of the hole.” Astrophys. J. 191, 507–520 (1974)

    1974

  26. [34]

    Black Hole Superradiance From Kerr/CFT,

    Irene Bredberg, Thomas Hartman, Wei Song, and Andrew Strominger, “Black Hole Superradiance From Kerr/CFT,” JHEP 04, 019 (2010), arXiv:0907.3477 [hep- th]

    2010 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.