Talk:BTZ black hole
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
‹See TfM›
| ||||||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
What is K?
editIn the solution metric, what is K? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.182.241 (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
Closed Timelike Curves
editAs far as I know in the rotating cases the spacetime does _not_ admit closed timelike curves. Otherwise this surely would have been mentioned in the review of Carlip[1]. 94.222.141.140 (talk) 13:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
References
- ^ arXiv:gr-qc/9506079v1
Are there no black holes if the cosmic constant is zero?
editSomeone asked that if some dilaton fields then there are no black holes but without assumption of dilaton fields are there no black holes. I think that "No Black Hole Theorem in Three-Dimensional Gravity" arxiv arXiv:gr-qc/0005129v2 would say so.--Enyokoyama (talk) 14:26, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
It is pointed out that the style and content of this article are different from the expected ones. I'm worried the reader is not able to understand the last three sentences. Perhaps, the analogous points between the real 3+1 b.h.s and 2+1 BTZ b.h.s must be aligned.--Enyokoyama (talk) 01:56, 28 April 2013 (UTC)
Let me improve this article
editAt first, I've corrected the titles of papers in the reference and the styles a little. Perhaps, it may cost several times to improve this article. The next is to make the title of each paragraph appropriate and bring some conclusions to the discussion. --Enyokoyama (talk) 09:07, 29 April 2013 (UTC)
Discovered?
editThe History starts by saying they were "discovered" but I can't find any actual examples of detected 2+1 dimension black holes (for obvious reasons; CERN's having a hard enough just trying to create/detect any d+1 black hole at all). It's also not actually in the citation given. Maybe just misleading phrasing? Maybe something like "were mathematically modeled" is more appropriate? I would have simply edited it, but this area isn't even a hobby let alone an area of expertise for me so maybe they were actually discovered (in which case that's really incredible [understatement] and a better citation should probably be given). 2601:204:C002:6F93:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2015 (UTC)