Talk:BTZ black hole

Latest comment: 9 years ago by 2601:204:C002:6F93:BE5F:F4FF:FE35:1B41 in topic Discovered?

What is K?

edit

In the solution metric, what is K? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.202.182.241 (talk) 05:54, 6 June 2011 (UTC)Reply


Closed Timelike Curves

edit

As 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)Reply

References

  1. ^ arXiv:gr-qc/9506079v1

Are there no black holes if the cosmic constant is zero?

edit

Someone 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)Reply

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)Reply

Let me improve this article

edit

At 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)Reply

Discovered?

edit

The 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)Reply