Paper detail

The Kiselev black hole is neither perfect fluid, nor is it quintessence

The Kiselev black hole spacetime, \[ ds^2 = - \left(1-{2m\over r} - {K\over r^{1+3w}} \right) dt^2 + {dr^2\over1-{2m\over r} - {K\over r^{1+3w}}} + r^2 \,dΩ_2^2, \] is an extremely popular toy model, with over 200 direct and indirect citations as of 2019. Unfortunately, despite repeated assertions to the contrary, this is not a perfect fluid spacetime. The relative pressure anisotropy and average pressure are easily calculated to satisfy \[ Δ= {Δp\over \bar p} = {p_r - p_t \over {1\over3} (p_r+2p_t)} =- {3(1+w)\over 2 w}; \qquad\qquad {\bar p\over ρ} = {{1\over3} (p_r + 2p_t)\over ρ} = w. \] The relative pressure anisotropy $Δ$ is generally a non-zero constant, (unless $w=-1$, corresponding to Schwarzschild-(anti)-de Sitter spacetime). Kiselev's original paper was very careful to point this out in the calculation, but then in the discussion made a somewhat unfortunate choice of terminology which has (with very limited exceptions) been copied into the subsequent literature. Perhaps worse, Kiselev's use of the word "quintessence" does not match the standard usage in the cosmology community, leading to another level of unfortunate and unnecessary confusion. Very few of the subsequent follow-up papers get these points right, so a brief explicit comment is warranted.

preprint2019arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author3 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.