Talk:BTZ black hole

	Physics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysicsWikipedia:WikiProject PhysicsTemplate:WikiProject Physicsphysics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the relativity task force.

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

^ 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]

[1] rXiv:gr-qc/9506079v1

[1]