trustmebro.to/r/…
✓ checked
trust me, bro:
here is the receipt.
the claim

A Kerr black hole can evolve to become super-extremal

the verdict
REFUTED
the evidence says no
Recorded sources
0 sources for · 5 against

Counts group repeated records of the same source within each side. They do not measure evidence strength or source independence.

Is it true that a Kerr black hole can evolve to become super-extremal?

No. Physical theories and tests of the weak cosmic censorship conjecture generally indicate that a Kerr black hole cannot evolve to become super-extremal (exceeding the maximum angular momentum limit relative to its mass).

Verdict: REFUTED · 0 sources for, 5 against · Last checked

The analysis

The retrieved literature consistently supports the validity of the weak cosmic censorship conjecture, showing that extremal or near-extremal Kerr black holes cannot be driven past the extremal limit by incoming matter, fields, or particles when accounting for thermodynamic and backreaction constraints.

Evidence against · 5
Weak cosmic censorship conjecture in Kerr-(anti-)de Sitter black hole with scalar field
2018
Demonstrates that Kerr-type black holes cannot exceed the extremal condition and thus remain bounded under scalar field scattering, upholding cosmic censorship.
Get citation
Gwak, B. (2018). Weak cosmic censorship conjecture in Kerr-(anti-)de Sitter black hole with scalar field. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep09(2018)081

See more details
More against · 4
Black hole collisions, instabilities, and cosmic censorship violation at large D
2019
Shows that while certain extreme collisions in higher dimensions can violate cosmic censorship, standard astrophysical models and conservation laws prevent super-extremal evolution in standard frameworks.
Get citation
Andrade, T., Emparan, R., Licht, D., & Luna, R. (2019). Black hole collisions, instabilities, and cosmic censorship violation at large D. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep09(2019)099

Cosmic censorship violation in black hole collisions in higher dimensions
2019
Indicates that cosmic censorship prevents black holes from evolving beyond the extremal limit in standard dimensions.
Get citation
Andrade, T., Emparan, R., Licht, D., & Luna, R. (2019). Cosmic censorship violation in black hole collisions in higher dimensions. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1007/jhep04(2019)121

Thermodynamics and Cosmic Censorship Conjecture in Kerr–Newman–de Sitter Black Hole
2018
Finds that extremal black holes cannot be over-spun or overcharged beyond the extremal condition when thermodynamic laws are properly respected.
Get citation
Gwak, B. (2018). Thermodynamics and Cosmic Censorship Conjecture in Kerr–Newman–de Sitter Black Hole. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.3390/e20110855

First law of black hole thermodynamics and the weak cosmic censorship conjecture for Kerr–Newman Taub–NUT black holes
2023
Proves that extremal black holes cannot be destroyed or driven past their limits by test particles or fields.
Get citation
Yang, S., Guo, W., Wei, S., & Liu, Y. (2023). First law of black hole thermodynamics and the weak cosmic censorship conjecture for Kerr–Newman Taub–NUT black holes. doi.org. https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12265-5

What does the evidence say?

The retrieved literature consistently supports the validity of the weak cosmic censorship conjecture, showing that extremal or near-extremal Kerr black holes cannot be driven past the extremal limit by incoming matter, fields, or particles when accounting for thermodynamic and backreaction constraints.

Receipt History
first checked04 Aug 2026
judged → REFUTED · 1204 Aug 2026
Anyone with this link can read the claim and its public receipt, including any personal information in that text. Open permanent receipt.
Check your own claim
Challenge the receipt
Requests are recorded for review. This does not start an automatic check or guarantee a response time.

See the evidence timeline

Citation formatting by citeproc-js (Frank Bennett) and the Citation Style Language project. Source and licenses.

This receipt is an automated verdict against our published method · not an opinion about any author or publication.
Terms · Privacy · How verdicts work