pith. sign in

arxiv: 2510.13569 · v2 · submitted 2025-10-15 · 🌀 gr-qc · astro-ph.HE

Orbital dynamics and precession in magnetized Kerr spacetime

Karthik Iyer (MCNS , India) , Chandrachur Chakraborty (MCNS This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-18 07:19 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc astro-ph.HE
keywords magnetized Kerr black holecircular geodesicsperiastron precessionepicyclic frequenciesoutermost stable circular orbitblack hole orbital dynamicsmagnetic curvature effects
0
0 comments X

The pith

A critical magnetic field strength prevents all circular geodesics in magnetized Kerr spacetime.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper examines orbital motion and precession for neutral test particles in the magnetized Kerr black hole spacetime, an exact solution to the Einstein-Maxwell equations. It identifies a critical magnetic field value above which no circular paths exist for either massive particles or photons. Below this threshold an outermost stable circular orbit appears alongside the usual innermost one, and periastron precession reverses direction over a limited radial interval. These results matter because they indicate how magnetic curvature can bound and alter strong-field orbits in ways potentially visible in timing data from compact objects.

Core claim

In the magnetized Kerr black hole spacetime there exists a critical magnetic field strength above which no circular geodesics, timelike or null, can exist. For subcritical fields the photon circular orbit admits two real roots, the outer defining an outermost stable circular orbit that confines stable motion to a finite radial domain. Exact expressions for orbital, radial and vertical epicyclic frequencies show substantial deviations from Kerr behavior, including a magnetically induced reversal of periastron precession within a finite radial range.

What carries the argument

The magnetized Kerr black hole spacetime, an exact electrovacuum solution that self-consistently incorporates the curvature effects of an external magnetic field.

If this is right

  • No circular geodesics exist above the critical magnetic field strength.
  • An outermost stable circular orbit confines stable motion between the ISCO and OSCO for subcritical fields.
  • Periastron precession reverses within a finite radial range due to magnetic effects.
  • Retrograde precession could appear at large radii for astrophysically relevant field strengths.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The reversal of precession offers a potential observational signature for large-scale magnetization around black holes.
  • The same geometric framework could be applied to model quasi-periodic oscillations in magnetized environments.
  • Timing observations of X-ray binaries might reveal magnetic imprints on orbital dynamics at large distances.

Load-bearing premise

The magnetized Kerr black hole is an exact electrovacuum solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations that self-consistently incorporates the curvature effects of an external magnetic field.

What would settle it

Detection of a circular geodesic at a radius where the local magnetic field exceeds the critical value, or the absence of periastron precession reversal in a subcritical field, would contradict the central claim.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.13569 by Chandrachur Chakraborty (MCNS, India), Karthik Iyer (MCNS.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The potential functions V+(r) (solid curves) and V−(r) (dashed curves) for prograde equatorial orbits in the MKBH spacetime, with spin parameters (a) a∗ = 0.1 and (b) a∗ = 0.9 for different magnetic field strengths B are plotted. See Sec. III for details [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: CPO radius r(M) as a function of B(M−1 ) for various spin parameter a∗. Turning point (≡ Bcr) of each curve marks the critical field strength beyond which no circular orbits exist. See Sec. IV for further details. Stable circular orbits exist No stable circular orbits exist 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 B (M-1 ) a * [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Parameter space for stable circular orbits in the equatorial plane. The solid curve divides the B − a∗ plane into regions where circular orbits are permitted (left) and forbidden (right). The endpoints of the curve are located at (a∗, B) ∼ (0, 0.189M−1 ) and (1, 0.556M−1 ). See Sec. IV for further details. and approaches the Melvin universe as (r → ∞). This change in asymptotics introduces a novel feature … view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: r (in M) as a function of B (in M−1 ) for MKBH with different spin parameters a∗. For each value of a∗, the CPO equation yields two branches, with the outer one identified as OSCO. We have drawn ISCO for reference. At the critical field Bcr all three coincide at point P. Beyond this point, no circular orbits—timelike or null—are allowed. See Sec. V for details. For the MKBH geometry, simple closed-form ana… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: rISCO (in units of M) as a function of B (in M−1 ) for varying spin parameter a∗. The ISCO radius reaches a maximum at B = 0 and decreases monotonically with increasing B, except for the extremal case. See Sec. VI B for further details As shown in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Radial profile of Ωϕ (in M−1 ) for a MKBH, showing non-monotonic behavior due to the competing effects of spacetime curvature and magnetic field. Results are plotted from rISCO to rOSCO for different values of a∗. See Sec. VII A for details. The Keplerian frequency Ωϕ initially increases near the BH, then decreases at intermediate radii, and rises again at larger distances. Close to the BH, strong spacetim… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Radial profile of Ωnod (in M−1 ) for a MKBH, showing non-monotonic behavior due to competing frame-dragging and magnetic effects. Results are plotted from rISCO to rOSCO for different values of a∗ and B. See Sec. VII B for details. frequencies that would otherwise decay in an asymptotically flat Kerr spacetime. This behavior is clearly visible in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Radial profiles of Ωper (in M−1 ) for a MKBH, plotted from rISCO to rOSCO. For B ≤ Bneg [panels (a), (b)], a retrograde precession window appears where Ωper < 0. For B > Bneg [panel (c)], the retrograde branch vanishes and Ωper remains strictly positive throughout. See Sec. VII C for details. orbits where Ωper vanishes. Considering the non–rotating EMS BH, we expand the analytical expression for Ω EMS per … view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We study the orbital structure and precession dynamics of neutral test particles in the magnetized Kerr black hole (MKBH) spacetime-an exact electrovacuum solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations that self-consistently incorporates the curvature effects of an external magnetic field. This geometry allows a unified treatment of gravitational and magnetic influences across weak to ultra-strong regimes. The analysis reveals a critical magnetic field strength above which no circular geodesics, timelike or null, can exist, establishing an upper magnetic bound for orbital motion. For subcritical fields, the photon circular orbit admits two real roots, the outer of which defines an outermost stable circular orbit (OSCO), complementing the conventional innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) and confining stable motion within a finite radial domain. Exact expressions for the orbital, radial, and vertical epicyclic frequencies, and their associated precession rates, show substantial deviations from Kerr behavior, including a magnetically induced reversal of periastron precession within a finite radial range. For astrophysically relevant magnetic field strengths, the retrograde precession could be observable at large radii around astrophysical BHs, offering a potential diagnostic of large-scale magnetization. These findings highlight the geometric influence of magnetic curvature on strong-field dynamics, providing a self-consistent framework to interpret quasi-periodic oscillation phenomenology and potential magnetic imprints in precision timing observations of compact objects.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 0 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes orbital dynamics and precession of neutral test particles in the magnetized Kerr black hole spacetime, presented as an exact electrovacuum Einstein-Maxwell solution that incorporates external magnetic field curvature effects self-consistently. It reports a critical magnetic field strength above which no circular timelike or null geodesics exist; for subcritical fields the photon orbit admits an outermost stable circular orbit (OSCO) in addition to the ISCO, confining stable orbits to a finite radial domain. Exact expressions are given for orbital, radial, and vertical epicyclic frequencies and associated precession rates, including a magnetically induced reversal of periastron precession within a finite radial interval, with potential observability for astrophysically relevant fields.

Significance. If the central results hold, the work supplies a unified geometric framework for gravitational plus magnetic influences on black-hole orbits across weak-to-ultra-strong regimes, without additional approximations. The exact epicyclic-frequency expressions, the critical-field bound, and the OSCO together with precession reversal constitute a concrete extension of standard Kerr analyses and could furnish falsifiable predictions for QPO phenomenology and precision timing observations of magnetized compact objects.

major comments (1)
  1. The abstract and introduction assert exact expressions for epicyclic frequencies and a critical magnetic field value, yet the manuscript must supply the explicit line element (or at least the non-zero metric components) and the derivation of the effective potential from the geodesic Lagrangian before these claims can be verified; without those steps the load-bearing result on the critical field remains uncheckable.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the positive evaluation and constructive suggestion. We address the single major comment below and will revise the manuscript accordingly to improve verifiability.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: The abstract and introduction assert exact expressions for epicyclic frequencies and a critical magnetic field value, yet the manuscript must supply the explicit line element (or at least the non-zero metric components) and the derivation of the effective potential from the geodesic Lagrangian before these claims can be verified; without those steps the load-bearing result on the critical field remains uncheckable.

    Authors: We agree that explicit presentation of the metric and the effective-potential derivation will strengthen the paper. In the revised manuscript we will insert the full line element of the magnetized Kerr spacetime (including all non-zero components) in Section 2 and provide a step-by-step derivation of the effective potential from the geodesic Lagrangian, from which the orbital, radial, and vertical epicyclic frequencies and the critical magnetic-field bound follow directly. These additions will make the central results immediately checkable without altering any of the reported conclusions. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity in derivation chain

full rationale

The paper analyzes geodesic motion and epicyclic frequencies directly from the effective potential in the given exact magnetized Kerr electrovacuum metric. The critical magnetic field strength, OSCO existence for subcritical fields, and precession reversal are obtained by solving the radial equation and frequency expressions in this geometry; none reduce to a fitted parameter, self-definition, or prior self-citation that is itself unverified. The metric is treated as an independent input solution of Einstein-Maxwell, and all reported orbital results follow from standard geodesic analysis without renaming or smuggling ansatze. This is a self-contained derivation against the external benchmark of the exact metric.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

0 free parameters · 1 axioms · 0 invented entities

Review performed on abstract only; no explicit free parameters, new postulated entities, or ad-hoc axioms beyond standard general-relativity assumptions are identifiable from the provided text.

axioms (1)
  • domain assumption The magnetized Kerr black hole spacetime is an exact electrovacuum solution of the Einstein-Maxwell equations.
    Invoked in the abstract as the geometry permitting unified gravitational and magnetic treatment.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5780 in / 1417 out tokens · 37610 ms · 2026-05-18T07:19:02.370899+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Lean theorems connected to this paper

Citations machine-checked in the Pith Canon. Every link opens the source theorem in the public Lean library.

What do these tags mean?
matches
The paper's claim is directly supported by a theorem in the formal canon.
supports
The theorem supports part of the paper's argument, but the paper may add assumptions or extra steps.
extends
The paper goes beyond the formal theorem; the theorem is a base layer rather than the whole result.
uses
The paper appears to rely on the theorem as machinery.
contradicts
The paper's claim conflicts with a theorem or certificate in the canon.
unclear
Pith found a possible connection, but the passage is too broad, indirect, or ambiguous to say the theorem truly supports the claim.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score.

  1. Distinguishability of magnetic massive black holes from environmental mimics with inspiral gravitational waves

    gr-qc 2026-03 unverdicted novelty 6.0

    Magnetic field corrections to inspiral waveforms appear at -2 PN and -3 PN orders and mimic power-law environmental gravity but can be distinguished above a transition density of about 10^{-4} kg/m^3 for Bonnor-Melvin...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

109 extracted references · 109 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    The magnetic field introduces a substantial 19 modification, manifesting as a potential barrier that grows withBsimilar to [46]

    Starting from the basic formulation, we have derived the potential function governing the equatorial timelike geodesics in the full magnetized Kerr spacetime. The magnetic field introduces a substantial 19 modification, manifesting as a potential barrier that grows withBsimilar to [46]. However, the effect of a∗ is comparatively small on the potential barrier

    work page

  2. [2]

    By determining the radius of CPO, we have identified a critical magnetic field strengthB cr(a∗), beyond which no circular geodesics—timelike or null—can exist

    work page

  3. [3]

    For sub-critical fields (B < B cr), the CPO equation yields two positive roots. We propose a novel identification of the outer root as theoutermost stable circular orbit, providing a physically motivated definition of the OSCO based on the null geodesic structure

    work page

  4. [4]

    We have obtained exact analytical expressions for the fundamental orbital frequencies–Keplerian, radial, and vertical epicyclic–in the MKBH spacetime. For conciseness, we have presented here their series expansions up toO(B 2) term, which are directly relevant for the astrophysical observations of (non- )rotating BHs immersed in magnetic fields. In the sl...

    work page

  5. [5]

    We have shown that the both radii decrease monotonically with increasing Bfor the whole range ofa ∗: 0≤a ∗ <1

    We have derived the exact expressions for the ISCO radius and OSCO radius, which are applicable to any arbitrary values ofa ∗ andB. We have shown that the both radii decrease monotonically with increasing Bfor the whole range ofa ∗: 0≤a ∗ <1. In the extremal BH case (a ∗ →1), the ISCO radius remains fixed at the horizon (r/M→1) for any value ofBdue to the...

    work page

  6. [6]

    Close to the BH, frame dragging effect due toa ∗ dominates, whereas at larger radii magnetic curvature takes over similar to [9]

    The Keplerian frequency Ω ϕ and the nodal plane precession frequency Ω nod exhibit a similar non- monotonic trend. Close to the BH, frame dragging effect due toa ∗ dominates, whereas at larger radii magnetic curvature takes over similar to [9]. In the non-rotating case (a ∗ = 0), nodal plane precession is entirely magnetic in origin, consistent with gravi...

    work page

  7. [7]

    For the static case, we have identified the condition for this reversal, which defines a critical magnetic field strengthB neg above which the precession is strictly prograde

    We have reported a reversal to retrograde periastron precession (Ω per <0), a phenomenon absent in the standard Kerr and Schwarzschild spacetime. For the static case, we have identified the condition for this reversal, which defines a critical magnetic field strengthB neg above which the precession is strictly prograde. This behavior generalizes to rotati...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The presence of an outermost stable circular orbit introduces a qualitatively new restriction on bound motion around MKBH

    and ngEHT [81] could directly probe these effects near BHs. The presence of an outermost stable circular orbit introduces a qualitatively new restriction on bound motion around MKBH. If, for instance, a neutron star orbits a BH at a radius larger thanr OSCO, the orbit cannot remain stable under perturbations. In such a case, even small deviations would dr...

    work page

  9. [9]

    In this limit, the magnetization functions reduce to unity, Λ e = Λ0 = 1, andA e = (r2 +a 2)2 −a 2∆

    Kerr Limit (B= 0) When the magnetic field is switched off, the MKBH spacetime reduces to the standard Kerr spacetime. In this limit, the magnetization functions reduce to unity, Λ e = Λ0 = 1, andA e = (r2 +a 2)2 −a 2∆. Consequently, Eq. (23) simplify to the well-knownV r(r) for equatorial timelike geodesics in the Kerr geometry [45]: Vr(r) B→0 = 1 r4 (r2 ...

    work page

  10. [10]

    In this case,ϖ e|a→0 = 0, Λe|a→0 = 1 + 1 4 B2r2 ≡Λ M, and ∆| a→0 =r 2 −2M r≡∆ Sch

    Magnetized Schwarzschild Limit (a= 0) Fora→0, the MKBH metric reduces to the magnetized Schwarzschild solution. In this case,ϖ e|a→0 = 0, Λe|a→0 = 1 + 1 4 B2r2 ≡Λ M, and ∆| a→0 =r 2 −2M r≡∆ Sch. In the Schwarzschild limit we find V+ +V − ∝a= 0, V +V− =− L2∆SchΛ2 M r4 (A3) such that (E−V +)(E−V −) =E 2 − L2∆SchΛ2 M r4 (A4) Substituting into Eq. (23) yields...

    work page

  11. [11]

    Keplerian frequency

    Melvin Universe Limit (M→0,a→0) If both the mass and spin vanish, the geometry reduces to the pure Melvin universe, which is static, axisym- metric, and sourced entirely by a magnetic field. Following analogous steps to the magnetized Schwarzschild case, in this limit the effective potential simplifies to [99] Veff = Λ4 ML2 r2 + Λ2 M.(A7) Appendix B: Fund...

    work page

  12. [12]

    Akiyama and et al

    K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L12 (2021)

    work page 2021

  13. [13]

    Akiyama and et al

    K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L13 (2021)

    work page 2021

  14. [14]

    Eatough, H

    R. Eatough, H. Falcke, R. Karuppusamy, et al., Nature501, 391 (2013)

    work page 2013

  15. [15]

    Del Santo, J

    M. Del Santo, J. Malzac, R. Belmont, L. Bouchet, and G. De Cesare, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.430, 209 (2013)

    work page 2013

  16. [16]

    C. F. Gammie, S. L. Shapiro, and J. C. McKinney, Astrophys. J.602, 312 (2004)

    work page 2004

  17. [17]

    A. R. Prasanna and C. V. Vishveshwara, Pramana J. Phys.11, 359 (1978)

    work page 1978

  18. [18]

    P. J. Wiita, C. V. Vishveshwara, M. J. Siah, and B. R. Iyer, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.16, 2077 (1983)

    work page 2077

  19. [19]

    B. R. Iyer, C. V. Vishveshwara, P. J. Wiita, and A. R. Prasanna, Pramana J. Phys.25, 135 (1985)

    work page 1985

  20. [20]

    Chakraborty and P

    C. Chakraborty and P. Majumdar, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 714 (2023)

    work page 2023

  21. [21]

    D. V. Galtsov and V. I. Petukhov, Sov. Phys. JETP47, 419 (1978), [Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.74, 801 (1978)]

    work page 1978

  22. [22]

    Biˇ c´ ak, V

    J. Biˇ c´ ak, V. Karas, and T. Ledvinka, Proc. Int. Astron. Union2, 139 (2006)

    work page 2006

  23. [23]

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.179, 433 (1977)

    work page 1977

  24. [24]

    Chakraborty, Phys

    C. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D105, 064072 (2022)

    work page 2022

  25. [25]

    Chakraborty, P

    C. Chakraborty, P. Patil, and G. Akash, Phys. Rev. D109, 064062 (2024)

    work page 2024

  26. [26]

    Y. Hou, Z. Zhang, H. Yan, M. Guo, and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D106, 064058 (2022)

    work page 2022

  27. [27]

    M. Wang, S. Chen, and J. Jing, Phys. Rev. D104, 084021 (2021)

    work page 2021

  28. [28]

    Iyer and C

    K. Iyer and C. Chakraborty, Phys. Rev. D112, 024075 (2025)

    work page 2025

  29. [29]

    Collaboration, Astron

    G. Collaboration, Astron. Astrophys.635, A143 (2020)

    work page 2020

  30. [30]

    Eisenhauer and et al., Astrophys

    F. Eisenhauer and et al., Astrophys. J.628, 246 (2005)

    work page 2005

  31. [31]

    S. V. Dhurandhar and D. N. Sharma, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.16, 99 (1983)

    work page 1983

  32. [32]

    Stuchl´ ık and S

    Z. Stuchl´ ık and S. Hled´ ık, Class. Quantum Grav.16, 1377 (1999)

    work page 1999

  33. [33]

    E. P. Esteban, Nuovo Cimento B79, 76 (1984)

    work page 1984

  34. [34]

    D. Bini, A. Geralico, and R. T. Jantzen, Phys. Rev. D94, 064066 (2016)

    work page 2016

  35. [35]

    Mashhoon and Y

    B. Mashhoon and Y. N. Obukhov, Phys. Rev. D88, 064037 (2013)

    work page 2013

  36. [36]

    B. R. Iyer and C. V. Vishveshwara, Phys. Rev. D48, 5706 (1993)

    work page 1993

  37. [37]

    Stella, M

    L. Stella, M. Vietri, and S. M. Morsink, Astrophys. J.524, L63 (1999)

    work page 1999

  38. [38]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Klu´ zniak, Astron. Astrophys.374, L19 (2001)

    work page 2001

  39. [39]

    Ingram, C

    A. Ingram, C. Done, and P. C. Fragile, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett.397, L101 (2009)

    work page 2009

  40. [40]

    F. J. Ernst, J. Math. Phys.17, 54 (1976)

    work page 1976

  41. [41]

    W. J. Wild, R. M. Kerns, and W. F. Drish, Phys. Rev. D23, 829 (1981)

    work page 1981

  42. [42]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Galtsov, Astrophys. Space Sci.155, 181 (1989)

    work page 1989

  43. [43]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Galtsov, Astrophys. Space Sci.135, 81 (1987)

    work page 1987

  44. [44]

    Shaymatov, B

    S. Shaymatov, B. Narzilloev, A. Abdujabbarov, and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D103, 124066 (2021)

    work page 2021

  45. [45]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Gal’tsov, Astrophys. Space Sci.143, 301 (1988)

    work page 1988

  46. [46]

    W. A. Hiscock, J. Math. Phys.22, 1828 (1981)

    work page 1981

  47. [47]

    G. W. Gibbons, A. H. Mujtaba, and C. N. Pope, Classical and Quantum Gravity30, 125008 (2013)

    work page 2013

  48. [48]

    M. A. Melvin, Physics letters8, 65 (1964)

    work page 1964

  49. [49]

    M. A. Melvin, Phys. Rev.139, B225 (1965)

    work page 1965

  50. [50]

    Straumann, General Relativity, 2nd ed

    N. Straumann, General Relativity, 2nd ed. (Springer, 2013)

    work page 2013

  51. [51]

    K. J. J. Taylor and A. Ritz, Class. Quant. Grav. 10.1088/1361-6382/ae0be3 (2025)

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ae0be3 2025

  52. [52]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D84, 044030 (2011)

    work page 2011

  53. [53]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. D88, 024042 (2013)

    work page 2013

  54. [54]

    V. P. Frolov and A. Zelnikov, Introduction to Black Hole Physics (Oxford University Press, 2011)

    work page 2011

  55. [55]

    V. P. Frolov and I. D. Novikov,Black Hole Physics: Basic Concepts and New Developments, Fundamental Theories of Physics (Springer Dordrecht, 1998)

    work page 1998

  56. [56]

    Ferrari, L

    V. Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and P. Pani,General Relativity and its Applications: Black Holes, Compact Stars and Gravitational Waves (CRC Press, 2020)

    work page 2020

  57. [57]

    Chakraborty, Phys

    C. Chakraborty, Phys. Lett. B849, 138437 (2024)

    work page 2024

  58. [58]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.178, 347 (1972). 24

    work page 1972

  59. [59]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky,Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects (Wiley-VCH, 1983)

    work page 1983

  60. [60]

    Zhang, J

    S.-J. Zhang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2024(07), 042

    work page 2024

  61. [61]

    Dadhich, C

    N. Dadhich, C. Hoenselaers, and C. V. Vishveshwara, J. Phys. A: Math. Gen.12, 215 (1979)

    work page 1979

  62. [62]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Gal’tsov, Sov. Phys. Usp.32, 75 (1989)

    work page 1989

  63. [63]

    Chakraborty, P

    C. Chakraborty, P. Kocherlakota, M. Patil, S. Bhattacharyya, P. S. Joshi, and A. Kr´ olak, Phys. Rev. D95, 084024 (2017)

    work page 2017

  64. [64]

    D. D. Doneva, S. S. Yazadjiev, N. Stergioulas, K. D. Kokkotas, and T. M. Athanasiadis, Phys. Rev. D90, 044004 (2014)

    work page 2014

  65. [65]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D10, 1680 (1974)

    work page 1974

  66. [66]

    A. R. King, J. P. Lasota, and W. Kundt, Phys. Rev. D12, 3037 (1975)

    work page 1975

  67. [67]

    Biˇ c´ ak and V

    J. Biˇ c´ ak and V. Janiˇ s, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.212, 899 (1985)

    work page 1985

  68. [68]

    W. B. Bonnor, Proc. Phys. Soc.76, 891 (1960)

    work page 1960

  69. [69]

    Chakraborty and B

    C. Chakraborty and B. Mukhopadhyay, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 937 (2023)

    work page 2023

  70. [70]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Astrophys. J.492, L59 (1998)

    work page 1998

  71. [71]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, Phys. Rev. Lett.82, 17 (1999)

    work page 1999

  72. [72]

    J. A. Orosz, J. E. McClintock, J. P. Aufdenberg, R. A. Remillard, M. J. Reid, R. Narayan, and L. Gou, Astrophys. J.742, 84 (2011)

    work page 2011

  73. [73]

    Zanin, A

    R. Zanin, A. Fern´ andez-Barral, E. de O˜ na Wilhelmi, F. Aharonian, O. Blanch, V. Bosch-Ramon, and D. Galindo, Astron. Astrophys.596, A55 (2016)

    work page 2016

  74. [74]

    T. M. Belloni and L. Stella, Space Sci. Rev.183, 43 (2014)

    work page 2014

  75. [75]

    T. M. Belloni, A. Sanna, and M. M´ endez, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.426, 1701 (2012)

    work page 2012

  76. [76]

    Ingram and S

    A. Ingram and S. Motta, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.444, 2065 (2014)

    work page 2065

  77. [77]

    S. E. Motta, T. Mu˜ noz-Darias, A. Sanna, R. Fender, T. Belloni, and L. Stella, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. Lett. 439, L65 (2014)

    work page 2014

  78. [78]

    S. E. Motta, T. M. Belloni, L. Stella, T. Mu˜ noz-Darias, and R. Fender, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.437, 2554 (2014)

    work page 2014

  79. [79]

    Chakraborty and S

    C. Chakraborty and S. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D98, 043021 (2018)

    work page 2018

  80. [80]

    K. J. Taylor and A. Ritz, Class. Quantum Grav.42, 165013 (2025)

    work page 2025

Showing first 80 references.