Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 69 references

Phenomenology of Schwarzschild-like Black Holes with a Generalized Compton Wavelength

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A vacuum-fluctuation parameter modifies Schwarzschild black-hole observables, and current EHT shadow data allow moderate deviations while keeping general relativity consistent.

desk verdict The paper's headline ε constraints don't follow from its own equations, but the underlying metric calculations are mostly sound and the errors look fixable. read the letter →

arxiv 2504.18226 v1 pith:W6II75ZM submitted 2025-04-25 gr-qc astro-ph.HE

Reggie C.Pantig , Ali Ovgun , Gaetano Lambiase This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qcastro-ph.HE PACS 95.30.Sf04.70.-s97.60.Lf04.50.+h
keywords blackholeshadowgeneralizedComptonwavelengthquantumgravityphenomenologyweakdeflectionangleEventHorizonTelescopeHawkingtemperaturequasinormalmodesgravitationalredshift
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that a generalized Compton wavelength, built from vacuum energy-density fluctuations in a three-dimensional dynamical quantum vacuum, deforms the Schwarzschild metric into $F(r)=1-2MΣ/r+εM^2Σ^2/r^2$, a one-parameter deformation with $ε$ encoding quantum backreaction. It then derives exact expressions for the photon sphere, shadow radius, weak deflection angle, Hawking temperature, and eikonal quasinormal-mode frequencies of this black hole. Using Event Horizon Telescope shadow radii, it bounds $ε$ to $[-2.572, 0.336]$ for Sgr A* and $[-2.070, 0.620]$ for M87*, both intervals containing $ε=0$, so general relativity remains consistent while moderate deviations are not excluded. Solar-system weak-lensing data narrow $ε$ to about $0.061$. If the deformation is the right description, these formulas give concrete, testable predictions for next-generation VLBI and gravitational-wave observations.

What carries the argument

The central object is the deformed lapse function $F(r)=1-2MΣ/r+εM^2Σ^2/r^2$, with $Σ=4(1-ε+√(1-ε))/(1+√(1-ε))^3$ and $ε$ a dimensionless backreaction parameter. This single metric deformation carries the argument: every observable in the paper—photon sphere, shadow radius, deflection angle, Hawking temperature, quasinormal frequencies, gravitational redshift, and ringdown potential—is obtained by feeding $F(r)$ into standard geodesic, optical-metric, and perturbation equations. The paper also uses two established computational routes for deflection (a post-post-Newtonian expansion and a Gauss-Bonnet optical-metric integration) and a finite-difference time-domain method for the scalar ringdown, but all of their $\varepsilon$-dependence flows from the same $F(r)$.

What would settle it

Measure the Sgr A* shadow radius with next-generation VLBI to a precision of about $0.1M$; if the value is inconsistent with Eq. (12) evaluated for $ε∈[-2.572,0.336]$ (or the equivalent M87* interval), the GCW metric as written is excluded. A complementary check is a solar-system deflection measurement at better than about a percent of the second-order coefficient $π(11-3ε)M^2/(4b^2)$; the paper's preferred value $ε≈0.061$ changes that coefficient by roughly 1.7%, so a measurement resolving that shift would settle the parameter.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that the generalized Compton wavelength (GCW) framework gives a Schwarzschild-like black hole, called a black hole with generalized Compton effect (BHGCE), whose lapse function is $F(r)=1-2MΣ/r+εM^2Σ^2/r^2$, with $Σ=4(1-ε+√(1-ε))/(1+√(1-ε))^3$ and $ε≤1$. The paper derives the photon sphere $r_{ps}=MΣ(3+√(9-8ε))/2$, the observer-distance-dependent shadow radius, the second-order weak deflection angle $α=4M/b+π(11-3ε)M^2/(4b^2)$, the Hawking temperature $T_H=ℏ√(1-ε)/(2πMΣ(1+√(1-ε))^2)$, and eikonal quasinormal frequencies. It reports EHT-based bounds $ε∈[-2.572,0.336]$ (Sgr A*) and $ε∈[-2.070,0.620]$ (M87*), and a solar-system constraint $ε≈0.061$ from light deflection. The paper's conclusion is that the GCW model is a phenomenologically viable semiclassical description whose parameter can be probed by shadows, lensing, thermodynamics, and gravitational-wave ringdown.

Load-bearing premise

The argument collapses if the imported deformation $F(r)=1-2MΣ/r+εM^2Σ^2/r^2$ is not the actual backreaction produced by the generalized Compton wavelength, because then the shadow, lensing, and temperature formulas are just curve fits to a Reissner-Nordström-like metric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Positive $ε$ enlarges the photon sphere and shadow relative to Schwarzschild; negative $ε$ shrinks them, so high-resolution shadow radii translate directly into $ε$.
  • Positive $ε$ lowers the Hawking temperature, slowing black-hole evaporation, while negative $ε$ raises it, which would affect primordial-black-hole lifetimes.
  • Both the real and imaginary parts of eikonal quasinormal-mode frequencies shift with $ε$, so ringdown observations from gravitational-wave detectors can independently probe the parameter.
  • The solar-system deflection bound $ε≈0.061$ keeps GCW corrections tiny at stellar scales, meaning detectable deviations are expected only near horizons or in strong-field probes.
  • The gravitational redshift diverges at a horizon shifted by $ε$, so near-horizon spectroscopic measurements are sensitive to the deformation.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Not the paper's claim: because $F(r)$ has the same $1/r^2$ structure as Reissner-Nordström, the reported $ε$ intervals can be reinterpreted as an effective charge $Q_{\rm eff}=M\sqrt{ε}$; observations that distinguish a charge-like term from vacuum backreaction could separate the two interpretations.
  • Not the paper's claim: the shadow expression depends on the observer distance $r_{\rm obs}$ through the lapse factor, so fitting the same EHT intervals with a different assumed $r_{\rm obs}$ (for example, taking the distance to Sgr A*) would shift the quoted $ε$ bounds.
  • Not the paper's claim: the scalar ringdown shows trace echo-like structures for larger $ε$, so existing and future gravitational-wave echo searches could place independent upper limits on $ε$ even without a detection.
  • Not the paper's claim: applying the same $ε$ deformation to a rotating metric would produce asymmetric shadows and frame-dragging corrections, giving next-generation VLBI ring images a direct test that the static metric cannot provide.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper analyzes a static, spherically symmetric deformation of the Schwarzschild metric of the form F(r)=1−2MΣ/r+εM²Σ²/r², motivated by a 'generalized Compton wavelength' from a three-dimensional dynamical quantum vacuum. It derives exact expressions for the photon sphere, shadow radius (Eq. 12), weak deflection angles via the Keeton-Petters and Gauss-Bonnet methods, Hawking temperature, eikonal quasinormal mode frequencies, gravitational redshift, and scalar ringdown waveforms. The headline results are EHT constraints on ε for Sgr A* and M87* and a solar-system bound ε≈0.061, all claimed to be consistent with general relativity.

Significance. The paper offers a catalogue of analytic formulas for a Reissner-Nordström-like black hole metric with a free parameter ε. Some derivations, such as the photon sphere, the eikonal QNM relations, and the Hawking temperature, are internally consistent and could serve as reference expressions. However, the paper's central quantitative claims are undermined by three distinct technical problems: the EHT bounds do not follow from the stated shadow formula, the Keeton-Petters coefficient is miscomputed, and the solar-system comparison rests on an incorrect PPN normalization. These problems prevent the reported constraints from being accepted as tests of the generalized Compton wavelength framework.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III, Eq. (12) and the paragraph containing the EHT constraints] The quoted EHT constraints on ε for Sgr A* and M87* do not follow from the paper's own shadow formula. Taking r_obs→∞ in Eq. (12), the shadow radius in units of the ADM mass MΣ is ρ(ε)=(3+√(9−8ε))²/√(24+8√(9−8ε)−16ε). For ε=0 this gives 3√3≈5.196, matching Schwarzschild. Solving ρ=5.560 and ρ=4.209 yields ε≈−0.51 and ε≈0.88 respectively for Sgr A*, not the interval [−2.572,0.336] claimed in the text. The factor √F(r_obs) in Eq. (12) is ≤1 outside the horizon, so finite-distance effects cannot raise the predicted shadow radius and cannot reconcile the discrepancy. The M87* bounds are similarly inconsistent with the formula. The paper's central quantitative claim is therefore unsupported by its own equations.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (20), (21), (25), (27) and Eq. (29)] Substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (18) gives A2=π(15−3ε)/4, not π(11−3ε)/4 as written in Eq. (20). The error propagates into Eqs. (21), (25), and (27). The claim that Eq. (21) exactly reproduces the GR deflection for ε=0 is false, because the known second-order Schwarzschild coefficient is 15π/4, not 11π/4. Eq. (29) in the time-delay subsection is consistent with the correct coefficient (15−3ε), indicating an internal contradiction between the deflection-angle and time-delay expressions.
  3. [Section V, Eqs. (40) and (41)] The extraction of the solar-system bound ε≈0.061 is flawed. The PPN deflection angle should be proportional to (1+γ)/2 times 4M⊙/R⊙, with (1+γ)/2≈1 near general relativity, but Eq. (41) uses n=1.9998, which is off by a factor of two relative to the standard normalization. With this n, the leading-order terms in the comparison with Eq. (40) do not cancel, so the resulting equation cannot yield a meaningful constraint on ε. Additionally, the text reports a constraint only for Δ_PPN<0 because the positive branch produces an imaginary ε; this is not a two-sided bound and further indicates that the comparison is not performing as intended.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section VIII, text after Eq. (71)] The sentence 'Equation encapsulates the gravitational redshift in the RN metric' is inaccurate: the metric (8) is not the Reissner-Nordström metric. This appears to be a leftover fragment.
  2. [Section IV, Eqs. (24)–(27)] The same symbol ε is used for both the metric deformation parameter and the small lensing expansion parameter ϵ. This is confusing, especially in Eqs. (24)–(27) where both quantities appear in the same expressions. A different symbol or a boldface notation for the expansion parameter is needed.
  3. [Section II, after Eq. (7)] The domain ε∈(−∞,1] is stated as a property of the metric, but Eq. (8) itself is real for all ε. The restriction actually follows from the horizon condition in Eq. (52) and from requiring a physically sensible black hole. The paper should clarify the origin of this domain.
  4. [Figure 3 caption] The caption says the figure shows profiles 'for different multipole moments l', but the text and the legend indicate that only ε is varied. The caption should be corrected to avoid implying an l-dependence that is not shown.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: epsilon is a free parameter constrained by data, and all observables follow from the imported metric by standard derivation.

full rationale

I find no circular step in the derivation chain. The metric (Eq. 8) is an imported ansatz taken from Fiscaletti's cited work [1]; it is the input of the analysis, not a result derived from the observables. The shadow radius (Eq. 12), photon sphere (Eq. 10), weak deflection angles (Eqs. 21, 38-40), Hawking temperature (Eq. 54), quasinormal-mode frequencies (Eqs. 59, 61), gravitational redshift (Eq. 71), and ringdown waveforms are all computed from this metric by standard geodesic, thermodynamic, and perturbative methods. The deformation parameter epsilon is a free parameter, never defined in terms of the EHT shadow radius or any other predicted quantity; the EHT and solar-system bounds are parameter-estimation results, not predictions fed back into the derivation. No load-bearing self-citation appears: the authors' own related works [38, 41, 42, 44, 47] are cited only as background context and do not supply the central metric or any uniqueness theorem. The heavy reliance on Fiscaletti's 3D DQV construction is an evidence/correctness concern about the input model, not a circularity: if that input is wrong, the subsequent observables are wrong, but they are still derived, not assumed. The manuscript does contain apparent numerical inconsistencies, including EHT intervals that do not reproduce from Eq. (12) at asymptotic infinity and a Keeton-Petters coefficient in Eq. (20) that disagrees with substituting Eq. (15) into Eq. (18); these are arithmetic consistency failures, which are correctness risks and do not constitute circularity. The derivation is therefore self-contained relative to its stated ansatz.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The metric depends on one free parameter, epsilon, plus Sigma which is a function of epsilon. All physical results are derived from this one-parameter family. The main unverified inputs are the 3D DQV construction and the specific deformation of the lapse function, both taken from Fiscaletti. The paper introduces no new particles or fields, but it does rely on an unvalidated vacuum model.

free parameters (1)
  • epsilon (deformation parameter) = epsilon in [-2.572,0.336] (Sgr A*), [-2.070,0.620] (M87*), epsilon ~0.061 (solar system)
    Introduced in Eq (4) as quantum backreaction; no first-principles value; constrained by matching shadow and deflection data.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption 3D DQV generalized uncertainty relation Eq (1) and vacuum energy fluctuation Eq (2).
    Imported from Fiscaletti [1]; no experimental or independent support is given, and the whole metric modification rests on it.
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized Compton wavelength Eq (3) equals the Schwarzschild radius and deforms the metric via Eq (4) with parameter epsilon.
    This is the central input, cited from [1]; the 1/r^2 backreaction term is postulated, not derived from an action principle.
  • domain assumption Mass is emergent via Eq (5), which is used to recast the lapse function in terms of M and Sigma.
    Eq (5) is taken from [1]; it changes the interpretation but not the functional form of the metric.
  • domain assumption EHT shadow-radius intervals can be mapped onto Eq (12).
    The observer distance in Eq (12) is not specified in the constraint section, so the mapping is underdefined.
  • standard math Eikonal QNM relation omega = l Omega0 - i(n+1/2) lambda (Eq 62) applies.
    Standard correspondence for spherically symmetric static black holes in the eikonal limit.
  • domain assumption PPN solar deflection formula Eq (41) with n=1.9998.
    The normalization doubles the usual Einstein deflection and is not explained; the resulting epsilon=0.061 depends on this convention.
invented entities (1)
  • 3D dynamical quantum vacuum (3D DQV) and generalized Compton wavelength
    purpose: Provides the physical motivation for the deformed metric Eq (8) and emergent mass formula Eq (5).
    No falsifiable handle is provided in this paper; the framework is imported from Fiscaletti [1] and functions as an interpretive overlay, while the metric itself is a standard Reissner-Nordstrom-like form.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Phenomenology of Schwarzschild-like Black Holes with a Generalized Compton Wavelength." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/W6II75ZM

@misc{pith2026250418226,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Phenomenology of Schwarzschild-like Black Holes with a Generalized Compton Wavelength},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/W6II75ZM}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2504.18226}
}
abstract

We investigate the influence of the generalized Compton wavelength (GCW), emerging from a three-dimensional dynamical quantum vacuum (3D DQV) on Schwarzschild-like black hole spacetimes, motivated by the work of Fiscaletti [10.1134/S0040577925020096] \cite{Fiscaletti:2025iuh}. The GCW modifies the classical geometry through a deformation parameter $ \varepsilon $, encoding quantum gravitational backreaction. We derive exact analytical expressions for the black hole shadow radius, photon sphere, and weak deflection angle, incorporating higher-order corrections and finite-distance effects of a black hole with generalized Compton effect (BHGCE). Using Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) data, constraints on $ \varepsilon $ are obtained: $ \varepsilon \in [-2.572, 0.336] $ for Sgr. A* and $ \varepsilon \in [-2.070, 0.620] $ for M87*, both consistent with general relativity yet allowing moderate deviations. Weak lensing analyses via the Keeton-Petters and Gauss-Bonnet formalisms further constrain $ \varepsilon \approx 0.061 $, aligning with solar system bounds. We compute the modified Hawking temperature, showing that positive $ \varepsilon $ suppresses black hole evaporation. Quasinormal mode frequencies in the eikonal limit are also derived, demonstrating that both the oscillation frequency and damping rate shift under GCW-induced corrections. Additionally, the gravitational redshift and scalar perturbation waveform exhibit deformations sensitive to $ \varepsilon $. Our results highlight the GCW framework as a phenomenologically viable semiclassical model, offering testable predictions for upcoming gravitational wave and VLBI observations.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2504.18226 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Gravitational redshift z versus [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Variation of the scalar potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

69 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ϵ. (25) Magnifications µ are particularly sensitive observables, given by µ =µ0 +µ1ϵ, (26) µ0 = θ4 0 θ4 0− 1, µ 1 =−πθ3 0(11− 3ε) (1 +θ2 0)3 , (27) which shows explicit dependency on the deviation parameters. Physically, deviations in magnifications from GR predictions can signal modified gravity effects or nonlinear electromag- netic backgrounds around l...

    work page

  2. [2]

    Implications of generalized Compton wave- length in the effects of general relativity,

    D. Fiscaletti, “Implications of generalized Compton wave- length in the effects of general relativity,” Theor. Math. Phys. 222, 332–355 (2025)

    work page 2025

  3. [3]

    Generalized uncertainty principle in quan- tum gravity from micro-black hole gedanken experiment,

    Fabio Scardigli, “Generalized uncertainty principle in quan- tum gravity from micro-black hole gedanken experiment,” Physics Letters B 452, 39–44 (1999)

    work page 1999

  4. [4]

    Generalized Uncertainty Principle and Self-dual Black Holes,

    Bernard Carr, Leonardo Modesto, and Isabeau Premont- Schwarz, “Generalized Uncertainty Principle and Self-dual Black Holes,” (2011), arXiv:1107.0708 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2011

  5. [5]

    Carr, 1st Karl Schwarzschild Meeting on Gravita- tional Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2015) pp

    Bernard J. Carr, 1st Karl Schwarzschild Meeting on Gravita- tional Physics (Springer International Publishing, 2015) pp. 159–167

    work page 2015

  6. [6]

    Sub- planckian black holes and the generalized uncertainty principle,

    Bernard Carr, Jonas Mureika, and Piero Nicolini, “Sub- planckian black holes and the generalized uncertainty principle,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP07(2015)052

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep07(2015)052 2015

  7. [7]

    The compton- schwarzschild correspondence from extended de broglie re- lations,

    Matthew J. Lake and Bernard Carr, “The compton- schwarzschild correspondence from extended de broglie re- lations,” Journal of High Energy Physics 2015 (2015), https://doi.org/10.1007/JHEP11(2015)105

    work page doi:10.1007/jhep11(2015)105 2015

  8. [8]

    The generalized uncertainty principle and higher dimensions: Linking black holes and elementary parti- cles,

    B. J. Carr, “The generalized uncertainty principle and higher dimensions: Linking black holes and elementary parti- cles,” Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences 9 (2022), https://doi.org/10.3389/fspas.2022.1008221

    arXiv 2022

Show all 69 references
  1. [9]

    Quantum black hole in the generalized uncertainty principle framework,

    A. Bina, S. Jalalzadeh, and A. Moslehi, “Quantum black hole in the generalized uncertainty principle framework,” Physical Review D 81, 023528 (2010)

    2010

  2. [10]

    Micro- scopic black hole stabilization via the uncertainty principle,

    Constantinos G Vayenas and Dimitrios Grigoriou, “Micro- scopic black hole stabilization via the uncertainty principle,” Journal of Physics: Conference Series 574, 012059 (2015)

    2015

  3. [11]

    The Comp- ton/Schwarzschild duality, black hole entropy and quantum information,

    Marcelo Ferreira da Silva and Carlos A. S. Silva, “The Comp- ton/Schwarzschild duality, black hole entropy and quantum information,” (2022), arXiv:2205.09502 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Phenomenology of GUP stars,

    Luca Buoninfante, Gaetano Lambiase, Giuseppe Gaetano Luciano, and Luciano Petruzziello, “Phenomenology of GUP stars,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 853 (2020), arXiv:2001.05825 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    GUP parameter and Lorentz violating terms,

    Fabio Scardigli and Gaetano Lambiase, “GUP parameter and Lorentz violating terms,” J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 1071, 012019 (2018)

    2018

  6. [14]

    GUP parameter from quantum corrections to the New- tonian potential,

    Fabio Scardigli, Gaetano Lambiase, and Elias Vagenas, “GUP parameter from quantum corrections to the New- tonian potential,” Phys. Lett. B 767, 242–246 (2017), arXiv:1611.01469 [hep-th]

    2017 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Coherent states for generalized uncertainty relations as Tsallis probability amplitudes: New route to nonextensive thermostatistics,

    Petr Jizba, Gaetano Lambiase, Giuseppe Gaetano Luciano, and Luciano Petruzziello, “Coherent states for generalized uncertainty relations as Tsallis probability amplitudes: New route to nonextensive thermostatistics,” Phys. Rev. D 108, 064024 (2023), arXiv:2308.12368 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Generalized uncer- tainty principle and asymptotically safe gravity,

    Gaetano Lambiase and Fabio Scardigli, “Generalized uncer- tainty principle and asymptotically safe gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 105, 124054 (2022), arXiv:2204.07416 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Baryon asymmetry from the generalized un- certainty principle,

    Saurya Das, Mitja Fridman, Gaetano Lambiase, and Elias C. Vagenas, “Baryon asymmetry from the generalized un- certainty principle,” Phys. Lett. B 824, 136841 (2022), arXiv:2107.02077 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Generalized Uncertainty Principle in three- dimensional gravity and the BTZ black hole,

    Alfredo Iorio, Gaetano Lambiase, Pablo Pais, and Fabio Scardigli, “Generalized Uncertainty Principle in three- dimensional gravity and the BTZ black hole,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 105002 (2020), arXiv:1910.09019 [hep-th]. 13

    2020 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Noncommutative Schwarzschild geometry and generalized uncertainty principle,

    T. Kanazawa, G. Lambiase, G. Vilasi, and A. Yoshioka, “Noncommutative Schwarzschild geometry and generalized uncertainty principle,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 95 (2019)

    2019

  12. [20]

    Lorentz violation and generalized uncertainty principle,

    Gaetano Lambiase and Fabio Scardigli, “Lorentz violation and generalized uncertainty principle,” Phys. Rev. D 97, 075003 (2018), arXiv:1709.00637 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Quantum- corrected scattering of a Schwarzschild black hole with GUP effect,

    N. Heidari, H. Hassanabadi, and H. Chen, “Quantum- corrected scattering of a Schwarzschild black hole with GUP effect,” Phys. Lett. B 838, 137707 (2023)

    2023

  14. [22]

    EUP-corrected thermodynamics of BTZ black hole,

    B. Hamil, B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, and L. Dahbi, “EUP-corrected thermodynamics of BTZ black hole,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 37, 2250130 (2022), arXiv:2203.09394 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Thermodynamics of Schwarzschild black hole surrounded by quintessence with generalized uncertainty principle,

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, B. Hamil, and L. Dahbi, “Thermodynamics of Schwarzschild black hole surrounded by quintessence with generalized uncertainty principle,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 976 (2021), arXiv:2110.01383 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Thermodynamics of the Schwarzschild and Reissner–Nordstr¨ om black holes under higher-order generalized uncertainty principle,

    S. Hassanabadi, J. Kˇ r ´ ıˇ z, W. S. Chung, B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, E. Maghsoodi, and H. Hassanabadi, “Thermodynamics of the Schwarzschild and Reissner–Nordstr¨ om black holes under higher-order generalized uncertainty principle,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136, 918 (2021), arXiv:2110...

    2021 arXiv

  17. [25]

    The generalized Klein-Gordon oscillator in a Cosmic Space-Time with a Space-Like Dislocation and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect,

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, J. Kˇ r ´ ıˇ z, P. Sedaghatnia, and H. Has- sanabadi, “The generalized Klein-Gordon oscillator in a Cosmic Space-Time with a Space-Like Dislocation and the Aharonov-Bohm Effect,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 135, 691 (2020), arXiv:2011.02056 [quant-ph]

    2020 arXiv

  18. [26]

    New Higher-Order Gener- alized Uncertainty Principle: Applications,

    B. Hamil and B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, “New Higher-Order Gener- alized Uncertainty Principle: Applications,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 60, 2790–2803 (2021), arXiv:2009.13838 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Shadows near supermassive black holes: From a theoretical concept to GR test,

    Alexander F. Zakharov, “Shadows near supermassive black holes: From a theoretical concept to GR test,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 33, 2340004 (2024), arXiv:2308.01301 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Constraints on a Tidal Charge of the Supermassive Black Hole in M87* with the EHT Observations in April 2017,

    Alexander F. Zakharov, “Constraints on a Tidal Charge of the Supermassive Black Hole in M87* with the EHT Observations in April 2017,” Universe 8, 141 (2022), arXiv:2108.01533 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Constraints on a charge in the Reissner-Nordstr¨ om metric for the black hole at the Galactic Center,

    Alexander F. Zakharov, “Constraints on a charge in the Reissner-Nordstr¨ om metric for the black hole at the Galactic Center,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 062007 (2014), arXiv:1407.7457 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Black holes with scalar hair in light of the Event Horizon Telescope,

    Mohsen Khodadi, Alireza Allahyari, Sunny Vagnozzi, and David F. Mota, “Black holes with scalar hair in light of the Event Horizon Telescope,” JCAP 09, 026 (2020), arXiv:2005.05992 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Telescope image of Sagittarius A,

    Sunny Vagnozzi et al., “Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Telescope image of Sagittarius A,” Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 165007 (2023), arXiv:2205.07787 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Hunting for extra dimen- sions in the shadow of M87*,

    Sunny Vagnozzi and Luca Visinelli, “Hunting for extra dimen- sions in the shadow of M87*,” Phys. Rev. D 100, 024020 (2019), arXiv:1905.12421 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Magnetically charged black holes from non- linear electrodynamics and the Event Horizon Telescope,

    Alireza Allahyari, Mohsen Khodadi, Sunny Vagnozzi, and David F. Mota, “Magnetically charged black holes from non- linear electrodynamics and the Event Horizon Telescope,” JCAP 02, 003 (2020), arXiv:1912.08231 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Upper bound on the GUP parameter using the black hole shadow,

    Juliano C. S. Neves, “Upper bound on the GUP parameter using the black hole shadow,” Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 343 (2020), arXiv:1906.11735 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Con- straining the Generalized Uncertainty Principle with the light twisted by rotating black holes and M87*,

    Fabrizio Tamburini, Fabiano Feleppa, and Bo Thid´ e, “Con- straining the Generalized Uncertainty Principle with the light twisted by rotating black holes and M87*,” Phys. Lett. B 826, 136894 (2022), arXiv:2103.13750 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Quasinormal modes and shadow of a Schwarzschild black hole with GUP,

    M. A. Anacleto, J. A. V. Campos, F. A. Brito, and E. Pas- sos, “Quasinormal modes and shadow of a Schwarzschild black hole with GUP,” Annals Phys. 434, 168662 (2021), arXiv:2108.04998 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Thermodynamics and shadows of GUP-corrected black holes with topological defects in Bumblebee gravity,

    Ronit Karmakar, Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi, and Umananda Dev Goswami, “Thermodynamics and shadows of GUP-corrected black holes with topological defects in Bumblebee gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ. 41, 101249 (2023), arXiv:2303.00297 [gr- qc]

    2023 arXiv

  30. [38]

    A critique on some aspects of GUP effective metric,

    Yen Chin Ong, “A critique on some aspects of GUP effective metric,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 209 (2023), arXiv:2303.10719 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Investigating the connection between gen- eralized uncertainty principle and asymptotically safe gravity in black hole signatures through shadow and quasinormal modes,

    Gaetano Lambiase, Reggie C. Pantig, Dhruba Jyoti Gogoi, and Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, “Investigating the connection between gen- eralized uncertainty principle and asymptotically safe gravity in black hole signatures through shadow and quasinormal modes,” Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 679 (2023), a...

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Weak gravitational lensing and shadow of a GUP-modified Schwarzschild black hole in the presence of plasma,

    Husanboy Hoshimov, Odil Yunusov, Farruh Atamurotov, Mubasher Jamil, and Ahmadjon Abdujabbarov, “Weak gravitational lensing and shadow of a GUP-modified Schwarzschild black hole in the presence of plasma,” Phys. Dark Univ. 43, 101392 (2024), arXiv:2312.10678 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Gup-corrected black holes: thermodynamic properties, evaporation time and shadow constraint from EHT observations of M87* and Sgr A*,

    H. Chen, S. H. Dong, E. Maghsoodi, S. Hassanabadi, J. Kˇ riˇ z, S. Zare, and H. Hassanabadi, “Gup-corrected black holes: thermodynamic properties, evaporation time and shadow constraint from EHT observations of M87* and Sgr A*,” Eur. Phys. J. Plus 139, 759 (2024)

    2024

  34. [42]

    Generalized Extended Uncertainty Principle Black Holes: Shadow and Lensing in the Macro- and Microscopic Realms,

    Nikko John Leo S. Lobos and Reggie C. Pantig, “Generalized Extended Uncertainty Principle Black Holes: Shadow and Lensing in the Macro- and Microscopic Realms,” MDPI Physics 4, 1318–1330 (2022), arXiv:2208.00618 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Constraints via the Event Horizon Telescope for Black Hole Solutions with Dark Matter under the Generalized Uncer- tainty Principle Minimal Length Scale Effect,

    Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, Lemuel John F. Sese, and Reggie C. Pantig, “Constraints via the Event Horizon Telescope for Black Hole Solutions with Dark Matter under the Generalized Uncer- tainty Principle Minimal Length Scale Effect,” Annalen Phys. 536, 2300390 (2024), arXiv:2309.07442 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Im- ages and stability of black hole with cloud of strings and quintessence in EGUP framework,

    Shahid Chaudhary, Muhammad Danish Sultan, Adnan Malik, Atiq ur Rehman, Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, and Ayman A. Ghfar, “Im- ages and stability of black hole with cloud of strings and quintessence in EGUP framework,” Nucl. Phys. B 1006, 116635 (2024)

    2024

  37. [45]

    Spacetime-curvature induced uncer- tainty principle: Linking the large-structure global effects to the local black hole physics,

    Reggie C. Pantig, Gaetano Lambiase, Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, and Nikko John Leo S. Lobos, “Spacetime-curvature induced uncer- tainty principle: Linking the large-structure global effects to the local black hole physics,” Physics of the Dark Universe 47, 101817 (2025)

    2025

  38. [46]

    Shadow and weak deflection angle of a black hole in nonlocal gravity,

    Qi-Ming Fu, Shao-Wen Wei, Li Zhao, Yu-Xiao Liu, and Xin Zhang, “Shadow and weak deflection angle of a black hole in nonlocal gravity,” Universe 8, 341 (2022)

    2022

  39. [47]

    Shadow and gravitational weak lensing around a quantum-corrected black hole surrounded by plasma*,

    Mirzabek Alloqulov, Yokubjon Isaqjonov, Sanjar Shayma- tov, and Abdul Jawad, “Shadow and gravitational weak lensing around a quantum-corrected black hole surrounded by plasma*,” Chinese Physics C 49, 045104 (2025)

    2025

  40. [48]

    Traces of quantum fuzziness on the black hole shadow and particle deflection in the multi- fractional theory of gravity,

    Reggie C. Pantig, “Traces of quantum fuzziness on the black hole shadow and particle deflection in the multi- fractional theory of gravity,” Chin. Phys. C 49, 065102 (2025), arXiv:2410.15106 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  41. [49]

    The Geometry of photon surfaces,

    Clarissa-Marie Claudel, K. S. Virbhadra, and G. F. R. Ellis, “The Geometry of photon surfaces,” J. Math. Phys. 42, 818–838 (2001), arXiv:gr-qc/0005050

    2001 arXiv

  42. [50]

    Constraints on black-hole charges with the 2017 EHT ob- servations of M87*,

    Prashant Kocherlakota et al. (Event Horizon Telescope), “Constraints on black-hole charges with the 2017 EHT ob- servations of M87*,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 104047 (2021), arXiv:2105.09343 [gr-qc]. 14

    2021 arXiv

  43. [51]

    POST POSTNEWTONIAN DEFLECTION OF LIGHT BY THE SUN,

    R. Epstein and I. I. Shapiro, “POST POSTNEWTONIAN DEFLECTION OF LIGHT BY THE SUN,” Phys. Rev. D 22, 2947–2949 (1980)

    1980

  44. [52]

    The Confrontation between General Rel- ativity and Experiment,

    Clifford M. Will, “The Confrontation between General Rel- ativity and Experiment,” Living Rev. Rel. 17, 4 (2014), arXiv:1403.7377 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Formalism for testing theories of gravity using lensing by compact objects. I. Static, spherically symmetric case,

    Charles R. Keeton and A. O. Petters, “Formalism for testing theories of gravity using lensing by compact objects. I. Static, spherically symmetric case,” Phys. Rev. D 72, 104006 (2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0511019

    2005 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Light bending in f(T ) gravity,

    Matteo Luca Ruggiero, “Light bending in f(T ) gravity,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650073 (2016), arXiv:1601.00588 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Deflection Angle and Shadow of the Reissner–Nordstr¨ om Black Hole with Higher- Order Magnetic Correction in Einstein-Nonlinear-Maxwell Fields,

    Yashmitha Kumaran and Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, “Deflection Angle and Shadow of the Reissner–Nordstr¨ om Black Hole with Higher- Order Magnetic Correction in Einstein-Nonlinear-Maxwell Fields,” Symmetry 14, 2054 (2022), arXiv:2210.00468 [gr- qc]

    2022 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Schwarzschild black hole lensing,

    K. S. Virbhadra and George F. R. Ellis, “Schwarzschild black hole lensing,” Phys. Rev. D 62, 084003 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/9904193

    2000

  49. [57]

    Role of the scalar field in gravitational lensing,

    K. S. Virbhadra, D. Narasimha, and S. M. Chitre, “Role of the scalar field in gravitational lensing,” Astron. Astrophys. 337, 1–8 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9801174

    1998 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Conservation of distortion of gravitation- ally lensed images,

    K. S. Virbhadra, “Conservation of distortion of gravitation- ally lensed images,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 124004 (2024), arXiv:2402.17190 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Correspondence between two gravitational lens equations in a static and spherically symmetric spacetime,

    Ryuya Kudo and Hideki Asada, “Correspondence between two gravitational lens equations in a static and spherically symmetric spacetime,” Phys. Rev. D 111, 044014 (2025), arXiv:2407.02046 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Distortions of images of Schwarzschild lens- ing,

    K. S. Virbhadra, “Distortions of images of Schwarzschild lens- ing,” Phys. Rev. D 106, 064038 (2022), arXiv:2204.01879 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Circular Orbit of a Particle and Weak Gravitational Lensing,

    Zonghai Li, Guodong Zhang, and Ali ¨Ovg¨ un, “Circular Orbit of a Particle and Weak Gravitational Lensing,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 124058 (2020), arXiv:2006.13047 [gr-qc]

    2020 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Constraints from Solar System tests on a covariant loop quantum black hole,

    Ruo-Ting Chen, Shulan Li, Li-Gang Zhu, and Jian-Pin Wu, “Constraints from Solar System tests on a covariant loop quantum black hole,” Phys. Rev. D 109, 024010 (2024), arXiv:2311.12270 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Progress in measurements of the gravitational bending of radio waves using the vlba,

    E. Fomalont, S. Kopeikin, G. Lanyi, and J. Benson, “Progress in measurements of the gravitational bending of radio waves using the vlba,” The Astrophysical Journal 699, 1395–1402 (2009)

    2009

  56. [64]

    On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,

    Erik P. Verlinde, “On the Origin of Gravity and the Laws of Newton,” JHEP 04, 029 (2011), arXiv:1001.0785 [hep-th]

    2011 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Misner, K

    Charles W. Misner, K. S. Thorne, and J. A. Wheeler, Grav- itation (W. H. Freeman, San Francisco, 1973)

    1973

  58. [66]

    Noncommutative geome- try inspired wormholes and dirty black holes,

    Piero Nicolini and Euro Spallucci, “Noncommutative geome- try inspired wormholes and dirty black holes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 27, 015010 (2010), arXiv:0902.4654 [gr-qc]

    2010 arXiv

  59. [67]

    Probing the parameters of a Schwarzschild black hole surrounded by quintessence and cloud of strings through four standard astrophysical tests,

    V ´ ıctor H. C´ ardenas, Mohsen Fathi, Marco Olivares, and J. R. Villanueva, “Probing the parameters of a Schwarzschild black hole surrounded by quintessence and cloud of strings through four standard astrophysical tests,” Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 866 (2021), arXiv:2109.08187 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Stability of Reissner-Nordstr¨ om black hole in de Sitter background under charged scalar perturbation,

    Zhiying Zhu, Shao-Jun Zhang, C. E. Pellicer, Bin Wang, and Elcio Abdalla, “Stability of Reissner-Nordstr¨ om black hole in de Sitter background under charged scalar perturbation,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 044042 (2014), [Addendum: Phys.Rev.D 90, 049904 (2014)], arXiv:1405.4931 [hep-th]

    2014 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Echoes from phantom wormholes,

    Hang Liu, Peng Liu, Yunqi Liu, Bin Wang, and Jian-Pin Wu, “Echoes from phantom wormholes,” Phys. Rev. D 103, 024006 (2021), arXiv:2007.09078 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.