Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 3 minor 48 references

A unified model of solar prominence formation with self-consistent heating

T0 review · 2 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims evaporation-condensation and direct-injection prominence formation are two outcomes of localized chromospheric heating, with heating height as the switch; 2D MHD simulations with self-consistent reconnection heating validat

desk verdict The submitted file is the wrong paper, so all we can actually judge is the abstract; the underlying idea is a reasonable next step, but the claimed 2D MHD validation is unverifiable here. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.15173 v1 pith:3DACDP4K submitted 2025-08-21 astro-ph.SR

C. J. Huang , Y. W. Ni , J. H. Guo , P. F. Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SR
keywords solarprominencesevaporation-condensationdirectinjectionchromosphericheatingmagneticreconnectionMHDsimulationsmasscirculation
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

Solar prominences—cool, dense plasma suspended in the hot corona—are thought to form through two competing routes. This paper argues that the routes are not competitors: both start from localized heating in the chromosphere, and the height of that heating selects what happens next. Heating in the upper chromosphere evaporates plasma into the corona, where it later condenses; heating in the lower chromosphere pushes cool plasma upward directly. Earlier tests of this idea imposed the heating by hand; here, two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations let magnetic reconnection produce the heating on its own, and the authors report that the simulations validate the unified picture. The result also speaks to how mass circulates between the chromosphere and corona.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the localized reconnection-heated region in the chromosphere, with its altitude as the control parameter. In the simulations, magnetic reconnection supplies the energy that the model previously had to insert artificially; the pressure and temperature response of the plasma at that height determines whether the outcome is evaporation followed by condensation or direct injection. The height of the reconnection site is therefore the mechanism that unifies the two popular formation models.

What would settle it

In the reported 2D simulations, change only the magnetic geometry so that reconnection self-consistently chooses upper-chromospheric sites while thermodynamic parameters stay fixed; if a direct-injection prominence forms under those conditions, the height–route link fails. Observationally, identify a direct-injection prominence whose associated heating is independently located in the upper chromosphere (from footpoint brightening altitudes), which the model forbids.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the evaporation–condensation model and direct-injection model of solar prominence formation are two manifestations of the same underlying process: localized heating in the chromosphere by magnetic reconnection. The formation height of that heating is the switch. Upper-chromospheric reconnection heats in-situ plasma to coronal temperatures, it evaporates into the corona, cools, and condenses into a prominence; lower-chromospheric reconnection builds pressure that pushes the cold upper-chromospheric plasma into the corona directly. The paper reports 2D MHD simulations in which reconnection naturally produces the heating at different heights—no hand-imposed hea

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the reconnection heating in the simulations is a natural realization of the localized chromospheric heating the model calls for, not a heating whose location and strength are effectively set by the chosen initial and boundary conditions.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If correct, the two prominent formation mechanisms reduce to one: reconnection-driven chromospheric heating, with no need for separate physical models.
  • The altitude of reconnection in the low atmosphere becomes a predictive observable, linking footpoint heating signatures to whether a forming prominence will be of the evaporation-condensation or direct-injection type.
  • Self-consistent 2D MHD simulations give a firmer basis for synthetic observations of prominences, since the heating no longer has to be inserted by hand.
  • The same heating process can drive mass circulation between the chromosphere and corona, connecting prominence formation to the broader cycling of plasma in the solar atmosphere.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the height switch predicts a testable correlation—prominences with high reconnection sites (visible as bright footpoints in transition-region lines) should show evaporation-condensation Doppler patterns, while low-site events should show immediate injection.
  • Editorial inference: the same altitude-controlled heating logic may apply beyond the Sun, suggesting that stellar prominence and coronal-rain formation could be governed by the height of reconnection-driven heating rather than by heating strength alone.
  • Editorial note: the full text attached to this paper is a black-hole polarization study, not the solar-prominence work named in the title and abstract; the pith above follows the title and abstract, and the discrepancy needs resolution before publication of this page.
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

2 major / 3 minor

Summary. The submission is announced as arXiv:2508.15173, an astro-ph.SR paper proposing a unified model of solar prominence formation in which localized chromospheric heating—realized self-consistently by magnetic reconnection at different heights—selects between the evaporation–condensation and direct-injection routes. The abstract claims that two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations with self-consistent heating further validate this model. However, the full text supplied is arXiv:2508.15178v1, an unrelated gr-qc paper on polarized black-hole images due to frame dragging. None of the announced solar-prominence content—no 2D MHD equations, no simulation setup, no reconnection-heating implementation, no figures, no numerical results, no error analysis—is present in the submitted document. The central claim can therefore not be checked against any supporting evidence.

Significance. If the claimed result were present and correct, it would address a substantive question in solar physics: whether the evaporation–condensation and direct-injection prominence-formation routes can both emerge from a single mechanism (localized reconnection heating) rather than being imposed separately. The proposed heating-height dichotomy is an interesting and potentially falsifiable idea. However, the submitted manuscript contains none of the promised evidence. There are no machine-checked proofs, reproducible numerical code, parameter-free derivations, or simulation diagnostics by which to assess the result. The only assessable feature is the abstract, whose assertions are unverifiable against the supplied text. Consequently, the significance of the work cannot be evaluated beyond the plausibility of the underlying idea.

major comments (2)
  1. [Full Text, §§1–4; Abstract] The body of the submission is the paper 'Semi-analytical Study on the Polarized Images of Black Hole due to Frame Dragging' (arXiv:2508.15178v1). It contains no solar prominence physics, no 2D MHD equations, no description of the reconnection-heating implementation, no simulation diagnostics, and no numerical results bearing on the abstract's claims. The central assertion—that the simulations validate the unified prominence model—is therefore entirely unsupported by the submitted document. This is not a local defect in a derivation; it is the absence of the entire evidentiary basis for the paper's headline conclusion.
  2. [Abstract: 'naturally realized by magnetic reconnection at different heights'] The abstract states that localized heating is 'naturally realized by magnetic reconnection at different heights' and that the simulations 'further validate our model.' Without the simulation setup, it is impossible to determine whether the reconnection heights are emergent properties of the dynamics or are effectively prescribed by the initial magnetic configuration and boundary driving. This distinction is load-bearing because the heating-height dichotomy is the model's central mechanism. If the reconnection locations are imposed by the initial conditions, then the claimed validation would be circular rather than predictive. As submitted, the manuscript provides no way to test this.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract refers to 'our previous study' that confirmed the idea with one-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, but no citation is given. The reader cannot trace the antecedent model or its assumptions.
  2. [Abstract] The abstract promises that mass circulation in the solar atmosphere is 'briefly discussed,' but no such discussion appears in the supplied full text.
  3. [General] The equations, figures, reference list, and notation in the supplied full text are entirely unrelated to the announced topic. The document's internal identification (arXiv:2508.15178v1 [gr-qc]) is inconsistent with the claimed submission number and subject classification.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity demonstrated: the supplied full text is an unrelated black-hole polarization paper, and the claimed prominence simulations are absent, so no specific circular reduction can be exhibited.

full rationale

The submitted document pairs an abstract for arXiv:2508.15173—a solar-prominence MHD study by Huang, Ni, Guo, and Chen—with a full text that is actually arXiv:2508.15178v1, an unrelated gr-qc paper on polarized black-hole images by Wang, Chen, Guo, and Chen. The central claim in the abstract, that 2D MHD simulations with self-consistent magnetic-reconnection heating validate the unified evaporation-condensation/direct-injection model, is therefore not supported by any equations, simulation setup, figures, or numerical results in the supplied text. This is a missing-evidence and document-mismatch problem, not a demonstrated circularity. Under the hard rule that circularity must be exhibited by quoting a specific reduction—e.g., an equation equivalent to its input by construction, or a fitted parameter renamed as a prediction—no such step can be identified from the available text. The black-hole paper itself, if considered on its own terms, is self-contained: it defines three image-plane critical locations from geodesic motion and the Penrose-Walker constant, derives approximate analytic relations, and verifies them numerically. It fits no parameters to the quantities it predicts, and its self-citations are to standard ray-tracing and polarization-transfer methods rather than to a load-bearing uniqueness claim or ansatz. Accordingly, the honest circularity finding is 0: no circular reduction is exhibited, and the abstract's validation claim simply cannot be checked from this document.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new material entities are introduced. The ledger instead captures the simulation inputs (heating height and amplitude) and the domain assumptions about prominence mechanisms, reconnection as the heating source, and the adequacy of 2D ideal MHD for this problem. These are the load-bearing premises that would need scrutiny in the actual manuscript.

free parameters (1)
  • Localized heating height and amplitude
    The unified model's outcome (evaporation-condensation vs direct injection) is selected by the height of localized heating in the chromosphere; these heating properties are inputs to the simulation, per the abstract.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Solar prominences form via chromospheric plasma being heated and evaporated then condensed, or being directly injected into the corona
    The abstract takes these two formation routes as the phenomena to be explained.
  • domain assumption Localized heating from magnetic reconnection in the chromosphere is the physical heating source
    The model postulates this mechanism without independent evidence in the abstract; the 2D MHD simulation implements reconnection as the energy source.
  • domain assumption Ideal MHD equations adequately model chromosphere-corona dynamics for prominence formation
    2D MHD simulations are used to represent the solar atmosphere; the validity of this representation is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A unified model of solar prominence formation with self-consistent heating." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3DACDP4K

@misc{pith2026250815173,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A unified model of solar prominence formation with self-consistent heating},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3DACDP4K}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.15173}
}
read the original abstract

Several models have been proposed to explain the formation of solar prominences, among which the evaporation--condensation model and the direct injection model are the most popular ones. In our previous study we proposed to unify these two models, namely, both are due to localized heating in the chromosphere, presumably via magnetic reconnection. When the localized heating is located in the upper chromosphere, the cold in-situ plasmas are heated to coronal temperatures, then evaporated to the corona, and finally condensate to form a prominence. Such a process is manifested as the evaporation-condensation model. When the localized heating is located in the lower chromosphere, the enhanced in-situ pressure would push the cold plasmas in the upper chromosphere to the corona directly, which is manifested as the direct injection model. While the idea was confirmed by the one-dimensional hydrodynamic simulations, the heating was imposed ad hoc. In order to simulate the localized heating more self-consistently, we perform two-dimensional magnetohydrodynamic simulations in this paper, where the localized heating is naturally realized by magnetic reconnection at different heights. The simulations further validate our model. Besides, mass circulation in the solar atmosphere is also briefly discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    ¨Uber den Einfluß der Eigenrotation der Zentralk¨ orper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,

    J. Lense and H. Thirring, “ ¨Uber den Einfluß der Eigenrotation der Zentralk¨ orper auf die Bewegung der Planeten und Monde nach der Einsteinschen Gravitationstheorie,” Physikalische Zeitschrift 19 (Jan., 1918) 156

    work page 1918

  2. [2]

    A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense-Thirring effect,

    I. Ciufolini and E. C. Pavlis, “A confirmation of the general relativistic prediction of the Lense-Thirring effect,” Nature 431 no. 7011, (Oct., 2004) 958–960. 22

    work page 2004

  3. [3]

    Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity,

    C. W. F. Everitt et al., “Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a Space Experiment to Test General Relativity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 (2011) 221101, ��������������� �������

    work page 2011

  4. [4]

    Universal interferometric signatures of a black hole’s photon ring,

    M. D. Johnson et al., “Universal interferometric signatures of a black hole’s photon ring,” Sci. Adv. 6 no. 12, (2020) eaaz1310, ���������������� �������������

    work page 2020

  5. [5]

    How different are shadows of compact objects with and without horizons?,

    X. Wang, Y. Hou, and M. Guo, “How different are shadows of compact objects with and without horizons?,” JCAP 05 (2023) 036, ���������������� �������

    work page 2023

  6. [6]

    Is a photon ring invariably a closed structure?,

    X. Wang, X. Wang, H.-Q. Zhang, and M. Guo, “Is a photon ring invariably a closed structure?,” Eur. Phys. J. C 84 no. 11, (2024) 1168, ���������������� �������

    work page 2024

  7. [7]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 no. 6, (2016) 061102, ���������������� �������

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,

    Event Horizon T elescopeCollaboration, K. Akiyama et al., “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 875 (2019) L1, ���������������� �������������

    work page 2019

Show all 48 references
  1. [9]

    First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way,

    Event Horizon T elescopeCollaboration, K. Akiyama et al., “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 930 no. 2, (2022) L12, ���������������� �������������

    2022

  2. [10]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring,

    Event Horizon T elescopeCollaboration, K. Akiyama et al., “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 910 no. 1, (2021) L12, ���������������� �������������

    2021

  3. [11]

    First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring,

    Event Horizon T elescopeCollaboration, K. Akiyama et al., “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VII. Polarization of the Ring,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 964 no. 2, (2024) L25

    2024

  4. [12]

    How Spatially Resolved Polarimetry Informs Black Hole Accretion Flow Models,

    A. Ricarte, M. D. Johnson, Y. Y. Kovalev, D. C. M. Palumbo, and R. Emami, “How Spatially Resolved Polarimetry Informs Black Hole Accretion Flow Models,” Galaxies 11 no. 1, (2023) 5, ���������������� �������������

    2023

  5. [13]

    Black Hole Polarimetry I. A Signature of Electromagnetic Energy Extraction,

    A. Chael, A. Lupsasca, G. N. Wong, and E. Quataert, “Black Hole Polarimetry I. A Signature of Electromagnetic Energy Extraction,” Astrophys. J. 958 no. 1, (2023) 65, ���������������� ������������� . 23

    2023

  6. [14]

    Polarized images of charged particles in vortical motions around a magnetized Kerr black hole,

    Z. Zhang, Y. Hou, Z. Hu, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Polarized images of charged particles in vortical motions around a magnetized Kerr black hole,” JCAP 03 (2024) 013, ���������������� �������

    2024

  7. [15]

    Black hole images: A review,

    S. Chen, J. Jing, W.-L. Qian, and B. Wang, “Black hole images: A review,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66 no. 6, (2023) 260401, ���������������� �������������

    2023

  8. [16]

    Lensing and light rings of parity-odd rotating boson stars,

    Y. Huang, D.-J. Liu, and H. Zhang, “Lensing and light rings of parity-odd rotating boson stars,” Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68 no. 8, (2025) 280411, ���������������� �������

    2025

  9. [17]

    Linear Polarization Radio Imaging at Milliarcsecond Resolution,

    D. H. Roberts, J. F. C. Wardle, and L. F. Brown, “Linear Polarization Radio Imaging at Milliarcsecond Resolution,” ApJ 427 (June, 1994) 718

    1994

  10. [18]

    Universal polarimetric signatures of the black hole photon ring,

    E. Himwich, M. D. Johnson, A. Lupsasca, and A. Strominger, “Universal polarimetric signatures of the black hole photon ring,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 8, (2020) 084020, ���������������� �������

    2020

  11. [19]

    Polarized signatures of orbiting hot spots: Special relativity impact and probe of spacetime curvature,

    F. H. Vincent, M. Wielgus, N. Aimar, T. Paumard, and G. Perrin, “Polarized signatures of orbiting hot spots: Special relativity impact and probe of spacetime curvature,” Astron. Astrophys. 684 (2024) A194, ���������������� �������������

    2024

  12. [20]

    Polarization patterns of the hot spots plunging into a Kerr black hole,

    B. Chen, Y. Hou, Y. Song, and Z. Zhang, “Polarization patterns of the hot spots plunging into a Kerr black hole,” Phys. Rev. D 111 no. 8, (2025) 083045, ���������������� �������������

    2025

  13. [21]

    Polarized image of equatorial emission in the Kerr geometry,

    Z. Gelles, E. Himwich, D. C. M. Palumbo, and M. D. Johnson, “Polarized image of equatorial emission in the Kerr geometry,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 4, (2021) 044060, ���������������� �������

    2021

  14. [22]

    Near-horizon Polarization as a Diagnostic of Black Hole Spacetime,

    Y. Hou, J. Huang, M. Guo, Y. Mizuno, and B. Chen, “Near-horizon Polarization as a Diagnostic of Black Hole Spacetime,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 988 no. 2, (2025) L51, ���������������� �������

    2025

  15. [23]

    Observational signatures and polarized images of rotating charged black holes in Kalb-Ramond Gravity,

    C.-Y. Yang, K.-J. He, X.-X. Zeng, and L.-F. Li, “Observational signatures and polarized images of rotating charged black holes in Kalb-Ramond Gravity,” ���������������� �������

  16. [24]

    Polarized Image of a Rotating Black Hole in Scalar–Tensor–Vector–Gravity Theory,

    X. Qin, S. Chen, Z. Zhang, and J. Jing, “Polarized Image of a Rotating Black Hole in Scalar–Tensor–Vector–Gravity Theory,” Astrophys. J. 938 no. 1, (2022) 2, ���������������� �������

    2022

  17. [25]

    Polarized image of a synchrotron-emitting ring in an Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory,

    Y. Chen, L. Cheng, P. Wang, and H. Yang, “Polarized image of a synchrotron-emitting ring in an Einstein-Maxwell-scalar theory,” Phys. Rev. D 112 no. 2, (2025) 024044, ���������������� ������� . 24

    2025

  18. [26]

    Observational Signatures of Frame Dragging in Strong Gravity,

    A. Ricarte, D. C. M. Palumbo, R. Narayan, F. Roelofs, and R. Emami, “Observational Signatures of Frame Dragging in Strong Gravity,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 941 no. 1, (2022) L12, ���������������� �������

    2022

  19. [27]

    Relativistic magnetohydrodynamical effects of plasma accreting into a black hole,

    R. Ruffini and J. R. Wilson, “Relativistic magnetohydrodynamical effects of plasma accreting into a black hole,” Phys. Rev. D 12 (Nov, 1975) 2959–2962. �������������������������������������������������

    1975

  20. [28]

    A new analytical model of magnetofluids surrounding rotating black holes,

    Y. Hou, Z. Zhang, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “A new analytical model of magnetofluids surrounding rotating black holes,” JCAP 02 (2024) 030, ���������������� �������

    2024

  21. [29]

    Discriminating Accretion States via Rotational Symmetry in Simulated Polarimetric Images of M87,

    D. C. M. Palumbo, G. N. Wong, and B. S. Prather, “Discriminating Accretion States via Rotational Symmetry in Simulated Polarimetric Images of M87,” Astrophys. J. 894 no. 2, (2020) 156, ���������������� �������������

    2020

  22. [30]

    Lensing by Kerr Black Holes,

    S. E. Gralla and A. Lupsasca, “Lensing by Kerr Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. D 101 no. 4, (2020) 044031, ���������������� �������

    2020

  23. [31]

    Applications of Geometrical Optics to the Kerr Metric. Analytical Results,

    S. Pineault and R. C. Roeder, “Applications of Geometrical Optics to the Kerr Metric. Analytical Results,” ApJ 212 (Mar., 1977) 541–549

    1977

  24. [32]

    Gravitational effects on the polarization plane,

    F. Fayos and J. Llosa, “Gravitational effects on the polarization plane,” General Relativity and Gravitation 14 no. 10, (Oct., 1982) 865–877

    1982

  25. [33]

    Photon polarization and geometric phase in general relativity,

    A. Brodutch, T. F. Demarie, and D. R. Terno, “Photon polarization and geometric phase in general relativity,” Phys. Rev. D 84 (2011) 104043, ��������������� �������

    2011

  26. [34]

    GRA VITATIONAL F ARADAY ROTATION INDUCED BY KERR BLACK HOLE,

    H. Ishihara, M. Takahashi, and A. Tomimatsu, “GRA VITATIONAL F ARADAY ROTATION INDUCED BY KERR BLACK HOLE,” Phys. Rev. D 38 (1988) 472

    1988

  27. [35]

    Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr metric,

    J. M. Bardeen, “Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr metric,” Proceedings, Ecole d’Et´ ede Physique Th´ eorique:Les Astres Occlus : Les Houches, France, August, 1972, 215-240 (1973) 215–240

    1972

  28. [36]

    Disk-Accretion onto a Black Hole. II. Evolution of the Hole,

    K. S. Thorne, “Disk-Accretion onto a Black Hole. II. Evolution of the Hole,” ApJ 191 (July,

  29. [37]

    Electromagnetic extractions of energy from Kerr black holes,

    R. D. Blandford and R. L. Znajek, “Electromagnetic extractions of energy from Kerr black holes,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 179 (1977) 433–456

    1977

  30. [38]

    QED effect on a black hole shadow,

    Z. Hu, Z. Zhong, P.-C. Li, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “QED effect on a black hole shadow,” Phys. Rev. D 103 no. 4, (2021) 044057, ���������������� ������� . 25

    2021

  31. [39]

    Image of a Kerr-Melvin black hole with a thin accretion disk,

    Y. Hou, Z. Zhang, H. Yan, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Image of a Kerr-Melvin black hole with a thin accretion disk,” Phys. Rev. D 106 no. 6, (2022) 064058, ���������������� �������

    2022

  32. [40]

    QED effects on Kerr black hole shadows immersed in uniform magnetic fields,

    Z. Zhong, Z. Hu, H. Yan, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “QED effects on Kerr black hole shadows immersed in uniform magnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. D 104 no. 10, (2021) 104028, ���������������� �������

    2021

  33. [41]

    Observational features of massive boson stars with thin disk accretion,

    G.-P. Li, M.-Q. Wu, K.-J. He, and Q.-Q. Jiang, “Observational features of massive boson stars with thin disk accretion,” ���������������� �������

  34. [42]

    Orbital precession and Lense-Thirring effect of Horndeski rotating spacetimes,

    W.-Q. Zhen, H. Guo, M.-H. Wu, and X.-M. Kuang, “Orbital precession and Lense-Thirring effect of Horndeski rotating spacetimes,” Phys. Lett. B 862 (2025) 139307

    2025

  35. [43]

    Lorentz violation signatures in the low-energy sector of Hoˇ rava gravity from black hole shadow observations,

    W. Liu, H. Huang, D. Wu, and J. Wang, “Lorentz violation signatures in the low-energy sector of Hoˇ rava gravity from black hole shadow observations,”���������������� �������

  36. [44]

    V. P. Frolov and I. D. Novikov, eds., Black hole physics: Basic concepts and new developments. 1998

    1998

  37. [45]

    Shadows of Kerr black holes with and without scalar hair,

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. F. Runarsson, “Shadows of Kerr black holes with and without scalar hair,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25 no. 09, (2016) 1641021, ���������������� �������

    2016

  38. [46]

    Relativistic transport theory,

    R. W. Lindquist, “Relativistic transport theory,” Annals Phys. 37 no. 3, (1966) 487–518

    1966

  39. [47]

    On quadratic first integrals of the geodesic equations for type [22] spacetimes,

    M. Walker and R. Penrose, “On quadratic first integrals of the geodesic equations for type [22] spacetimes,” Commun. Math. Phys. 18 (1970) 265–274

    1970

  40. [48]

    Maximum observable blueshift from circular equatorial Kerr orbiters,

    D. E. A. Gates, S. Hadar, and A. Lupsasca, “Maximum observable blueshift from circular equatorial Kerr orbiters,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 10, (2020) 104041, ���������������� ������� . 26

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.