Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Horizonless pulsating scalar-field stars would make their accretion disks appear to breathe, oscillating between central brightening and ring shapes with a period of roughly six gravitational radii, within reach of horizon-scale imaging.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-03 13:33 UTC pith:6FKCHEZY

load-bearing objection Solid oscillaton phenomenology, but the breathing-image prediction rests on an unvalidated static-shell redshift mapping and the M87* period is arithmetically wrong. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2512.23800 v2 pith:6FKCHEZY submitted 2025-12-29 gr-qc

Twinkle twinkle dark star: Oscillating profiles from dark matter scalar solitons

Nicolas Aimar , Caio F. B. Macedo , Jo\~ao Lu\'is Rosa , Diego Rubiera-Garcia This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C1083C5785A15
keywords oscillatonsscalar field solitonsboson starsaccretion disksredshift factorEvent Horizon Telescopesupermassive compact objectstime-dependent spacetimes
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

The paper argues that oscillatons — time-periodic, horizonless stars made of a real scalar field like the axion — are not just exotic curiosities but come with a built-in electromagnetic signature. Because the metric oscillates at a frequency ω set by the scalar mass, the redshift factor that scales an accretion disk's observed intensity pulses with period π/ω ≈ 6M. Since stable circular orbits extend to the center, the disk can emit from the core, and the image alternates between central brightening and ring-like shapes — a 'breathing' pattern. For supermassive objects the period lands in the Event Horizon Telescope's reach (about two minutes for Sgr A*, about nineteen hours for M87*), so the effect could be seen or excluded by horizon-scale monitoring. Light deflection, by contrast, is nearly unaffected by the time dependence, making the twinkling the key distinguishing feature.

Core claim

The central claim is that the observed intensity from an accretion disk around an oscillaton is modulated by the time-dependent redshift factor via Io = A(t,r)^2 Ie(r). A(t,r) oscillates with period π/ω, so the image breathes: central-emission profiles fade in and out, Novikov–Thorne-like rings expand and contract, and mixed profiles switch between a bright core and a shadow-like ring. For the maximum-mass configuration (Mμ = 0.604, ω/μ = 0.864), the period is T ≈ 28.55 (M/10^6 M_sun) seconds — about two minutes for Sgr A* and nineteen hours for M87* — placing the modulation inside the EHT's observational windows. The authors present this as a way to distinguish oscillatons from black holes

What carries the argument

Fourier-expanded Einstein–Klein–Gordon system: metric functions expanded as A(t,r)=Σ A_j(r) cos(2jωt), B(t,r)=Σ B_j(r) cos(2jωt), scalar field as Φ(t,r)=Σ φ_j(r) cos((2j+1)ωt), truncated at N=2–3 and solved by shooting to enforce asymptotic flatness. This produces a one-parameter family of oscillatons with maximum mass Mμ≈0.604; the paper uses the most compact member (ω/μ=0.864, R/M=12.21). The working mechanism is the oscillatory redshift factor A(t,r): it enters the intensity law Io=A^2 Ie, imprints a 2ω beat on observed images, and its period is the metric's natural oscillation time π/ω≈6M. Stable oscillatory circular orbits at every radius justify placing emitting matter at the center.

Load-bearing premise

The entire breathing prediction rests on the approximation Io = A(t,r)^2 Ie(r), which ignores Doppler shifts and the integrated redshift along the light path in a spacetime whose metric varies on the same timescale as the light crossing; if that approximation fails, the quoted period and pattern would not survive.

What would settle it

Compute the observed intensity by full ray tracing through the time-dependent oscillaton metric — integrating the photon transport equations and the redshift along each null geodesic for the same emission models — and compare the image sequences at t=0, π/(4ω), π/(2ω) with the instantaneous-shell images of Fig. 12. If the periodic modulation disappears, changes period, or changes amplitude qualitatively, the central claim is falsified. Observationally, a multi-epoch EHT campaign on Sgr A* with minute-cadence snapshots should see the predicted ~2-min intensity oscillation; its absence at the pr

Watch this falsifier — get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Horizon-scale monitoring of Sgr A* on minute timescales and M87* on ~19-hour timescales could confirm or rule out supermassive oscillatons as the central objects.
  • Accretion disks around oscillatons should lack an ISCO shadow: stable orbits extend to the center, so central-emission profiles are a generic expectation.
  • Lensing tests alone cannot separate oscillatons from black holes; the periodic redshift modulation is the discriminating observable.
  • The oscillation period directly encodes the scalar-field mass, turning an image sequence into a measurement of a fundamental-physics parameter.
  • Any time-dependent compact scalar configuration with a similar redshift behavior would produce analogous twinkling, broadening the search target beyond spherical oscillatons.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Equation (24) neglects Doppler boosting of the orbiting emitters and the integrated redshift along null geodesics; since the metric changes on the same timescale as light crossing, a full radiative-transfer calculation could alter the breathing amplitude or period — this is the most direct test of the prediction.
  • At stellar masses the same mechanism predicts millisecond-to-microsecond flickering in X-ray binaries, a cheap observational check outside the EHT regime.
  • If the twinkling is observed, its phase across the image encodes where in the star the emission originates, effectively mapping the scalar profile; if it is not observed, only oscillatons in the compact configuration window are excluded, leaving boson stars and other horizonless objects untouched.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper constructs time-periodic, spherically symmetric oscillaton solutions of the Einstein–Klein–Gordon system with a massive real scalar field, focusing on the most compact configuration (φ_c≈0.67, ω/μ=0.864, Mμ=0.604, R≈12.21M). It studies timelike geodesics, identifying oscillatory circular orbits (OCOs) at all radii and comparing their epicyclic frequencies with predictions from the time-averaged metric; it then analyzes null geodesics, finding caustics and rainbow scattering. The main observable claim is made in Sec. IV: using a static-shell redshift mapping, the authors predict that the observed intensity from an accretion disk breathes with period π/ω≈6M, switching between central brightening and ring morphologies, and that this period lies in the EHT observing window for Sgr A* and M87*. The paper concludes that such twinkling could be a distinguishing signature of oscillatons.

Significance. If the breathing-image prediction is robust, this is an interesting and potentially testable electromagnetic signature distinguishing time-dependent scalar solitons from black holes and stationary boson stars. The paper's strengths are its explicit construction of fully nonlinear oscillaton solutions with a Fourier-expansion convergence check, the careful geodesic analysis establishing OCOs and their epicyclic behavior, and the deflection/rainbow scattering results. However, the headline claim rests on an unvalidated pointwise redshift mapping in a spacetime whose metric varies on the light-crossing timescale; until that is checked with a full time-dependent ray-tracing calculation, the predicted amplitude, phase, and period of the breathing pattern are not established. The arithmetic error in the M87* period further weakens the detectability claim as stated.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eq. (24)] The central prediction Io = A(t,r)^2 Ie(r) is the static-shell, zero-velocity redshift law applied pointwise. In the oscillaton, the metric is time-dependent with period π/ω≈6M (using ωM≈0.52 for the adopted configuration), while photons traverse the star (R≈12.2M) in about two periods; the adiabatic limit is therefore not controlled. The observed photon energy ratio must be obtained by integrating the null geodesic through the time-dependent geometry and also depends on the emitter's velocity. OCO speeds are relativistic for r≲8M (Figs. 3–4), so the Doppler factor is non-negligible. Without a full time-dependent ray-tracing calculation, the breathing amplitude, phase, and period are not derived from the spacetime; they are an artifact of the assumed mapping.
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (22) and (24)] The emission profile Ie(r) is computed from the Novikov–Thorne model using time-averaged orbital quantities, as the paper states: 'we assume that it remains approximately valid for oscillaton spacetimes, provided that the orbital quantities are replaced by their time-averaged values.' But the observed intensity is then taken as instantaneous A(t,r)^2 Ie(r). This mixes a time-averaged emitter frame with an instantaneous redshift factor. The emitter frame is neither the instantaneous comoving frame nor the fully averaged frame, so the modulation is not derived from a consistent set of physical assumptions. A self-consistent treatment should use either an instantaneous disk model with Doppler and beaming included, or a properly time-averaged radiative transfer.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (25)] The period quoted for M87* is arithmetically incorrect. With M(M87*) ≈ 6.5×10^9 M_sun, Eq. (25) gives T = 28.55 s × 6500 ≈ 1.86×10^5 s ≈ 51.6 h, not ≈19 h. This invalidates the specific statement that the M87* oscillation period lies in the EHT observational window as claimed. The Sgr A* estimate (~2 min) is unaffected. The period estimate should be corrected and the detectability discussion revised accordingly.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Fig. 2] The text says 'we consider terms up to N=3' and later 'we truncate the Fourier expansions at N=2'; Fig. 2 is described as up to N=2. Please clarify the truncation order actually used for the background solution and images.
  2. [Sec. IV, Figs. 12–13] The color scales differ among panels, making quantitative comparison of the breathing effect difficult. A common color scale or normalized intensity bars would help the reader assess the amplitude of the modulation.
  3. [Sec. IV, Eq. (25)] Restoring physical units, the expression T=(ω/π)^{-1}∼28.55 (M/10^6 M_sun) s should explicitly state the value of ω/μ used (0.864) and the relationship ωM≈0.522, since the numerical prefactor is not otherwise derivable from the text.
  4. [References] Reference [47] is listed as 'arXiv preprint' with no arXiv number or journal information; please update.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the breathing-image period is a derived consequence of the EKG eigenvalue and an explicit, acknowledged redshift mapping, not a fitted or self-defined input.

full rationale

The central claim—that the observed accretion-disk intensity around an oscillaton breathes with period π/ω—is not circular. The background spacetime is obtained by solving the Einstein–Klein–Gordon boundary-value problem with a Fourier ansatz (Eqs. (10)–(12)); the frequency ω is fixed by regularity and asymptotic flatness, not by any intensity observable. Equation (24), I_o = A(t,r)^2 I_e(r), is an explicit modeling assumption (static-shell redshift mapping) stated by the authors, not a hidden fit. Given that mapping, the time modulation follows directly from the already-solved metric, so the period is a genuine derived prediction of the model. The paper even flags its own limitations: it assumes the Novikov–Thorne model 'remains approximately valid for oscillaton spacetimes' and leaves 'a detailed assessment of detectability in realistic interferometric observations' to future work. These are caveats about approximation quality, not circular definitions. Some cited works include current authors (refs. [34,37,41]), but they are used for boson-star comparisons and context, not as load-bearing justification for the oscillaton-specific breathing effect; the oscillaton construction is attributed to Seidel & Suen [20]. The apparent M87* period estimate in Eq. (25) (≈19 h versus ≈51.5 h under the paper's own scaling) is an arithmetic or scaling concern, not circularity. Overall, the derivation chain is self-contained: outputs are computed from stated equations and an acknowledged intensity model, with no parameter fitted to the predicted images.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim inherits the numerical oscillaton solution (selected by φ_c=0.67 at the maximum mass), the truncation N=2/3, the fitted SU emission parameters, and two strong modeling assumptions: the time-averaged NT disk model and the static-shell redshift mapping Io=A²Ie. None of these are introduced as physical entities; they are numerical/modeling choices. No new particles or forces are postulated.

free parameters (4)
  • Central field amplitude φ_c = 0.67
    Selected as the maximum-mass configuration of the oscillaton family; the entire background solution and its frequency follow from this choice.
  • Fourier truncation order N = N=3 for background, N=2 for metric
    Chosen for numerical convergence; no quantitative convergence criterion is provided.
  • SU emission-model parameters = central (γ=0, β=0, σ=2M); NT (γ=-0.92, β=3.42M, σ=2.46M)
    Fitted to represent central-emission and Novikov-Thorne intensity profiles in Eq. (23).
  • Disk inner radius r_in = 0
    Set to 0 because stable orbits extend to the center; a modeling choice affecting the NT flux integral.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Real scalar fields cannot form stationary solitons, but time-periodic oscillaton solutions exist
    Sec. I-II; relies on Refs. [19,20] for existence and stability properties.
  • domain assumption The Fourier ansatz (Eqs. 10-12) converges to the exact oscillaton solution
    Sec. II; no quantitative error bound is given for the truncation.
  • domain assumption Test-particle geodesic motion in the oscillaton spacetime is a valid description of accretion disks
    Sec. III; ignores backreaction of the disk and any coupling between the scalar field and ordinary matter beyond gravity.
  • ad hoc to paper The Novikov-Thorne thin-disk emission model remains valid for time-averaged oscillaton quantities
    Sec. IV; the model is derived for stationary spacetimes, and the paper assumes it holds approximately without error quantification.
  • ad hoc to paper Observed intensity relates to emitted intensity by Io = A(t,r)^2 Ie (Eq. 24)
    Sec. IV; this static-shell redshift formula is applied to the time-dependent metric and neglects Doppler and integrated time-delay effects.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14577 in / 16579 out tokens · 142991 ms · 2026-08-03T13:33:46.195643+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

Real scalar fields, e.g. the axion, cannot condensate into stationary solitonic configurations to form starlike structures, eventually either dispersing or collapsing. However, by relaxing the stationarity condition on the metric, it has been shown that oscillatory solitonic solutions---known as oscillatons---exist. Oscillatons share several properties with boson stars, including comparable compactness and mass ranges. However, their time-dependent nature can lead to potentially discriminating observable signatures. In this work, we explore the observational properties of oscillatons. We find that stable oscillatory circular orbits exist, extending down to the center of the configuration, supporting the possibility of accretion disk structures within the star. We compute the deflection of light rays and verify that it is largely insensitive to the time dependence of the metric. Despite this, the oscillatory behavior of the redshift factor has a strong effect on the observed intensity profiles from accretion disks, producing a breathinglike image whose frequency depends on the mass of the scalar field. In fact, their oscillation period may lie within the observational windows of the Event Horizon Telescope for Sgr~A$^{*}$ and M87$^{*}$, suggesting that this ``twinkling'' behavior may provide a potential observable signature of time-dependent compact objects. A detailed assessment of detectability in realistic interferometric observations is left for future work.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2512.23800 by Caio F. B. Macedo, Diego Rubiera-Garcia, Jo\~ao Lu\'is Rosa, Nicolas Aimar.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Sequence of oscillaton solutions. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Background metric and scalar field for the maximum-mass oscillaton. Darker shades of red correspond to including more terms in the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Oscillatory patterns in the orbital frequency and radius of OCOs for ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Minimum and maximum values of the angular frequency in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Slightly disturbed OCO orbit. For this orbital motion, we [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Deflection angle for the oscillaton configuration studied here, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. Light-rays emitted by a finite size object reaching an asymptotic observer. The radius of the emitter is set at 0 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Accretion disk intensity profiles using the SU distribution [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Intensity of the accretion disk profile observed at di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png] view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. Intensity of the accretion disk with a central plus NT profile, observed at an angle of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Photon spheres in dynamical space-times

    gr-qc 2026-06 unverdicted novelty 7.0

    A covariant framework is developed for photon surfaces in dynamical spherical spacetimes, recovering static limits and applied to collapse and accretion/evaporation models.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

59 extracted references · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    R. D. Peccei and Helen R. Quinn. CP conservation in the pres- ence of pseudoparticles.Phys. Rev. Lett., 38:1440–1443, Jun 1977

    1977

  2. [2]

    R. D. Peccei. The Strong CP problem and axions.Lect. Notes Phys., 741:3–17, 2008

    2008

  3. [3]

    String Axiverse

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Savas Dimopoulos, Sergei Dubovsky, Ne- manja Kaloper, and John March-Russell. String Axiverse. Phys. Rev. D, 81:123530, 2010

    2010

  4. [4]

    Superradi- ance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics.Lect

    Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Paolo Pani. Superradi- ance: New Frontiers in Black Hole Physics.Lect. Notes Phys., 906:pp.1–237, 2015

    2015

  5. [5]

    Discovering the qcd axion with black holes and gravitational waves.Phys

    Asimina Arvanitaki, Masha Baryakhtar, and Xinlu Huang. Discovering the qcd axion with black holes and gravitational waves.Phys. Rev. D, 91(8):084011, 2015

    2015

  6. [6]

    Gravitational Atoms from Topological Stars

    Ibrahima Bah, Emanuele Berti, Bogdan Ganchev, David Pereñiguez, and Nicholas Speeney. Gravitational Atoms from Topological Stars. 11 2025

    2025

  7. [7]

    Francisco Duque, Caio F. B. Macedo, Rodrigo Vicente, and Vi- tor Cardoso. Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals in Ultralight Dark Matter.Phys. Rev. Lett., 133(12):121404, 2024

    2024

  8. [8]

    Ken K. Y . Ng, Salvatore Vitale, Otto A. Hannuksela, and Tjon- nie G. F. Li. Constraints on Ultralight Scalar Bosons within Black Hole Spin Measurements from the LIGO-Virgo GWTC- 2.Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(15):151102, 2021

    2021

  9. [9]

    Elisa G. M. Ferreira. Ultra-light dark matter.Astron. Astrophys. Rev., 29(1):7, 2021

    2021

  10. [10]

    Schunck and Eckehard W

    Franz E. Schunck and Eckehard W. Mielke. General relativistic boson stars.Class. Quant. Grav., 20:R301–R356, 2003

    2003

  11. [11]

    Liebling and Carlos Palenzuela

    Steven L. Liebling and Carlos Palenzuela. Dynamical boson stars.Living Rev. Rel., 15:6, 2012

    2012

  12. [12]

    David J. Kaup. Klein-Gordon Geon.Phys. Rev., 172:1331– 1342, 1968

    1968

  13. [13]

    Systems of selfgravitat- ing particles in general relativity and the concept of an equation of state.Phys

    Remo Ruffini and Silvano Bonazzola. Systems of selfgravitat- ing particles in general relativity and the concept of an equation of state.Phys. Rev., 187:1767–1783, 1969

    1969

  14. [14]

    Gravitational Wave Signa- tures of Highly Compact Boson Star Binaries.Phys

    Carlos Palenzuela, Paolo Pani, Miguel Bezares, Vitor Cardoso, Luis Lehner, and Steven Liebling. Gravitational Wave Signa- tures of Highly Compact Boson Star Binaries.Phys. Rev. D, 96(10):104058, 2017

    2017

  15. [15]

    Hannuksela, Kaze W

    Otto A. Hannuksela, Kaze W. K. Wong, Richard Brito, Emanuele Berti, and Tjonnie G. F. Li. Probing the existence of ultralight bosons with a single gravitational-wave measure- ment.Nature Astron., 3(5):447–451, 2019

    2019

  16. [16]

    F. H. Vincent, Z. Meliani, P. Grandclement, E. Gourgoulhon, and O. Straub. Imaging a boson star at the Galactic center. Class. Quant. Grav., 33(10):105015, 2016

    2016

  17. [17]

    Fromm, Mariafeli- cia De Laurentis, Oliver Porth, Yosuke Mizuno, Heino Falcke, Michael Kramer, and Luciano Rezzolla

    Hector Olivares, Ziri Younsi, Christian M. Fromm, Mariafeli- cia De Laurentis, Oliver Porth, Yosuke Mizuno, Heino Falcke, Michael Kramer, and Luciano Rezzolla. How to tell an accret- ing boson star from a black hole.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 497(1):521–535, 2020. 12

    2020

  18. [18]

    Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Edward Witten

    Lam Hui, Jeremiah P. Ostriker, Scott Tremaine, and Edward Witten. Ultralight scalars as cosmological dark matter.Phys. Rev. D, 95(4):043541, 2017

    2017

  19. [19]

    G. H. Derrick. Comments on nonlinear wave equations as mod- els for elementary particles.J. Math. Phys., 5:1252–1254, 1964

    1964

  20. [20]

    Seidel and W

    E. Seidel and W. M. Suen. Oscillating soliton stars.Phys. Rev. Lett., 66:1659–1662, 1991

    1991

  21. [21]

    Ferreira, Caio F

    Miguel C. Ferreira, Caio F. B. Macedo, and Vitor Cardoso. Or- bital fingerprints of ultralight scalar fields around black holes. Phys. Rev. D, 96(8):083017, 2017

    2017

  22. [22]

    Ferreira

    Miguel C. Ferreira. How do scalar-field dark matter halos react to orbiting bodies?Phys. Rev. D, 99(10):103008, 2019

    2019

  23. [23]

    Amorim et al

    A. Amorim et al. Scalar field effects on the orbit of S2 star. Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 489(4):4606–4621, 2019

    2019

  24. [24]

    Foschi et al

    A. Foschi et al. Using the motion of S2 to constrain scalar clouds around Sgr A*.Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 524(1):1075–1086, 2023

    2023

  25. [25]

    Akiyama and others

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration and K. Akiyama and others. First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole.Astrophys. J. Lett., 875:L1, 2019. First horizon-scale image of M87* from EHT observations at 1.3mm

    2019

  26. [26]

    Akiyama and others

    Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration and K. Akiyama and others. 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:L12, 2022. First horizon-scale image of Sgr A* showing a bright ring consistent with a black hole shadow

    2022

  27. [27]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Kazunori Akiyama et al. First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole.Astro- phys. J. Lett., 875:L1, 2019

    2019

  28. [28]

    First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results

    Kazunori 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(2):L12, 2022

    2022

  29. [29]

    Viewing the shadow of the black hole at the galactic center.Astrophys

    Heino Falcke, Fulvio Melia, and Eric Agol. Viewing the shadow of the black hole at the galactic center.Astrophys. J. Lett., 528:L13, 2000

    2000

  30. [30]

    Gralla, Daniel E

    Samuel E. Gralla, Daniel E. Holz, and Robert M. Wald. Black Hole Shadows, Photon Rings, and Lensing Rings.Phys. Rev. D, 100(2):024018, 2019

    2019

  31. [31]

    Johnson, and Alexandru Lupsasca

    Andrew Chael, Michael D. Johnson, and Alexandru Lupsasca. Observing the Inner Shadow of a Black Hole: A Direct View of the Event Horizon.Astrophys. J., 918(1):6, 2021

    2021

  32. [32]

    Vincent, Samuel E

    Frederic H. Vincent, Samuel E. Gralla, Alexandru Lupsasca, and Maciek Wielgus. Images and photon ring signatures of thick disks around black holes.Astron. Astrophys., 667:A170, 2022

    2022

  33. [33]

    Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Telescope im- age of Sagittarius A∗

    Sunny Vagnozzi et al. Horizon-scale tests of gravity theories and fundamental physics from the Event Horizon Telescope im- age of Sagittarius A∗. 5 2022

    2022

  34. [34]

    Shadows of bo- son and Proca stars with thin accretion disks.Phys

    João Luís Rosa and Diego Rubiera-Garcia. Shadows of bo- son and Proca stars with thin accretion disks.Phys. Rev. D, 106(8):084004, 2022

    2022

  35. [35]

    Observational properties of relativistic fluid spheres with thin accretion disks

    João Luís Rosa. Observational properties of relativistic fluid spheres with thin accretion disks. 2 2023

    2023

  36. [36]

    Vincent, and Vitor Cardoso

    João Luís Rosa, Paulo Garcia, Frédéric H. Vincent, and Vitor Cardoso. Observational signatures of hot spots orbiting hori- zonless objects.Phys. Rev. D, 106(4):044031, 2022

    2022

  37. [37]

    João Luís Rosa, Caio F. B. Macedo, and Diego Rubiera-Garcia. Imaging compact boson stars with hot spots and thin accretion disks.Phys. Rev. D, 108(4):044021, 2023

    2023

  38. [38]

    João Luís Rosa, Daniela S. J. Cordeiro, Caio F. B. Macedo, and Francisco S. N. Lobo. Observational imprints of gravas- tars from accretion disks and hot spots.Phys. Rev. D, 109(8):084002, 2024

    2024

  39. [39]

    Accretion disks and relativistic line broadening in boson star spacetimes

    João Luís Rosa, Joaquín Pelle, and Daniela Pérez. Accretion disks and relativistic line broadening in boson star spacetimes. Phys. Rev. D, 110(8):084068, 2024

    2024

  40. [40]

    Observational properties of hot spots orbiting relativistic fluid spheres.Phys

    Hanna Liis Tamm and João Luís Rosa. Observational properties of hot spots orbiting relativistic fluid spheres.Phys. Rev. D, 109(4):044062, 2024

    2024

  41. [41]

    Po- larimetry imprints of exotic compact objects: Solitonic boson stars.Phys

    João Luís Rosa, Nicolas Aimar, and Hanna Liis Tamm. Po- larimetry imprints of exotic compact objects: Solitonic boson stars.Phys. Rev. D, 111(12):124036, 2025

    2025

  42. [42]

    On static solutions of the einstein–scalar field equations.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(8):085001, 2016

    Martín Reiris. On static solutions of the einstein–scalar field equations.Classical and Quantum Gravity, 33(8):085001, 2016

    2016

  43. [43]

    Cambridge University Press, 1996

    Markus Heusler.Black Hole Uniqueness Theorems. Cambridge University Press, 1996. See Sec. 9.4, discussion of virial iden- tities and no-scalar-hair theorems

    1996

  44. [44]

    no-scalar-hair

    Jacob D. Bekenstein. Novel “no-scalar-hair” theorem for black holes.Physical Review D, 51(12):R6608–R6611, 1995

    1995

  45. [45]

    Don N. Page. Classical and quantum decay of oscillatons: Os- cillating self-gravitating real scalar field solitons.Physical Re- view D, 70(023002), 2004

    2004

  46. [46]

    Fodor, P

    G. Fodor, P. Forgács, and P. Grandclément. Mass loss and longevity of gravitationally bound oscillating scalar lumps (os- cillatons) in d-dimensions.Physical Review D, 81(6):064029, 2010

    2010

  47. [47]

    Gravitational effects on oscillon lifetimes

    Hong-Yi Zhang. Gravitational effects on oscillon lifetimes. arXiv preprint, 2020

    2020

  48. [48]

    Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, Caio F. B. Macedo, Hirotada Okawa, and Carlos Palenzuela. Interaction between bosonic dark matter and stars.Phys. Rev. D, 93(4):044045, 2016

    2016

  49. [49]

    Arturo Urena-Lopez

    L. Arturo Urena-Lopez. Oscillatons revisited.Class. Quant. Grav., 19:2617–2632, 2002

    2002

  50. [50]

    Guzman, Tonatiuh Matos, Dario Nunez, and L

    Miguel Alcubierre, Ricardo Becerril, Siddhartha F. Guzman, Tonatiuh Matos, Dario Nunez, and L. Arturo Urena-Lopez. Nu- merical studies of Phi**2 oscillatons.Class. Quant. Grav., 20:2883–2904, 2003

    2003

  51. [51]

    Accretion of dark matter by stars.Phys

    Richard Brito, Vitor Cardoso, and Hirotada Okawa. Accretion of dark matter by stars.Phys. Rev. Lett., 115(11):111301, 2015

    2015

  52. [52]

    Prince- ton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2nd edition, 2008

    James Binney and Scott Tremaine.Galactic Dynamics. Prince- ton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 2nd edition, 2008

    2008

  53. [53]

    Epicyclic frequencies in static and spherically symmetric wormhole geometries.Phys

    Vittorio De Falco, Mariafelicia De Laurentis, and Salvatore Capozziello. Epicyclic frequencies in static and spherically symmetric wormhole geometries.Phys. Rev. D, 104(2):024053, 2021

    2021

  54. [54]

    Tom Stratton and Sam R. Dolan. Rainbow scattering of grav- itational plane waves by a compact body.Phys. Rev. D, 100(2):024007, 2019

    2019

  55. [55]

    Luiz C. S. Leite, Caio F. B. Macedo, and Luís C. B. Crispino. Black holes with surrounding matter and rainbow scattering. Phys. Rev. D, 99(6):064020, 2019

    2019

  56. [56]

    I. D. Novikov and K. S. Thorne. Astrophysics of black holes. In C. Dewitt and B. S. Dewitt, editors,Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), pages 343–450, January 1973

    1973

  57. [57]

    Page and Kip S

    Don N. Page and Kip S. Thorne. Disk-Accretion onto a Black Hole. Time-Averaged Structure of Accretion Disk.Astrophys. J., 191:499–506, July 1974

    1974

  58. [58]

    Gralla, Alexandru Lupsasca, and Daniel P

    Samuel E. Gralla, Alexandru Lupsasca, and Daniel P. Marrone. The shape of the black hole photon ring: A precise test of strong-field general relativity.Phys. Rev. D, 102(12):124004, 2020

    2020

  59. [59]

    Pre- diction for the interferometric shape of the first black hole pho- ton ring.Phys

    Alejandro Cárdenas-Avendaño and Alexandru Lupsasca. Pre- diction for the interferometric shape of the first black hole pho- ton ring.Phys. Rev. D, 108(6):064043, 2023

    2023