Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 19 references

Combining two quantum-gravity uncertainty corrections predicts a third class of black holes.

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 03:59 UTC pith:BCKSJ5VE

load-bearing objection The GEUP third black-hole phase is an unproven interpretation of an assumed dictionary; the algebraic exploration is solid and the EGUP is genuinely new, but the abstract oversells it. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2602.06189 v1 pith:BCKSJ5VE submitted 2026-02-05 gr-qc hep-th

Combining the Generalized and Extended Uncertainty Principles

Bernard Carr , Jonas Mureika This is my paper
classification gr-qc hep-th
keywords Generalized Extended Uncertainty PrincipleExtended Uncertainty PrincipleGeneralized Uncertainty PrincipleBlack Hole Uncertainty PrincipleCompton–Schwarzschild correspondencequantum black holesHawking temperaturePlanck scale
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.

Bringing the two standard Planck-scale corrections to the Heisenberg uncertainty principle together — the momentum-squared term of the Generalized Uncertainty Principle and the position-squared term of the Extended Uncertainty Principle — produces a combined relation the paper calls the GEUP. The authors' main claim is that when this GEUP curve is read as a mass–radius relation for black holes, it contains three physical branches instead of the usual two. The new, upper branch corresponds to a previously unrecognized class of strong-gravity (quantum) black holes, and its existence restores a continuous link between elementary particles and black holes that the EUP by itself cannot provide. Allowing the deformation parameters α and β to be negative changes the topology of the branches, and the alternative 'EGUP' combination shows a duality between position and momentum uncertainty. The paper works through the implied Hawking-temperature curves for every case.

Core claim

The central claim is that the GEUP inequality Δx Δp ≥ (ℏ/2)(1 + αℓ_P² Δp²/ℏ² + β Δx²/ℓ_P²), after the dictionary Δx → R_H and Δp → Mc, gives a horizon-radius relation R_H(M) = (G/βc²)[M ± √((1−αβ)M² − βM_P²)]. The negative-sign branch merges the Compton wavelength (low mass) with the Schwarzschild radius (high mass); the positive-sign branch is a genuinely new solution, existing only for M > M_* = √(β/(1−αβ)) M_P when αβ < 1. The authors identify this positive-sign branch as a new class of quantum black holes in a strong-gravity regime, and argue that it is the feature that restores the three-way particle–black-hole–Planck-scale link. They also derive the corresponding Hawking-temperature cu

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the GEUP quadratic and its roots. The GEUP is obtained from a modified position–momentum commutator [x̂, p̂] = iℏ(1 + αℓ_P² p̂²/ℏ² + β x̂²/ℓ_P²), which yields the uncertainty inequality with both a minimum length and a minimum momentum. The argument works through the 'BHUP dictionary' — replacing Δx by the horizon radius R_H and Δp by Mc — so that every branch of the Δx(Δp) curve becomes a branch of R_H(M). The positive-sign root of the quadratic in Δx is the mechanism that produces the new strong-gravity black-hole branch; the discriminant of that root, (1−αβ)M² − βM_P², also controls whether the branch exists at all.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is the identification Δx → R_H and Δp → Mc: the paper assumes, without an explicit metric, that every solution of the GEUP uncertainty relation corresponds to a real black-hole horizon radius. The authors themselves state in the Conclusions that they have not derived a metric for these cases but have only assumed the Δx(Δp) relation specifies an R_H(M) relationship; if that mapping fails, the claimed new strong-gravity black hole is a mathematical art

What would settle it

Derive the static, spherically symmetric metric that follows from the GEUP-modified commutator and compute its event horizon; if the horizon radius does not match R_H = (G/βc²)[M ± √((1−αβ)M² − βM_P²)] — or if no such static solution exists — the central claim is falsified. A simpler experimental check: any independent measurement that forces αβ ≥ 1 removes the real solution entirely.

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

If this is right

  • If the strong-gravity branch is real, the black-hole mass–radius diagram has three phases — Compton, Schwarzschild, and strong-gravity — separated by the minimum mass M_* = √(β/(1−αβ)) M_P.
  • The Hawking temperature on the new branch turns over at small mass instead of diverging as 1/M, changing predictions for the final stage of black-hole evaporation.
  • The GEUP reconnects the Compton and Schwarzschild lines that the EUP alone splits, so the BHUP/Compton–Schwarzschild correspondence extends from the GUP to a broader class of theories.
  • If αβ ≥ 1, the GEUP has no real solution at all, so any independent bound that pushes the product of the parameters past unity would rule out the model in its present form.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • One consequence the paper leaves implicit: if a metric can be constructed for the strong-gravity branch, its horizon radius would scale as (2/β)GM/c² for large M, so for small β these objects would resemble very extended, low-density compact bodies rather than ordinary black holes.
  • A testable extension would be to plug the GEUP-modified commutator into a semiclassical gravitational collapse calculation and look for the third branch as a genuine solution; its presence or absence would settle whether the branch is physical or merely a root of the quadratic.
  • Because the paper shows the third branch disappears when β < 0, it implies that measuring the sign of the EUP parameter indirectly decides whether this new black-hole phase exists.
  • The EGUP's duality between Δx and Δp suggests a complementary temperature–mass relation; one could look for an analogous duality in the Hawking spectrum, where T(M) and M(T) are related by the same curve.

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 / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the Generalized Extended Uncertainty Principle (GEUP), formed by adding GUP and EUP terms to the Heisenberg relation, and a separate 'EGUP' variant with Δx–Δp duality. It solves Eq. (12)/(17) for Δx(Δp), giving Eq. (18), and maps the branches onto black-hole mass–radius relations by setting Δx→R_H and Δp→Mc (§4), leading to Eq. (32) with three asymptotic regimes. It then uses the same identification to derive Hawking-temperature expressions (§5). The paper claims the GEUP predicts a new class of strong-gravity black holes and a link between black holes and elementary particles. The algebraic branch analysis and treatment of negative parameters are new, but the physical interpretation is not derived: the R_H(M) dictionary is an assumption, as acknowledged in the Conclusion.

Significance. Should the dictionary be established by an independent metric derivation, the paper would identify a third black-hole phase and extend the Compton-Schwarzschild correspondence to the EUP/GEUP families. The systematic analysis of the sign/parameter space and the explicit algebraic solution for the GEUP branch structure are useful and may be correct. The EGUP duality discussion is also interesting. However, as it stands the central physical prediction is not backed by a spacetime construction; the 'new strong-gravity black hole' is a reinterpretation of a quadratic branch. The paper is therefore valuable as a speculative exploration, but not as a demonstration of a prediction.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4, Eqs. (29) and (32)] The central claim that the GEUP 'predicts a new kind of strong-gravity black hole' rests on the identification Δx→R_H and Δp→Mc, introduced abruptly before Eq. (29). This is an assumed dictionary, not a derived metric. The authors state in §6: 'we have not derived a metric for the other cases but just assumed that the Δx(Δp) relation specifies an R_H(M) relationship.' Without a metric or an independent dynamical construction, the positive-sign branch of Eq. (32) is a mathematical consequence of solving Eq. (17) as a quadratic; it is not evidence of a physical horizon. Since the abstract and Conclusions present this branch as a predicted phase, the paper's headline claim is unsupported. This is load-bearing for all subsequent black-hole and temperature results.
  2. [§5, Eqs. (48)–(50)] The GEUP temperature relations are derived by 'proceeding as before' (see Eq. (51) for EGUP; the GEUP case is stated without derivation) and they inherit the same dictionary: Δp∼kT/c and Δx→R_H from Eq. (32). Consequently, T(M) is not an independent prediction; it is a restatement of the assumed Δx(Δp) relation under additional operator identifications. In particular, Eqs. (49)–(50) simply parameterize the same quadratic branch structure. To claim a modified Hawking spectrum, one must first establish that R_H(M) from Eq. (32) is the horizon of a spacetime; otherwise these are heuristic rewritings.
  3. [§6, Conclusions] The paper's own final paragraph raises the question 'whether it really makes sense to think of every line in the R_H(M) or Δx(Δp) diagram as a black hole' and notes that the only case with a metric is the GUP/BHUP case of Eq. (26). This admission is decisive: for the EUP, GEUP, and EGUP branches, no metric is provided. In particular, the 'third phase' identified in §6 as 'a new class of (quantum) black holes' has no known spacetime realization. The distinction between an algebraic branch and a physical object is not a minor caveat; it is the difference between a prediction and a conjecture.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Abstract and Introduction] 'Uncertainly Principle' should be 'Uncertainty Principle'.
  2. [Eq. (33)] The second asymptotic case should be M≪M_P/√α, not M≫M_P/√α; as printed both cases share the same condition.
  3. [Eq. (21) and surrounding text] Δx/Δp is used to denote the derivative d(Δx)/d(Δp), which could be confused with the ratio of two uncertainties; this should be clarified.
  4. [§4, paragraph after Eq. (31)] Typo: 'partices' should be 'particles'.
  5. [Eq. (28)] The redefinition of α (now associated with the first term of the radius) is confusing because α has already been used in Eq. (2); the paper should explain why this does not conflict with the earlier adoption of Eq. (2).
  6. [Fig. 8 discussion, p. 19] The text refers to 'the solid line in Fig. 8(e)', but Fig. 8 has only panels (a)–(d). The intended panel is presumably (d) or a missing panel.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged

The GEUP 'new strong-gravity black hole' and its temperature are the uncertainty curve relabeled via an assumed Δx→R_H, Δp→Mc dictionary; the paper explicitly concedes no metric was derived.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 4, Eqs. (29)–(32); echoed in Conclusions]
    "Under the transformation ∆p→cM and ∆x→R, the function ∆x(∆p) also specifies the form of the function R(M). [...] However, we have not derived a metric for the other cases but just assumed that the ∆x(∆p) relation specifies an R_H(M) relationship."

    The abstract's central claim—that the GEUP predicts a new kind of strong-gravity black hole—is obtained by substituting R_H for ∆x and Mc for ∆p in Eq. (18), yielding Eq. (32). No horizon equation or metric is introduced for this branch; the paper's own Conclusions admit that no metric was derived. Thus the new horizon branch is the uncertainty curve under a change of variables, not an independent consequence of quantum gravity. The only independent content is the algebra of the quadratic (Eq. 18), but the physical identification is the input, not an output.

  2. self definitional [Section 5, Eqs. (48)–(50) and surrounding text]
    "If one associates ∆p with the black hole temperature and ∆x with the black hole horizon size, 2GM/c2, the function ∆x(∆p) immediately implies the function M(T) and inverting this then gives the temperature function T(M) as a 90 degree rotation. [...] If the black hole radius is specified by Eq. (32), then the temperature is given implicitly by [Eqs. (49)–(50)]."

    The GEUP temperature T(M) is not derived from a metric or from Hawking's calculation; it is the same Eq. (18)/(32) after also renaming ∆p as kT/c. The paper even describes the T(M) curve as a 90-degree rotation of ∆x(∆p). Since R_H(M) was already the uncertainty curve by the Section 4 dictionary, the temperature relation is the same input curve expressed in another variable. The 'predictions' in Eqs. (49)–(50) therefore reduce by construction to the assumed Δx(Δp) relation.

full rationale

The algebraic core of the paper—solving Eq. (17) to obtain the GEUP branches (18) and analyzing their asymptotics—is independent and self-consistent; that part is not circular. The circularity is located in the physical dictionary imposed in Sections 4 and 5. Section 4 explicitly defines the black-hole radius function by the transformation ∆p→cM, ∆x→R, and Section 5 imposes ∆p→kT/c to obtain temperatures. Consequently the 'new strong-gravity black hole' and its temperature are the uncertainty curve relabeled, not predictions derived from independent equations of motion. The paper's own concluding caveat ('the meaning of the associated T(M) curves is also unclear' and 'we have not derived a metric for the other cases') confirms that the load-bearing step is assumed. Self-citations [13–15] motivate the BHUP correspondence and supply an ansatz metric for the GUP (Eq. 26), but the GEUP branch is not imported from those papers; the central reduction is the definitional dictionary. Weighing the admitted assumption as a limitation, this is partial circularity: the branch structure is genuinely computed, but the central physical claim is an interpretation imposed on that computation. Score 6 rather than higher because no data are fitted and the quadratic branch analysis itself is not equivalent to the black-hole claim without the explicit dictionary.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on the BHUP dictionary (Δx→R_H, Δp→Mc) which is imported from the authors' prior work, plus the free model parameters α and β whose signs and products determine the branch structure. No new entity has independent evidence beyond an algebraic curve.

free parameters (4)
  • α (GUP parameter) = unspecified (plots use α=1, 0.1, 0.4, 0.7; Eq (11) suggests negative)
    Dimensionless parameter in Eq (1); central to existence and slope of branches; neither derived nor fitted here.
  • β (EUP parameter) = unspecified (plots use β=0.1, 0.5; Eq (9) suggests β∼10^-120 if L* is cosmological)
    Dimensionless parameter in Eq (6); condition αβ<1 controls real solutions; not fitted.
  • γ (constant in Eq 12) = 0 by choice ⟨x⟩=⟨p⟩=0 or opposite signs of α,β
    Introduced in Eqs (12)-(14); set to zero to define the GEUP; a free choice.
  • Coefficient β' in Eq (26) / α in Eq (28) = chosen to match Schwarzschild coefficient
    The BHUP metric radius is re-parameterized by hand (Eqs 26-28).
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The modified commutator relations [x,p]=iℏ(1+αℓP²p̂²/ℏ²+βx̂²/ℓP²) are valid effective quantum-gravity descriptions.
    Invoked in §1-2 (Eqs 3, 8, 13); no derivation from a UV theory is given.
  • standard math The Robertson–Schrödinger uncertainty relation ΔAΔB ≥ ½|⟨[A,B]⟩| applies to the modified commutators.
    Used to pass from Eq (13) to Eq (16).
  • domain assumption Δx can be identified with black hole horizon radius R_H and Δp with Mc for all mass scales (BHUP correspondence).
    Introduced in §4 before Eq (29) and used for GEUP/EGUP radii and all temperature expressions; not derived in this paper, inherited from prior work [13-15].
  • domain assumption Hawking temperature can be obtained by setting E∼cΔp and Δx∼horizon (Adler approach).
    Used in §5, Eqs (37)-(53).
  • ad hoc to paper Every branch of the Δx(Δp) curve that has positive Δx corresponds to a physical black hole state even without a metric.
    Stated in Conclusions: 'we have not derived a metric ... but just assumed that the Δx(Δp) relation specifies an R_H(M) relationship.'
invented entities (1)
  • Strong-gravity micro black hole (third GEUP branch) no independent evidence
    purpose: To give a black-hole interpretation to the upper branch of the GEUP curve (Eq 32 positive sign).
    No metric, no dynamics, no observational prediction; the authors concede no metric was derived.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12034 in / 13656 out tokens · 114655 ms · 2026-08-03T03:59:02.017495+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

The Generalized Uncertainty Principle (GUP) and Extended Uncertainty Principle (EUP) are modifications to the Heisenberg Uncertainly Principle (HUP), expected to apply as the energy approaches the Planck scale. Here we consider a possible combination of these modifications (GEUP) and analyse the implications in various regions of the ($\Delta x$, $\Delta p$) plane. We also consider an alternative combination (EGUP) which exhibits duality between $\Delta p$ and $\Delta x$, showing that this has some unusual features. The parameters which describe these models are usually assumed to be positive but we extend our analysis to include negative values. All these proposals entail a link between black holes and the various types of Uncertainty Principle. In particular, the GEUP predicts a new kind of strong-gravity black hole and this implies an interesting link between black holes and elementary particles.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2602.06189 by Bernard Carr, Jonas Mureika.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Form of the function ∆x(∆p) for (a) GUP and (b) EUP. The modulus signs are necessary if α or β is negative. The broken curves apply for negative α and the dotted curves for negative β. Another possible modification is the Extended Uncertainty Principle (EUP), ∆x∆p ≥ ℏ 2  1 + β∆x 2 ℓ 2 P  , (6) which can also be expressed as ∆x ≥ ℏ 2  1 ∆p + β∆x 2 ℓ 2 P∆p  (7) for some dimensionless constant β. The seco… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Qualitative form of the function ∆x(∆p) in the GEUP case for α > 0 and β > 0 (solid lines), α < 0 and β > 0 (broken lines), α > 0 and β < 0 (dotted lines), α < 0 and β < 0 (upper dotted plus broken-dotted plus right broken lines). The modulus signs are necessary in all but the first case. For positive α and β, this shows that there is only a real solution for αβ < 1 and ∆p < s β 1 − αβ MPc . (19) In the us… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: , however, the curves do not asymptote to the ∆x axis, as in the GUP case, but reach a minimum ∆p (i.e. a minimum black hole mass) and then curve back to increasing ∆p. We propose that these correspond to black hole solutions in a strong gravity regime [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: GEUP curves for (a) α < 0 and β > 0, (b) α > 0 and β < 0 and (c) α < 0 and β < 0. The constraint |αβ| < 1 is maintained and |∆x| is required if α and/or β is negative (dashed lines). sign in Eq. (24) is allowed, giving the upper red (GUP-type) curve in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Form of the functions ∆x(∆p) in EGUP case for (a) α > β and α < β and (b) α = β. 4 Extending to black hole region Under the transformation ∆p → cM and ∆x → R, the function ∆x(∆p) also speci￾fies the form of the function R(M). In the context of the GUP, R(M) approximates the Compton wavelength RC of a particle for M < MP and the Schwarzschild ra￾dius of a black hole RS for M > MP. This suggests a unificatio… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: EGUP parameter space for (a) α < 0, β > 0, (b) α > 0, β < 0 and (c) α < 0, β < 0. The dashed curves apply if one uses |∆x|. In this case, the horizon radius of the corresponding black hole is RH = 2GM c 2 + β ′ℏ Mc (27) where β ′ has a prime to distinguish it from β in the EUP. This encapsulates both the expected macroscopic (first term) and microscopic (second term) behavior of the horizon. For notational… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The form of the temperature function T(M) for: (a) GUP model with standard black hole radius; (b) BHUP model with modified black hole radius; (c) EUP model with standard black hole radius; (d) EUP model with modified black hole radius. The parameters α and β are assumed to be positive. For the EUP, one requires M > √ βMP and Eq. (7), together with the assump￾tion that ∆p ∼ kT/c, gives a Hawking temperature… view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Numerical calculations of the temperature function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Numerical calculations of the temperature function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_9.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

19 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano, and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D52, 1108 (1995), arXiv:hep-th/9412167 . 21

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1995

  2. [2]

    R. C. Pantig, G. Lambiase, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, and N. J. L. S. Lobos, Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101817 (2025), arXiv:2412.00303 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  3. [3]

    Dvali and C

    G. Dvali and C. Gomez, Fortsch. Phys.61, 742 (2013), arXiv:1112.3359 [hep- th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  4. [4]

    Mureika, Phys

    J. Mureika, Phys. Lett. B789, 88 (2019)

    2019

  5. [5]

    ¨Okc¨ u and E

    O. ¨Okc¨ u and E. Aydiner, EPL138, 39002 (2022), arXiv:2209.03170 [physics.gen-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  6. [6]

    Lu and Y

    X. Lu and Y. Xie, Modern Physics Letters A34, 1950152 (2019), https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217732319501529

    work page doi:10.1142/s0217732319501529 2019

  7. [7]

    Illuminati, G

    F. Illuminati, G. Lambiase, and L. Petruzziello, Symmetry13, 1854 (2021), arXiv:2108.09253 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Capozziello, G

    S. Capozziello, G. Meluccio, and J. Mureika, Int. J. Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. 0, 2650085 (2025), arXiv:2506.21048 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  9. [9]

    Fragomeno, D

    F. Fragomeno, D. M. Gingrich, S. Hergott, S. Rastgoo, and E. Vienneau, Phys. Rev. D111, 024048 (2025), arXiv:2406.03909 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  10. [10]

    N. J. L. S. Lobos and R. C. Pantig, MDPI Physics4, 1318 (2022), arXiv:2208.00618 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Pacho l, Nucl

    A. Pacho l, Nucl. Phys. B1010, 116771 (2025), arXiv:2409.05110 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  12. [12]

    Casadio, I

    R. Casadio, I. I. C ¸ imdiker, O. Micu, and J. Mureika, Phys. Lett. B869, 139853 (2025), arXiv:2507.14703 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  13. [13]

    B. J. Carr, J. Mureika, and P. Nicolini, JHEP07, 052 (2015), arXiv:1504.07637 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  14. [14]

    B. Carr, H. Mentzer, J. Mureika, and P. Nicolini, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1166 (2020), arXiv:2006.04892 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  15. [15]

    B. Carr, J. Mureika, and P. Nicolini, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D33, 2430002 (2024), arXiv:2405.04977 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  16. [16]

    R. J. Adler, Am. J. Phys.78, 925 (2010), arXiv:1001.1205 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  17. [17]

    A. M. Frassino, S. K¨ oppel, and P. Nicolini, Entropy18, 181 (2016), arXiv:1604.03263 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  18. [18]

    Moradpour, C

    H. Moradpour, C. Corda, A. H. Ziaie, and S. Ghaffari, Europhysics Letters 127, 60006 (2019)

    2019

  19. [19]

    Nakarachinda, C

    R. Nakarachinda, C. Promsiri, L. Tannukij, and P. Wongjun, Nucl. Phys. B 1011, 116796 (2025), arXiv:2211.05989 [gr-qc] . 22 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 9: Numerical calculations of the temperature functionT(M) for: (a) GEUP model with standard black hole radius; (b) GEUP model with modified black hole radius; (c) EGUP model with standard black hole radius; (d)...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025