Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 42 references

This paper claims that loop-quantum-gravity corrections systematically lower black-hole ringdown frequency, while spin raises it.

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

2026-08-02 01:06 UTC pith:BMOEJ52C

load-bearing objection The parameter trends are clean, but the effective potential is asserted with an undefined mass function, so every reported frequency is untethered from the claimed spacetime. the 4 major comments →

arxiv 2607.15324 v1 pith:BMOEJ52C submitted 2026-07-16 gr-qc

Quasinormal Modes of Self-Dual Loop Quantum Gravity Corrected Kerr Black Holes

Yu Wang , Meilin Liu , Haiguang Xu This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords loop quantum gravityrotating black holesquasinormal modesringdown signalsgravitational wavespolymeric parameterscalar perturbationsNewman–Janis algorithm
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.

This paper sets out to show that quantum corrections from loop quantum gravity produce a characteristic, measurable shift in the quasinormal-mode spectrum of a rotating black hole. Starting from a static self-dual LQG black hole, the authors build a rotating metric with the revised Newman–Janis algorithm and compute the effective potential for scalar perturbations. Solving the resulting wave equation with sixth-order WKB and time-domain integration, they find that the polymeric parameter P always reduces the oscillation frequency Re(ω), while the spin parameter a increases it, and the minimal-area parameter a0 gives a milder but similar shift. If the prediction is right, future gravitational-wave detectors could search for this systematic frequency drop as a direct probe of quantum geometry.

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that the quasinormal spectrum of the rotating LQG black hole separates into opposite trends: quantum deformation (P and, weakly, a0) lowers the real part of the frequency and broadens the effective potential barrier, whereas rotation a raises the frequency and at high spin reverses the spin-dependence of the damping rate. This is obtained by reducing the scalar Klein–Gordon equation, under the slow-rotation approximation, to a Schrödinger-like radial equation with effective potential Vℓ(r) = Δ(r)/(r²+a²)² [ℓ(ℓ+1) + 2M(r)r/(r²+a²)], where Δ(r) = r²F_LQG(r;P)+a² encodes the quantum-deformed radial sector. The authors compute complex frequencie

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the effective potential for scalar perturbations, Vℓ(r) = Δ(r)/(r²+a²)² [ℓ(ℓ+1) + 2M(r)r/(r²+a²)], with Δ(r) = r² F_LQG(r;P) + a². The quantum deformation enters through the radial function F_LQG(r;P) inherited from the static LQG metric via the revised Newman–Janis construction; the potential's peak height, width, and location control the quasinormal frequencies through the sixth-order WKB condition. Spin enters through a in Δ and in the tortoise coordinate dr* = (r²+a²)/Δ dr, shifting the peak inward. Here P is the polymeric parameter, a dimensionless quantum-geometry deformation, and a0 is the minimal-area scale.

Load-bearing premise

The paper's central claim rests on the assumption that Eq. (24)'s effective potential is the correct slow-rotation scalar perturbation potential for the rotating LQG metric — a point the paper states but does not derive, and one that its own parameter range (aω≪1 with a up to 0.99) appears to violate.

What would settle it

Solving the scalar perturbation equation for the metric of Eq. (7) exactly (e.g., by separating the angular and radial equations without the slow-rotation approximation) and checking whether Re(ω) still decreases monotonically with P at fixed a would directly test the claim. Alternatively, deriving the true radial potential from the full Klein–Gordon equation and showing it differs from Eq. (24) would falsify the analysis.

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

If this is right

  • For fixed spin, the fundamental scalar ringdown frequency decreases monotonically as P grows, giving a clean, monotonic quantum-gravity signature.
  • Because spin a raises the frequency while P lowers it, a measurement that ignores rotation would misinterpret a quantum shift as a spin effect (or vice versa).
  • Higher multipoles ℓ ring at higher frequency and higher overtones decay faster in the time-domain signals, so mode separation can isolate the quantum shift from geometric effects.
  • If the shifts are as computed, future gravitational-wave detectors could in principle constrain the LQG parameters by measuring the real part of the ringdown frequency of a stellar-mass or intermediate-mass black hole.
  • The results suggest a partial separation of roles: P mainly softens and broadens the potential barrier, while a mainly raises its peak and pulls it inward.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If the monotonic P-induced frequency drop holds beyond the slow-rotation approximation and in gravitational perturbations, it would mean the effect is not a scalar-field artifact; this is testable by computing the fully separable angular equation for the metric of Eq. (7).
  • The same Newman–Janis construction could be applied to charged or higher-dimensional LQG metrics; if the direction of the shift is universal, the ringdown-frequency drop becomes a generic marker of nonclassicality rather than a model-dependent detail.
  • Since the paper's own parameter choices reach a=0.99 with ω≈0.5, violating the stated aω≪1 condition, a direct numerical integration of the full wave equation at high spin would settle whether the predicted trend survives or is an artifact of the effective potential approximation.
  • The frequency shift at fixed spin is equivalent to a redshift of the photon-sphere angular frequency; comparing the eikonal-limit relation ω≈ℓΩ_c across ℓ could separate the quantum contribution from a pure mass rescaling.

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

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript computes scalar quasinormal modes (QNMs) and ringdown waveforms for a rotating loop-quantum-gravity black hole obtained by a revised Newman–Janis algorithm. The spacetime depends on the polymeric parameter P and a minimal-area parameter a0 and reduces to Kerr when both vanish. Using a sixth-order WKB approximation and time-domain integration, the authors report that increasing P lowers Re(ω), while increasing the spin a raises Re(ω), and conclude that future gravitational-wave detectors might constrain LQG parameters through ringdown spectroscopy.

Significance. If the underlying perturbation calculation were correct, the paper would supply a concrete, falsifiable ringdown prediction for a class of LQG-inspired rotating black holes. The claimed parameter trends could motivate searches for anomalous spin-dependence in black-hole spectroscopy. The paper does not fit data, so the P-dependence is not circular; it is an internal consequence of the assumed metric and effective potential. However, the reliability of the entire numerical output depends on an effective potential that is asserted rather than derived, and on a slow-rotation expansion that is applied outside its stated domain. For that reason the central claim is currently unsupported.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3, Eqs. (17)/(24)/(31)] The effective potential V_l(r) is stated without derivation from the Klein–Gordon equation for the metric (7). The function M(r) is never defined; Eq. (31) silently replaces it with a constant M. Every WKB frequency and time-domain signal follows from this potential, so the headline result that P reduces Re(ω) is a property of an undefined function unless the reduction from Eq. (13) to Eq. (15) is supplied. In particular, the Kerr limit should reproduce the well-known scalar-field potential including the m a ω and a^2 corrections; Eq. (17) does not contain m or aω, so it is not the standard slow-rotation reduction of the rotating wave equation.
  2. [Section 3 and Figs. 4–8] The stated slow-rotation condition aω ≪ 1 is contradicted by the parameter range used. Figure 8 varies a from 0 to 0.99 while Re(ω) ~ 0.5 and M=1, giving aω ~ 0.5 even for moderate a and aω > 1 near a=0.99. Table 1 lists Re(ω) ~ 0.52 without stating the a, P, a0 values used. The approximation is therefore applied outside its regime, and the quoted high-spin trends — including the 'turnover' in Im(ω) — are not trustworthy.
  3. [Table 1 and Section 5.3] Table 1 reports six-digit QNM frequencies with no statement of a, P, a0, nor a Kerr (P=0) benchmark for comparison. This makes the numerical results irreproducible and prevents the reader from checking whether the P-induced shift is larger than the WKB error. Additionally, the text of Section 5.3 lists P = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 0.7 while the caption of Fig. 8 lists P = 0.01, 0.05, 0.1, 0.2; this inconsistency further obscures which results are being reported.
  4. [Section 6.5] The time-domain analysis claims to show the dependence of the ringdown on the overtone index n, but n is imposed by adding an oscillatory modulation to the initial Gaussian packet rather than extracted from the evolution (e.g., by Prony analysis). The resulting waveforms therefore do not demonstrate the physical overtone structure of the black hole, and the statement that 'higher overtone modes decay more rapidly' is asserted from artificially excited initial data rather than from the QNM spectrum.
minor comments (4)
  1. [General] The notation oscillates between V_l(r) and V(r), and between l and ℓ; Eqs. (15)/(17) and (22)/(24) repeat the same derivation verbatim. Eq. (29) is introduced but never used; it can be removed.
  2. [Section 5, Eq. (31)] The function F_LQG(r;P) in Eq. (32) is undefined. If it is meant to be F(r) from Eq. (4), that should be stated explicitly.
  3. [Figures] Figure captions do not always specify fixed parameters (e.g., Fig. 4 and Fig. 5); Fig. 5 uses a logarithmic P-axis without mentioning it in the caption. Several panels in Figs. 2 and 3 appear to have dense axis labels that would be illegible in print.
  4. [Text] There are typographical issues, including 'Schr"odinger' in Section 3 and inconsistent spacing in 'a 0'. The reference list contains at least one questionable entry (Ref. [29], 'A. Sakharov, Quantum gravity black hole models', JETP Lett. 81, 167 (2005)) that should be checked.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the WKB frequency shifts are computed from the assumed potential; only a minor time-domain 'overtone dependence' is imposed by the initial-data construction.

specific steps
  1. self definitional [Section 6.5, 'Joint dependence on multipole number ℓ and overtone index n'; also Abstract's time-domain claim]
    "The evolution is obtained by evolving a Gaussian initial wave packet with an additional oscillatory modulation controlled by the overtone index n, which effectively excites higher-frequency components in the initial perturbation. This allows us to qualitatively mimic the hierarchy of quasinormal overtones in the time-domain signal."

    The Abstract presents 'The time-domain signals exhibit clear dependence on the multipole number ℓ and overtone index n' as a result, and Section 6.5 concludes that 'the overtone index n mainly affects the damping hierarchy'. But in the time-domain simulation n is not an eigenvalue extracted from the potential or the wave equation; it is a label imposed on the initial Gaussian packet ('additional oscillatory modulation controlled by the overtone index n'). The observed n-dependence is therefore true by construction rather than a prediction of the LQG-corrected spacetime. This step is not load-bearing for the central claim that P reduces Re(ω), which comes from the independent WKB computation.

full rationale

The central QNM derivation is self-contained conditional on the assumed model: the sixth-order WKB formula (Eq. 27) is applied to the effective potential (Eq. 17/24/31), and the quoted dependence of Re(ω) on P and a is a direct numerical consequence of the shape of that potential. No parameter is fitted to a subset of data and then renamed a prediction, and no load-bearing claim is justified solely by a self-citation. The only reduce-by-construction element is the time-domain 'overtone index n' dependence, which is inserted through the initial data in Section 6.5 and hence is tautological; this minor side-result does not feed back into the WKB spectrum or the central P-shift claim. The undefined M(r), the asserted rather than derived form of V_ℓ(r), and the inconsistent use of aω ≪ 1 with a up to 0.99 are correctness and rigor concerns, but they are not circularity: the paper's own equations are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. Overall the manuscript belongs in the 0–2 range for circularity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 2 invented entities

The central QNM prediction rests entirely on imported or asserted structures: the LQG seed metric, the NJA rotating extension, and the effective potential. No independent data or formal checks anchor these; P and a0 are free input parameters scanned rather than derived.

free parameters (3)
  • Polymeric parameter P = scanned 0.01–0.7
    Controls the strength of LQG corrections in the seed metric; no fixed value is derived; the central QNM trend is a function of P.
  • Minimal area parameter a0 = scanned 1e-4–5e-2
    Describes the area scale in H(r)=r²+a0²/r²; treated as free, though LQG would be expected to fix it; contributes mild frequency shifts.
  • Spin parameter a = scanned 0–0.99
    Standard Kerr spin parameter; scanned to study rotation, but the paper uses values beyond the slow-rotation regime it assumed.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The static self-dual LQBH seed metric (Eqs. 3–6) represents a valid LQG-corrected black hole.
    Taken from refs [29–31]; no derivation in this paper.
  • domain assumption The revised Newman–Janis algorithm applied to the seed yields Eq. (7) as the correct rotating spacetime.
    Standard method, but the metric is not tested against a full rotating LQG derivation; K(r)=r²√(F/G) is chosen.
  • ad hoc to paper Scalar perturbations separate with spherical harmonics and the m-dependent coupling is negligible for aω≪1.
    Section 3; the paper says O(amω) is neglected, but a=0.99 is used later.
  • ad hoc to paper The effective potential of Eq. (24)/(31) is the correct radial potential, with M(r)=M.
    M(r) is never defined; Eq. (17) uses M(r), Eq. (31) uses constant M. This is the load-bearing assumption.
  • standard math The sixth-order WKB formula (Eq. 27) is accurate for n=0,1,2 and ℓ=2,3.
    WKB is approximate and less accurate for higher overtones; no error estimates are given.
invented entities (2)
  • Rotating NJA-LQG black hole metric (Eq. 7) no independent evidence
    purpose: Background spacetime for all QNM calculations.
    Constructed from a phenomenological seed via the revised Newman–Janis algorithm; no derivation from full LQG and no observational handle establishes it.
  • Effective mass function M(r) in Eq. (17) no independent evidence
    purpose: Appears in the effective potential but is never defined; Eq. (31) silently uses constant M.
    Undefined auxiliary quantity; the potential cannot be re-derived or checked without it.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 12562 in / 17294 out tokens · 142647 ms · 2026-08-02T01:06:10.171230+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate scalar quasinormal modes and ringdown signals of a rotating loop quantum gravity black hole constructed via the revised Newman--Janis algorithm. The spacetime incorporates two quantum parameters, the polymeric parameter $P$ and the minimal area parameter $a_0$, and reduces to the Kerr spacetime in the classical limit. Using the sixth-order WKB approximation and time-domain integration, we analyze the effective potential, quasinormal mode spectrum, and ringdown dynamics. The polymeric parameter $P$ systematically reduces the oscillation frequency $\mathrm{Re}(\omega)$, while the spin parameter $a$ enhances it. The time-domain signals exhibit clear dependence on the multipole number $\ell$ and overtone index $n$. Our results provide a theoretical framework for understanding the effects of loop quantum gravity corrections on black hole perturbations and gravitational-wave ringdown signals.

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

42 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Quasi-normal modes of stars and black holes,

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, “Quasi-normal modes of stars and black holes,” Living Rev. Relativ.2, 2 (1999)

    1999

  2. [2]

    Quasinormal modes,

    H.-P. Nollert, “Quasinormal modes,” Class. Quantum Grav.16, R159 (1999)

    1999

  3. [3]

    Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes,

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and A. O. Starinets, “Quasinormal modes of black holes and black branes,” Class. Quantum Grav.26, 163001 (2009)

    2009

  4. [4]

    Quasinormal modes of black holes: From astrophysics to string theory,

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, “Quasinormal modes of black holes: From astrophysics to string theory,” Rev. Mod. Phys.83, 793 (2011)

    2011

  5. [5]

    Gravitational-wave signatures of ex- otic compact objects,

    V. Cardoso et al., “Gravitational-wave signatures of ex- otic compact objects,” Phys. Rev. D94, 084031 (2016)

    2016

  6. [6]

    Ob- servation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific Collaboration), “Ob- servation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  7. [7]

    GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog,

    B. P. Abbott et al., “GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog,” Phys. Rev. X9, 031040 (2019)

    2019

  8. [8]

    Gravitational field of a spinning mass,

    R. P. Kerr, “Gravitational field of a spinning mass,” Phys. Rev. Lett.11, 237 (1963)

    1963

  9. [9]

    Perturbations of a rotating black hole,

    S. A. Teukolsky, “Perturbations of a rotating black hole,” Astrophys. J.185, 635 (1973)

    1973

  10. [10]

    Stability of a Schwarzschild singularity,

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, “Stability of a Schwarzschild singularity,” Phys. Rev.108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  11. [11]

    Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University Press (1983)

    S. Chandrasekhar,The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University Press (1983)

    1983

  12. [12]

    An analytic representation for the quasi- normal modes of Kerr black holes,

    E. W. Leaver, “An analytic representation for the quasi- normal modes of Kerr black holes,” Proc. R. Soc. A402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  13. [13]

    Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

    C. Rovelli,Quantum Gravity, Cambridge University Press (2004)

    2004

  14. [14]

    Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Rel- ativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

    T. Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Rel- ativity, Cambridge University Press (2007)

    2007

  15. [15]

    Background indepen- dent quantum gravity: a status report,

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, “Background indepen- dent quantum gravity: a status report,” Class. Quantum Grav.21, R53 (2004)

    2004

  16. [16]

    Modesto, Disappearance of black hole singularity in quantum gravity,Phys

    L. Modesto, Disappearance of black hole singularity in quantum gravity,Phys. Rev. D70, 124009 (2004), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.124009, arXiv:gr-qc/0407097

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  17. [17]

    Modesto, Loop quantum black hole,Class

    L. Modesto, Loop quantum black hole,Class. Quantum Grav.23, 5587 (2006)

    2006

  18. [18]

    Modesto, Semiclassical loop quantum black hole,Int

    L. Modesto, Semiclassical loop quantum black hole,Int. J. Theor. Phys.49, 1649 (2010)

    2010

  19. [19]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Loop quantization of the Schwarzschild black hole,Phys. Rev. Lett.110(21), 211301 (2013), doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.211301, arXiv:1302.5265 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  20. [20]

    Bodendorfer et al., New variables for classical and quantum gravity,Class

    N. Bodendorfer et al., New variables for classical and quantum gravity,Class. Quantum Grav.30, 045001 (2013)

    2013

  21. [21]

    Thiemann and H.A

    T. Thiemann and H.A. Kastrup, Canonical quanti- zation of spherically symmetric gravity in Ashtekar’s selfdual representation,Nucl. Phys. B399, 211 (1993), doi:10.1016/0550-3213(93)90623-W, arXiv:gr- qc/9310012

    arXiv 1993

  22. [22]

    Campiglia, R

    M. Campiglia, R. Gambini, and J. Pullin, Loop quanti- zation of spherically symmetric midi-superspaces,Class. Quantum Gravity24, 3649 (2007), doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/24/14/007, arXiv:gr-qc/0703135. 14

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  23. [23]

    Bengtsson, Note on Ashtekar’s variables in the spher- ically symmetric case,Class

    I. Bengtsson, Note on Ashtekar’s variables in the spher- ically symmetric case,Class. Quantum Gravity5, L139 (1988), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/5/10/002

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/5/10/002 1988

  24. [24]

    Bojowald and H.A

    M. Bojowald and H.A. Kastrup, Quantum sym- metry reduction for diffeomorphism invariant theories of connections,Class. Quantum Gravity17, 3009 (2000), doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/15/311, arXiv:hep- th/9907042

    arXiv 2000

  25. [25]

    Bojowald and R

    M. Bojowald and R. Swiderski, The volume opera- tor in spherically symmetric quantum geometry,Class. Quantum Gravity21, 4881 (2004), doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/21/21/009, arXiv:gr-qc/0407018

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  26. [26]

    Bojowald and R

    M. Bojowald and R. Swiderski, Spherically symmetric quantum horizons,Phys. Rev. D71, 081501 (2005), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.71.081501, arXiv:gr-qc/0410147

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  27. [27]

    Bojowald and R

    M. Bojowald and R. Swiderski, Spherically symmet- ric quantum geometry: Hamiltonian constraint,Class. Quantum Gravity23, 2129 (2006), doi:10.1088/0264- 9381/23/6/015, arXiv:gr-qc/0511108

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2006

  28. [28]

    Kuchar, Geometrodynamics of Schwarzschild black holes,Phys

    K.V. Kuchar, Geometrodynamics of Schwarzschild black holes,Phys. Rev. D50, 3961 (1994), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.50.3961, arXiv:gr-qc/9403003

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  29. [29]

    Sakharov, Quantum gravity black hole models,JETP Lett.81, 167 (2005)

    A. Sakharov, Quantum gravity black hole models,JETP Lett.81, 167 (2005)

    2005

  30. [30]

    Barrau and C

    A. Barrau and C. Rovelli, Planck star phenomenology, Phys. Lett. B739, 405 (2014)

    2014

  31. [31]

    Barrau, Loop quantum gravity phenomenology,Uni- verse2, 1 (2016)

    A. Barrau, Loop quantum gravity phenomenology,Uni- verse2, 1 (2016)

    2016

  32. [32]

    Note on the Kerr spinning-particle metric,

    E. T. Newman and A. I. Janis, “Note on the Kerr spinning-particle metric,” J. Math. Phys.6, 915 (1965)

    1965

  33. [33]

    Generating rotating regular black hole solutions,

    M. Azreg-A ¨ ınou, “Generating rotating regular black hole solutions,” Phys. Rev. D90, 064041 (2014)

    2014

  34. [34]

    Rotating loop quantum black holes and shadows,

    C. Liu et al., “Rotating loop quantum black holes and shadows,” Phys. Rev. D102, 024028 (2020)

    2020

  35. [35]

    Quasinormal modes of loop quantum black holes,

    M. Momennia, “Quasinormal modes of loop quantum black holes,” arXiv:2204.03259

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  36. [36]

    Gravitational perturbations of LQG black holes,

    S. Yang et al., “Gravitational perturbations of LQG black holes,” arXiv:2304.06895

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  37. [37]

    Rotating loop quantum black holes: stability and QNMs,

    J. Khodagholizadeh et al., “Rotating loop quantum black holes: stability and QNMs,” Eur. Phys. J. C84, 1303 (2024)

    2024

  38. [38]

    Li-Gang Zhu, Guoyang Fu, Shulan Li, Dan Zhang, and Jian-Pin Wu, Quasinormal modes of a charged loop quantum black hole,Phys. Rev. D111, 104008 (2025), doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.111.104008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.104008 2025

  39. [39]

    Quasinormal modes of rotating loop quantum black holes,

    Z. Dong et al., “Quasinormal modes of rotating loop quantum black holes,” arXiv:2605.18249 (2026)

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna,

    P. Amaro-Seoane et al., “Laser Interferometer Space An- tenna,” arXiv:1702.00786

    Pith/arXiv arXiv

  41. [41]

    The Einstein Telescope,

    M. Punturo et al., “The Einstein Telescope,” Class. Quantum Grav.27, 194002 (2010)

    2010

  42. [42]

    Cosmic Explorer,

    B. P. Abbott et al., “Cosmic Explorer,” Class. Quantum Grav.34, 044001 (2017)

    2017