Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 93 references

An intrinsic magnetic field in Ernst black-hole spacetime imprints characteristic phase, amplitude, and spectral features on gravitational waves from zoom–whirl EMRI orbits.

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 · grok-4.5

2026-07-31 22:25 UTC pith:6GSBXPTS

load-bearing objection Clean zoom-whirl/kludge application to Ernst; the orbit maps are fine, but the LISA-detectability claim rests on a flat-space radiation map the geometry does not support. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.24154 v1 pith:6GSBXPTS submitted 2026-07-27 gr-qc

Gravitational wave signatures of magnetized Ernst black hole

Fazlay Ahmed , Sanjar Shaymatov , Chengxun Yuan , Salah Nasri This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords gravitational wavesmagnetized Ernst black holeperiodic orbitszoom-whirlEMRIquadrupole approximationnumerical kludgemagnetic field
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 asks whether a magnetic field built into the black-hole geometry itself can leave a readable signature on gravitational waves from a small compact object on a bound orbit. The authors classify those bound orbits with the zoom–whirl integers (z, w, v), integrate the exact equatorial geodesics in the magnetized Ernst metric, and convert the motion into plus and cross waveforms with the quadrupole (numerical-kludge) formula. They find that raising the magnetic parameter shifts waveform phase and amplitude and moves spectral peaks, and that portions of the resulting characteristic strain sit above the planned sensitivity of LISA, Taiji, and Tianqin. A sympathetic reader cares because future millihertz detectors are expected to watch extreme mass-ratio inspirals for years; if magnetic-field effects really appear in the signal at the level claimed, those observations become a probe of magnetized strong-field spacetimes, not only of vacuum general relativity.

Core claim

In the magnetized Ernst geometry, an intrinsic magnetic field parameter B changes the structure of periodic timelike orbits and imprints measurable features—phase shifts, amplitude changes, and rearranged harmonic peaks—on the gravitational waves those orbits emit, so that space-based detectors could in principle distinguish magnetized black-hole spacetimes from ordinary Schwarzschild ones.

What carries the argument

Zoom–whirl classification of periodic orbits by the rational frequency ratio q = w + v/z, combined with exact geodesic integration in the Ernst metric and the quadrupole numerical-kludge map from trajectory to h+ and h×. That pipeline turns B-dependent orbital dynamics into time-domain waveforms, Fourier spectra, and characteristic strain curves.

Load-bearing premise

The flat-space quadrupole formula with a simple luminosity distance is assumed to give a reliable waveform even though the Ernst spacetime is not asymptotically flat.

What would settle it

Recompute the same (z, w, v) orbits with a wave-extraction method valid in non-asymptotically flat magnetized geometries; if the B-dependent phase, amplitude, and spectral-peak shifts disappear or fall below LISA/Taiji/Tianqin sensitivity for the plotted B values, the central claim fails.

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

If this is right

  • GW templates for EMRIs around magnetized black holes must include B as a parameter that shifts phase and spectral peaks.
  • Portions of the characteristic strain for the studied (z, w, v) orbits lie above LISA, Taiji, and Tianqin noise curves, so detection is in principle possible.
  • Higher zoom number z produces more intricate waveform substructure that tracks the leafed orbital geometry.
  • Comparing observed millihertz EMRI signals with pure Schwarzschild templates could constrain or reveal an intrinsic magnetic field near the central black hole.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because Ernst spacetime is not asymptotically flat, any real data analysis would still need matched filters or self-force waveforms built in that geometry before B could be claimed from a detection.
  • The same (z, w, v) pipeline could be repeated for rotating or charged magnetized solutions to test whether spin and B leave degenerate or separable imprints.
  • If B mainly rescales effective energy and angular momentum at fixed q, multi-orbit Bayesian inference on frequency ratios might separate magnetic effects from mass and spin more cleanly than amplitude alone.

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 / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies gravitational-wave emission from periodic timelike equatorial orbits of a neutral test particle around a magnetized Ernst (Schwarzschild–Melvin) black hole. Bound geodesics are classified with the Levin–Perez-Giz (z,w,v) zoom–whirl scheme, trajectories are integrated numerically, and waveforms are constructed with the standard numerical-kludge prescription: flat-space quadrupole formula, TT projection onto a detector frame, DFT spectra, and characteristic strains compared against LISA/Taiji/TianQin sensitivity curves. The authors find that the magnetic parameter B shifts waveform phase/amplitude and spectral peaks, and that portions of the characteristic-strain spectra lie above detector noise curves, which they interpret as evidence that magnetic-field imprints could be detectable. The geodesic machinery (§III) and the kludge waveform pipeline (§IV) follow standard, established practice; the novel element is applying them to this particular non-asymptotically-flat background.

Significance. If the analysis holds up in its domain of validity, the paper provides concrete, reproducible waveform templates for zoom–whirl EMRI orbits in a magnetized background, with clearly identified free parameters (B, E, L, mass ratio, distance, sky angles) and an explicit comparison against named future detectors — a falsifiable, testable setup. The (z,w,v) classification for this spacetime is a modest but useful extension of existing periodic-orbit catalogues. However, the significance is presently capped by two issues: the radiation-extraction step assumes asymptotic flatness in a spacetime that the paper itself states is not asymptotically flat, so the absolute strain levels in Figs. 4–8 lack a defined meaning as predictions of the Ernst solution; and the dimensionless B values used correspond to physical field strengths orders of magnitude above the astrophysical estimates the introduction itself cites, which undercuts the "potentially detectable" framing.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV, Eqs. (4.1)–(4.4); Fig. 8] The waveform model uses the flat-space quadrupole formula with a luminosity distance D_L and standard TT projection. The Ernst spacetime is explicitly stated to be non-asymptotically flat (§II), and indeed on the equator g_ϕϕ = r²/(1+B²r²)² decreases at large r; there is no asymptotic Minkowski region, no Bondi frame, and no invariant meaning for D_L or for flux fall-off ∝ 1/D_L². The entire detector-level conclusion — the absolute strain amplitudes in Figs. 4–5 and the above-threshold portions of Fig. 8 — depends on this map. This is not fatal if the authors restrict the claim to the regime where the near-orbit zone is approximately flat (B²r² ≪ 1; for BM = 0.001 and orbital radii r ≲ 30M this is well satisfied), but the manuscript must (i) state this validity regime explicitly, (ii) verify numerically that all plotted orbits satisfy B²r² ≪ 1 at all turning points, and (iii) qualify the
  2. [§III, text after Eq. (3.12)] The statement 'V_eff(r) → 1 as r → +∞, as expected for an asymptotically flat spacetime' is incorrect for this metric. With Λ(r) = 1 + B²r² (equatorial), V_eff = f(r)Λ²(1 + L²Λ²/r²) grows like B⁴r⁴ for any B ≠ 0: the potential diverges at large r and there is no escape to infinity at E > 1. The bound-state structure is in fact effective confinement, standard for Melvin-type geometries. This error does not corrupt the small-r orbit numerics used later, but the discussion of bound vs. unbound orbits and the claim that 'particles with energy E > 1 can escape to infinity' must be corrected, since the classification of bound orbits is part of the paper's load-bearing machinery.
  3. [§I and §IV (parameter choice B = 0.001–0.003, M = 1); Figs. 5, 7, 8] For M = 10⁶ M_⊙, the geometrized values BM = 10⁻³–3×10⁻³ correspond to physical field strengths of order 10¹⁰–10¹¹ G (B_phys ≈ 2.4×10¹⁹ G × BM × M_⊙/M), roughly six orders of magnitude above the ∼10⁴ G the introduction itself quotes for SMBHs (and far above the M87*/Sgr A* and V404 Cygni values also cited). The detectability claim in Fig. 8 is driven by these large-B cases; at astrophysically realistic B the waveform modifications would be undetectably small. The paper should either (i) add the conversion to physical units and an honest assessment of which B values are astrophysically motivated, or (ii) reframe the result as a proof-of-principle for strong fields (e.g., primordial or magnetar-scale environments) rather than generic EMRI sources. As written, the abstract's 'potentially detectable' language is not supported for realistic field strengths.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§IV, Eq. (4.1)] The normalization A = c⁴D_L/(2G) written with 'G = c = 1' is confusing: if geometrized units are used, A should just be 2D_L... rather the formula reads h_ij = (2/D_L) Ï_ij. The mixed-unit definition and the reciprocal notation 1/A obscure the standard form; please rewrite cleanly and state the units used in the numerical pipeline.
  2. [§V] The text states the geodesics 'were solved analytically,' but §III (Eq. 3.13) describes numerical integration, and no closed-form solution is given. Please correct.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (3.7)–(3.8)] Notation is inconsistent: A(r,θ) in Eq. (2.3) becomes A(r) without noting the equatorial restriction; also f(r,θ) is written where f depends only on r. Minor, but worth tidying.
  4. [§III] It should be stated explicitly that the test particle is neutral (geodesic motion). In a magnetized background a charged EMRI secondary would experience the Lorentz force, and readers may assume otherwise.
  5. [§III, Eq. (3.11)] The restriction to equatorial orbits (θ = π/2, θ̇ = 0) is an assumption, not a derived property; non-equatorial orbits are generically expected in an axially symmetric spacetime and could carry qualitatively different waveform content. A sentence justifying (or flagging) this restriction is needed.
  6. [Fig. 5 caption] Caption punctuation is garbled: 'magnetic field parameter B=0.001: blue, 0.002: green, and 0.003: red'. Also the caption omits the D_L, ι, ζ values used (they appear only in the body text).
  7. [Fig. 8] The 30-bin running-average smoothing of h_c(f) is a cosmetic choice; please state whether smoothing affects any above/below-threshold conclusion, and ideally show unsmoothed curves or note the smoothing window in detector-relevant bandwidths.
  8. [References] The bibliography leans heavily on the authors' own related magnetized/periodic-orbit work (e.g., [29],[30],[39],[41],[42],[76]–[80]). Some of these are appropriate, but a few appear peripheral; consider trimming to the directly relevant subset and adding literature on radiation in non-asymptotically-flat (Melvin/Ernst) spacetimes, which is directly relevant to the main caveat above.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: forward geodesic-plus-quadrupole computation with chosen inputs, not a result forced by definition or self-citation.

full rationale

The paper’s load-bearing chain is: (i) adopt the known magnetized Ernst metric; (ii) integrate timelike geodesics and classify bound orbits by the external Levin–Perez-Giz (z,w,v) scheme; (iii) map those trajectories to h+× via the standard numerical-kludge quadrupole formula; (iv) Fourier-transform and compare characteristic strain to published LISA/Taiji/Tianqin curves. B, E, L, and (z,w,v) are free inputs chosen by the authors; the waveforms and spectral shifts are outputs of that forward map, not algebraic restatements of fitted targets. Self-citations (Shaymatov et al. on magnetized geometries) supply background context and do not underwrite a uniqueness theorem or force the GW result. Methodological concerns about applying a flat-space 1/DL quadrupole map in a non-asymptotically flat Melvin-type spacetime are correctness/validity issues, not circularity. The derivation is self-contained against its own stated inputs; score 0.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the Ernst magnetized metric as the background, test-particle geodesic motion without self-force, Levin–Perez-Giz rational-orbit classification, and the numerical-kludge quadrupole radiation formula in a detector frame—plus hand-chosen masses, distance, angles, energies, angular momenta, and magnetic parameters used for the plots.

free parameters (4)
  • Magnetic field parameter B = 0.001–0.003 (geometric, M=1)
    Scanned by hand at B=0.001, 0.002, 0.003 (and similar) with M=1; not fitted to data but chosen to make waveform differences visible. Load-bearing for the ‘imprint’ plots.
  • Orbital energy E and angular momentum L = E≈0.95–0.96; L≈3.65–3.7
    Selected to realize bound periodic (z,w,v) orbits (e.g. E=0.96, L≈3.65–3.7); determine which orbits and waveforms appear.
  • EMRI masses, distance, and sky angles = m=10 M⊙, M=10^6 M⊙, DL=200 Mpc, ι=ζ=π/4
    m=10 M⊙, M=10^6 M⊙, DL=200 Mpc, ι=ζ=π/4 fixed for strain and polarization plots; set the amplitude scale versus detector curves.
  • Characteristic-strain smoothing window = 30 bins
    Running average over 30 frequency bins applied to hc(f) before comparison to LISA/Taiji/Tianqin curves.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption Magnetized Ernst metric (Eqs. 2.1–2.3) correctly describes the background including electromagnetic field (2.4).
    Taken from Ernst/Melvin literature; entire geodesic and GW calculation is performed in this fixed geometry (§II).
  • domain assumption Test-particle timelike geodesics with conserved E,L adequately model short-term EMRI motion (adiabatic, neglect back-reaction).
    Stated in §III–IV as standard for leading-order EMRI kludge waveforms.
  • standard math Periodic orbits are classified by rational frequency ratio q=w+v/z (Levin & Perez-Giz).
    Used throughout §III to label (z,w,v) trajectories and interpret waveform morphology.
  • domain assumption Gravitational radiation is adequately given by the flat-space quadrupole/numerical-kludge formula projected into a detector frame (Eqs. 4.1–4.14).
    Core of §IV; assumed valid despite the paper noting the spacetime is not asymptotically flat.
  • ad hoc to paper Equatorial motion (θ=π/2, θ̇=0) captures the relevant GW signatures for this study.
    Imposed in §III to reduce the effective potential; inclined orbits not computed.

pith-pipeline@v1.2.0-grok45-kimik3 · 19616 in / 3507 out tokens · 74459 ms · 2026-07-31T22:25:16.383355+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

We investigate gravitational wave (GW) emission from periodic timelike orbits of a test particle around a magnetized Ernst black hole and the gravitational waveforms generated by their orbital dynamics. The bound geodesics are systematically classified using the zoom-whirl representation labeled with three integers $(z,w,v)$. Gravitational waveforms are computed within a numerical framework that combines exact geodesic motion with the quadrupole approximation, which is well-suited to extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EMRIs). This analysis is particularly relevant for assessing the capability of future gravitational-wave observations to detect the effects of magnetic fields. Our results show that an intrinsic magnetic field imprints characteristic features on the GW signal, highlighting GW astronomy as a promising avenue for probing magnetized black hole spacetimes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.24154 by Chengxun Yuan, Fazlay Ahmed, Salah Nasri, Sanjar Shaymatov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The figure demonstrates the dependence of the rational number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. Periodic orbits around the magnetized Ernst black hole. The particle energy is fixed at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. Periodic orbits for various ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. GWforms (plus and cross polarizations) generated by a test particle of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Gravitational waveforms from a test object with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Fourier spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Fourier spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Characteristics strain of gravitational waveforms of periodic orbits in Figs. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.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

93 extracted references · 57 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. D93, 122003 (2016), arXiv:1602.03839 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 131103 (2016), arXiv:1602.03838 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  5. [5]

    In this framework, each periodic orbit is characterized by the parameters (z, w, v)

    was employed to distinguish different types of peri- odic orbits around the magnetized black hole. In this framework, each periodic orbit is characterized by the parameters (z, w, v). These results may provide a means to distinguish between magnetized black holes and the Schwarzschild black hole. An EMRI system was ana- lyzed, consisting of a test object ...

  6. [6]

    Levin and G

    J. Levin and G. Perez-Giz, Phys. Rev. D77, 103005 (2008), arXiv:0802.0459 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  7. [7]

    Levin, Class

    J. Levin, Class. Quant. Grav.26, 235010 (2009), arXiv:0907.5195 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  8. [8]

    Misra and J

    V. Misra and J. Levin, Phys. Rev. D82, 083001 (2010), arXiv:1007.2699 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    G. Z. Babar, A. Z. Babar, and Y.-K. Lim, Phys. Rev. D 96, 084052 (2017), arXiv:1710.09581 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  10. [10]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  11. [11]

    Luoet al.(TianQin), Class

    J. Luoet al.(TianQin), Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016), arXiv:1512.02076 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  12. [12]

    Y. Gong, J. Luo, and B. Wang, Nature Astron.5, 881 (2021), arXiv:2109.07442 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  13. [13]

    Danzmann, Class

    K. Danzmann, Class. Quant. Grav.14, 1399 (1997)

    1997

  14. [14]

    B. F. Schutz, Class. Quant. Grav.16, A131 (1999), arXiv:gr-qc/9911034

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1999

  15. [15]

    J. R. Gair, L. Barack, T. Creighton, C. Cutler, S. L. Larson, E. S. Phinney, and M. Vallisneri, Class. Quant. Grav.21, S1595 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0405137

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  16. [16]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al.(LISA), (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  17. [17]

    Maselli, N

    A. Maselli, N. Franchini, L. Gualtieri, T. P. Sotiriou, S. Barsanti, and P. Pani, Nature Astron.6, 464 (2022), arXiv:2106.11325 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  18. [18]

    Bianet al., Sci

    L. Bianet al., Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.69, 210401 (2026), arXiv:2505.19747 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  19. [19]

    W.-T. Ni, Sci. Sin. Phys. Mech. Astro.54, 270402 (2024), arXiv:2409.00927 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  20. [20]

    Barausse, V

    E. Barausse, V. Cardoso, and P. Pani, Phys. Rev. D89, 104059 (2014), arXiv:1404.7149 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  21. [21]

    Cardoso, K

    V. Cardoso, K. Destounis, F. Duque, R. P. Macedo, and A. Maselli, Phys. Rev. D105, L061501 (2022), arXiv:2109.00005 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  22. [22]

    Zhang and T

    C. Zhang and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C86(2026), 10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15606-2

    doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-026-15606-2 2026

  23. [23]

    Yang, Y.-P

    S. Yang, Y.-P. Zhang, T. Zhu, L. Zhao, and Y.-X. Liu, JCAP01, 091 (2025), arXiv:2407.00283 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  24. [24]

    Shabbir, M

    O. Shabbir, M. Jamil, and M. Azreg-A ¨ ınou, Phys. Dark Univ.47, 101816 (2025), arXiv:2501.04367 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Junior, F. S. N. Lobo, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 557 (2025), arXiv:2412.00769 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  26. [26]

    Haroon and T

    S. Haroon and T. Zhu, Phys. Rev. D112, 044046 (2025), arXiv:2502.09171 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  27. [27]

    Alloqulov, T

    M. Alloqulov, T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, and B. Ahme- dov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 798 (2025), arXiv:2504.05236 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  28. [28]

    Wang, X.-C

    C.-H. Wang, X.-C. Meng, Y.-P. Zhang, T. Zhu, and S.- W. Wei, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 021 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Lu and T

    S. Lu and T. Zhu, Phys. Dark Universe50, 102141 (2025), arXiv:2505.00294 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  30. [30]

    Ahmed, Q

    F. Ahmed, Q. Wu, S. G. Ghosh, and T. Zhu, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2026, 004 (2026)

    2026

  31. [31]

    Signatures of quantum-corrected black holes in gravitational waves from periodic orbits,

    F. Ahmed, Q. Wu, S. G. Ghosh, and T. Zhu, “Signatures of quantum-corrected black holes in gravitational waves from periodic orbits,” (2025), arXiv:2512.24036 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  32. [32]

    Healy, J

    J. Healy, J. Levin, and D. Shoemaker, Phys. Rev. Lett. 103, 131101 (2009), arXiv:0907.0671 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  33. [33]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Eur. Phys. J. C77, 206 (2017), arXiv:1304.2940 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  34. [34]

    Lin and X.-M

    H.-Y. Lin and X.-M. Deng, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 311 (2023)

    2023

  35. [35]

    Yao and X

    J.-T. Yao and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D108, 084067 (2023)

    2023

  36. [36]

    Lin and X.-M

    H.-Y. Lin and X.-M. Deng, Phys. Dark Univ.31, 100745 (2021)

    2021

  37. [37]

    Z.-Y. Tu, T. Zhu, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D108, 024035 (2023)

    2023

  38. [38]

    Deng, Eur

    X.-M. Deng, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 489 (2020)

    2020

  39. [39]

    S.-W. Wei, J. Yang, and Y.-X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D99, 11 104016 (2019), arXiv:1904.03129 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  40. [40]

    Jiang, M

    H. Jiang, M. Alloqulov, Q. Wu, S. Shaymatov, and T. Zhu, Phys. Dark Universe46, 101627 (2024)

    2024

  41. [41]

    Z.-L. Wei, J. Zhang, Y. Xie, and P.-L. Yin, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 698 (2025)

    2025

  42. [42]

    Alloqulov, S

    M. Alloqulov, S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 117 (2026)

    2026

  43. [43]

    Sharipov, T

    J. Sharipov, T. Xamidov, Q. Wu, S. Shaymatov, and T. Zhu, (2025), arXiv:2511.10043 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  44. [44]

    O. L. M. Ginzburg V. L., Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz.47, 1030 (1964)

    1964

  45. [45]

    J. L. Anderson and J. M. Cohen, Astrophys. Space Sci. 9, 146 (1970)

    1970

  46. [46]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D10, 1680 (1974)

    1974

  47. [47]

    Rezzolla, B

    L. Rezzolla, B. J. Ahmedov, and J. C. Miller, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.322, 723 (2001), arXiv:astro-ph/0011316 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  48. [48]

    de Felice and F

    F. de Felice and F. Sorge, Class. Quantum Grav.20, 469 (2003)

    2003

  49. [49]

    V. P. Frolov and A. A. Shoom, Phys. Rev. D82, 084034 (2010), arXiv:1008.2985 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  50. [50]

    A. N. Aliev and N. ¨Ozdemir, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 336, 241 (2002), gr-qc/0208025

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2002

  51. [51]

    Abdujabbarov and B

    A. Abdujabbarov and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D81, 044022 (2010), arXiv:0905.2730 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  52. [52]

    Shaymatov, F

    S. Shaymatov, F. Atamurotov, and B. Ahmedov, Astro- phys Space Sci350, 413 (2014)

    2014

  53. [53]

    Jamil, S

    M. Jamil, S. Hussain, and B. Majeed, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 24 (2015), arXiv:1404.7123 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  54. [54]

    Tursunov, Z

    A. Tursunov, Z. Stuchl ´ ık, and M. Koloˇ s, Phys. Rev. D 93, 084012 (2016), arXiv:1603.07264 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  55. [55]

    Hussain and M

    S. Hussain and M. Jamil, Phys. Rev. D92, 043008 (2015), arXiv:1508.02123 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  56. [56]

    Shaymatov, M

    S. Shaymatov, M. Patil, B. Ahmedov, and P. S. Joshi, Phys. Rev. D91, 064025 (2015), arXiv:1409.3018 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  57. [57]

    Shaymatov, D

    S. Shaymatov, D. Malafarina, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Dark Universe34, 100891 (2021), arXiv:2004.06811 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  58. [58]

    Shaymatov, B

    S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and M. Jamil, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 588 (2021)

    2021

  59. [59]

    Shaymatov, Phys

    S. Shaymatov, Phys. Rev. D110, 044042 (2024), arXiv:2402.02471 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [60]

    M. Y. Piotrovich, N. A. Silant’ev, Y. N. Gnedin, and T. M. Natsvlishvili, ArXiv e-prints (2010), arXiv:1002.4948 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  61. [61]

    R. P. Eatough and et al., Nature501, 391 (2013), arXiv:1308.3147 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  62. [62]

    R. M. Shannon and S. Johnston, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.435, L29 (2013), arXiv:1305.3036 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  63. [63]

    Baczko, R

    A.-K. Baczko, R. Schulz, and et al., Astron. Astrophys. 593, A47 (2016), arXiv:1605.07100

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  64. [64]

    Dallilar and et al., Science358, 1299 (2017)

    Y. Dallilar and et al., Science358, 1299 (2017)

    2017

  65. [65]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L13 (2021), arXiv:2105.01173 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  66. [66]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett.910, L12 (2021), arXiv:2105.01169 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  67. [67]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Gal’tsov, Soviet Physics Uspekhi 32, 75 (1989)

    1989

  68. [68]

    F. J. Ernst, Journal of Mathematical Physics17, 54 (1976)

    1976

  69. [69]

    G. W. Gibbons, A. H. Mujtaba, and C. N. Pope, Class. Quantum Grav.30, 125008 (2013)

    2013

  70. [70]

    Ernst and W

    F. Ernst and W. Wild, Journal of Mathematical Physics 17, 182 (1976), https://doi.org/10.1063/1.522875

    doi:10.1063/1.522875 1976

  71. [71]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Galtsov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 155, 181 (1989)

    1989

  72. [72]

    Garc ´ ıa D ´ ıaz, Journal of Mathematical Physics26, 155 (1985)

    A. Garc ´ ıa D ´ ıaz, Journal of Mathematical Physics26, 155 (1985)

    1985

  73. [73]

    G. W. Gibbons, Y. Pang, and C. N. Pope, Phys. Rev. D 89, 044029 (2014)

    2014

  74. [74]

    Astorino, G

    M. Astorino, G. Comp` ere, R. Oliveri, and N. Vandevo- orde, Phys. Rev. D94, 024019 (2016)

    2016

  75. [75]

    R. A. Konoplya and R. D. B. Fontana, Phys. Lett. B659, 375 (2008), arXiv:0707.1156 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  76. [76]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B666, 283 (2008), arXiv:0801.0846 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2008

  77. [77]

    Shaymatov, B

    S. Shaymatov, B. Narzilloev, A. Abdujabbarov, and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D103, 124066 (2021), arXiv:2105.00342 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  78. [78]

    Shaymatov, P

    S. Shaymatov, P. Sheoran, R. Becerril, U. Nucamendi, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D106, 024039 (2022)

    2022

  79. [79]

    Non-monotonic enhancement of the magnetic penrose process in kerr-bertotti-robinson spacetime and its implication for electron acceleration,

    M. Mirkhaydarov, T. Xamidov, P. Sheoran, S. Shayma- tov, and H. Nandan, “Non-monotonic enhancement of the magnetic penrose process in kerr-bertotti-robinson spacetime and its implication for electron acceleration,” (2026), arXiv:2601.09919 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2026

  80. [80]

    Shaymatov and B

    S. Shaymatov and B. Ahmedov, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 55, 36 (2023), arXiv:2301.08569 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

Showing first 80 references.