Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 4 minor 45 references

On-Shell Amplitudes and Black-Hole Perturbations: Exact Reissner-Nordstr\"om Mixing

T0 review · 1 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-16 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Flat-space on-shell amplitudes recover the exact channel rotation that decouples Reissner–Nordström perturbations, for every radiative multipole and both parity sectors.

desk verdict A genuinely new, carefully scoped derivation of the RN Moncrief rotation from flat-space amplitudes; the central claim holds under its explicit minimal-coupling assumption and the paper deserves a serious referee. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11703 v1 pith:NOFDT7Y2 submitted 2026-08-12 hep-th gr-qchep-ph

Kento Takahara , Teppei Kitahara This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qchep-ph
keywords on-shellamplitudesReissner–NordströmperturbationsMoncriefvariablespartial-waveprojectionphoton–gravitonconversionblack-holeperturbationtheoryscatteringKerr–Newman
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

Can flat-space scattering amplitudes tell you how to decouple the electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations of a charged black hole? This paper answers yes for Reissner–Nordström: it computes the tree-level photon and graviton amplitudes scattered off a heavy charged scalar with the same mass and charge as the black hole, arranges them into a $2\times 2$ matrix over the photon–graviton channel space, and projects onto parity-definite partial waves. In the fixed-source limit, the trace-free part of the partial-wave matrix is exactly proportional to the trace-free Moncrief coupling matrix for every radiative multipole $\ell\geq 2$ and both parities, so the amplitudes and the classical perturbation equations select identical channel projectors and the same mixing angle. The paper deliberately separates two claims: the amplitudes fix the channel direction of the leading $r^{-3}$ potential through first Born matching, while the persistence of that direction at all radii is proved separately using the exact classical Reissner–Nordström potentials. Finite-mass recoil at order $\omega/m$ breaks the alignment, and the first step toward rotation shows that the unchanged projectors fail on a formal $J=2$ spin-dressed block.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the Moncrief coupling matrix $K^P_\ell=\begin{pmatrix}0&2PQ\sqrt{\Lambda}\\2PQ\sqrt{\Lambda}&6M\end{pmatrix}$, an $r$-independent $2\times 2$ channel-coupling matrix in the Reissner–Nordström perturbation equations, with $\Lambda=(\ell-1)(\ell+2)$. Its trace-free part squares to a multiple of the identity, $\big((K^P_\ell)^{\mathrm{TF}}\big)^2=(9M^2+4Q^2\Lambda)\mathbf{1}_2$, so its constant spectral projectors are built by a one-line Cayley–Hamilton construction. The paper's mechanism is to show that the trace-free fixed-source partial-wave matrix from the Jacob–Wick projection is a constant multiple of this same trace-free matrix, and that the exact classical potentials close in the algebra $\mathrm{span}\{\mathbf{1}_2,K^P_\ell\}$ at every radius; the same projectors therefore separate the full radial system, turning mode decoupling into an algebraic commutativity statement.

What would settle it

Add a single nonvanishing dimension-six contact operator to the scalar Lagrangian, recompute the parity-resolved fixed-source partial-wave matrix, and check the commutator with $K^P_\ell$: a nonzero commutator would falsify the exact proportionality and show that the projector alignment is special to minimal coupling.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is a proportionality theorem for channel mixing. With the heavy source matched by $M=G m_\Phi$ and $Q=\sqrt{G/4\pi}\,q_\Phi$, the trace-free fixed-source partial-wave matrices extracted from the Jacob–Wick projection obey $(A^+_{\ell,0})^{\mathrm{TF}}=\frac{\Lambda+4}{(\Lambda+2)\Lambda}(K^+_\ell)^{\mathrm{TF}}$ and $(A^-_{\ell,0})^{\mathrm{TF}}=\frac{1}{\Lambda+2}(K^-_\ell)^{\mathrm{TF}}$, where $\Lambda=(\ell-1)(\ell+2)$; therefore $[A^P_{\ell,0},K^P_\ell]=0$ for every $\ell\geq 2$ and $P=\pm 1$. The mixing angle that diagonalizes the amplitude matrix is exactly the Moncrief angle. Through first Born matching the same eigenspaces appear in the leading $r^{-3}$ weak-field potential, and with the exact classical Reissner–Nordström potentials as independent input the constant spectral projectors diagonalize the complete radial system at every radius. The first-order recoil correction generates a nonvanishing commutator, so the exact alignment is a fixed-source statement; the linear-in-spin dressing extracted from a minimally coupled spin-$1/2$ source factorizes the aligned amplitude matrix, but the formal $J=2$ block fails to commute with the Reissner–Nordström matrices.

Load-bearing premise

The argument rests on a heavy charged scalar with only minimal two-derivative couplings being an adequate amplitude-side stand-in for the Reissner–Nordström exterior, with all higher-dimensional local contact terms set exactly to zero.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For every $\ell\geq 2$ and both parities, the constant rotation defining the Moncrief variables can be read off from flat-space tree amplitudes, so candidate decoupling variables in a coupled wave system need not be guessed from differential equations.
  • The projectors selected by the amplitudes diagonalize the complete Reissner–Nordström radial potentials at all radii once the exact classical potentials are supplied, not just the leading $r^{-3}$ tail.
  • Finite-mass recoil breaks the alignment at first order in $\omega/m$: the amplitude-derived rotation is a fixed-source result, and genuine two-body recoil introduces channel mixing.
  • In the rotating case, the unchanged Reissner–Nordström projectors do not commute with the formal linear-spin $J=2$ block, so spin-induced angular-mode mixing must be included; the restricted aligned-slice calculation is not a test of Kerr–Newman separability.
  • The same on-shell procedure can be applied to any long-range scattering system with two asymptotic channels, with the all-radius closure checked independently against the complete wave operator.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Editorial inference: the parity-dependent proportionality constants in Eqs. (43)–(44) differ, so a calculation or measurement isolating the relative strength of polar and axial mixing in photon–graviton conversion at fixed $\ell$ would test the first-Born matching relation, not just the eigenspace statement.
  • Editorial inference: because trace parts drop out of every commutator, the amplitude method is blind to the channel-independent part of the potential; reconstructing full decoupling variables from amplitudes alone would require higher-order gravitational corrections or a resummation, exactly the gap the paper fills with the exact classical potentials.
  • Editorial inference: the aligned-slice factorization of the spin-dressed amplitude suggests a concrete next test—compute the full fixed-$m$, arbitrary-orientation amplitude for a spinning source and ask whether an $a$-dependent rotation diagonalizes the channel matrix; finding one would indicate the shape of a rotating decoupling transformation.
  • Editorial inference: the one-loop check has a sharp expected outcome—if the trace-free one-loop partial-wave matrix remains in $\mathrm{span}\{\mathbf{1}_2,K^P_\ell\}$, the projector theorem extends beyond tree level; if not, the tree-level alignment is special to the leading long-range approximation.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper asks whether flat-space on-shell amplitudes can determine the channel basis that decouples electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations of a Reissner-Nordström (RN) black hole. The authors consider Einstein-Maxwell theory minimally coupled to a heavy charged scalar, compute the tree-level photon-graviton amplitudes off this source, and organize them into a 2x2 channel-space matrix. After a parity-resolved Jacob-Wick partial-wave projection, they show in Theorem 1 that for every radiative multipole ell >= 2 and both parities, the trace-free fixed-source partial-wave matrix is exactly proportional to the trace-free Moncrief coupling matrix, Eqs. (43)-(44), and therefore has the same eigenspaces, Eq. (45). A first-Born matching connects this to the leading r^{-3} weak-field potential tail, and in Sec. III.B the exact classical RN potentials are used as independent curved-background input to prove that the same projectors diagonalize the complete radial system at every radius. The paper also keeps finite-mass recoil effects through O(omega/m), finding a nonvanishing commutator with the Moncrief matrix, and extracts the linear-in-spin dressing from a minimally coupled Dirac amplitude, with a formal J=2 block that does not commute with the RN projectors. The rotating-sector results are explicitly scoped as not constituting a test of Kerr-Newman separability.

Significance. If the central claim holds, the paper establishes a new bridge between flat-space amplitudes and black-hole perturbation theory: the Moncrief channel rotation of RN perturbations is recovered exactly from tree-level amplitudes off a heavy charged source, with no fitted parameters. The derivation is explicit and checkable: Appendix B evaluates the Wigner-d sums in closed form, giving B^P = -sqrt(Lambda) D^P / 3 and hence Eq. (B31), and the all-radius closure in Sec. III.B is an independent exact statement about the RN potential algebra. The nonzero recoil commutator and the formal J=2 noncommutativity are concrete, falsifiable predictions, and the paper is careful to separate amplitude-derived information from curved-background input. The main limitation, that the result is conditional on the minimal two-derivative scalar EFT and could be shifted by higher-dimensional contact terms, is acknowledged in Appendix A. Overall this is a significant conceptual step that should be of interest to the hep-th and black-hole perturbation communities.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. II.A and Appendix A (last paragraph)] The central proportionality in Eqs. (43)-(44) and the commutator in Eq. (45) are derived for the minimally coupled two-derivative scalar EFT of Eq. (3). Appendix A states that higher-dimensional local contact terms are independent Wilson coefficients and 'may modify the contact contributions to individual partial waves'; since the trace-free partial-wave matrix receives contact contributions, a generic gauge-invariant completion could shift the trace-free part and break the proportionality. This is not an internal inconsistency: Theorem 1 is explicitly conditional on the minimal-coupling choice. However, the abstract and the Discussion sentence 'the channel direction characterizing the decoupling of RN perturbations can be identified from flat-space long-range scattering data' should carry the same qualifier, so that readers do not infer an unconditional statement from tree-level amplitudes alone.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. III.B, Eq. (60)] The matrix U_- is used but not defined. It should be defined explicitly, for example U_- = diag(-,1) matching the rephasing U^P introduced after Eq. (41).
  2. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (72) and (81)] The symbol sigma in Eq. (72) is introduced as a helicity-convention label, while sigma_f = sgn(h_f) first appears in Eq. (81). Please state the relation between the two, or use a single notation to avoid confusion.
  3. [Appendix B, Eqs. (B11)-(B13)] The evaluations of the finite sums leading to Eq. (B13) are presented without intermediate algebra. A brief illustrative evaluation or a short note on the summation method would help readers verify the closed forms.
  4. [Abstract] The phrase 'minimally coupled photon-graviton tree amplitudes' is used, but 'minimal' is not defined there; consider writing 'minimally coupled two-derivative photon-graviton tree amplitudes' to make the conditional scope visible at first reading.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the amplitude-derived projectors are computed directly from minimally coupled tree amplitudes and benchmarked against the exact RN potentials as independent input.

full rationale

The derivation is self-contained and non-circular. The flat-space partial-wave matrix A^P_l,0 is computed directly from the minimally coupled SQED-plus-gravity Compton amplitudes (Eqs. 23-28) through regulated Jacob-Wick projections (Appendix B), with no parameter fitted to the Moncrief matrix; the proportionalities in Eqs. (43)-(44) are derived identities from Eq. (B31), not inputs. The first-Born step (Eqs. 53-54) is a direct Riccati-Bessel integral, and the paper explicitly states that the all-radius closure in Sec. III.B is not a consequence of the tree-level amplitude but uses the exact classical RN potentials as independent curved-background input: 'The following all-radius argument is therefore not a consequence of the tree-level amplitude.' The only caveat is the minimal-coupling scoping stated in Appendix A, where higher-dimensional local terms are set to zero and are noted to be able to modify contact contributions to individual partial waves; this is a clearly stated condition, not a circular reduction. The self-cited Ref. [36] supplies spinor-helicity conventions only, and the central amplitudes are benchmarked against independent low-frequency cross sections (Eqs. 32-35), so no load-bearing self-citation or fitted-input-as-prediction pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on no fitted numerical parameters. M, Q, omega, and a are physical inputs. The fixed-source theorem is an algebraic consequence of the minimal-coupling amplitudes. The main assumptions are the source representation, minimal coupling, the exact Reissner-Nordstrom potentials as external input, and the first-Born dictionary. These are standard in the amplitudes program but are not derived within the paper.

assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The heavy charged scalar, scalar QED coupled to gravity, with M = G m_Phi and Q = sqrt(G/4 pi) q_Phi, represents the asymptotic exterior of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole at tree level.
    Sec. II.A, Eq. (6): the amplitude-side source is matched to the RN mass and charge; the black hole interior and horizon structure are not modeled. The central projector result depends on this representation being adequate.
  • domain assumption Minimal coupling at two-derivative order; higher-dimensional local contact operators, including dimension-six same-helicity and dimension-eight opposite-helicity terms, are absent.
    Appendix A: minimal means these additional local terms are set to zero, and they may modify contact contributions to individual partial waves. If nonzero, they can alter A^P_{ell,0}.
  • domain assumption The exact Reissner-Nordstrom perturbation potentials in Eqs. (59)-(60) are the correct channel matrices for the even and odd parity sectors.
    Sec. III.B uses the Moncrief-Chandrasekhar potentials as independent curved-background input; the all-radius closure V_{ell,s}(r) in span{1_2, K^P_ell} relies on their specific form.
  • domain assumption First Born matching: the tree-level partial-wave matrix determines the trace-free coefficient of the leading r^-3 weak-field potential via the Riccati-Bessel integral of Appendix B3.
    Sec. III.A, Eq. (53): higher-Born iterations and higher powers of 1/r are not determined by the amplitude; the Born integral is an expansion in background strength.
  • standard math Cayley-Hamilton theorem and resolvent identity for 2x2 matrices apply.
    Sec. III.B, Eqs. (55) and (61): used to build constant spectral projectors and to show (lambda 1 + K)^-1 lies in span{1, K}.
  • domain assumption A minimally coupled Dirac field has g = 2 and no anomalous Pauli or curvature couplings; the linear-spin coefficient extracted from spin-1/2 promotes to arbitrary spin j.
    Sec. IV, Proposition 2: the massive spinor-helicity factor in Eq. (71) has a j-independent linear coefficient; the promotion excludes quadratic and higher spin terms, and minimal coupling excludes additional local operators.
  • standard math The spinor-helicity formalism, including the massive and massless spinor conventions of Refs. 35-36, and the Jacob-Wick partial-wave expansion are valid.
    Appendix A and Sec. II.D: the partial-wave projection and Wigner-d integrals rely on these conventions.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of On-Shell Amplitudes and Black-Hole Perturbations: Exact Reissner-Nordstr\"om Mixing." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/NOFDT7Y2

@misc{pith2026260811703,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: On-Shell Amplitudes and Black-Hole Perturbations: Exact Reissner-Nordstr\"om Mixing},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/NOFDT7Y2}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11703}
}
abstract

Can flat-space on-shell amplitudes determine the channel basis of a coupled black-hole perturbation problem? We address this question for electromagnetic and gravitational perturbations of a Reissner-Nordstr\"{o}m (RN) black-hole. We organize the minimally coupled photon-graviton tree amplitudes off a heavy charged source into a $2\times 2$ channel-space matrix and perform a parity-resolved Jacob-Wick partial-wave projection. For every radiative multipole $\ell \geq 2$ and in both parity sectors, we show that the trace-free fixed-source partial-wave matrix is exactly proportional to the trace-free Moncrief coupling matrix, and therefore selects the same constant spectral projectors. Through a first-Born matching, the amplitudes determine the same eigenspaces in the leading $r^{-3}$ weak-field potential, but not the complete radial potentials. Using the exact classical RN potentials as independent curved-background input, we show that these projectors persist throughout the full radial domain. We also explicitly retain finite-mass effects through $\mathcal{O}(\omega/m)$, finding a nonvanishing commutator with the Moncrief coupling matrix, which shows that the RN-projector alignment is spoiled by genuine two-body recoil effects. As a first step toward rotation, we further extract the representation-independent linear-spin term from a minimally coupled Dirac amplitude. We find that the complete tree-level channel matrix factorizes with a single linear-spin dressing, while the formal $J=2$ block fails to preserve the unchanged RN projectors. This restricted result does not constitute a test of Kerr-Newman separability, but it indicates that a rotating generalization must account for spin-induced angular-mode mixing. We expect that this on-shell method can be extended to more general long-range scattering systems with two asymptotic channels.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11703 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Tree-level contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Tree-level contributions to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 27 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Conventions and three-point seeds We label the external legs according to the physical process1(p)+2(k)→ 3(p′)+4(k′), but perform the spinor-helicity construction in this appendix using the all-outgoing convention. The all-outgoing momenta are therefore assigned as p1 =−p, k 2 =−k, p 3 =p′, k 4 =k′.(A1) The prescription for returning to the physical in-ou...

    work page

  2. [2]

    The gauge kernel and local completion The two internal scalar momenta may be chosen asP2 =p 1 +k 2 andP 4 =p 1 +k 4. Their inverse propagators are P 2 2−m 2 =D 2, P 2 4−m 2 =D 4.(A9) Suppressing the commonS-matrix phase, tree factorization therefore requires D2q2Ch2h4 0 ⏐⏐⏐ D2=0 =M 3(p1,2h2,−P 2)M 3(P2,4h4,p 3),(A10) D4q2Ch2h4 0 ⏐⏐⏐ D4=0 =M 3(p1,4h4,−P 4)...

    work page

  3. [3]

    Gravitational dressing The minimalγγgraviton pole has ( M(g−pole) γγ )++ = ( M(g−pole) γγ )−− = 0,(A22) ( M(g−pole) γγ )+− =− κ2 4 ⟨4|p1|2]2 s24 , ( M(g−pole) γγ )−+ =− κ2 4 ⟨2|p1|4]2 s24 .(A23) The zero in the first line is a statement about the two-derivative theory; operators such asRF 2 may generate same-helicity contact terms. The gauge-invariant hal...

    work page

  4. [4]

    The parity-projected partial-wave matrix in the helicity convention is ( AP,hel ℓ ) JI = ∫1 −1 dz [ dℓ sJ,sIfJI +sJ,+sI +Pη IdℓsJ,−sIfJI +sJ,−sI

    Fixed-source projection Let I,J∈{γ,g} label the initial and final species, respectively. The parity-projected partial-wave matrix in the helicity convention is ( AP,hel ℓ ) JI = ∫1 −1 dz [ dℓ sJ,sIfJI +sJ,+sI +Pη IdℓsJ,−sIfJI +sJ,−sI. ] (B1) Following the rephasing introduced after Eq. (41), we express this matrix as AP ℓ =U PAP,hel ℓ UP,U P≡diag(P,1),(B2...

    work page

  5. [5]

    First recoil coefficient We now derive Proposition 1. In the center-of-mass frame, we choose pµ = (E,0,0,−ω), k µ =ω(1,0,0,1),(B32) p′µ = (E,−ωsinθ,0,−ωcosθ), k ′µ =ω(1,sinθ,0,cosθ),(B33) where z≡cosθ , E = √ m2 Φ +ω 2, andEcm =E +ω =√s. From these momenta, we obtain the invariants entering Eq. (14): Ds = 2ωEcm, D u =−2ω(E+ωz), t=−2ω 2(1−z), ΞΦ = 2ω2(1 +z...

    work page

  6. [6]

    This is why the integration measure below isdr; it is unrelated to a low-frequency Taylor expansion

    Radial first-Born matching Finally, consider the radial equation [( − d2 dr2∗ + Λ + 2 r2 ) 12 + W r3 ] ψ=ω 2ψ.(B50) 19 At this first order in the weak-field tail, the free radial operator usesr∗ =r +O(Mlog (r/M)), so replacingr∗ byr inside the Born integral changes only higher orders in the background strength. This is why the integration measure below is...

    work page

  7. [7]

    Low-energy Dirac reduction In this appendix,m≡m Ψ,q≡q Ψ, andϵ r≡ω/m Ψ withℏ= 1. Let the incoming source be at rest and choose kµ =ω(1,0,0,1), k′µ =ω′(1,sinθ,0,cosθ), ω′ = ω 1 + (ω/m)(1−cosθ) .(C1) We keep exact recoil until after separating the spin-even and spin-odd pieces. For spin eigenstates alongˆz, define Mav =M↑ +M↓ 2 ,M spin =M↑−M↓ 2 .(C2) More pr...

    work page

  8. [8]

    The Gordon identity gives Tµν 1/2 = 1 4m ¯u(p′) [ PµPν + i 2 (Pµσνρ +P νσµρ) ∆ρ ] u(p).(C18) The first term is spin even and the second is spin odd

    Analytic contraction of the graviton-pole The pole contraction entering the elastic photon channel is, up to a common coupling and propagator normalization, M(g−pole) γγ ∝ 1 t Tµν 1/2Pµν,ρσTρσ γ ,(C16) 21 with Tµν 1/2 = 1 4 ¯u(p′)[γµ(p+p ′)ν +γ ν(p+p ′)µ]u(p).(C17) WriteP=p+p ′,∆ =p ′−p=k−k ′, andσµν =i[γ µ,γν]/2. The Gordon identity gives Tµν 1/2 = 1 4m ...

    work page

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    LetCj denote the complete gauge-theory Compton kernel for a massive source of spinj, and let Ni,Nf, and R be the kinematic factors defined in Appendix A

    Full-tree factorization It remains to show that the same factor appears in the conversion and gravitational Compton entries, including their local diagrams. LetCj denote the complete gauge-theory Compton kernel for a massive source of spinj, and let Ni,Nf, and R be the kinemat...

  2. [10]

    Perturbation analysis for gravitational and electromagnetic radiation in a Reissner–Nordström geometry,

    F. J. Zerilli, “Perturbation analysis for gravitational and electromagnetic radiation in a Reissner–Nordström geometry,” Phys. Rev. D9(1974) 860–868

    1974

  3. [11]

    Odd-parity stability of a Reissner–Nordström black hole,

    V. Moncrief, “Odd-parity stability of a Reissner–Nordström black hole,” Phys. Rev. D9(1974) 2707–2709

    1974

  4. [12]

    Stability of Reissner–Nordström black holes,

    V. Moncrief, “Stability of Reissner–Nordström black holes,” Phys. Rev. D10(1974) 1057–1059

    1974

  5. [13]

    Gauge-invariant perturbations of Reissner–Nordström black holes,

    V. Moncrief, “Gauge-invariant perturbations of Reissner–Nordström black holes,” Phys. Rev. D12(1975) 1526–1537

    1975

  6. [14]

    On the equations governing the perturbations of the Reissner–Nordström black hole,

    S. Chandrasekhar, “On the equations governing the perturbations of the Reissner–Nordström black hole,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A365(1979) 453–465

    1979

  7. [15]

    On the metric perturbations of the Reissner–Nordström black hole,

    S. Chandrasekhar and B. C. Xanthopoulos, “On the metric perturbations of the Reissner–Nordström black hole,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A367(1979) 1–14

    1979

  8. [16]

    Gravitoelectromagnetic Perturbations of Kerr–Newman Black Holes: Stability and Isospectrality in the Slow-Rotation Limit,

    P. Pani, E. Berti, and L. Gualtieri, “Gravitoelectromagnetic Perturbations of Kerr–Newman Black Holes: Stability and Isospectrality in the Slow-Rotation Limit,” Phys. Rev. Lett.110(2013) 241103[arXiv:1304.1160]

    2013 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Scalar, Electromagnetic and Gravitational Perturbations of Kerr–Newman Black Holes in the Slow-Rotation Limit,

    P. Pani, E. Berti, and L. Gualtieri, “Scalar, Electromagnetic and Gravitational Perturbations of Kerr–Newman Black Holes in the Slow-Rotation Limit,” Phys. Rev. D88(2013) 064048[arXiv:1307.7315]

    2013 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Linear Mode Stability of the Kerr–Newman Black Hole and Its Quasinormal Modes,

    O. J. C. Dias, M. Godazgar, and J. E. Santos, “Linear Mode Stability of the Kerr–Newman Black Hole and Its Quasinormal Modes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.114(2015) 151101[arXiv:1501.04625]

    2015 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Electromagnetic-gravitational perturbations of Kerr–Newman spacetime: the Teukolsky and Regge–Wheeler equations,

    E. Giorgi, “Electromagnetic-gravitational perturbations of Kerr–Newman spacetime: the Teukolsky and Regge–Wheeler equations,” J. Hyperbolic Diff. Equ.19(2022) 1–139[arXiv:2002.07228]

    2022 arXiv

  12. [20]

    The linear stability of weakly charged and slowly rotating Kerr–Newman family of charged black holes,

    L. He, “The linear stability of weakly charged and slowly rotating Kerr–Newman family of charged black holes,” Ann. PDE 12(2026) 3[arXiv:2301.08557]

    2026 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Kerr black holes as elementary particles,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, and D. O’Connell, “Kerr black holes as elementary particles,” JHEP01(2020) 046 [arXiv:1906.10100]

    2020 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Kerr-Newman from Minimal Coupling,

    N. Moynihan, “Kerr-Newman from Minimal Coupling,” JHEP01(2020) 014[arXiv:1909.05217]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Kerr-Newman stress-tensor from minimal coupling,

    M.-Z. Chung, Y.-t. Huang, and J.-W. Kim, “Kerr-Newman stress-tensor from minimal coupling,” JHEP12(2020) 103 [arXiv:1911.12775]

    2020 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part I,

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, “Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part I,” JHEP03(2023) 136[arXiv:2107.10179]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part II,

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, “Scattering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part II,” JHEP05(2023) 211[arXiv:2212.07965]

    2023 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Compton Amplitude for Rotating Black Hole from Quantum Field Theory,

    L. Cangemi,et al., “Compton Amplitude for Rotating Black Hole from Quantum Field Theory,” Phys. Rev. Lett.133 (2024) 071601[arXiv:2312.14913]

    2024 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Black Hole Thermodynamics Meets On-Shell Amplitudes: Local Detailed Balance and Thermal Spectrum from Spin Universality and Unitarity

    D. Akpinar, K. Aoki, A. Cristofoli, H. Jeong, and K. Yoshimura, “Black Hole Thermodynamics Meets On-Shell Amplitudes: Local Detailed Balance and Thermal Spectrum from Spin Universality and Unitarity.”arXiv:2606.13599

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Graviton Photoproduction by a Kerr–Newman Black Hole with Worldline EFT,

    Q. Zheng, “Graviton Photoproduction by a Kerr–Newman Black Hole with Worldline EFT,” Phys. Rev. D114(2026) 025003[arXiv:2601.00980]

    2026 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Über die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie,

    H. Reissner, “Über die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einsteinschen Theorie,” Annalen Phys.355(1916) 106–120

    1916

  22. [30]

    Zur Gravitationstheorie,

    H. Weyl, “Zur Gravitationstheorie,” Annalen Phys.359(1917) 117–145

    1917

  23. [31]

    On the Energy of the Gravitational Field in Einstein’s Theory,

    G. Nordström, “On the Energy of the Gravitational Field in Einstein’s Theory,” Koninklijke Nederlandsche Akademie van Wetenschappen Proceedings20(1918) 1238–1245

    1918

  24. [32]

    Compton-like scattering of a scalar particle with Nphotons and one graviton,

    N. Ahmadiniaz, F. M. Balli, O. Corradini, J. M. Dávila, and C. Schubert, “Compton-like scattering of a scalar particle with Nphotons and one graviton,” Nucl. Phys. B950(2020) 114877[arXiv:1908.03425]

    2020 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Factorization and polarization in linearized gravity,

    S. Y. Choi, J. S. Shim, and H. S. Song, “Factorization and polarization in linearized gravity,” Phys. Rev. D51(1995) 2751–2769[hep-th/9411092]

    1995 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Factorization in Graviton Scattering and the “Natural

    B. R. Holstein, “Factorization in Graviton Scattering and the “Natural” Value of theg-factor,” Phys. Rev. D74(2006) 085002[gr-qc/0607058]

    2006 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Graviton-Photon Scattering,

    N. E. J. Bjerrum-Bohr, B. R. Holstein, L. Planté, and P. Vanhove, “Graviton-Photon Scattering,” Phys. Rev. D91(2015) 064008[arXiv:1410.4148]

    2015 arXiv

  28. [36]

    On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin,

    M. Jacob and G. C. Wick, “On the General Theory of Collisions for Particles with Spin,” Annals Phys.7(1959) 404–428

    1959

  29. [37]

    Low-frequency limit of gravitational scattering,

    R. A. Matzner and M. P. Ryan, Jr., “Low-frequency limit of gravitational scattering,” Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 1636–1642

    1977

  30. [38]

    Electromagnetic wave scattering by Schwarzschild black holes,

    L. C. B. Crispino, S. R. Dolan, and E. S. Oliveira, “Electromagnetic wave scattering by Schwarzschild black holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett.102(2009) 231103[arXiv:0905.3339]

    2009 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Low-frequency-limit conversion cross sections for charged black holes,

    R. A. Matzner, “Low-frequency-limit conversion cross sections for charged black holes,” Phys. Rev. D14(1976) 3274–3280

    1976

  32. [40]

    Electrogravitational conversion cross sections in static electromagnetic fields,

    W. K. De Logi and A. R. Mickelson, “Electrogravitational conversion cross sections in static electromagnetic fields,” Phys. Rev. D16(1977) 2915–2927

    1977

  33. [41]

    Conversion of electromagnetic and gravitational waves by a charged black hole,

    M. Ould El Hadj and S. R. Dolan, “Conversion of electromagnetic and gravitational waves by a charged black hole,” Phys. Rev. D106(2022) 044002[arXiv:2106.09731]

    2022 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Graviton-photon conversion on spin 0 and 1/2 particles,

    F. Ravndal and M. Sundberg, “Graviton-photon conversion on spin 0 and 1/2 particles,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A17(2002) 24 3963–3974[gr-qc/0112032]

    2002 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Inferring black hole charge from backscattered electromagnetic radiation,

    L. C. B. Crispino, S. R. Dolan, A. Higuchi, and E. S. de Oliveira, “Inferring black hole charge from backscattered electromagnetic radiation,” Phys. Rev. D90(2014) 064027[arXiv:1409.4803]

    2014 arXiv

  36. [44]

    Scattering Amplitudes For All Masses and Spins,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, T.-C. Huang, and Y.-t. Huang, “Scattering Amplitudes For All Masses and Spins,” JHEP11(2021) 070 [arXiv:1709.04891]

    2021 arXiv

  37. [45]

    The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes,

    G. Durieux, T. Kitahara, Y. Shadmi, and Y. Weiss, “The electroweak effective field theory from on-shell amplitudes,” JHEP01(2020) 119[arXiv:1909.10551]

    2020 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 16, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.