Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 44 references

Testing loop quantum gravity by quasi-periodic oscillations: rotating blackholes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that three QPO frequencies from the X-ray binary GRO J1655-40 constrain the loop quantum gravity deformation parameter λ in the BCY rotating black hole metric to λ = 0.15+0.23−0.14 (equal masses) or λ = 0.11+0.07−0.07…

desk verdict An honest but under-specified QPO fit of an LQG-deformed Kerr metric; the headline λ values come from different truncation orders and the tighter constraint is likely an artifact. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.16625 v1 pith:2WLACAWU submitted 2024-12-21 gr-qc

Jafar Khodagholizadeh , Ghadir Jafari , Alireza Allahyari , Ali Vahedi This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 98.80.-k04.20.Cv02.40.-k
keywords InfinitesimaldeformationBCYmetricResonanceQuasi-periodicoscillationsloopquantumgravityrotatingblackholeGROJ1655-40relativisticprecessionmodel
topics Quantum Gravity
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

The paper tries to establish whether the quantum-corrected, non-singular rotating black hole metric of loop quantum gravity (the BCY metric) can be tested with the quasi-periodic oscillations seen in the X-ray emission of GRO J1655-40. Using the relativistic precession model, it identifies the three observed QPO frequencies with the orbital, periastron-precession, and nodal-precession frequencies of test particles, and fits the metric parameters to those data. The result is a weak constraint, $\lambda = 0.15^{+0.23}_{-0.14}$ at 1σ confidence for equal black-hole and white-hole masses, and $\lambda = 0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ when the masses differ; the Kerr limit $\lambda = 0$ lies inside or near the credible interval, so the data do not demonstrate a quantum deformation. The paper also finds a strong degeneracy between $\lambda$ and the black hole mass that prevents a more precise measurement.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the BCY metric, a non-singular rotating black hole solution built from holonomy-corrected loop quantum gravity through a revised complex-coordinate transformation algorithm; in the equal-mass case it reduces to a Kerr-like form with $\beta^2 = 2M^2\lambda(1+4x^2)$, so $\lambda$ measures the strength of the quantum deformation. The argument is carried by the relativistic precession model, which maps the observed QPO frequencies to the orbital frequency $\nu_\phi$, periastron precession $\nu_\phi - \nu_r$, and nodal precession $\nu_\phi - \nu_\theta$ of a test particle, and by first-order and higher analytic expansions of these frequencies in $\lambda$ and spin $a$. These expansions convert the three measured frequencies into a likelihood over $(M, a, \lambda, r)$, and the posterior is obtained with a Gaussian mass prior.

What would settle it

A decisive check would be to observe a fourth independent QPO frequency from GRO J1655-40, or an independent mass measurement, and test whether it falls on the relation among $\nu_\phi$, $\nu_r$, $\nu_\theta$ predicted by the fitted BCY metric at the posterior radius; a fourth frequency inconsistent with that relation would rule out the model, while an independent mass far from $M = 6.28^{+2.69}_{-0.91}M_\odot$ would expose the relativistic precession mapping.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central discovery is that QPO timing can already engage with loop quantum gravity: the three frequencies of GRO J1655-40 ($\nu_C = 17.3$ Hz, $\nu_L = 298$ Hz, $\nu_U = 441$ Hz) are reproduced by geodesic motion in a BCY metric with a small deformation parameter, $\lambda = 0.15^{+0.23}_{-0.14}$ for equal black-hole and white-hole masses and $\lambda = 0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ for $\kappa = M_W/M_B \neq 1$, with $\kappa$ essentially unconstrained. The fitted black hole mass is $M = 6.28^{+2.69}_{-0.91} M_\odot$, and the derived quantum-gravity scale obeys $\sqrt{\lambda_\kappa} < 3.7$ km, a bound weaker than earlier ones. Because the Kerr geometry lies in the 68% credible interval for the equal-mass case, the paper concludes that these observations do not exclude classical general relativity, while the unequal-mass fit hints at a small preference away from Kerr without ruling out $\kappa = 1$.

Load-bearing premise

The analysis assumes the relativistic precession model is correct: the 17.3 Hz, 298 Hz, and 441 Hz peaks are exactly the nodal precession, periastron precession, and orbital frequencies of test particles in a thin equatorial disk; if that identification is wrong, the fitted values of $\lambda$ are not a measurement of loop quantum gravity.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If these constraints hold, current QPO timing does not force loop quantum gravity onto rotating black holes; the standard Kerr metric remains a viable description of GRO J1655-40.
  • The reported $\sqrt{\lambda_\kappa} < 3.7$ km places the quantum-gravity scale below the roughly 16 km Schwarzschild radius of the source, but the bound is looser than previously published limits, so it marks a first LQG test rather than a decisive one.
  • Because $\lambda$ and $M$ are strongly degenerate, an independent mass measurement would sharpen the $\lambda$ posterior considerably; the paper's quoted 1σ intervals already reflect this combination.
  • The ISCO radius decreases with increasing $\lambda$, so measurements of the inner disk edge from thermal or reflection spectra offer a complementary route to the same parameter.
  • In the unequal-mass fit, $\kappa$ is effectively unconstrained and $\kappa=1$ lies within 1σ, so the data provide no evidence for a black-hole/white-hole mass asymmetry.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The relativistic precession identification is the main unstated vulnerability: the same three peaks could in principle be produced by diskoseismic or other resonance mechanisms, and the derived $\lambda$ values are conditional on that mapping, a point the paper acknowledges only as modeling complications.
  • Because the white-hole mass $\kappa$ enters only at third order in the $\lambda$ expansion, current QPO data are sensitive almost exclusively to the combination of $\lambda$ and the black hole mass; discriminating between equal- and unequal-mass geometries will require sub-Hz frequency precision or additional spectral constraints.
  • A direct extension would be to fit the same BCY metric to simultaneous QPO triplets in other black hole binaries; agreement on $\lambda$ across sources would strengthen the LQG interpretation, while disagreement would point to the relativistic precession model or the metric as the culprit.
  • The main methodological payoff is that QPO timing can in principle constrain the holonomy parameter, so improved data, a fourth QPO line, or a less degenerate parameterization could turn this null-compatible result into a genuine test of loop quantum gravity.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper investigates the Brahma–Chen–Yeom (BCY) rotating black-hole metric, a non-singular LQG-motivated deformation of Kerr parameterized by λ. For the equal-mass case (κ=1) it derives the ISCO radius, specific energy and angular momentum to first order in a and λ, and the epicyclic frequency ratios Ω_r^2/Ω_φ^2 and Ω_θ^2/Ω_φ^2 to O(λ). It then uses three QPO frequencies of GRO J1655-40 with a Gaussian likelihood to obtain λ=0.15^{+0.23}_{-0.14} at 68% credibility, reporting a degeneracy with the mass. For the unequal-mass case (κ≠1) it expands the frequencies to O(λ^3), includes κ as a free parameter, and reports λ=0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07} with κ=2.04^{+1.38}_{-1.44}, from which it derives an LQG scale bound √λ_k ≲ 3.7 km.

Significance. The analytic parts of the paper are a useful contribution: the simplified metric (Eq. 8) and the first-order ISCO/frequency formulas (Eqs. 13–15, 23–24) reduce to the known Kerr/Schwarzschild limits, and the manuscript explicitly states the RPM assumption as a limitation. If the quoted constraints were trustworthy, they would provide a rare QPO-based test of an LQG-motivated rotating metric. However, the two headline constraints come from different truncation orders, and the Bayesian analysis is not reproducible because key priors and MCMC details are missing. The paper's numerical claims therefore need further work before they can be considered an observational test.

major comments (4)
  1. [V and VI] Section V and Section VI compare unequal results: the equal-mass constraint is based on the O(λ) frequency ratios in Eqs. (23)–(24), while the unequal-mass constraint uses the O(λ^3) expansions of Eq. (29) with the Appendix A coefficients. As the authors note, M_W enters only at O(λ^3), so the apparent improvement from λ=0.15^{+0.23}_{-0.14} to λ=0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07} is not evidence for a κ≠1 effect. Please re-run the equal-mass case with the same O(λ^3) expressions (κ=1) and report both intervals; otherwise the second headline number is an artifact of the expansion order.
  2. [Eq. (28)] Equation (28) defines the posterior with priors p(λ), p(a/M), and p(r), but the paper specifies only p(M/M_⊙)∼exp[−(M/M_⊙−5.4)^2/(2×0.3^2)]. The prior ranges and functional forms for λ, a, and r are not given, and no MCMC details (chain length, burn-in, convergence) are provided. These omissions make the 68% credible intervals in Figs. 6 and 7 impossible to reproduce or check.
  3. [Eqs. (23)-(24)] The linearized frequency ratio in Eq. (23) is evaluated at parameters where the λ expansion is not small. At the best-fit values r/M≈4.84, a/M≈0.23, λ≈0.15, the zeroth-order term is ≈−0.07 and the linear λ term is ≈+0.17; the posterior reaches λ≈0.38, so higher-order terms are not negligible. The O(λ^2) contributions could easily shift the 1σ interval, and the same concern applies to the O(λ^3) analysis in Section VI unless a convergence check is shown.
  4. [VI] Section VI states that 'this model hints that the compact object may not be Kerr metric'. At 1σ, κ=1 is within the credible interval, and the exclusion of λ=0 depends on the uncontrolled expansion discussed above. This conclusion should be qualified until the same-order comparison is made.
minor comments (6)
  1. [VII] The sentence 'We find thatM and λ are degenerate highly correlated, which hinders our ability to constrain λ with precision. highly correlated, which hinders our ability to constrain' is duplicated and garbled; it should be rewritten.
  2. [VII] The reported unequal-mass λ constraint appears as 'λ=0.11^{+1.38}_{-1.44}' but Section VI gives λ=0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07}; please correct the summary.
  3. [IV] After Eq. (24) there is an incomplete sentence fragment, 'The gen-', which interrupts the text.
  4. [Title and Abstract] 'blackholes' should be 'black holes', and 'intersting' (Section II) should be 'interesting'.
  5. [Eq. (28)] The source of the mass prior (5.4±0.3 M_⊙) should be cited at the equation itself; the reader should not need to search the text for the reference.
  6. [Figs. 2-5] The figure captions say the resonance orbits are shown for different λ and angular momentum values, but no numerical values are specified, so the curves cannot be reproduced.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LQG parameter λ is derived from the BCY metric and fitted to external QPO data; only a minor non-load-bearing self-citation appears.

full rationale

The paper's central derivation chain is self-contained rather than circular. The BCY metric in Eq. (1) contains λ as an input parameter, and the epicyclic frequency ratios in Eqs. (23) and (24), and the O(λ^3) expansions in Eqs. (29) and Appendix A, are derived from the geodesic effective potential of that metric. The constraints λ = 0.15^{+0.23}_{-0.14} and λ = 0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07} are obtained by fitting these derived frequencies to the three observed QPO frequencies of GRO J1655-40 (Eqs. 26-27), with a mass prior anchored to the external measurement M/M⊙ = 5.4 ± 0.3. This is standard parameter inference: the prediction (QPO frequencies as functions of λ, a, M, r) is not equivalent to the fitted quantity by construction, because λ is not defined in terms of the QPO frequencies and the frequency formulas are not fit parameters. There is one self-citation, [19] by coauthor Allahyari and Shao, used only as a general reference for QPO observations in the introduction; it is not load-bearing for any derivation. The relativistic precession model identification of ν_C, ν_L, ν_U is adopted from external references [42,43] and is a model assumption, not a circular step. The difference in truncation order between Section V (O(λ)) and Section VI (O(λ^3)) is a consistency and correctness concern, not a circularity concern, because both expansions are independent derivations from the same metric. Therefore no circular step can be exhibited; the paper's central claim has independent content.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, or fields are introduced; the white hole mass and transition surface originate in prior BCY work.

free parameters (5)
  • λ = 0.15 (equal mass), 0.11 (unequal mass)
    LQG deformation parameter in the BCY metric; primary target of the fit.
  • a/M = 0.23
    Dimensionless black hole spin, sampled in the posterior.
  • M = 6.28 M_sun
    Black hole mass, sampled with a Gaussian prior from Motta et al.
  • r/M = 4.84
    Resonance radius in units of mass, sampled in the posterior.
  • κ = 2.04
    Mass ratio of white hole to black hole, fits poorly and is essentially unconstrained.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The BCY metric is the correct effective spacetime describing a rotating LQG black hole.
    Taken from [7,8]; the paper builds on this metric without deriving it.
  • domain assumption Test particles follow equatorial circular orbits, and the disk is treated as a collection of such particles.
    Used throughout Sections III and IV to derive ISCO and epicyclic frequencies.
  • domain assumption The relativistic precession model maps the three observed QPO frequencies to ν_n, ν_p, ν_φ.
    Central to Section V; the constraint on λ depends entirely on this identification.
  • domain assumption The first-order (equal mass) and third-order (unequal mass) expansions in λ are accurate over the sampled parameter range.
    Used to derive the frequency formulas; no convergence checks are reported.
  • domain assumption The mass prior from [42] is unbiased.
    Sets p(M/M_sun) as Gaussian centered at 5.4 with 0.3 width in Section V.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing loop quantum gravity by quasi-periodic oscillations: rotating blackholes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2WLACAWU

@misc{pith2026241216625,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing loop quantum gravity by quasi-periodic oscillations: rotating blackholes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2WLACAWU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.16625}
}
abstract

We investigate a compelling model of a rotating black hole that is deformed by the effects of loop quantum gravity (LQG). We present a simplified metric and explore two distinct geometries: one in which the masses of the black hole and white hole are equal, and another in which they differ. Our analysis yields the radius of the innermost stable circular orbits (ISCO), as well as the energy and angular momentum of a particle within this framework. Additionally, we find the frequency of the first-order resonance separately. We constrain the model by the quasi-periodic oscillations (QPO) of the X-ray binary GRO J1655-40. We show that $\lambda=0.15^{+0.23}_{-0.14}$ at $1\sigma$ confidence level for equal mass black hole and white hole geometry. For the other geometry we get $\lambda=0.11^{+0.07}_{-0.07}$ at $1\sigma$ confidence level.We encounter a degeneracy in the parameter space that hinders our ability to constrain $\lambda$ with greater precision.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.16625 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The effect of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The location of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The location of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The location of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The location of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Nonlinear QPOs, the contours show 68%, 95% and 99% credible intervals. Dashed [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Nonlinear QPOs for the case of unequal mass blackhole white hole, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_7.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

44 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Re- sults. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Re- sults. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 [arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]]

    arXiv 2019

  2. [2]

    Carter in Les Astres Occlus ed

    B. Carter in Les Astres Occlus ed. by B. DeWitt, C. M. DeWitt, (Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973)

    work page 1973

  3. [3]

    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 (1965), 915-917 doi:10.1063/1.1704350

    doi:10.1063/1.1704350 1965

  4. [4]

    Reissner, ” ¨Uber die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einsteinschen The- orie”

    H. Reissner, ” ¨Uber die Eigengravitation des elektrischen Feldes nach der Einsteinschen The- orie”. Annalen der Physik (in German). 50 (9): 106–120, (1916)

    work page 1916

  5. [5]

    Nordstr¨ om, ”On the Energy of the Gravitational Field in Einstein’s Theory”

    G. Nordstr¨ om, ”On the Energy of the Gravitational Field in Einstein’s Theory”. Verhandl. Koninkl. Ned. Akad. Wetenschap., Afdel. Natuurk., Amsterdam. 26: 1201–1208, (1918)

    work page 1918

  6. [6]

    Ovalle, E

    J. Ovalle, E. Contreras and Z. Stuchlik, Kerr–de Sitter black hole revisited, Phys. Rev. D 103, no.8, 084016 (2021) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.103.084016 [arXiv:2104.06359 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2021

  7. [7]

    Testing Loop Quantum Gravity from Observational Consequences of Nonsingular Rotating Black Holes,

    S. Brahma, C. Y. Chen and D. h. Yeom, “Testing Loop Quantum Gravity from Observational Consequences of Nonsingular Rotating Black Holes,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) no.18, 181301 doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.126.181301 [arXiv:2012.08785 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv 2021

  8. [8]

    Obstruction of black hole singularity by quantum field theory effects

    J. Abedi and H. Arfaei, “Obstruction of black hole singularity by quantum field theory effects,” JHEP 03 (2016), 135 doi:10.1007/JHEP03(2016)135 [arXiv:1506.05844 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2016

Show all 44 references
  1. [9]

    Covariance in models of loop quantum gravity: Spherical symmetry,

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma and J. D. Reyes, “Covariance in models of loop quantum gravity: Spherical symmetry,” Phys. Rev. D 92 (2015) no.4, 045043 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.045043 [arXiv:1507.00329 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Effective line elements and black-hole models in canonical loop quantum gravity,

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma and D. h. Yeom, “Effective line elements and black-hole models in canonical loop quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 98 (2018) no.4, 046015 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.046015 [arXiv:1803.01119 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  3. [11]

    No-go result for covariance in models of loop quantum gravity,

    M. Bojowald, “No-go result for covariance in models of loop quantum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D 102 (2020) no.4, 046006 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.046006 [arXiv:2007.16066 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Preliminary analyses on dynamics and thermodynamics of rotating regular black holes,

    H. Yang, C. J. Yu and Y. G. Miao, “Preliminary analyses on dynamics and thermodynamics of rotating regular black holes,” [arXiv:2308.03068 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  5. [13]

    Z. Y. Tu, T. Zhu and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D 108 (2023) no.2, 2 21 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.108.024035 [arXiv:2304.14160 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Constraints on the rotating self-dual black hole with quasi-periodic oscillations,

    C. Liu, H. Xu, H. Siew, T. Zhu, Q. Wu and Y. Zhao, “Constraints on the rotating self-dual black hole with quasi-periodic oscillations,” [arXiv:2305.12323 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  7. [15]

    Shadows of Loop Quantum Black Holes: Semi-analytical Simulations of Loop Quantum Gravity Effects on Sagittarius A* and M 87*,

    H. X. Jiang, C. Liu, I. K. Dihingia, Y. Mizuno, H. Xu, T. Zhu and Q. Wu, “Shadows of Loop Quantum Black Holes: Semi-analytical Simulations of Loop Quantum Gravity Effects on Sagittarius A* and M 87*,” [arXiv:2312.04288 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  8. [16]

    T. M. Belloni, Lect. Notes Phys. 794 (2010), 53-84 doi:10.1007/978-3-540-76937-8 3 [arXiv:0909.2474 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2010 arXiv

  9. [17]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Kluzniak, Astron. Astrophys. 374 (2001), L19 doi:10.1051/0004- 6361:20010791 [arXiv:astro-ph/0105077 [astro-ph]]

    2001 arXiv

  10. [18]

    D. R. Pasham, T. E. Strohmayer and R. F. Mushotzky, Nature 513 (2014), 74 doi:10.1038/nature13710 [arXiv:1501.03180 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2014 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Allahyari and L

    A. Allahyari and L. Shao, JCAP 10 (2021), 003 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/10/003 [arXiv:2102.02232 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  12. [20]

    SAMIMI, J., SHARE, G., WOOD, K. et al. GX339–4: a new black hole candidate. Nature 278, 434–436 (1979). https://doi.org/10.1038/278434a0

    1979 doi

  13. [21]

    Quantum-gravity effects outside the horizon spark black to white hole tunneling,

    H. M. Haggard and C. Rovelli, “Quantum-gravity effects outside the horizon spark black to white hole tunneling,” Phys. Rev. D92 (2015) no.10, 104020 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.104020 [arXiv:1407.0989 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  14. [22]

    White Holes as Remnants: A Surprising Scenario for the End of a Black Hole,

    E. Bianchi, M. Christodoulou, F. D’Ambrosio, H. M. Haggard and C. Rovelli, “White Holes as Remnants: A Surprising Scenario for the End of a Black Hole,” Class. Quant. Grav. 35 (2018) no.22, 225003 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/aae550 [arXiv:1802.04264 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  15. [23]

    From black holes to white holes: a quantum gravita- tional, symmetric bounce,

    J. Olmedo, S. Saini and P. Singh, “From black holes to white holes: a quantum gravita- tional, symmetric bounce,” Class. Quant. Grav. 34 (2017) no.22, 225011 doi:10.1088/1361- 6382/aa8da8 [arXiv:1707.07333 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Towards consistent black-to-white hole bounces from matter collapse,

    J. Ben Achour, S. Brahma, S. Mukohyama and J. P. Uzan, “Towards consistent black-to-white hole bounces from matter collapse,” JCAP09 (2020), 020 doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/09/020 [arXiv:2004.12977 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Evaporating black-to-white hole,

    P. Martin-Dussaud and C. Rovelli,“Evaporating black-to-white hole,” Class. Quant. Grav. 36 (2019) no.24, 245002 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab5097 [arXiv:1905.07251 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Black to white transition of a charged black hole,

    A. Rignon-Bret and C. Rovelli, “Black to white transition of a charged black hole,” Phys. Rev. 22 D 105 (2022) no.8, 086003 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.105.086003 [arXiv:2108.12823 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. Han, C. Rovelli and F. Soltani, Phys. Rev. D 107 (2023) no.6, 064011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.107.064011 [arXiv:2302.03872 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Mass and Horizon Dirac Observables in Effective Models of Quantum Black-to-White Hole Transition,

    N. Bodendorfer, F. M. Mele and J. M¨ unch, “Mass and Horizon Dirac Observables in Effective Models of Quantum Black-to-White Hole Transition,” Class. Quant. Grav. 38 (2021) no.9, 095002 doi:10.1088/1361-6382/abe05d [arXiv:1912.00774 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Trouble with geodesics in black-to-white hole bounc- ing scenarios,

    D. K. Hong, W. C. Lin and D. h. Yeom, “Trouble with geodesics in black-to-white hole bounc- ing scenarios,” Phys. Rev. D 106 (2022) no.10, 104011 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.104011 [arXiv:2207.03183 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Quantum black hole–white hole entangled states,

    S. Jalalzadeh, “Quantum black hole–white hole entangled states,” Phys. Lett. B 829 (2022), 137058 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2022.137058 [arXiv:2203.09968 [gr-qc]]

    2022

  23. [31]

    (b,v)-type variables for black to white hole transitions in effective loop quantum gravity,

    N. Bodendorfer, F. M. Mele and J. M¨ unch, “(b,v)-type variables for black to white hole transitions in effective loop quantum gravity,” Phys. Lett. B 819 (2021), 136390 doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136390

    2021

  24. [32]

    Rotating black holes: Locally nonrotating frames, energy extraction, and scalar synchrotron radiation,

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press and S. A. Teukolsky, “Rotating black holes: Locally nonrotating frames, energy extraction, and scalar synchrotron radiation,” Astrophys. J. 178 (1972), 347 doi:10.1086/151796

    1972 doi

  25. [33]

    Lecture notes on general relativity,

    S. M. Carroll, “Lecture notes on general relativity,” [arXiv:gr-qc/9712019 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  26. [34]

    Suzuki and K

    S. Suzuki and K. i. Maeda, Phys. Rev. D 58 (1998), 023005 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.58.023005 [arXiv:gr-qc/9712095 [gr-qc]]

    1998 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Innermost stable circular orbit of spinning particle in charged spinning black hole background,

    Y. P. Zhang, S. W. Wei, W. D. Guo, T. T. Sui and Y. X. Liu, “Innermost stable circular orbit of spinning particle in charged spinning black hole background,” Phys. Rev. D 97 (2018) no.8, 084056 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.084056 [arXiv:1711.09361 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Innermost stable circular orbits of spinning test particles in Schwarzschild and Kerr space-times,

    P. I. Jefremov, O. Y. Tsupko and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, “Innermost stable circular orbits of spinning test particles in Schwarzschild and Kerr space-times,” Phys. Rev. D 91 (2015) no.12, 124030 doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.124030 [arXiv:1503.07060 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Testing the nature of the black hole candidate in GRO J1655-40 with the relativis- tic precession model,

    C. Bambi, “Testing the nature of the black hole candidate in GRO J1655-40 with the relativis- tic precession model,” Eur. Phys. J. C 75 (2015) no.4, 162 doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3396-7 [arXiv:1312.2228 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. A. Kaplan, JETP, 19, 951 (1949)

    1949

  31. [39]

    L. D. Landau, E. M. Lifshitz, The Classical Theory of Fields. Pergamon, Oxford (1993) 23

    1993

  32. [40]

    Ruffini, J

    R. Ruffini, J. Wheeler, Cosmology from space platform in Proceedings of the Conference on Space Physics. – Paris: ESRO (1971)

    1971

  33. [41]

    Higher order geodesic deviations applied to the Kerr metric,

    R. Colistete, Jr., C. Leygnac and R. Kerner, “Higher order geodesic deviations applied to the Kerr metric,” Class. Quant. Grav. 19 (2002), 4573-4590 doi:10.1088/0264-9381/19/17/309 [arXiv:gr-qc/0205019 [gr-qc]]

    2002 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Precise mass and spin measurements for a stellar-mass black hole through X-ray timing: the case of GRO J1655−40,

    S. E. Motta, T. M. Belloni, L. Stella, T. Mu˜ noz-Darias and R. Fender, “Precise mass and spin measurements for a stellar-mass black hole through X-ray timing: the case of GRO J1655−40,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 437 (2014) no.3, 2554-2565 doi:10.1093/mnras/stt2068 [arXiv:13...

    2014 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Transient Black Hole Binaries,

    T. M. Belloni and S. E. Motta, “Transient Black Hole Binaries,” doi:10.1007/978-3-662-52859- 4 2 [arXiv:1603.07872 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  36. [44]

    Ashtekar and E

    A. Ashtekar and E. Bianchi, Rept. Prog. Phys. 84, no.4, 042001 (2021) doi:10.1088/1361- 6633/abed91 [arXiv:2104.04394 [gr-qc]]. 24

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.