Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Holographic Einstein Ring of AdS Reissner Nordstr$\ddot{o}$m Black Holes with Euler Heisenberg Nonlinear Electrodynamics

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Holographic Einstein rings of Euler–Heisenberg AdS-Reissner–Nordström black holes shrink with frequency, chemical potential, and source position, grow with charge and temperature, and are insensitive to the quantum-correction parameter.

desk verdict Routine extension of a known holographic imaging pipeline to a new black hole background, but the headline parametric claims are not anchored in the equations and the paper contradicts itself on temperature. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.13018 v2 pith:AC3UZ46E submitted 2025-05-19 hep-th

Abhishek Baruah , Prabwal Phukon This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-th
keywords AdS/CFTcorrespondenceEinsteinringEuler-HeisenbergnonlinearelectrodynamicsS-Reissner-Nordströmblackholewaveopticsgeometricholographicimaginglensingresponsefunction
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

Within the AdS/CFT correspondence, the paper tries to establish that holographic Einstein rings can act as boundary diagnostics of a quantum-corrected charged black hole: a Gaussian scalar wave emitted near the AdS boundary scatters off an Euler–Heisenberg AdS-Reissner–Nordström black hole, and a virtual convex lens converts the boundary response into a ring image. The paper claims the ring radius decreases with increasing wave frequency $\omega$, chemical potential $\mu$, and radial position $\rho$, increases with scalar-field charge $e$ and temperature $T$, and remains unchanged as the Euler–Heisenberg quantum-correction parameter $a$ is varied. It further claims that the wave-optics ring angle coincides with the geometric-optics photon incident angle through $r_R/f = L/\omega$, which would make the holographic imaging procedure consistent with ray tracing. If these claims hold, the ring's size and shape become a concrete observable route to distinguishing nonlinear-electrodynamics corrections from classical charged-AdS behavior.

What carries the argument

The central object is the holographic lensing response function $\langle K\rangle_{J_K}$: the boundary expectation value of the operator dual to the bulk scalar, computed mode-by-mode by solving the radial Klein–Gordon equation $z^2 F Y_l'' + (z^2F' - 2zF + 2i\omega z^2)Y_l' + [-2i\omega z - z^2 l(l+1)]Y_l = 0$, then passed through a virtual convex lens whose action is a Fourier transform (Eq. 20). The identity that carries the geometric-optics consistency check is $r_R/f = L/\omega$ (Eq. 28), which equates the wave-optics ring radius to the photon incident angle; inside the response, the shifted frequency $\tilde{\omega} = \omega + e\mu$ is the specific mechanism through which scalar charge and chemical potential move the ring.

What would settle it

Numerically vary the bulk source radial coordinate while holding frequency, charge, chemical potential, and temperature fixed, and track the brightness peak on the screen; if the peak position does not move, the claimed decrease of ring radius with $\rho$ is not a real effect. Equivalently, search the paper's equations for any occurrence of $\rho$; finding none would show that the trend is not derived.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the Einstein ring radius reconstructed from the holographic lensing response is a systematic function of boundary and bulk data: it decreases with the wave frequency $\omega$, the chemical potential $\mu$, and the radial location $\rho$, increases with the scalar-field charge $e$ and temperature $T$, and is independent of the Euler–Heisenberg parameter $a$. The mechanism is the response function $\langle K\rangle_{J_K}$, computed by solving the radial Klein–Gordon equation in the Euler–Heisenberg corrected metric; its shifted frequency $\tilde{\omega} = \omega + e\mu$ carries the charge and chemical-potential dependence, and its Fourier transform through a thin convex lens produces the screen image. In the geometric-optics limit the same ring angle is recovered from the photon incident angle, $\sin\theta_{\rm in} = L/\omega$, so the wave-optics and ray-based descriptions agree.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the radial position $\rho$ is a genuine input to the computation, because the paper's equations never contain $\rho$; if the numerical runs vary some other quantity instead, the claimed decrease of ring radius with $\rho$ would be an artifact.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the central claim is right, the Euler–Heisenberg correction $a$ cannot be read off from the ring radius; distinguishing quantum-corrected from classical charged AdS black holes will require the charge, temperature, and frequency dependence instead.
  • The matching $r_R/f = L/\omega$ means wave-optics holographic imaging reproduces photon-ring data, so the same pipeline can be trusted for other asymptotically AdS black holes without a separate ray-tracing calculation.
  • Increasing $\omega$ improves resolution while shrinking the ring, so high-frequency sources are the practical route to sharp holographic images.
  • As the observer moves off-axis, the same response produces a ring, then an arc, then a bright spot, so the observed morphology directly encodes the observer's angular position.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the ring radius is extracted from boundary data, the insensitivity to $a$ suggests that holographic ring size is a weak probe of one-loop QED corrections; the subleading diffraction fringes may carry more information than the ring radius.
  • The identity $r_R/f = L/\omega$ should hold for any spherically symmetric asymptotically AdS spacetime with a photon sphere, so the same lensing pipeline can be applied to other nonlinear electrodynamics models to test whether the ring radius is controlled by the combination $e\mu$ and $\omega$ alone.
  • As a caution grounded in the text, $\rho$ appears in the abstract, in figure captions, and in the prose of Section 4.1 but never in the equations; until an explicit $\rho$-dependent calculation is given, the reported decreasing trend in $\rho$ should be treated as unverified.
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

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies holographic Einstein rings for AdS–Reissner–Nordström black holes with Euler–Heisenberg nonlinear electrodynamics. It sets up a massless charged scalar field in the bulk, computes the holographic response to a Gaussian source at the AdS boundary, and then applies a convex-lens wave-optics prescription to convert the boundary response into synthetic images. The authors report parametric dependencies of the ring radius on the scalar charge e, chemical potential μ, frequency ω, temperature T, quantum-correction parameter a, and a radial source/observer position ρ, and they compare the wave-optics ring angle with a geometric-optics photon-orbit computation using Eq. (28).

Significance. If the claims were supported, the paper would extend the established holographic-Einstein-ring program to a nonlinear-electrodynamics background and would add a systematic parameter scan, including effects of scalar charge and source position. The work has some genuine strengths: the wave-optics machinery follows the standard Hashimoto–Kinoshita–Murata and Liu–Chen–Zeng–Zhang–Zhang–Zhang prescriptions; no free parameters are fitted to produce the ring; and the geometric-optics consistency check is a nontrivial internal cross-check rather than a circular fit. However, the central parametric claims are not anchored in the equations actually solved: the parameter ρ is absent from all model equations, the temperature dependence is stated inconsistently between the abstract, Section 4.1, and Section 6, and the interpretation of e as an 'electromagnetic lensing strength' is not derived. These issues prevent the numerical results from being reproduced or falsified, so the paper in its current form does not meet the standard for publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.1 and Figs. 12–13] The paper's headline claim that the Einstein-ring radius decreases with increasing radial source position ρ is not supported by any equation. The source is fixed at the boundary point θ0 = π in Eq. (11); the holographic response is computed from Eqs. (14)–(17), which contain no radial coordinate for the source or observer; and the lens transform in Eq. (20) depends only on the boundary angular coordinates, the aperture d, and the focal length f. Consequently, the curves labelled ρ = 10, 15, 20, 25 in Figs. 12 and 13 cannot be recomputed from the stated theory, and the claimed dependence of the ring radius on ρ is vacuous as written.
  2. [Abstract, Sec. 4.1, and Sec. 6] The temperature dependence of the ring radius is stated inconsistently. The abstract claims the radius increases with T, and Section 4.1 states that lower temperatures produce smaller ring radii (peak positions xs/f = 0.65, 0.38, 0.27, 0.21 as T decreases to 0.240449). In contrast, Section 6 states that the radius decreases with increasing T. These statements cannot both be correct, and the contradiction affects one of the four principal parametric claims.
  3. [Eq. (17) and Sec. 6] The scalar-field charge e enters the calculation only through the shifted frequency ω̃ = ω + eμ in Eq. (17), with no explicit gauge-coupling term in the radial equation (14). The claim that e enhances the 'electromagnetic lensing strength' and thereby broadens the ring is therefore an interpretive leap, not a derived mechanism; the observed peak shifts with e could be a trivial consequence of the frequency shift combined with the ω-dependence of the ring radius. The paper should demonstrate that the e-dependence is not solely mediated by the effective frequency ω̃.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure captions] Several figure captions contain undefined symbols or duplicated parameters: Fig. 18 uses c, Ω, and yh without definitions, and Fig. 17 lists e = 1 and then e = 0.5 in the same caption. Please define every symbol in each caption and remove duplicate parameter assignments.
  2. [Eq. (23)] Eq. (23), written as ˙r² = ω∗ − ˜Ly(r), is dimensionally inconsistent: the first term has dimensions of (energy)² while the second has dimensions of (angular momentum)². It should presumably read ˙r² = (ω∗)² − L̃²y(r). The notation also switches between L, L̃, and ˜L; please use one symbol consistently.
  3. [Numerical method, Sec. 3] No convergence or error analysis is reported for the pseudo-spectral solution of the radial equation (14). Since the ring radii are quoted to two decimal places from numerically extracted peak positions, a brief convergence check or estimated numerical uncertainty is needed to support the precision of the quoted values.
  4. [Introduction and structure] The introduction states that Section 4 provides the summary and conclusions, but the summary appears in Section 6. Please correct the cross-references.
  5. [Eqs. (24)–(25)] The derivation of sin²θin in Eq. (25) relies on substituting ˙r² from Eq. (23) and then taking the boundary limit; however, the intermediate steps are not shown and the result sinθin = L/ω∗ is used in Eq. (28). Please spell out the steps, especially the identification of the conserved quantities at r = ∞.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ring computation is self-contained and the geometric-optics cross-check is an independent consistency test.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The holographic response is obtained by numerically solving the scalar Klein-Gordon radial equation (14) in the EH-AdS metric (1)-(2) with boundary conditions at the horizon and boundary; the response coefficients are then combined in (16) and passed through the lens transform (20). No free parameter is fitted to the ring radius, and the comparison in (28) is a consistency test between two independent consequences of the same spacetime, namely the wave-optics screen radius r_R/f and the null-geodesic incident angle L/omega, rather than a fit. The method is taken from external references [35,36,39], not from self-citations, and no load-bearing uniqueness claim is imported. I do note that the abstract and Section 4.1 claim a dependence of the ring radius on rho while rho never appears in any stated equation, for example Eqs. (11), (14), (16), or (20), and that Section 6's statement that the radius decreases with increasing T conflicts with the abstract and with Figures 16-17; however, these are missing-definition and internal-consistency defects, not circular reductions. Hence score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The computation imports the metric, the holographic dictionary, the Gaussian source, and the convex-lens imaging setup from prior work. The only new inputs are the scanned parameters, of which ρ is left undefined, and e acts only through a frequency shift. No new entities are postulated.

free parameters (2)
  • ρ (source/observer radial position) = varied 10, 15, 20, 25
    Central to the claim that the ring radius decreases with ρ, but ρ is never defined in any equation; it is called the radial source/observer position.
  • e (scalar field charge) = varied 5, 10, 15, 20
    Enters only through ω̃ = ω + eμ in Eq. (17); the claimed electromagnetic lensing effect is a modified-frequency shift, not a distinct physical mechanism.
assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption The Euler-Heisenberg-AdS metric (Eq. 2) describes the one-loop QED corrected charged AdS black hole.
    Taken from Ref. [75] (Magos and Bretón); the paper does not derive this solution.
  • domain assumption The pseudo-spectral solution of the radial equation (14) converges and yields the correct response coefficients ⟨K⟩_l.
    No convergence tests, grid sizes, or error estimates are given; the method is invoked by name only.
  • standard math The holographic dictionary identifying the boundary response ⟨K⟩^{JK} with the imaging observable is valid.
    Standard AdS/CFT prescription following Refs. [36,39]; the paper relies on it without modification.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Holographic Einstein Ring of AdS Reissner Nordstr$\ddot{o}$m Black Holes with Euler Heisenberg Nonlinear Electrodynamics." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/AC3UZ46E

@misc{pith2026250513018,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Holographic Einstein Ring of AdS Reissner Nordstr$\ddoto$m Black Holes with Euler Heisenberg Nonlinear Electrodynamics},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/AC3UZ46E}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.13018}
}
abstract

This study, situated within the framework of the AdS/CFT correspondence, employs wave optics methods to investigate the Einstein ring structure of quantum corrected AdS Reissner Nordstr$\ddot{o}$m black holes governed by Euler Heisenberg nonlinear electrodynamics. A wave source placed on the AdS boundary yields a response function on the antipodal side, from which a virtual optical system with a convex lens reconstructs the holographic image of the Einstein ring. The analysis systematically explores the impact of physical parameters and observer position on the ring's morphology. As the observer's position varies, the image transitions from a complete ring to an arc and eventually to a single bright point. The Einstein ring radius is observed to decrease with increasing radial source position $\rho$, wave frequency $\omega$, and chemical potential $\mu$, while it increases with electric charge $e$ and temperature $T$. In contrast, the quantum correction parameter $a$ has negligible effect on the ring radius or response amplitude, as its contribution falls off rapidly near the boundary and remains subleading in the wave dynamics. The parameter $e$ enhances the electromagnetic lensing strength, leading to a broader ring, whereas increasing $\rho$ alters wavefront propagation, affecting both brightness peak and ring location. Geometric optics analysis confirms that the incident angle of the photon ring matches the Einstein ring angle, validating consistency across frameworks. Overall, the results highlight how nonlinear electromagnetic effects and bulk field configurations manifest in observable boundary features, providing a means to distinguish quantum-corrected black holes from classical solutions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.13018 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Response function for different α with Q = 0.5, zh = 1, e = 1, ω = 90 ω=30 ω=60 ω=90 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 500 1000 1500 θ |< K >| [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Response function for different ω with a = 1, Q = 0.9, yh = 1.2, e = 1. corresponding to z = 0. The external wave source JK is iden￾tified with the asymptotic behavior of the scalar field near the boundary. In particular, the boundary condition Yl(0) = 1 is adopted, as inferred from Eq. (14). To determine the radial pro￾file Yl , we numerically solve the equation of motion using the pseudo-spectral method [35, 36], … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Response function for different ρ with a = 1, zh = 1, e = 0.5, ω = 90. ure 4 indicates that a greater scalar field electric charge e leads to a higher response amplitude [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (14 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Response function for different e with a = 1, Q = 0.5, zh = 1, ω = 90, ρ = 20. T=0.299659 T=0.264514 T=0.240449 -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 50 100 150 200 θ |< K >| [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Response function for different T with a = 0.1, e = 0.5, ω = 90, ρ = 20. From top to bottom, the values of T correspond to zh = 1, 1.2, 1.4, respectively. ρ=10 ρ=15 ρ=20 -0.6 -0.4 -0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0 50 100 150 θ |< K >| [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: illustrates the influence of the observer’s angular position θobs on the morphology of the Einstein rings. When θobs = 0, the observer is situated at the North Pole of the AdS boundary. As θobs increases from 0 to π/6, π/3 and subse￾quently to π/2, the ring structure p…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Influence of the quantum correction parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_8.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Impact of the parameter e on the formation of the Einstein ring, with the parameters fixed as a = 1 Q = 0.5, zh = 1, ω = 35, ρ = 20 We also explore the influence of temperature T on the char￾acteristics of Einstein rings, considering a fixed chemical po￾tential µ = zh…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Influence of the parameter a on the brightness, with the observer’s angle fixed at θobs = 0, and the parameters set as Q = 0.5, e = 1, zh = 1, ω = 40, ρ = 15 substantiate a clear inverse relationship between the parame￾ter ρ and the radius of the Einstein ring. The inf…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Influence of the parameter ρ on the brightness, with the observational angle set to θobs = 0 and the remaining parameters fixed as a = 1, Q = 0.5, zh = 1, ω = 35, e = 1 250 500 750 1000 1250 1500 (a) ω = 20 0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500 (b) ω = 40 0 1000 2000 3000 (c) ω =…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Effect of the parameter ω on the Einstein ring, with the observation angle fixed at θobs = 0, and the other parameters held constant as a = 1, Q = 0.5, zh = 1, ρ = 20, e = 1 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: Influence of the parameter ω on the brightness, with the observa￾tional angle set to θobs = 0 and the remaining parameters fixed as a = 1, Q = 0.5, zh = 1, ρ = 20, e = 1 The effect of the chemical potential µ on the Einstein ring is also examined, with the temperature…
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: Influence of the parameter T on the brightness, with parameters like θobs = 0, a = 1, e = 1, ρ = 20, e = 0.5, ω = 35 and various values of horizon radius zh = 0.8, 1, 1.2, 1.4 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_17.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: Correlation between the Einstein ring radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_20.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: Effect of µ on the Einstein ring, where θobs = 0, a = 0.1, c = 0.1, Ω = − 2 3 , e = 0.5, yh = 5, ω = 90, The chemical potential vaules change from low to high, corresponding to Q = 0.0196, 0.0556, 0.0835, 0.1022, respectively. -1.0 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 0 5 10 15 xs/f Brig…
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: Influence on the parameter µ on the brigheness, where θobs = 0, a = 1, e = 1, ρ = 20, zh = 1, Ω = 35 and different values of Q = 0.4, 0.5, 0.6, 0.7 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_19.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: Comparison of Einstein ring radii obtained via geometric and wave [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_21.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. High-order QED correction impacts on phase transition of the Euler-Heisenberg dS spacetime

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    The dual-horizon coexistence region in Euler-Heisenberg de Sitter spacetime exhibits van der Waals-like phase transitions whose order depends on a nonlinear parameter, with a constant topological number W=+1.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 29 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    J. M. Maldacena, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys. 2 (1998), 231-252

    1998

  2. [2]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, JHEP 12 (2008), 015

    2008

  3. [3]

    S. A. Hartnoll, C. P. Herzog and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101 (2008), 031601 11

    work page 2008

  4. [4]

    S. S. Gubser, Phys. Rev. D 78 (2008), 065034

    2008

  5. [5]

    Cubrovic, J

    M. Cubrovic, J. Zaanen and K. Schalm, Science 325 (2009), 439-444

    2009

  6. [6]

    H. Liu, J. McGreevy and D. Vegh, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 065029

    2011

  7. [7]

    Faulkner, H

    T. Faulkner, H. Liu, J. McGreevy and D. Vegh, Phys. Rev. D 83 (2011), 125002

    2011

  8. [8]

    Me fford and G

    E. Me fford and G. T. Horowitz, Phys. Rev. D90 (2014) no.8, 084042

    2014

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    Kiritsis and J

    E. Kiritsis and J. Ren, JHEP 09 (2015), 168

    2015

  2. [10]

    Donos and J

    A. Donos and J. P. Gauntlett, JHEP 06 (2014), 007

    2014

  3. [11]

    Shipley and S

    J. Shipley and S. R. Dolan, Class. Quant. Grav. 33 (2016) no.17, 175001

    2016

  4. [12]

    Bambi and K

    C. Bambi and K. Freese, Phys. Rev. D 79 (2009), 043002

    2009

  5. [13]

    Atamurotov, A

    F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov and B. Ahmedov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 348 (2013), 179-188

    2013

  6. [14]

    A. K. Mishra, S. Chakraborty and S. Sarkar, Phys. Rev. D 99 (2019) no.10, 104080

    2019

  7. [15]

    P. G. Nedkova, V . K. Tinchev and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D88 (2013) no.12, 124019

    2013

  8. [16]

    Y . X. Chen, H. B. Zheng, K. J. He, G. P. Li and Q. Q. Jiang, Chin. Phys. C 48 (2024), no.12, 125104

    2024

  9. [17]

    K. J. He, Z. Luo, S. Guo and G. P. Li, Chin. Phys. C 48, no.6, 065105 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Kocherlakota, R. Narayan and P. S. Joshi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 482 (2019) no.1, 52-64

    2019

  11. [19]

    X. Wang, Z. Zhao, X. X. Zeng and X. Y . Wang, [arXiv:2501.08287 [gr- qc]]

    arXiv

  12. [20]

    C. Y . Yang, M. I. Aslam, X. X. Zeng and R. Saleem, [arXiv:2411.11807 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  13. [21]

    K. J. He, G. P. Li, C. Y . Yang and X. X. Zeng, [arXiv:2411.11680 [astro- ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  14. [22]

    K. J. He, J. T. Yao, X. Zhang and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D 109, no.6, 064049 (2024)

    2024

  15. [23]

    K. J. He, S. C. Tan and G. P. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.1, 81 (2022)

    2022

  16. [24]

    K. J. He, X. Zhang and X. Li, Chin. Phys. C 46, no.7, 075103 (2022)

    2022

  17. [25]

    K. J. He, S. Guo, S. C. Tan and G. P. Li, Chin. Phys. C 46, no.8, 085106 (2022)

    2022

  18. [26]

    X. X. Zeng, G. P. Li and K. J. He, Nucl. Phys. B 974, 115639 (2022)

    2022

  19. [27]

    K. J. He, C. Y . Yang and X. X. Zeng, [arXiv:2501.06778 [astro-ph.HE]]

    arXiv

  20. [28]

    Some aspects of ModMax (A)dS black holes: Thermodynamics properties, heat engine, shadow, null geodesic and light trajectory,

    B. Eslam Panah and N. Heidari, “Some aspects of ModMax (A)dS black holes: Thermodynamics properties, heat engine, shadow, null geodesic and light trajectory,” J. High Energy Astrophys.45, 181 (2025), doi:10.1016/j.jheap.2024.12.00

    2025 doi

  21. [29]

    Thermodynamics and Optical Properties of Phantom AdS Black Holes in Massive Gravity,

    Kh. Jafarzade, B. Eslam Panah and M. E. Rodrigues, “Thermodynamics and Optical Properties of Phantom AdS Black Holes in Massive Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41, 065007 (2024), doi:10.1088 /1361-6382/ad242e [arXiv:2402.08704 [gr-qc]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Black holes in dRGT massive gravity with the signature of EHT observations of M87*,

    S. H. Hendi, Kh. Jafarzade and B. Eslam Panah, “Black holes in dRGT massive gravity with the signature of EHT observations of M87*,” JCAP 02, 022 (2023), doi:10.1088 /1475-7516/2023/02/022 [arXiv:2206.05132 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Charged 4D Einstein- Gauss-Bonnet-AdS Black Holes: Shadow, Energy Emission, Deflec- tion Angle and Heat Engine,

    B. Eslam Panah, Kh. Jafarzade and S. H. Hendi, “Charged 4D Einstein- Gauss-Bonnet-AdS Black Holes: Shadow, Energy Emission, Deflec- tion Angle and Heat Engine,” Nucl. Phys. B 961, 115269 (2020), doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysb.2020.115269 [arXiv:2004.04058 [gr-qc]]

    2020

  24. [32]

    Thermal fluctuations of black holes with non-linear electrodynamics and charged Renyi entropy,

    G. Arenas-Henriquez, F. Diaz and Y . Novoa, “Thermal fluctuations of black holes with non-linear electrodynamics and charged Renyi entropy,” J. High Energ. Phys. 2023, 72 (2023), doi:10.1007/JHEP05(2023)072

    2023 doi

  25. [33]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett. 875 (2019), L1

    2019

  26. [34]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett. 930 (2022) no.2, L12

    2022

  27. [35]

    Hashimoto, S

    K. Hashimoto, S. Kinoshita and K. Murata, Phys. Rev. Lett. 123 (2019) no.3, 031602

    2019

  28. [36]

    Hashimoto, S

    K. Hashimoto, S. Kinoshita and K. Murata, Phys. Rev. D 101 (2020) no.6, 066018

    2020

  29. [37]

    Y . Kaku, K. Murata and J. Tsujimura, JHEP 09 (2021), 138

    2021

  30. [38]

    I. R. Klebanov and E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 556 (1999), 89-114

    1999

  31. [39]

    Y . Liu, Q. Chen, X. X. Zeng, H. Zhang, W. L. Zhang and W. Zhang, JHEP 10 (2022), 189

    2022

  32. [40]

    X. X. Zeng, K. J. He, J. Pu, G. p. Li and Q. Q. Jiang, Eur. Phys. J. C 83 (2023) no.10, 897

    2023

  33. [41]

    X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li and P. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84 (2024) no.7, 714

    2024

  34. [42]

    X. X. Zeng, M. I. Aslam, R. Saleem and X. Y . Hu, [arXiv:2311.04680 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  35. [43]

    X. Y . Hu, X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li and P. Xu, Results Phys.61 (2024), 107707

    2024

  36. [44]

    G. P. Li, K. J. He, X. Y . Hu and Q. Q. Jiang, Front. Phys. (Beijing) 19 (2024), no.5, 54202

    2024

  37. [45]

    K. J. He, Y . W. Han and G. P. Li, Phys. Dark Univ.44 (2024), 101468

    2024

  38. [46]

    Z. Luo, K. J. He and J. Li, [arXiv:2409.11885 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  39. [47]

    X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li, P. Li, B. Liang and P. Xu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 68 (2025) no.2, 220412

    2025

  40. [48]

    X. X. Zeng, X. Y . Hu and K. J. He, [arXiv:2406.03083 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  41. [49]

    J. Y . Gui, X. X. Zeng, K. J. He and H. Ye, [arXiv:2407.09069 [hep-th]]

    arXiv

  42. [50]

    K. J. He, Y . W. Han and G. P. Li, Nucl. Phys. B1010, 116768 (2025)

    2025

  43. [51]

    Foundations of the new field theory,

    M. Born and L. Infeld, “Foundations of the new field theory,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 144, 852 (1934)

    1934

  44. [52]

    Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons,

    W. Heisenberg and H. Euler, “Consequences of Dirac’s theory of positrons,” Z. Phys. 98, 714 (1936)

    1936

  45. [53]

    String loop corrections to e ffective actions,

    L. Magnea, R. Russo and S. Sciuto, “String loop corrections to e ffective actions,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. A 21, 533 (2006)

    2006

  46. [54]

    Duality, strings and non-linear electrodynamics,

    S. Sciuto, “Duality, strings and non-linear electrodynamics,” Afr. J. Math. Phys. 3, 45 (2006)

    2006

  47. [55]

    Geometrical aspects of light propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics,

    M. Novello, V . A. De Lorenci, J. M. Salim and R. Klippert, “Geometrical aspects of light propagation in nonlinear electrodynamics,” Phys. Rev. D 61, 045001 (2000)

    2000

  48. [56]

    Observation of Light-by-Light Scattering in Heavy- Ion Collisions,

    M. Aaboud et al., “Observation of Light-by-Light Scattering in Heavy- Ion Collisions,” Nature Phys. 13, 852 (2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Evidence for light-by-light scattering in heavy-ion colli- sions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,

    G. Aad et al., “Evidence for light-by-light scattering in heavy-ion colli- sions with the ATLAS detector at the LHC,”Phys. Rev. Lett. 123, 052001 (2019)

    2019

  50. [58]

    Vacuum birefringence effects from a new perspective,

    L. M. Capparelli, A. Damiano, L. Maiani and A. D. Polosa, “Vacuum birefringence effects from a new perspective,” Eur. Phys. J. C 77, 754 (2017)

    2017

  51. [59]

    On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization,

    J. S. Schwinger, “On Gauge Invariance and Vacuum Polarization,” Phys. Rev. 82, 664 (1951)

    1951

  52. [60]

    The scattering of light by light in Dirac’s the- ory,

    H. Euler and B. Kockel, “The scattering of light by light in Dirac’s the- ory,”Naturwiss. 23, 246 (1935)

    1935

  53. [61]

    Further studies on light scattering in Dirac’s theory,

    H. Euler, “Further studies on light scattering in Dirac’s theory,” Annalen Phys. 26, 398 (1936)

    1936

  54. [62]

    Photon splitting in a strong magnetic field,

    S. L. Adler, J. N. Bahcall, C. G. Callan and M. N. Rosenbluth, “Photon splitting in a strong magnetic field,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 25, 1061 (1970)

    1970

  55. [63]

    Photon splitting and photon dispersion in a strong magnetic field,

    S. L. Adler, “Photon splitting and photon dispersion in a strong magnetic field,” Annals Phys. (N.Y.) 67, 599 (1971)

    1971

  56. [64]

    Nonlinear electrodynamics and black hole shadows,

    M. Okyay and A. ¨Ovg¨un, “Nonlinear electrodynamics and black hole shadows,” JCAP 01, 009 (2022)

    2022

  57. [65]

    E ffective Lagrangians in nonlinear electrody- namics,

    W. Dittrich and H. Gies, “E ffective Lagrangians in nonlinear electrody- namics,” Phys. Rev. D 58, 025004 (1998)

    1998

  58. [66]

    Plebanski, Lectures on Nonlinear Electrodynamics , Nordita, RX-476 (1970)

    J. Plebanski, Lectures on Nonlinear Electrodynamics , Nordita, RX-476 (1970)

    1970

  59. [67]

    Magnetically charged black holes from nonlinear electrodynamics and their shadows,

    A. Allahyari, M. Khodadi, S. Vagnozzi and D. F. Mota, “Magnetically charged black holes from nonlinear electrodynamics and their shadows,” JCAP 2002, 003 (2020)

    2020

  60. [68]

    Observational signature and gravitational lensing of black holes in nonlinear electrody- namics,

    X. X. Zeng, K. J. He, G. P. Li, E. W. Liang and S. Guo, “Observational signature and gravitational lensing of black holes in nonlinear electrody- namics,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 764 (2022)

    2022

  61. [69]

    Shadow and weak gravitational lensing of Born-Infeld-type black holes,

    J. Y . Kim, “Shadow and weak gravitational lensing of Born-Infeld-type black holes,” Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 485 (2022)

    2022

  62. [70]

    Thermodynamics of Einstein–Euler–Heisenberg black holes,

    Y . Zhao and H. Cheng, “Thermodynamics of Einstein–Euler–Heisenberg black holes,” Chinese Phys. C 48, 125106 (2024)

    2024

  63. [71]

    Thermal fluctuation corrections to EEH black holes,

    H. Gursel, M. Mangut and E. Sucu, “Thermal fluctuation corrections to EEH black holes,” arXiv:2503.12306

    arXiv

  64. [72]

    Gravitational lensing by quantum corrected Ein- stein–Euler–Heisenberg black holes,

    P. Su and C.-K. Qiao, “Gravitational lensing by quantum corrected Ein- stein–Euler–Heisenberg black holes,” arXiv:2410.02411

  65. [73]

    Accretion disk properties around EEH black holes,

    Y .-H. Jiang and T. Wang, “Accretion disk properties around EEH black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 110, 103009 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Black hole shadows and quasinormal modes in Einstein–Euler–Heisenberg gravity,

    G. Lambiase, D. J. Gogoi, R. C. Pantig and A. ¨Ovg¨un, “Black hole shadows and quasinormal modes in Einstein–Euler–Heisenberg gravity,” Phys. Dark Univ. 48, 101886 (2025)

    2025

  67. [75]

    Daniela Magos and Nora Bret ´on, Thermodynamics of the Eu- ler–Heisenberg–AdS black hole, Phys. Rev. D 102, 084011 (2020). 12

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.