Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 46 references

This paper argues that the shadow of a rotating regular black hole carries measurable imprints of both the surrounding dark matter and plasma, allowing black-hole imaging to constrain the environment as well as the hole itself.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-01 13:17 UTC pith:I6MSS5IW

load-bearing objection A routine but honest plasma-shadow calculation whose value is gated by an unverified metric: the plasma optics are standard, the geometry is not. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.19152 v1 pith:I6MSS5IW submitted 2026-07-21 gr-qc

Plasma-Induced Modifications of the Shadows of Rotating Bardeen Black Holes with Perfect Fluid Dark Matter

Gowtham Sidharth M , Sanjit Das This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C10
keywords black hole shadowregular black holeBardeen-type metricperfect fluid dark matterplasma refractionphoton orbitsHamilton-Jacobi formalismshadow observables
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

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

This paper tries to establish that the optical shadow of a rotating regular (singularity-free) black hole is not fixed by the hole alone: a surrounding perfect fluid dark matter halo and a plasma medium each imprint measurable changes in the shadow's size and shape. The authors work with a rotating extension of the Bardeen-type spacetime, study three plasma models (homogeneous, radially varying, and fully general), and show that the shadow responds differently to each: homogeneous plasma mainly distorts the silhouette, an angular plasma profile mainly shrinks it, and the dark-matter parameter acts non-monotonically, shrinking the shadow below a critical value and enlarging it above. They then compare the model's shadow circularity and fractional diameter deviation with the observed bounds on the shadows of M87* and Sgr A*, obtaining an allowed region for the plasma and dark-matter parameters and showing that spin and inclination dominate shape distortion while magnetic charge dominates diameter deviation. If the paper is right, black-hole imaging becomes a probe of the surrounding medium, not just of the spacetime parameters.

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that the shadow of a rotating regular black hole surrounded by perfect fluid dark matter and a non-magnetized plasma is modified measurably by both environmental ingredients, and that the modifications are not degenerate with the hole's intrinsic parameters. The shadow radius shrinks with increasing plasma strength in the homogeneous case; the effect weakens for the radially decaying plasma; an angular plasma distribution reduces shadow size with little shape change; and the dark-matter parameter produces a two-branch size behavior separated by a critical value. The paper further finds, by implementing the current shadow-circularity and fractional-diam

What carries the argument

The engine of the calculation is the Hamilton-Jacobi description of photons moving in a dispersive plasma, where the plasma's refractive index enters the Hamiltonian and the shadow boundary is identified with the unstable circular photon orbits obeying R(r)=0 and dR/dr=0. Those conditions yield the impact parameters xi and eta, which are converted into celestial coordinates (alpha,beta) and then into two shadow observables: the deviation from circularity and the fractional diameter deviation relative to the shadow of a non-rotating neutral black hole. The spacetime is a rotating regular black hole of Bardeen type (a singularity-free solution with a magnetic-charge parameter g) dressed by a d

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the rotating regular black hole metric with the dark-matter term—adopted from a standard complexification prescription and never shown to solve the field equations—is the correct spacetime; if that geometry is not a legitimate black hole solution, every shadow curve and constraint derived from it collapses.

What would settle it

Compute the shadow of the same spacetime without the near-equatorial approximation, using a full theta-dependent integration, and check whether the plasma-induced shifts exceed the claimed k-dependence; and separately check whether the metric satisfies the field equations with a physically reasonable energy-momentum tensor. Either calculation can settle the central claim.

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

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

If this is right

  • If the central claim holds, a single black-hole image does not need to resolve the dark matter halo directly; the shadow's size and deformation already encode halo and plasma properties.
  • The non-monotonic dark-matter dependence means shadow size alone cannot fix the dark-matter parameter; at least one shape observable is needed to distinguish the two branches.
  • The fractional diameter deviation, being most sensitive to magnetic charge, gives an observational handle on the nonlinear electrodynamics parameter of regular black holes.
  • Angular and radial plasma profiles produce different signatures (size versus distortion), so future images can discriminate the geometry of the surrounding plasma distribution.
  • Current bounds on shadow circularity and diameter deviation already restrict the admissible (dark-matter parameter, plasma strength) region, so the model is falsifiable by existing data.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • A natural extension the paper leaves implicit: because plasma refraction is frequency-dependent, multi-wavelength imaging could separate plasma density from dark-matter effects: plasma signatures shift with photon frequency while gravitational ones do not.
  • The near-equatorial approximation used for the radially inhomogeneous plasma could be tested by taking the radial-only limit of the exactly separable general plasma model; disagreement there would mean the reported inhomogeneous-plasma distortions are partly an artifact.
  • The same constraint machinery could be applied to the Sgr A* fractional diameter deviation with either distance prior, not just the circularity bound, which would tighten or rule out the allowed region found here for M87*.
  • If the angular plasma profile's size reduction is generic, a disk-like plasma distribution could mimic or mask the magnetic-charge signal in diameter measurements; joint fitting of size and shape would be needed to break this degeneracy.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies the shadow of a rotating Bardeen black hole surrounded by perfect fluid dark matter (PFDM) and embedded in a non-magnetized plasma. Using the Hamilton–Jacobi formalism, it derives photon equations and shadow boundaries for three plasma models: an inhomogeneous radial profile treated in a near-equatorial approximation, a homogeneous profile, and a general separable r,θ-dependent profile. It then computes shadow observables (circularity deviation ΔC and fractional diameter deviation δ) and compares them with EHT bounds for M87* and Sgr A*, claiming that the combination of PFDM and plasma parameters can be constrained by black-hole imaging.

Significance. If the adopted spacetime is a genuine solution of the Einstein equations and the near-equatorial approximation is controlled, the paper offers a useful extension of plasma-shadow calculations to regular rotating black holes with dark-matter environments. The general plasma separation follows a standard, well-established framework, and the systematic exploration of spin, charge, PFDM, and plasma parameters is timely in view of EHT observations. However, the central claim is conditional on two unverified inputs: the rotating Bardeen–PFDM metric is assumed from the Newman–Janis algorithm without a field-equation check, and the main inhomogeneous-plasma results rely on an approximation with no error estimate. The work is therefore more an exploration of allowed parameter regions than a robust test of the model.

major comments (3)
  1. [§2, Eqs. (3)–(6)] The rotating Bardeen–PFDM line element is introduced as being "obtained with the help of Newman–Janis algorithm," with references [26,29,30], but no stress–energy tensor or field-equation verification is provided. The Newman–Janis trick does not by itself guarantee a solution of the Einstein equations for a non-vacuum seed; for a Bardeen-type nonlinear electrodynamics source plus an anisotropic PFDM fluid this must be checked explicitly. All shadow curves in §§5–7 inherit this unverified geometry. Please either display the matter action and stress–energy tensor and verify Einstein's equations, or explicitly state that the metric is an effective/phenomenological spacetime and temper the claim that imaging constrains the 'intrinsic properties' of the black hole.
  2. [§4.1.1, Eqs. (21)–(28), Figs. 2–3] The inhomogeneous-plasma case is solved under the near-equatorial approximation θ=π/2+ε, but no error estimate is given. The radial equation (22) is obtained after dropping θ-dependence of the plasma term in g^{00}, and the resulting shadow curves are presented as quantitative predictions in Figures 2 and 3. Section 7 itself states that this approximation makes a 'comprehensive inclination-dependent parameter study physically inconsistent.' This is an explicit admission that the approximation is not under control. Please quantify the error, for example by comparing with full numerical ray tracing for representative parameters, or restrict the claims to the regime where the approximation can be validated.
  3. [§7, Figs. 8–10] The EHT compatibility analysis is primarily a fitting exercise rather than a falsifiable prediction. The text quotes the VLTI/Keck bound −0.14<δ<0.01, but Figure 8 displays δ contours with values as negative as −0.255 and the admissible region is described only as being 'above the highlighted contour,' with no precise acceptance criterion. The subsequent contour plots in Figures 9–10 fix k=0.4 and ω=3.0, values selected from that region, so the model is not being tested; the parameters are tuned to satisfy the observational bounds. To avoid circular reasoning, state that the goal is to map allowed parameter regions, give the exact rule for declaring a point admissible in (ΔC,δ), and uniformly apply the EHT bounds to all plotted contours.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§4.1.1, §4.1.2, §5] The case labels are inconsistent: Case Ia is defined as the inhomogeneous plasma n=sqrt(1−k/r), while Case Ib is the homogeneous plasma n=sqrt(1−k). In §5, the homogeneous case is called 'Case Ia' in the text. Please correct the labels.
  2. [Eq. (3)] The final term in the metric contains 'σ' in the denominator where the rest of the paper uses Σ. This is presumably a typographical error and should be fixed.
  3. [§4.1.1 and §7] The paper states 'Throughout this work, the observer is assumed to lie in the equatorial plane, i.e., θ0=π/2,' but §7 uses an observer inclination angle of 17° for M87*. The statement should be restricted to the near-equatorial Case Ia or clarified.
  4. [§5] The critical PFDM parameter ωc is used extensively but never defined or evaluated. Since the two allowed PFDM branches are central to the discussion, ωc should be given explicitly for the chosen mass and charge values.
  5. [Eq. (52)–(53)] The effective potential is written as ˙r²+V_eff = E, which is dimensionally inconsistent because ˙r² has units of inverse length squared while E is conserved energy. The expression for ˙r² also appears to lack a Δ factor. Please check and rewrite.
  6. [References and definitions] In Eq. (61), the symbol R_sh is used but not defined; presumably it is the average shadow radius R_avg, but this should be stated. The reference list has a corrupted entry: after [45] there is trailing text 'ys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019).' References should be cleaned and checked for typographical errors.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged

Moderate load-bearing self-citation for the two-branch PFDM structure; the central plasma-shadow derivation itself is independent.

specific steps
  1. self citation load bearing [Section 2, paragraph following Eq. (6)]
    "Following our previous study [31], in which we established the two-branch horizon structure of the rotating Bardeen black hole in PFDM and analyzed the corresponding shadow properties and photon orbits, the present work extends the analysis by incorporating plasma effects. The PFDM parameter space, separated by the critical value ωc due to the non-monotonic evolution of the outer event horizon, is adopted throughout the present investigation."

    The two-branch PFDM parameter space is not re-derived or independently validated here; it is imported from the authors' own prior paper [31] and then used to structure every shadow calculation and the conclusion that the shadow shrinks for ω<ωc and expands for ω>ωc. That branch-dependent PFDM behavior is therefore justified solely by a same-author citation rather than by the present derivation. Because the plasma ray-optics calculation itself is independent of this citation, the circularity is partial rather than total.

full rationale

The core shadow calculation is not circular: the Hamilton–Jacobi plasma formalism is applied directly to the adopted rotating Bardeen–PFDM metric, and the shadow equations, celestial coordinates, and observables follow from the stated photon potentials rather than from an input assumption that already contains the shadow result. The EHT comparison is also framed honestly as parameter constraining, not as a prediction: the paper explicitly says the plasma and PFDM parameters 'were first constrained' and then used for subsequent analysis, so this is parameter estimation rather than circular prediction. The main circularity-adjacent issue is the load-bearing self-citation of [31] for the two-branch PFDM horizon structure that organizes the entire parameter-space analysis. There is also an important unverified premise—that the Newman–Janis metric of Eqs. (3)–(6) is an actual solution of the Einstein equations—but that is a correctness/model-validation concern, not a circularity of the derivation chain. Overall, the new plasma-shadow content has independent derivation, so the paper does not collapse into tautology, but the PFDM branch dependence should have been re-derived or externally supported.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

6 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No new particles, forces, dimensions, or conserved quantities are introduced. The magnetic monopole charge g is inherited from the Bardeen model and omega from Kiselev PFDM. The derivation relies on standard plasma ray optics, on the presumed validity of an NJ-generated metric, and on parameter choices that are ultimately fitted to EHT data.

free parameters (6)
  • PFDM parameter omega = constrained to allowed regions; e.g. omega=3.0 in Figs. 9-10
    Controls the dark-matter term in the metric; two-branch behavior imported from [31]; not predicted, fitted to EHT delta in §7.
  • Plasma strength k = k=0.4 used for intrinsic-parameter contours
    Sets the plasma refractive index; used to tune EHT observables in §7.
  • Spin parameter a = varied 0.2-0.9 in contours
    Kerr-like rotation parameter; scanned, not predicted.
  • Magnetic monopole charge g = varied 0.2-0.9; g=0.25 in Fig. 9
    Regularization charge in the Bardeen metric; scanned.
  • Normalized plasma frequency psi_c/psi_o = 0, 1, 3 in Figs. 4-5
    Sets the strength of the general plasma distribution; scanned.
  • Observer inclination theta_0 = 17 deg for M87*, varied 20-80 deg in Fig. 9
    Fixed by M87* jet orientation for the main constraints; varied to show inclination dependence.
axioms (5)
  • domain assumption The rotating Bardeen-PFDM metric (Eqs. 3-6) is a valid spacetime solution.
    Taken from [26] via the Newman-Janis algorithm; no verification that the line element solves the field equations with the stated sources.
  • standard math Hamiltonian H = 1/2[g^mu nu p_mu p_nu + psi_p^2] governs photon motion in plasma.
    Adopted from Synge and Perlick-Tsupko [27,34]; standard in the literature.
  • ad hoc to paper The near-equatorial approximation theta = pi/2 + epsilon gives an accurate shadow boundary for the inhomogeneous plasma case.
    Invoked in §4.1.1 to restore separability; error not quantified.
  • domain assumption Plasma and PFDM do not interact, and PFDM is described by the Kiselev perfect-fluid parameter omega.
    Stated in §3 and §8; astrophysical justification is heuristic.
  • domain assumption The shadow observables Delta_C and delta as defined in §7 are the relevant EHT quantities.
    Uses EHT definitions; no propagation of systematic uncertainties.

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 14799 in / 16262 out tokens · 150210 ms · 2026-08-01T13:17:21.168560+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Plasma-Induced Modifications of the Shadows of Rotating Bardeen Black Holes with Perfect Fluid Dark Matter." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/I6MSS5IW

@misc{pith2026260719152,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Plasma-Induced Modifications of the Shadows of Rotating Bardeen Black Holes with Perfect Fluid Dark Matter},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/I6MSS5IW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.19152}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

We study the optical appearance of a rotating regular Bardeen black hole embedded in perfect fluid dark matter (PFDM) when photon propagation occurs through a plasma medium. Three plasma models are examined: a homogeneous distribution, a radially varying distribution, and a general distribution with both radial and angular dependence. The influence of plasma on photon motion and the resulting shadow morphology is analysed using shadow observables. To assess astrophysical viability, the plasma and PFDM parameters are constrained using the Event Horizon Telescope bounds on shadow circularity and fractional diameter deviation. The results demonstrate that environmental effects arising from both PFDM and plasma produce measurable modifications to the shadow, indicating that black-hole imaging can provide useful constraints on the surrounding medium as well as the intrinsic properties of regular rotating black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.19152 by Gowtham Sidharth M, Sanjit Das.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Black hole shadow for different values of the PFDM pa [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Black hole shadow in a homogeneous plasma medium fo [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Black hole shadow in a inhomogeneous plasma medium [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Black hole shadow for different values of the normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Black hole shadow for different values of the normal [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Effective potential for photon motion in a homogene [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Influence of the plasma strength parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Contours of the deviation from circularity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Contour plots of the deviation from circularity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_9.png] view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Contours of the deviation from circularity, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_10.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

46 extracted references · 10 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    The Gravitational Field of a Particle,

    J. L. Synge, “The Gravitational Field of a Particle,” Proc. Roy. Irish Acad. A, vol. 53, pp. 83–114, 1950

    1950

  2. [2]

    Image of a Spherical Black Hole with Thin Accretion Disk,

    J.-P. Luminet, “Image of a Spherical Black Hole with Thin Accretion Disk,” Astronomy and Astrophysics , vol. 75, pp. 228–235, 1979

    1979

  3. [3]

    Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr me tric,

    J. M. Bardeen, “Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr me tric,” in Black Holes (Les Houches 1972) , edited by C. DeWitt and B. S. DeWitt, Gordon and Breach, New York, 1973, pp. 215–239

    1972

  4. [4]

    The apparent shape of a rotating charged bla ck hole, closed photon orbits and the bifurcation set A4,

    A. De Vries, “The apparent shape of a rotating charged bla ck hole, closed photon orbits and the bifurcation set A4,” Class. Quant. Grav. , vol. 17, pp. 123–144, 2000. doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/1/308

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381/17/1/308 2000

  5. [5]

    Imaging the black hole silho uette of M87: Implications for jet formation and black hole spin,

    A. E. Broderick and A. Loeb, “Imaging the black hole silho uette of M87: Implications for jet formation and black hole spin,” Astrophys. J. , vol. 697, no. 2, pp. 1164–1179, 2009. doi:10.1088/0004-637X/69 7/2/1164

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/69 2009

  6. [6]

    Photon re gions and shadows of accelerated black holes,

    A. Grenzebach, V. Perlick, and C. Lämmerzahl, “Photon re gions and shadows of accelerated black holes,” Int. J. Mod. Phys. D , vol. 24, no. 9, 1542024, 2015. doi:10.1142/S0218271815420249

    work page doi:10.1142/s0218271815420249 2015

  7. [7]

    Photon re gions and shadows of Kerr–Newman–NUT black holes with a cosmo- logical constant,

    A. Grenzebach, V. Perlick, and C. Lämmerzahl, “Photon re gions and shadows of Kerr–Newman–NUT black holes with a cosmo- logical constant,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 89, no. 12, 124004, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.89.124004

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.89.124004 2014

  8. [8]

    Observing the I n- ner Shadow of a Black Hole: A Direct View of the Event Hori- zon,

    A. Chael, M. D. Johnson, and A. Lupsasca, “Observing the I n- ner Shadow of a Black Hole: A Direct View of the Event Hori- zon,” arXiv preprint arXiv:2106.00683, 2021. [Online]. A vailable: https://arxiv.org/abs/2106.00683 25

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  9. [9]

    Observable shape of black h ole photon rings,

    S. E. Gralla and A. Lupsasca, “Observable shape of black h ole photon rings,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 102, no. 12, 124003, 2020. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.102.124003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.102.124003 2020

  10. [10]

    Shadows of Einstein–dilaton–Gauss–Bonnet black holes,

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, and H. F. Rúnars son, “Shadows of Einstein–dilaton–Gauss–Bonnet black holes,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 94, no. 10, 104023, 2016. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.94.1 04023

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.94.1 2016

  11. [11]

    Black Holes in Modified Gravity (MOG),

    J. W. Moffat, “Black Holes in Modified Gravity (MOG),” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 75, no. 4, 175, 2015. doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3 405-x

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3 2015

  12. [12]

    Shadow of charg ed worm- holes in Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton theory,

    M. Amir, A. Banerjee, and S. D. Maharaj, “Shadow of charg ed worm- holes in Einstein–Maxwell–dilaton theory,” Annals of Physics , vol. 400, pp. 198–211, 2019. doi:10.1016/j.aop.2018.10.013

    work page doi:10.1016/j.aop.2018.10.013 2019

  13. [13]

    S hadow of five-dimensional rotating Myers–Perry black hole,

    U. Papnoi, F. Atamurotov, S. G. Ghosh, and B. Ahmedov, “S hadow of five-dimensional rotating Myers–Perry black hole,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 90, no. 2, 024073, 2014. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.024073

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.024073 2014

  14. [14]

    Observing the shadow of Ein- stein–Gauss–Bonnet black holes,

    S. W. Wei and Y. X. Liu, “Observing the shadow of Ein- stein–Gauss–Bonnet black holes,” JCAP, vol. 2013, no. 11, 063, 2013. doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/063

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/11/063 2013

  15. [15]

    A coordi nate- independent characterization of a black hole shadow,

    A. Abdujabbarov, L. Rezzolla, and B. Ahmedov, “A coordi nate- independent characterization of a black hole shadow,” Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. , vol. 454, no. 3, pp. 2423–2435, 2015. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2079

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2079 2015

  16. [16]

    Non-singular General Relativistic Gra vitational Col- lapse,

    J. M. Bardeen, “Non-singular General Relativistic Gra vitational Col- lapse,” in Proceedings of the International Conference GR5 , Tbilisi, U.S.S.R., p. 174 (1968)

    1968

  17. [17]

    The Bardeen model as a nonl in- ear magnetic monopole,

    E. Ayón-Beato and A. García, “The Bardeen model as a nonl in- ear magnetic monopole,” Phys. Lett. B , vol. 493, pp. 149–152, 2000. doi:10.1016/S0370-2693(00)01125-4

    doi:10.1016/s0370-2693(00)01125-4 2000

  18. [18]

    Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii , from NGC 4605 (R = 4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R = 122kpc),

    V. C. Rubin, N. Thonnard, and W. K. Ford Jr., “Rotational properties of 21 SC galaxies with a large range of luminosities and radii , from NGC 4605 (R = 4kpc) to UGC 2885 (R = 122kpc),” Astrophys. J. , vol. 238, pp. 471–487, 1980. doi:10.1086/158003 26

    doi:10.1086/158003 1980

  19. [19]

    On the masses of nebulae and of clusters of ne bulae,

    F. Zwicky, “On the masses of nebulae and of clusters of ne bulae,” As- trophys. J. , vol. 86, pp. 217–246, 1937. doi:10.1086/143864

    doi:10.1086/143864 1937

  20. [20]

    Forma- tion of galaxies and large-scale structure with cold dark ma tter,

    G. R. Blumenthal, S. M. Faber, J. R. Primack, and M. J. Ree s, “Forma- tion of galaxies and large-scale structure with cold dark ma tter,” Nature, vol. 311, pp. 517–525, 1984. doi:10.1038/311517a0

    doi:10.1038/311517a0 1984

  21. [21]

    Dark Matter Substructure within Galactic Halos,

    B. Moore, S. Ghigna, F. Governato, G. Lake, T. Quinn, J. S tadel, and P. Tozzi, “Dark Matter Substructure within Galactic Halos, ” Astrophys. J. Lett. 524, L19–L22 (1999)

    1999

  22. [22]

    Small-Scale Chal lenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm,

    J. S. Bullock and M. Boylan-Kolchin, “Small-Scale Chal lenges to the ΛCDM Paradigm,” Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 343–387 (2017)

    2017

  23. [23]

    Quintessence and black holes,

    V. V. Kiselev, “Quintessence and black holes,” Class. Quantum Grav. , vol. 20, no. 6, pp. 1187–1198, 2003. doi:10.1088/0264-9381 /20/6/310

    work page doi:10.1088/0264-9381 2003

  24. [24]

    Rotating black hole shadow in perfect fluid dark matter,

    X. Hou, Z. Xu, and J. Wang, “Rotating black hole shadow in perfect fluid dark matter,” J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. , vol. 2018, no. 12, 040,

    2018

  25. [25]

    Sha dow and deflection angle of rotating black holes in perfect fluid dark matter with a cosmological constant,

    S. Haroon, M. Jamil, K. Jusufi, K. Lin, and R. B. Mann, “Sha dow and deflection angle of rotating black holes in perfect fluid dark matter with a cosmological constant,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 99, no. 4, 044015, 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044015

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.044015 2019

  26. [26]

    Bardeen black hole surrounded by perfect fluid dark matter,

    H.-X. Zhang, Y. Chen, T.-C. Ma, P.-Z. He, and J.-B. Deng, “Bardeen black hole surrounded by perfect fluid dark matter,” Chin. Phys. C , vol. 45, no. 5, 055103, 2021. doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abe84c

    work page doi:10.1088/1674-1137/abe84c 2021

  27. [27]

    Influence of a plasma on the shadow of a spherically symmetric black hole,

    V. Perlick, O. Yu. Tsupko, and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, “ Influence of a plasma on the shadow of a spherically symmetric black hole, ” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 92, no. 10, 104031, 2015. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.92.1 04031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.1 2015

  28. [28]

    Deflection of light rays by spherically sy mmetric black holes in presence of plasma: general integrals,

    O. Y. Tsupko, “Deflection of light rays by spherically sy mmetric black holes in presence of plasma: general integrals,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 95, 104058, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104058

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.104058 2017

  29. [29]

    Note on the Kerr Spinning-P article Metric,

    E. T. Newman and A. I. Janis, “Note on the Kerr Spinning-P article Metric,” J. Math. Phys. 6, 915–917 (1965). doi:10.1063/1.1704350 27

    doi:10.1063/1.1704350 1965

  30. [30]

    Generating rotating regular black ho le solu- tions without complexification,

    M. Azreg-Aïnou, “Generating rotating regular black ho le solu- tions without complexification,” Phys. Rev. D 90, 064041 (2014). doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.064041

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.90.064041 2014

  31. [31]

    Impact of Perfect Fluid Dark Ma tter on the Shadow of Rotating Non-Singular Magnetic Monopole,

    G. Sidharth M and S. Das, “Impact of Perfect Fluid Dark Ma tter on the Shadow of Rotating Non-Singular Magnetic Monopole,” Phys. Scr. 101, 205006 (2026). doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ae6a26

    work page doi:10.1088/1402-4896/ae6a26 2026

  32. [32]

    Propagation of electromagn etic waves through magnetized plasmas in arbitrary gravitational fiel ds,

    R. A. Breuer and J. Ehlers, “Propagation of electromagn etic waves through magnetized plasmas in arbitrary gravitational fiel ds,” Astron. Astrophys., vol. 96, no. 1–2, pp. 293–295, 1981

    1981

  33. [33]

    Perlick, Ray Optics, Fermat’s Principle, and Applications to Gen- eral Relativity, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs, Vol

    V. Perlick, Ray Optics, Fermat’s Principle, and Applications to Gen- eral Relativity, Lecture Notes in Physics Monographs, Vol. 61, Springer, Berlin, 2000. doi:10.1007/3-540-46670-3

    work page doi:10.1007/3-540-46670-3 2000

  34. [34]

    J. L. Synge, Relativity: The General Theory , North-Holland, Amster- dam, 1960

    1960

  35. [35]

    Frequency-dependent effects of gravitatio nal lensing within plasma,

    A. Rogers, “Frequency-dependent effects of gravitatio nal lensing within plasma,” Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. , vol. 451, no. 1, pp. 17–25, 2015. doi:10.1093/mnras/stv953

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stv953 2015

  36. [36]

    S hadow of rotating regular black holes,

    A. Abdujabbarov, M. Amir, B. Ahmedov, and S. G. Ghosh, “S hadow of rotating regular black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 93, 104004 (2016)

    2016

  37. [37]

    Shadow of a non- commutative geometry inspired Ayón Beato García black hole ,

    A. Saha, S. M. Modumudi, and S. Gangopadhyay, “Shadow of a non- commutative geometry inspired Ayón Beato García black hole ,” Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50, 103 (2018)

    2018

  38. [38]

    Light propagation in a pla sma on Kerr spacetime: Separation of the Hamilton-Jacobi equatio n and cal- culation of the shadow,

    V. Perlick and O. Yu. Tsupko, “Light propagation in a pla sma on Kerr spacetime: Separation of the Hamilton-Jacobi equatio n and cal- culation of the shadow,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 95, no. 10, 104003, 2017. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104003

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.95.104003 2017

  39. [39]

    Calculating black hole sha dows: Re- view of analytical studies,

    V. Perlick and O. Y. Tsupko, “Calculating black hole sha dows: Re- view of analytical studies,” Phys. Rept. , vol. 947, pp. 1–89, 2022. doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.11.001

    doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2021.11.001 2022

  40. [40]

    Tes ting the rota- tional nature of the supermassive object M87* from the circu larity and 28 size of its first image,

    C. Bambi, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, and L. Visinelli, “Tes ting the rota- tional nature of the supermassive object M87* from the circu larity and 28 size of its first image,” Phys. Rev. D , vol. 100, no. 4, 044057, 2019. doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044057

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.100.044057 2019

  41. [41]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black H ole,

    The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black H ole,” As- trophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  42. [42]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. V. Physical Origin of the Asymmetric Rin g,

    The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. V. Physical Origin of the Asymmetric Rin g,” Astro- phys. J. Lett. 875, L5 (2019)

    2019

  43. [43]

    First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. The Shadow and Mass of the Central Bla ck Hole,

    The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. The Shadow and Mass of the Central Bla ck Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019)

    2019

  44. [44]

    First Sag ittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassiv e Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way,

    The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, “First Sag ittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassiv e Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way,” Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  45. [45]

    First Sag ittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metri c,

    The Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, “First Sag ittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metri c,” Astro- phys. J. Lett. 930, L17 (2022). ys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019). 29

    2022

  46. [2018]

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/12/040

    doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2018/12/040 2018