Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 3 minor 1 cited by

Particle dynamics and optical appearance of charged spherically symmetric black holes in bumblebee gravity

T0 review · 4 major / 3 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 For charged spherically symmetric black holes in bumblebee gravity, the photon sphere and shadow radius shrink as the Lorentz-violation parameter l or the charge Q grows, and the paper shows how this appears in the black hole image.

desk verdict A competent, standard geodesics-plus-images study of a charged bumblebee metric taken from Liu et al.; the algebra checks out, but the shadow constraints ignore the non-asymptotically flat spatial metric and the EHT bound is under-specified. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.17566 v1 pith:K3M2G7YR submitted 2025-06-21 gr-qc

Mou Xu , Jianbo Lu , Ruonan Li , Yu Liu , Shu-Min Wu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords bumblebeegravitychargedblackholeparticledynamicsshadowphotonsphereLorentzsymmetryviolationthinaccretiondiskopticalappearance
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

Charged black holes in bumblebee gravity provide a test of whether Lorentz-symmetry violation leaves an imprint on what an observer actually sees. The paper argues that the Lorentz-violation parameter l and the charge Q pull the innermost stable circular orbit, the photon sphere, and the shadow radius inward, so these black holes always cast smaller shadows than their Reissner–Nordström and Schwarzschild-like counterparts. Using the shadow-radius measurement of the Galactic center source Sgr A*, it places upper bounds on l and Q. For thin-disk accretion, direct emission dominates the observed brightness, while increasing l widens the photon and lensed rings and increasing Q lowers their intensity peaks. The upshot is an optical signature that could separate bumblebee gravity from general relativity.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(r)=A(r)(L^2/r^2-\epsilon)/(1+l)$ that governs both timelike and null radial motion in the bumblebee metric. Imposing the photon-sphere conditions $V_{\rm eff}=1/(b^2(1+l))$ and $V_{\rm eff}'=0$ fixes the photon sphere radius and critical impact parameter, while the transfer-function mapping $r_m(b)$ and the orbit count $n(\phi)=\phi/(2\pi)$ classify photon trajectories into direct emission, lensed rings, and photon rings; the observed intensity is then the redshift-weighted sum $I_{\rm obs}(b)=\sum_r A(r_m(b))^2 I_{\rm em}(r_m(b))$. This machinery turns the metric parameters $l$ and $Q$ into concrete image features such as ring thickness and peak brightness.

What would settle it

Substitute the line element (9)–(10) and potential (11) into the field equations (3)–(7) for generic $l$ and $Q$ and check whether the equations are identically satisfied; a nonzero remainder at any radius would falsify the solution, and with it the shadow and image predictions. A separate observational check would be a higher-resolution measurement of the Sgr A* shadow that can resolve the predicted gap between the BCBH and Reissner–Nordström shadow radii.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

For the static spherically symmetric charged solution of bumblebee gravity with metric functions $A(r)=1-2M/r+2(1+l)Q^2/((2+l)r^2)$ and $B(r)=(1+l)/A(r)$, the paper derives closed expressions for the photon sphere radius $r_{\rm ph}$ and the critical impact parameter $b_{\rm ph}$ and shows that both decrease monotonically as the Lorentz-violation parameter $l$ or the charge $Q$ increases. Because the shadow radius $R_{\rm sh}$ equals $b_{\rm ph}$ for a distant observer, the shadow is always smaller than those of the Reissner–Nordström and Schwarzschild-like black holes with the same mass. The same monotonicity holds for the ISCO radius of massive particles, and the Keplerian frequency at fixed radius falls as $l$ or $Q$ grows. Applying the Sgr A* shadow-radius measurement yields upper bounds on $l$ and $Q$. In the simulated images from three thin-disk emission models, the observed intensity is dominated by direct emission; the lensed and photon rings widen with $l$ and their intensity peaks fall with $Q$, giving a parameter-dependent optical appearance that differs from the general-relativistic cases.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the metric (9)–(11), taken from the charged bumblebee solution, really is the gravitational field generated by the action (1)–(2), and that applying the shadow formula at infinity needs no additional correction for the spacetime's non-asymptotic flatness.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A larger $l$ or $Q$ means the event horizon, ISCO, photon sphere, and shadow all sit closer to the central mass, so a shadow that is small relative to the estimated mass is a potential sign of Lorentz violation.
  • The upper bounds on $l$ and $Q$ from Sgr A* shadow data limit how much Lorentz violation these black holes can carry while remaining consistent with current observations.
  • Because direct emission supplies most of the observed brightness, the $l$-dependent widening of the photon and lensed rings will be visible mainly through the ring structure rather than through the total flux.
  • For a fixed $l$, increasing the charge lowers the peak observed intensity of the rings, so charge leaves a dimming signature in the black hole image.
  • If a candidate black hole is identified with a specific $l$ and $Q$, the predicted shadow radius and intensity profile provide an observational template for distinguishing it from a Reissner–Nordström or Schwarzschild-like black hole.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper, the same effective-potential machinery could be turned on rotating bumblebee black holes; if the $l$-driven widening of photon and lensed rings survives spin, it could be separated from the spin-induced asymmetry in general-relativistic images.
  • The three emission profiles are toy models; repeating the image calculation for magnetized or geometrically thick disks would show whether direct-emission dominance and the $l$-dependent ring widening are robust enough for real observations.
  • Because the paper gives the Keplerian frequency for circular orbits, a measured quasi-periodic oscillation from an accretion disk near a candidate black hole could provide an independent handle on $l$ and $Q$.
  • The Sgr A* bound on $l$ and $Q$ suggests a direct extension: combine shadow-size constraints from several sources with independent mass estimates to narrow the allowed parameter region.
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

4 major / 3 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies test-particle dynamics and the optical appearance of static spherically symmetric charged black holes in bumblebee gravity, working with the metric of Liu et al. [40]. It derives effective potentials, ISCO radii, Keplerian frequencies, photon-sphere and shadow radii, uses Sgr A* EHT shadow data to constrain the Lorentz-violation parameter l and charge Q, and computes images under three thin-disk emission models. The central claims are that l and Q decrease the ISCO radius, photon-sphere radius, and shadow radius below the Reissner-Nordstrom and Schwarzschild-like values, and that the images show wider lensed/photon rings and lower intensity peaks as these parameters increase.

Significance. If the adopted solution is a genuine configuration of bumblebee gravity, the paper provides concrete, falsifiable links between Lorentz-violation parameters and EHT-observable shadow sizes and image morphology. The geodesic algebra is internally consistent and reduces correctly to standard limits in the checked cases (r_ISCO=6M, r_ph=3M, and Omega=sqrt(M/r^3) at Q=0), and the EHT data are used as a posterior constraint rather than as an input for constructing the predictions. The main risk is that the spacetime metric is imported from an external reference without verification; this is a correctness risk rather than circularity.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II, Eqs. (9)-(11)] All subsequent results are computed from a metric imported from Ref. [40], but the paper does not state the bumblebee field configuration B^mu, the potential V(X), or show that Eqs. (9)-(11) satisfy the coupled field equations (3), (6), and (7) for l different from zero. Since the bumblebee-gravity interpretation of the ISCO, shadow, and image predictions rests entirely on this solution, please provide the missing configuration or an explicit statement of the equations in [40] that establish the solution, and discuss whether the non-asymptotically flat spatial metric (B(infinity)=1+l) affects the identification of M and the shadow-radius comparison.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eq. (26) and Fig. 5] The Abstract and Section V state that r_ISCO decreases as l increases, but for Q=0 Eq. (26) reduces to r_ISCO=6M with no l dependence; the claim should be qualified as holding for Q>0, or the statement should be corrected.
  3. [Sec. III.B, Tables I-II] The EHT constraint calculation is under-specified: the paper does not state the adopted Sgr A* shadow-radius value, the 1-sigma interval, or the inequality used to produce Tables I-II, and the tables report only upper bounds with no lower bounds. Please specify the observational input and the exact condition used to generate the tables.
  4. [Eq. (34)] As typeset, the shadow-radius formula does not appear to reduce to b_ph=3*sqrt(3)M in the Schwarzschild limit l=0, Q=0; the displayed expression seems to give sqrt(3)M, which is inconsistent with the numerical values in Tables III-IV. Please rewrite Eq. (34) and verify its Schwarzschild and Reissner-Nordstrom limits.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eqs. (17)-(18)] The symbol E is reused for the conserved energy of Eq. (14) and for the newly defined effective energy E^2/(1+l); please use distinct notations to avoid confusion.
  2. [Figs. 16-21] The captions do not label the individual panels; since each figure contains up to four panels, please identify the panels explicitly in the captions.
  3. [After Eq. (12)] The parameter domain is not fully stated: the paper gives Q^2 <= (2+l)/(2(1+l)) but does not explicitly state the assumed range of l (for example l >= 0) used in all figures and tables.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the central geodesic, shadow, and image results are derived from an external metric solution, and the EHT data are used only to constrain free parameters, not to construct the predictions.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained once the metric is accepted as input. The metric functions A(r) and B(r) in Eqs. (9)-(11) are taken from Liu et al. [40], an external reference with no author overlap with the present work, so the spacetime is an independent input rather than a self-citation. All subsequent results—timelike effective potential, ISCO radius, Keplerian frequency, photon sphere, shadow radius, photon trajectories, transfer functions, and image intensities—are computed by standard geodesic algebra from that metric, not by fitting to the quantities being predicted. The EHT Sgr A* shadow-radius data are used only to constrain the allowed ranges of l and Q (Tables I-II), and the representative values used in the image simulations (e.g., l=0.2, Q=0.7) are selected inside the allowed region rather than tuned to reproduce the advertised optical appearance; the optical-appearance conclusions are therefore not statistically forced by the observational input. No definitional equivalence, fitted-input-called-prediction step, uniqueness theorem imported from the authors' own prior work, or renaming of known results is present. The only substantive concern is whether the adopted metric genuinely solves the full bumblebee field equations for l≠0, especially given the non-asymptotically flat limit B(∞)=1+l; that is a correctness or validity risk about an external solution, not a circularity of the present derivation. Accordingly, the appropriate finding is no significant circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central quantitative results rest on the charged bumblebee metric from [40] and on the EHT shadow measurement as an external benchmark. No new physical entities are introduced. The free parameters l and Q are constrained (not fitted) by the Sgr A* shadow data, and representative values are selected for the image simulations. The toy emission models are explicit ad hoc inputs.

free parameters (2)
  • Lorentz-violation parameter l = l=0.2 used in main imaging; EHT upper bound 0.8549 for Q=0.7
    Controls the metric via B(r)=(1+l)/A(r) and the 1/(1+l) normalization of the effective potential. Not fitted to produce the images; representative values are chosen inside the Sgr A* allowed region.
  • Charge parameter Q = Q=0.7 used in main imaging; EHT upper bound 0.7639 for l=0.2
    Appears in A(r) as 2(1+l)Q^2/((2+l)r^2). Representative values are chosen inside the Sgr A* allowed region; no lower bound is reported.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The bumblebee gravity action with the non-minimally coupled electromagnetic field (Eqs. 1-2) admits the static spherically symmetric solution (Eqs. 9-11) as the exact charged black hole spacetime.
    All geodesic and imaging results inherit this metric from [40]; the paper does not re-derive or test the solution's consistency.
  • domain assumption Test particles and photons follow geodesics of the metric, with the standard conserved energy and angular momentum defined from the Lagrangian in Eq. (13).
    The geodesic approximation is assumed throughout Section III; no alternative motion (e.g., Lorentz-violating corrections to particle dispersion) is considered.
  • domain assumption The Sgr A* shadow radius reported by the EHT applies to a static, spherically symmetric, non-spinning black hole model, and its 1-sigma interval directly constrains l and Q.
    Sgr A* is rotating and accreting; the paper does not model spin, inclination, or astrophysical environment when converting the measured shadow size into parameter bounds.
  • ad hoc to paper The three thin-disk emission profiles (Eqs. 45-47) are representative of real accretion flows, with isotropic emission from a geometrically thin equatorial disk.
    These are toy models chosen by hand; the observed intensity and ring classification depend on them, as the paper acknowledges.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle dynamics and optical appearance of charged spherically symmetric black holes in bumblebee gravity." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/K3M2G7YR

@misc{pith2026250617566,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle dynamics and optical appearance of charged spherically symmetric black holes in bumblebee gravity},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/K3M2G7YR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.17566}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study the particle dynamics, shadow, and optical appearance of charged black holes (BHs) in bumblebee gravity. Firstly, we find that the Lorentz-violation parameter l and charge parameter Q have opposite effects on the peak of the effective potential by analyzing timelike geodesics, and the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) decreases as the BH parameters l and Q increase. We also explore the behaviors of particle energy, angular momentum, and Keplerian frequency. Secondly, for null geodesics, both the photon sphere radius and the shadow radius decrease with increasing l and Q, and are consistently smaller than those of the Reissner-Nordstrom black hole (RNBH) and Schwarzschild-like BH. And based on observational data reported by the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) Collaboration, we constrain the parameters l and Q by using the shadow radius data of Sgr A*. Thirdly, we explore the observation characteristics of charged BHs under three thin disk accretion models. The results show that, compared to RNBH, the increase of l leads to a greater thickness of the photon rings and lensed rings. However, due to their extremely narrow ranges, the contributions are small, and the observed intensities are mainly contributed by the direct emissions. Moreover, when the parameter l is fixed, the peaks of the observed intensities of rings decrease with increasing Q for the same emission model, and it is always lower than the corresponding value for Schwarzschild-like BH. These findings contribute to distinguishing bumblebee charged black holes (BCBHs) from other types of BHs based on their optical appearance.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.17566 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The variation of event horizon radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The variation of the effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (18 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The variation of the energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The dependence of the ISCO radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: The variation of the Keplerian frequency Ω of massive particles with respect to the radial coordinate [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The variation of the effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The variation of the photon sphere radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The variation of BCBHs shadow radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The trajectories of photons around BCBHs of different charge parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The trajectories of photons around BCBHs of different LV parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: The total number of photon orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The photon trajectories around BCBHs in the polar coordinates ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14: The photon trajectories around BCBHs in the polar coordinates ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: FIG. 15: For thin accretion disk emission, the first three transfer functions of BCBH spacetime for different BH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_15.png]
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16: In emission model I, the effect of different charge parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17: In emission model I, the effect of different LV parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18: In emission model II, the effect of different charge parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: FIG. 19: In emission model II, the effect of different LV parameters [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_19.png]
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20: In emission model III, the effect of different charge parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21: In emission model III, the effect of different LV parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_21.png]

Review history (2 revisions) →

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. Boson Stars in Bumblebee Gravity and Their Gravitational Waveforms from Extreme-Mass-Ratio Inspirals

    gr-qc 2025-12 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    In bumblebee gravity, the Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ makes mini-boson stars more compact for positive ℓ and produces LISA-detectable, sustained EMRI waveforms for penetrating orbits.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

113 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [40]

    Liu, W.D

    J.Z. Liu, W.D. Guo, S.W. Wei, Y.X. Liu. Eur. Phys. J. C 85:145 (2025)

    work page 2025

  2. [1]

    Abbott et al

    B.P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations]. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  3. [2]

    Akiyama et al

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

    2019

  4. [3]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration]. Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L4 (2019)

    2019

  5. [4]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration]. Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019)

    2019

  6. [5]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration]. Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  7. [6]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration]. Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L14 (2022)

    2022

  8. [7]

    Akiyama, et al

    K. Akiyama, et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration]. Astrophys. J. Lett. 930 (2022) L17

    2022

Show all 113 references
  1. [8]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin. Phys. Rev. D 59, 124021 (1999)

    1999

  2. [9]

    Bojowald, H

    M. Bojowald, H. A. Morales-Tecotl and H. Sahlmann. Phys. Rev. D 71, 084012 (2005)

    2005

  3. [10]

    Alfaro, H

    J. Alfaro, H. A. Morales-Tecotl, and L. F. Urrutia. Phys. Rev. D 65, 103509 (2002)

    2002

  4. [11]

    S. M. Carroll, J. A. Harvey, V. A. Kostelecky, C. D. Lane, and T. Okamoto. Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 141601 (2001)

    2001

  5. [12]

    Mocioiu, M

    I. Mocioiu, M. Pospelov, R. Roiban. Phys. Lett. B 489, 390 (2000)

    2000

  6. [13]

    A. F. Ferrari, M. Gomes, J. R. Nascimento, E. Passos, A. Yu. Petrov, A. J. da Silva. Phys. Lett. B 652, 174 (2007)

    2007

  7. [14]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel. Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  8. [15]

    Bluhm and V

    R. Bluhm and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 71, 065008 (2005)

    2005

  9. [16]

    V. A. Kostelecky, S. Samuel. Phys. Rev. Lett. 63, 224 (1989)

    1989

  10. [17]

    V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004)

    2004

  11. [18]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, E. B. Santos, Phys. Rev. D 97, 104001 (2018)

    2018

  12. [19]

    J. D. Tasson, Rept. Prog. Phys. 77, 062901 (2014)

    2014

  13. [20]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. R. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, and S. Sarkar, Nature 393, 763 (1998)

    1998

  14. [21]

    Piran and D

    T. Piran and D. D. Ofengeim, Phys. Rev. D 109, L081501 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    Cao et al

    Z. Cao et al. (LHAASO), Phys. Rev. Lett. 133, 071501 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 55, 6760 (1997)

    1997

  17. [24]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  18. [25]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Lett. B, 511, 209 (2001)

    2001

  19. [26]

    V. A. Kostelecky and R. Lehnert, Phys. Rev. D 63, 065008 (2001)

    2001

  20. [27]

    V. A. Kostelecky and M. Mewes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 87, 251304 (2001)

    2001

  21. [28]

    Colladay and P

    D. Colladay and P. McDonald, Phys. Rev. D 79, 125019 (2009)

    2009

  22. [29]

    M. S. Berger, V. A. Kostelecky, and Z. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 93, 036005 (2016)

    2016

  23. [30]

    A. A. Andrianov and R. Soldati, Phys. Lett. B 435, 449 (1998)

    1998

  24. [31]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 40, 1886 (1989)

    1989

  25. [32]

    Q. G. Bailey and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 74, 045001 (2006)

    2006

  26. [33]

    R. V. Maluf, V. Santos, W. T. Cruz, and C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Rev. D 88, 025005 (2013)

    2013

  27. [34]

    Li and A

    Z. Li and A. Ovgun, Phys. Rev. D 101, 024040 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    C. A. Escobar and A. Martın-Ruiz, Phys. Rev. D 95, 095006 (2017)

    2017

  29. [36]

    R. V. Maluf, J. E. G. Silva, and C. A. S. Almeida, Phys. Lett. B 749, 304 (2015)

    2015

  30. [37]

    S. M. Carroll, T. R. Dulaney, M. I. Gresham, and H. Tam, Phys. Rev. D 79, 065011 (2009)

    2009

  31. [38]

    A. V. Kostelecky and J. D. Tasson, Phys. Rev. D 83, 016013 (2011)

    2011

  32. [39]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Phys. Rev. D 103, 044002 (2021). 25

    2021

  33. [41]

    C. Ding, C. Liu, R. Casana, and A. Cavalcante, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 178 (2020)

    2020

  34. [42]

    Gullu, A

    I. Gullu, A. Ovgun. Ann. Phys. 436, 168721 (2022)

    2022

  35. [43]

    C. Ding, X. Chen, X. Fu. Nucl. Phys. B 975, 115688 (2022)

    2022

  36. [44]

    Ovgun, K

    A. Ovgun, K. Jusufi, and I. Sakallı, Phys. Rev. D 99, 024042 (2019)

    2019

  37. [45]

    Karmakar, D.J

    R. Karmakar, D.J. Gogoi, U.D Goswami, Physics of the Dark Universe, 2023, 41: 101249

    2023

  38. [46]

    Z.F. Mai, R. Xu, D. Liang, and L. Shao, Phys. Rev. D 108, 024004 (2023)

    2023

  39. [47]

    An, Phys

    Y.S. An, Phys. Dark Univ. 45, 101520 (2024)

    2024

  40. [48]

    Kanzi and I

    S. Kanzi and I. Sakallı, Nucl. Phys. B 946, 114703 (2019)

    2019

  41. [49]

    Oliveira, D

    R. Oliveira, D. M. Dantas, and C. A. S. Almeida, EPL 135, 10003 (2021)

    2021

  42. [50]

    Zhang, M

    X. Zhang, M. Wang, and J. Jing, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron. 66, 100411 (2023)

    2023

  43. [51]

    Gogoi, U.D

    D.J. Gogoi, U.D. Goswami, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2022 (06): 029

    2022

  44. [52]

    K. M. Amarilo, M. B. F. Filho, A. A. A. Filho, and J. A. A. S. Reis, Phys. Lett. B, 855, 138785 (2024)

    2024

  45. [53]

    S.K. Jha, A. Rahaman. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 345 (2021)

    2021

  46. [54]

    Wang, S.-W

    H.M. Wang, S.-W. Wei. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 137, 571 (2022)

    2022

  47. [55]

    Ovgun, K

    A. Ovgun, K. Jusufi, and I. Sakalli, Annals Phys. 399, 193 (2018)

    2018

  48. [56]

    S.K. Jha, H. Barman, A. Rahaman, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2021 (04): 036

    2021

  49. [57]

    Kanzi, I

    S. Kanzi, I. Sakalli. Eur. Phys. J. C 81, 501 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Uniyal, S

    A. Uniyal, S. Kanzi, I. Sakalli. Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 668 (2023)

    2023

  51. [59]

    Lessa, R.B

    L.A. Lessa, R.B. Magalhaes, M.M.F. Junior, [arXiv:2505.01374]

    arXiv

  52. [60]

    Zhang, Y.P

    H.Y. Zhang, Y.P. Hu, Y.S. An. [arXiv:2503.02323]

    arXiv

  53. [61]

    Schmidt, Physical Review D, 2008, 78(4): 043002

    F. Schmidt, Physical Review D, 2008, 78(4): 043002

    2008

  54. [62]

    Kuang, Z.Y

    X.M. Kuang, Z.Y. Tang, B. Wang, et al. Physical Review D, 2022, 106(6): 064012

    2022

  55. [63]

    Zhang, R

    Z. Zhang, R. Zhang, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 42 (2025) 115006

    2025

  56. [64]

    Zhang, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 2021, 39(1): 015003

    Z. Zhang, Classical and Quantum Gravity, 2021, 39(1): 015003

    2021

  57. [65]

    Guo, K.J

    S. Guo, K.J. He, G.R. Li, G.P. Li. Class. Quantum Gravity 38, 165013 (2021)

    2021

  58. [66]

    Sui, X.X

    X.J.Gao, T.T. Sui, X.X. Zeng et al. Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 1052 (2023)

    2023

  59. [67]

    Chandrasekhar, K.S

    S. Chandrasekhar, K.S. Thorne, Today 37, 5-26 (1984)

    1984

  60. [68]

    Podolsky, Gen

    J. Podolsky, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 31, 1703-1725 (1999)

    1999

  61. [69]

    Stuchlak, P

    Z. Stuchlak, P. Slany, Phys. Rev. D 69, 064001 (2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    Abdujabbarov, B

    A. Abdujabbarov, B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D 81, 044022 (2010)

    2010

  63. [71]

    Chandler, M.H

    J. Chandler, M.H. Emam, Phys. Rev. D 91, 125024 (2015)

    2015

  64. [72]

    Konoplya, Z

    R.A. Konoplya, Z. Stuchlak, Phys Lett. B 771, 597-602 (2017)

    2017

  65. [73]

    Witzany and G

    V. Witzany and G. A. Piovano, Phys. Rev. Lett. 132.17, 171401 (2024)

    2024

  66. [74]

    Hackmann and C

    E. Hackmann and C. Lammerzahl, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 171101 (2008)

    2008

  67. [75]

    Hoseini, R

    B. Hoseini, R. Saffari and S. Soroushfar, Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136. 5, 489 (2021)

    2021

  68. [76]

    J. C. Drawer and S. Grunau, Eur. Phys. J. C 80. 6, 536 (2020)

    2020

  69. [77]

    Liu and B

    Y. Liu and B. Sun, Chin. Phys. C 48. 4, 045107 (2024)

    2024

  70. [78]

    Y. C. Ko, D. S. Lee and C. Y. Lin, Phys. Rev. D 109.8, 084043 (2024)

    2024

  71. [79]

    Chen and S

    K. Chen and S. W. Wei, Phys. Rev. D 110.2, 024041 (2024)

    2024

  72. [80]

    Y. Z. Li, X. M. Kuang and Y. Sang, Eur. Phys. J. C 84.5, 529 (2024)

    2024

  73. [81]

    Shaymatov, M

    S. Shaymatov, M. Jamil, K. Jusufi and K. Bamba, Eur. Phys. J. C 82, no.7, 636 (2022)

    2022

  74. [82]

    Shaymatov, B

    S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov and M. Jamil, Eur. Phys. J. C 81, no.7, 588 (2021). 26

    2021

  75. [83]

    Al-Badawi and M

    A. Al-Badawi and M. Q. Owaidat, General Relativity and Gravitation 55:131 (2023)

    2023

  76. [84]

    Gralla, D.E

    S.E. Gralla, D.E. Holz, R.M. Wald. Phys. Rev. D 100, 024018 (2019)

    2019

  77. [85]

    Cunha, C.A.R

    P.V.P. Cunha, C.A.R. Herdeiro. Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50, 42 (2018)

    2018

  78. [86]

    Cunha, C.A.R

    P.V.P. Cunha, C.A.R. Herdeiro, M.J. Rodriguez. Phys. Rev. D vol. 97, 084020 (2018)

    2018

  79. [87]

    Takahashi

    R. Takahashi. The Astrophysical Journal 611, 996-1004 (2004)

    2004

  80. [88]

    Qin, S.B

    X. Qin, S.B. Chen, J.L. Jing. Class. Quantum Gravity 38, 115008 (2021)

    2021

  81. [89]

    Bardeen, Timelike and null geodesics in the kerr metric, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), edited by C

    J.M. Bardeen, Timelike and null geodesics in the kerr metric, in Black Holes (Les Astres Occlus), edited by C. DeWitt, B.S. DeWitt (Gordon and Breach Science Publishers, Inc., New York, 1973)

    1973

  82. [90]

    He et al

    K.J. He et al. Chinese Phys. C 46, 085106 (2022)

    2022

  83. [91]

    S. Hu, C. Deng, D. Li, X. Wu and E. Liang. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 10, 885 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    Jusufi, M

    K. Jusufi, M. Jamil, T. Zhu. Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 354 (2020)

    2020

  85. [93]

    Cunha, C.A.R

    P.V.P. Cunha, C.A.R. Herdeiro, E. Radu, H.F. Runarsson. Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 211102 (2015)

    2015

  86. [94]

    Bambi, K

    C. Bambi, K. Freese, S. Vagnozzi, L. Visinelli. Phys. Rev. D 100, 044057 (2019)

    2019

  87. [95]

    Sui, Q.M

    T.T. Sui, Q.M. Fu, W.D. Guo. Physics Letters B 845, 10, 138135 (2023)

    2023

  88. [96]

    S. Wen, W. Hong, J. Tao. Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 277 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    A. C. Lehum, J. R. Nascimento, A. Y. Petrov, and P. J. Porfirio (2024), 2402.17605

    2024 arXiv

  90. [98]

    Perlick, O.Y

    V. Perlick, O.Y. Tsupko. Phys. Rep. 947, (2022)

    2022

  91. [99]

    K. S. Virbhadra. Phys. Rev. D 106, no.6, 064038 (2022)

    2022

  92. [100]

    X. J. Gao, J. M. Chen, H. Zhang, Y. Yin and Y. P. Hu. Phys. Lett. B 822, 136683 (2021)

    2021

  93. [101]

    F. H. Zuluaga, L. A. Sanchez. Eur. Phys. J. C 81,9, 840 (2021)

    2021

  94. [102]

    R. C. Pantig, A. Ovgun. Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics 08, 08, 056 (2022)

    2022

  95. [103]

    Kazempour, Y.C

    S. Kazempour, Y.C. Zou, A.R. Akbarieh. Eur. Phys. J. C 82, 3, 190 (2022)

    2022

  96. [104]

    Mizuno, Z

    Y. Mizuno, Z. Younsi, C.M. Fromm, et al. Nat.Astron. 2, 585-590 (2018)

    2018

  97. [105]

    D. Psaltis. Gen. Relativ. Grav. 51, 137 (2019)

    2019

  98. [106]

    Stepanian, S

    A. Stepanian, S. Khlghatyan, V.G. Gurzadyan. Eur. Phys. J. Plus 136,127(2021)

    2021

  99. [107]

    Younsi, D

    Z. Younsi, D. Psaltis, F. Ozel. Astrophys. J. 942,47 (2023)

    2023

  100. [108]

    R.K.Walia, S.G.Ghosh, S.D. Maharaj. Astrophys. J. 939, 2, 77 (2022)

    2022

  101. [109]

    Vagnozzi, R

    S. Vagnozzi, R. Roy, Y.D. Tsai, et al. Classical and Quantum Gravity 40, 16, 165007 (2023)

    2023

  102. [110]

    Khodadi, G

    M. Khodadi, G. Lambiase, Physical Review D, 2022, 106(10): 104050

    2022

  103. [111]

    Walia, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, (03): 029

    R.K. Walia, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2023, (03): 029

    2023

  104. [112]

    Ghorani, B

    E. Ghorani, B. Puli¸ ce, F. Atamurotov, et al. The European Physical Journal C, 2023, 83(4): 318

    2023

  105. [113]

    Guo, G.R

    S. Guo, G.R. Li, E.W. Liang. Physical Review D, 105; 023024 (2022)

    2022

Pith tools

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