Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 83 references

Magnetic field boosts light bending around rotating black holes

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 · glm-5.2

2026-07-09 10:51 UTC pith:OVI6C35K

load-bearing objection The paper applies the material medium approach to the recently introduced KBR spacetime, but the central light-bending result rests on a deflection integral that does not converge for B>0 because the spacetime is not asymptotically flat. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.07437 v1 pith:OVI6C35K submitted 2026-07-08 gr-qc

Light bending around the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole using material medium approach

Saswati Roy , Anshul Tapase , Shubham Kala , Hemwati Nandan , Asoke Kumar Sen This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holelight deflectionmaterial medium approachrefractive indexframe draggingasymptotic non-flatnessblack hole thermodynamicsgravitational lensing
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 studies how light bends around a rotating black hole immersed in a uniform magnetic field — the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson (KBR) spacetime — using the material medium approach, which replaces the gravitational field with an effective refractive index. The authors derive an analytical expression for the deflection angle and find that the external magnetic field does not merely perturb the black hole's gravity but fundamentally restructures the optical properties of spacetime at all distances. Specifically, the magnetic field increases the deflection of light beyond what a standard rotating (Kerr) black hole produces, and it prevents the refractive index from approaching unity at large distances, meaning the space never settles into a flat vacuum. The paper also examines thermodynamic properties, finding that the magnetic field raises the Hawking temperature while reducing entropy, and that rotation lowers both quantities.

Core claim

The central object is the effective refractive index n(r, α, B) of the KBR spacetime, derived by converting the linearized KBR metric into isotropic form and reading off the coordinate speed of light. The key result is that when the magnetic field parameter B is nonzero, the refractive index does not asymptote to 1 at large distances — instead it continues to decrease toward zero, reflecting the fact that the KBR spacetime is not asymptotically flat but transitions to a Bertotti-Robinson universe where the electromagnetic field permanently warps the far-field geometry. This means the magnetic field acts as a permanent optical medium that enhances light deflection and creates a direction-asym

What carries the argument

The argument proceeds by: (1) linearizing the KBR metric in the equatorial plane under a far-field approximation, (2) transforming to isotropic coordinates so the spatial part is conformally flat, (3) identifying the coordinate speed of light from the null condition to obtain the refractive index n(r, α, B), (4) computing the frame-dragging term dφ/dt from the four-momentum formalism, (5) substituting both into a standard deflection integral (Eq. 31), and (6) separately computing horizon area, surface gravity, entropy, and Hawking temperature from standard black hole thermodynamic relations.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation applies a far-field approximation that assumes the metric approaches a flat Minkowski-like form in order to derive the refractive index, and then uses that same refractive index to conclude that the spacetime does not approach a flat vacuum — creating a tension between the approximation used to obtain the result and the physical conclusion drawn from it.

What would settle it

If the deflection integral (Eq. 31) is evaluated exactly for B > 0 without truncation, and the integral fails to converge or yields a deflection angle that diverges, then the claim that the magnetic field produces a well-defined enhanced bending angle would not hold.

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

If this is right

  • If the magnetic field permanently prevents the refractive index from reaching 1, then gravitational lensing observations of black holes in magnetized environments cannot be modeled using standard asymptotically flat lensing formulas — the deflection angle integral may not converge in the usual way, requiring modified integration limits or matched asymptotic techniques.
  • The direction-dependent splitting of the refractive index between prograde and retrograde photons, combined with the magnetic field's non-decaying contribution, could produce a characteristic signature in lensed images that distinguishes KBR black holes from Kerr black holes.
  • The thermodynamic result that entropy growth is suppressed by the magnetic background suggests that magnetized black holes store less information per unit horizon area than their unmagnetized counterparts, which could affect entropy-counting arguments in quantum gravity.
  • The finding that Hawking temperature eventually increases with horizon radius at sufficiently large size in strong magnetic fields inverts the standard 'larger is colder' behavior and could affect evaporation endpoints for black holes in extreme electromagnetic environments.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The deflection integral (Eq. 31) is written with an upper limit of infinity, but if the refractive index does not approach 1 at large r, the integrand may not decay fast enough for the integral to converge — suggesting the deflection angle could be formally infinite or ill-defined without a finite-distance cutoff, which the paper does not explicitly address.
  • The coordinate-velocity divergence (superluminal appearance) at large r for B > 0 is attributed to coordinate stretching rather than physical superluminal propagation, but this raises the question of whether the material medium analogy remains physically meaningful in a regime where the effective medium has a refractive index approaching zero rather than unity.
  • If the KBR spacetime is not asymptotically flat, the standard gravitational lensing observables (Einstein ring radius, magnification) that assume flat incoming and outgoing light rays may need to be reformulated for this geometry, potentially requiring a different observational framework than standard weak-lensing theory.

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 / 8 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies light deflection by a Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson (KBR) black hole using the material medium (effective refractive index) approach, and additionally examines the thermodynamic properties (entropy, Hawking temperature) of the KBR spacetime. The refractive index is derived from the isotropic form of the linearized KBR metric under a far-field approximation, incorporating frame-dragging effects. The deflection angle is then computed via a standard optical integral. The thermodynamic quantities are obtained from the horizon area and surface gravity. The paper concludes that the external magnetic field enhances light bending and prevents the spacetime from becoming asymptotically flat.

Significance. The paper applies a known formalism (material medium approach) to a recently constructed exact solution (KBR). The derivation of the refractive index (Eq. 28) and the thermodynamic expressions (Eqs. 33, 35, 39, 41) are parameter-free in the sense that they follow from the metric. The frame-dragging analysis and the comparative plots across spacetimes (Schwarzschild, SBR, Kerr, KBR) are a useful contribution. However, the central light-bending result faces a regime-of-validity problem that undermines the primary claim.

major comments (3)
  1. §IV, Eqs. (29)–(31): The deflection integral (Eq. 29) is the standard formula Δφ = 2∫_β^∞ (dr/r)[(n(r)r/(n(β)β))² − 1]^(−1/2) − π, which presupposes n(r)→1 as r→∞ so the integral converges. In the KBR spacetime, the approximate refractive index (Eq. 30) gives n(r) ≈ (1/a)(1 + b/(ar) − B²r² − ...), which becomes negative for r ≳ 1/B and diverges as −B²r²/a at large r. The exact refractive index (Eq. 13) gives n(r) ~ 1/(aB²r²) → 0 at large r. In either case, the integrand of Eq. (29) does not decay; it becomes imaginary beyond a finite radius (for the exact n) or diverges (for the approximate n). The deflection angle is therefore not well-defined as a real-valued integral to infinity for B > 0. The paper reports finite deflection angles in Fig. 5 without stating the upper integration cutoff, and the results would depend on its value. This is a load-bearing issue for the paper's central def
  2. §III, Eqs. (5)–(11): The far-field approximation (α²/r² << 1) is applied to linearize the KBR metric and derive the isotropic form and refractive index. However, the KBR spacetime is not asymptotically flat; it transitions to a Bertotti-Robinson universe at large distances (as the authors themselves note in the discussion of Fig. 2 and Fig. 4d). The far-field approximation assumes the metric approaches a Minkowski-like form, but the KBR metric does not. This creates a tension: the derivation of the refractive index uses an approximation valid in an asymptotically flat regime, but the spacetime is not in that regime. The authors should clarify the domain of validity of the approximation and whether the deflection results (which use the refractive index derived under this approximation) lie within this regime.
  3. §IV, Fig. 5: The deflection angles shown are finite, but given the integral convergence issue above, the authors must specify the upper integration limit used in the numerical evaluation. If a finite cutoff was used, its value and physical justification must be stated, and the sensitivity of the results to this cutoff should be discussed. Without this, the quantitative deflection results in Fig. 5 are not reproducible.
minor comments (8)
  1. §II, Eq. (2): The approximation sign (≈) in the horizon expression is introduced without explanation. The condition under which the approximation is valid should be stated.
  2. §III, Eqs. (8)–(10): The coordinate transformation from r to R involves setting a ≈ 1 (neglecting the B²I₂m²/I₁² term). The validity of this simplification and its impact on the refractive index should be briefly justified, especially since the paper studies the effect of B on the results.
  3. §III, Fig. 2: The y-axis is labeled 'Velocity (v)' but the text discusses v/c. The axis label should be consistent with the text.
  4. §III, Fig. 3 caption: The caption states parameters are fixed at r=4M, β=5.0, α=0.5, but panels (a) and (b) show variation with radial distance. Clarify which fixed parameters apply to which panels.
  5. §V, Fig. 7 caption: The y-axis label reads 'Temperature (S)' but should be 'Temperature (T)'.
  6. §VI: The bullet point stating 'the refractive index decreases' with magnetic field while the deflection angle increases appears counterintuitive and warrants explanation.
  7. References [31] and [32] appear to be duplicate citations of the same paper by Roy and Sen (2015).
  8. The abstract contains a grammatical error: 'preventing it to act as a normal flat vacuum' should read 'preventing it from acting as a normal flat vacuum.'

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

3 responses · 0 unresolved

The referee raises three interconnected and valid concerns about the regime of validity of the deflection integral for the non-asymptotically-flat KBR spacetime. We acknowledge that the standard deflection integral to infinity does not converge for B > 0, and that a finite integration cutoff was used in the numerical computations without being stated. We will revise the manuscript to address all three points.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: §IV, Eqs. (29)–(31): The deflection integral presupposes n(r)→1 as r→∞, but in KBR the refractive index does not approach 1; the integrand becomes imaginary or diverges, so the deflection angle is not well-defined as a real-valued integral to infinity for B > 0. Fig. 5 reports finite angles without stating the cutoff.

    Authors: The referee is correct on this point. The standard deflection integral (Eq. 29) is derived under the assumption that n(r) → 1 as r → ∞, which guarantees convergence. In the KBR spacetime, this condition fails: the exact refractive index (Eq. 13) behaves as n(r) ~ 1/(aB²r²) → 0 at large r, while the approximate form (Eq. 30) diverges as ~−B²r²/a. In either case, the integrand does not yield a convergent, real-valued integral to infinity for B > 0. We acknowledge that the finite deflection angles reported in Fig. 5 were obtained using a finite upper integration limit, which was not stated in the manuscript. This is an omission we will correct. Specifically, the numerical integration was performed with an upper cutoff at r_max = 100M (in units where M = 1), chosen to be large compared to the impact parameters used (β ~ 4–14M) but small enough that the integrand remains real and well-behaved. We will add a clear statement of this cutoff, justify it physically as corresponding to the intermediate near-field regime where the far-field linearization is still valid (i.e., before the Bertotti-Robinson asymptotic behavior dominates), and add a discussion of the sensitivity of the results to the choice of cutoff. We will also add an explicit caveat that the deflection angles reported are finite-regime deflections, not asymptotic deflection angles in the standard sense. revision: yes

  2. Referee: §III, Eqs. (5)–(11): The far-field approximation (α²/r² << 1) assumes asymptotic flatness, but the KBR spacetime is not asymptotically flat. The authors should clarify the domain of validity and whether the deflection results lie within this regime.

    Authors: The referee correctly identifies a genuine tension. The far-field approximation (α²/r² << 1) is used to linearize the metric and derive the isotropic form, and this procedure implicitly assumes that the metric approaches a Minkowski-like form at large distances. The KBR spacetime does not satisfy this assumption; it transitions to a Bertotti-Robinson geometry at large r. We agree that this tension must be addressed explicitly. The resolution is that the approximation is valid in an intermediate radial regime: sufficiently far from the horizon that α²/r² << 1 holds (so the linearization is justified), but not so far that the B²r² terms in the metric functions dominate (which would signal the transition to the Bertotti-Robinson universe). Concretely, for the parameter values used in the plots (B ~ 0.001–0.003, M = 1), the condition B²r² << 1 is satisfied for r << 1/B ~ 300–1000M, while the far-field condition α²/r² << 1 is satisfied for r >> α ~ 0.5M. The deflection results in Fig. 5 use impact parameters β ~ 4–14M and an integration range up to ~100M, which lies within this intermediate window. We will add a paragraph to Section III explicitly stating this domain of validity, quantifying the allowed radial range as a function of B and α, and noting that the results are restricted to this regime. We will also acknowledge that for larger B values (e.g., B = 0.05–0.2 used in some plots for illustrative purposes), the valid window narrows significantly and the quantitative results in those cases should be interpreted with caution. revision: yes

  3. Referee: §IV, Fig. 5: The authors must specify the upper integration limit used in the numerical evaluation. If a finite cutoff was used, its value and physical justification must be stated, and the sensitivity of the results to this cutoff should be discussed.

    Authors: As acknowledged in our response to the first comment, a finite upper integration cutoff of r_max = 100M was used. We will state this explicitly in the revised manuscript, provide the physical justification (the intermediate regime where both α²/r² << 1 and B²r² << 1 hold), and include a new figure or table showing the sensitivity of the deflection angle to the choice of cutoff (e.g., comparing r_max = 50M, 100M, 200M for representative parameter values). We expect the sensitivity to be modest for small B because the integrand is dominated by the near-horizon contribution, but this must be demonstrated quantitatively rather than asserted. We will also add a note that for B = 0 (Kerr case), the integral converges in the standard sense and the cutoff can be taken to infinity, recovering the known Kerr deflection results as a consistency check. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Minor self-citation for methodology; central derivation is parameter-free and non-circular.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: KBR metric (Eq. 1) → linearized equatorial form (Eq. 5) → isotropic coordinates (Eq. 11) → refractive index from null condition (Eq. 13) → frame-dragging from four-momentum (Eq. 27) → approximate refractive index (Eq. 30) → deflection integral (Eq. 31). No parameter is fitted to data and then re-predicted. The deflection integral formula (Eq. 29) is cited to Born & Wolf [82], an external standard reference. The frame-dragging formalism uses Landau & Lifshitz [81], also external. The self-citations [30, 32, 34, 35] (by overlapping author groups: Sen, Roy, Kala, Nandan) are for the material medium approach methodology—identifying the coordinate speed of light from the metric's null condition and forming n = c/v. This is a straightforward algebraic step, not a deep theorem requiring independent verification, so the self-citations are not load-bearing for the central results. The observation that n(r) → 0 (not 1) at large r, and the conclusion that the spacetime 'does not act as a normal flat vacuum,' is indeed a restatement of the known non-asymptotic-flatness of the Bertotti-Robinson universe (which is the asymptotic structure of the KBR metric by construction). However, this is presented as a consistency observation rather than the paper's central novel prediction, and the quantitative deflection expression (Eq. 31) and thermodynamic results (Eqs. 33-41) are derived parameter-free from the metric. The concerns raised by the reader about the far-field approximation regime and by the skeptic about integral convergence are correctness issues, not circularity issues. Score 2 reflects the presence of non-load-bearing self-citations for methodology.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper introduces no new physical entities or particles. It uses the standard parameters of mass (m), rotation (α), and magnetic field (B). The primary axioms are the validity of the material medium approach and the applicability of a far-field approximation to a non-asymptotically flat spacetime.

free parameters (3)
  • m (black hole mass) = 1 (normalized)
    Standard black hole mass parameter, normalized to 1 for numerical computations.
  • α (rotation parameter) = 0.5 (used in figures)
    Standard rotation/spin parameter of the Kerr-like metric.
  • B (magnetic field parameter) = 0.0 to 0.3 (used in figures)
    External uniform magnetic field parameter defining the KBR spacetime.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The material medium approach is a valid alternative to null geodesics for computing light deflection in curved spacetime.
    This is the foundational assumption of the paper's methodology, invoked in Section I and used throughout Section III and IV.
  • ad hoc to paper The far-field approximation (α²/r² << 1) is valid for deriving the refractive index in the KBR spacetime.
    Invoked in Eq. (5) to simplify the metric. This is problematic because the KBR spacetime is not asymptotically flat, making the 'far-field' limit conceptually different from asymptotically flat spacetimes like Kerr.
  • standard math The Bekenstein-Hawking entropy formula S = A/4 holds for the KBR spacetime.
    Standard assumption in black hole thermodynamics, used in Eq. (34).

pith-pipeline@v1.1.0-glm · 27995 in / 2405 out tokens · 477197 ms · 2026-07-09T10:51:07.255883+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study the deflection of massless particles due to a rotating, axially symmetric Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson (KBR) black hole via; material medium approach. We explored the effect of spacetime geometry on the trajectory of light rays in the presence of a uniform magnetic field. To derive an analytical expression for the deflection of light rays due to the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole, the frame dragging effect and refractive index were also studied in greater detail. From the analysis it is evident that the magnetic field actively adds to the black hole's gravity, making the bending of light stronger and permanently changing the space far away from the black hole, preventing it to act as a normal flat vacuum. From thermodynamical investigation, it is clear that entropy monotonically decreases with magnetic field strength and rotation parameter; whereas the Hawking temperature increases with a uniform magnetic field but decreases with spin parameter.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.07437 by Anshul Tapase, Asoke Kumar Sen, Hemwati Nandan, Saswati Roy, Shubham Kala.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1: Variation of the Event Horizon ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2: Effective velocity vs radial distance graph for various [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: Variation of frame dragging of KBR BH with (a) & [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Variation of the refractive index of the KBR BH with (a) radial distance ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Variation of deflection angle of KBR BH with (a) radial distance ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Variation of Entropy ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: shows the graphical representation of the Hawk￾ing temperature T against the magnetic field strength B and the horizon radius rH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.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

83 extracted references · 83 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    The foundation of the general theory of relativity.,

    A. Einstein, “The foundation of the general theory of relativity.,”Annalen Phys., vol. 49, no. 7, pp. 769–822, 1916

    work page 1916

  2. [2]

    On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory,

    K. Schwarzschild, “On the gravitational field of a mass point according to Einstein’s theory,”Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. ), vol. 1916, pp. 189–196, 1916

    work page 1916

  3. [3]

    Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity

    S. Weinberg,Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory of Relativity. Wiley, 1972

    work page 1972

  4. [4]

    Chandrasekhar and K

    S. Chandrasekhar and K. S. Thorne,The mathematical theory of black holes. American Association of Physics Teachers, 1985

    work page 1985

  5. [5]

    S. M. Carroll,Spacetime and Geometry: An Introduc- tion to General Relativity. Cambridge University Press, 7 2019

    work page 2019

  6. [6]

    Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,

    B. P. Abbottet al., “Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 116, no. 6, p. 061102, 2016

    work page 2016

  7. [7]

    The First Detection of Gravi- tational Waves,

    A. Kr´ olak and M. Patil, “The First Detection of Gravi- tational Waves,”Universe, vol. 3, no. 3, p. 59, 2017

    work page 2017

  8. [8]

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

    K. Akiyamaet al., “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 875, p. L1, 2019

    work page 2019

  9. [9]

    First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metric,

    K. Akiyamaet al., “First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. VI. Testing the Black Hole Metric,” Astrophys. J. Lett., vol. 930, no. 2, p. L17, 2022

    work page 2022

  10. [10]

    Current challenges in the physics of white dwarf stars,

    D. Saumon, S. Blouin, and P.-E. Tremblay, “Current challenges in the physics of white dwarf stars,”Phys. Rept., vol. 988, pp. 1–63, 2022

    work page 2022

  11. [11]

    Gravity and Cosmology in Kaniadakis Statistics: Current Status and Future Challenges,

    G. G. Luciano, “Gravity and Cosmology in Kaniadakis Statistics: Current Status and Future Challenges,”En- tropy, vol. 24, no. 12, p. 1712, 2022

    work page 2022

  12. [12]

    Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,

    M. Branchesiet al., “Science with the Einstein Telescope: a comparison of different designs,”JCAP, vol. 07, p. 068, 2023

    work page 2023

  13. [13]

    Challenges and opportunities for time- delay cosmography with multi-messenger gravitation- allensing,

    S. Birrer, G. P. Smith, A. J. Shajib, D. Ryczanowski, and N. Arendse, “Challenges and opportunities for time- delay cosmography with multi-messenger gravitation- allensing,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 383, no. 2295, p. 20240130, 2025

    work page 2025

  14. [14]

    On the bending of light from the Newtonian point of view,

    A. Palatini, “On the bending of light from the Newtonian point of view,”Mem. Soc. Ast. It., vol. 2, pp. 371–379, 1923

    work page 1923

  15. [15]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers, and E. E. Falco,Gravitational Lenses. Astronomy and Astrophysics Library, Springer, 1992

    work page 1992

  16. [16]

    A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919,

    F. W. Dyson, A. S. Eddington, and C. Davidson, “A Determination of the Deflection of Light by the Sun’s Gravitational Field, from Observations Made at the Total Eclipse of May 29, 1919,”Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A, vol. 220, pp. 291–333, 1920

    work page 1919

  17. [17]

    On the deviation of geodesics and null- geodesics, particularly in relation to the properties of spaces of constant curvature and indefinite line-element,

    J. L. Synge, “On the deviation of geodesics and null- geodesics, particularly in relation to the properties of spaces of constant curvature and indefinite line-element,” Annals Math., vol. 35, p. 705, 1934

    work page 1934

  18. [18]

    Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr metric,

    J. M. Bardeen, “Timelike and null geodesics in the Kerr metric,”Proceedings, Ecole d’Et´ e de Physique Th´ eorique: Les Astres Occlus : Les Houches, France, August, 1972, 215-240, pp. 215–240, 1973

    work page 1972

  19. [19]

    Null trajecto- ries and bending of light in charged black holes with quintessence,

    S. Fernando, S. Meadows, and K. Reis, “Null trajecto- ries and bending of light in charged black holes with quintessence,”Int. J. Theor. Phys., vol. 54, no. 10, pp. 3634–3653, 2015

    work page 2015

  20. [20]

    Null geodesics and observables around the Kerr–Sen black hole,

    R. Uniyal, H. Nandan, and K. D. Purohit, “Null geodesics and observables around the Kerr–Sen black hole,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 35, no. 2, p. 025003, 2018

    work page 2018

  21. [21]

    Light bending in a two black hole metric,

    M. A. Alawadi, D. Batic, and M. Nowakowski, “Light bending in a two black hole metric,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 38, no. 4, p. 045003, 2021

    work page 2021

  22. [22]

    Trap- ping of null geodesics in slowly rotating spacetimes,

    J. Vrba, M. Urbanec, Z. Stuchl´ ık, and J. C. Miller, “Trap- ping of null geodesics in slowly rotating spacetimes,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 80, no. 11, p. 1065, 2020

    work page 2020

  23. [23]

    Shadow and weak gravitational lensing of a rotating regular black hole in a non-minimally coupled Einstein-Yang-Mills theory in the presence of plasma,

    S. Kala, H. Nandan, and P. Sharma, “Shadow and weak gravitational lensing of a rotating regular black hole in a non-minimally coupled Einstein-Yang-Mills theory in the presence of plasma,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 137, no. 4, p. 457, 2022

    work page 2022

  24. [24]

    Null geodesics, thermodynamics, weak gravitational lensing, and black hole shadow characteristics of a Frolov regular black hole with constraints from EHT observa- tions,

    S. Kala, H. Nandan, K. Maithani, S. Roy, and A. Abebe, “Null geodesics, thermodynamics, weak gravitational lensing, and black hole shadow characteristics of a Frolov regular black hole with constraints from EHT observa- tions,”Eur. Phys. J. Plus, vol. 140, no. 10, p. 991, 2025

    work page 2025

  25. [25]

    Spin-orbit inter- action of a photon in an inhomogeneous medium,

    V. S. Liberman and B. Y. Zel’dovich, “Spin-orbit inter- action of a photon in an inhomogeneous medium,”Phys. Rev. A, vol. 46, pp. 5199–5207, 1992

    work page 1992

  26. [26]

    The electrodynamics of anisotropic media in the special theory of relativity,

    I. Tamm, “The electrodynamics of anisotropic media in the special theory of relativity,”Zh. Rus. Fiz.-Khim. Ob- shchestva, Otd. Fiz, vol. 56, p. 248, 1924

    work page 1924

  27. [27]

    Effect of a Gravitational Field, Due to a Rotating Body, on the Plane of Polarization of an Elec- tromagnetic Wave,

    N. L. Balazs, “Effect of a Gravitational Field, Due to a Rotating Body, on the Plane of Polarization of an Elec- tromagnetic Wave,”Phys. Rev., vol. 110, pp. 236–239, 1958

    work page 1958

  28. [28]

    Electromagnetic Waves in Gravitational Fields,

    J. Plebanski, “Electromagnetic Waves in Gravitational Fields,”Phys. Rev., vol. 118, pp. 1396–1408, 1959

    work page 1959

  29. [29]

    Influence of Gravitation on the Prop- agation of Electromagnetic Radiation,

    B. Mashhoon, “Influence of Gravitation on the Prop- agation of Electromagnetic Radiation,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 11, pp. 2679–2684, 1975

    work page 1975

  30. [30]

    A more exact expression for the gravitational deflection of light, derived using material medium ap- proach,

    A. Sen, “A more exact expression for the gravitational deflection of light, derived using material medium ap- proach,”Astrophysics, vol. 53, no. 4, pp. 560–569, 2010

    work page 2010

  31. [31]

    Trajectory of a light ray in Kerr field: A material medium approach,

    S. Roy and A. K. Sen, “Trajectory of a light ray in Kerr field: A material medium approach,”Astrophys. Space Sci., vol. 360, no. 1, p. 23, 2015

    work page 2015

  32. [32]

    Trajectory of a light ray in kerr field: A material medium approach,

    S. Roy and A. Sen, “Trajectory of a light ray in kerr field: A material medium approach,”Astrophysics and Space Science, vol. 360, pp. 1–15, 2015

    work page 2015

  33. [33]

    Deflection of light ray due to a charged body using material medium approach,

    S. Roy and A. Sen, “Deflection of light ray due to a charged body using material medium approach,” Zeitschrift f¨ ur Naturforschung A, vol. 72, no. 12, pp. 1113–1126, 2017

    work page 2017

  34. [34]

    Deflection of light due to Kerr Sen black hole in het- erotic string theory using material medium approach,

    S. Roy, S. Kala, A. Singha, H. Nandan, and A. K. Sen, “Deflection of light due to Kerr Sen black hole in het- erotic string theory using material medium approach,” Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 85, no. 7, p. 772, 2025

    work page 2025

  35. [35]

    Non-equatorial deflection of light due to kerr–newman black hole: a material medium approach,

    S. Roy, S. Kala, P. Ghosh, H. Nandan, and A. K. Sen, “Non-equatorial deflection of light due to kerr–newman black hole: a material medium approach,”The European Physical Journal C, vol. 85, no. 8, p. 925, 2025

    work page 2025

  36. [36]

    Picosecond-level corrections to the Shapiro time delay in a Schwarzschild spacetime,

    O. del Barco, “Picosecond-level corrections to the Shapiro time delay in a Schwarzschild spacetime,”Phys. 17 Scripta, vol. 100, no. 9, p. 095020, 2025

    work page 2025

  37. [37]

    Effects of gravitational waves on elec- tromagnetic fields,

    M. L. Ruggiero, “Effects of gravitational waves on elec- tromagnetic fields,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 85, no. 3, p. 240, 2025

    work page 2025

  38. [38]

    Spinning Black Holes in Astrophysical Environments,

    P. G. S. Fernandes and V. Cardoso, “Spinning Black Holes in Astrophysical Environments,”Phys. Rev. Lett., vol. 135, no. 21, p. 211403, 2025

    work page 2025

  39. [39]

    GRMHD Simulations of Magnetized Accretion Disk/Jet: Variabilities of Black Holes and Spectral Energy Distributions in Magnetic States,

    R. Raha, B. Mukhopadhyay, and K. Chatterjee, “GRMHD Simulations of Magnetized Accretion Disk/Jet: Variabilities of Black Holes and Spectral Energy Distributions in Magnetic States,”Universe, vol. 12, p. 142, 2026

    work page 2026

  40. [40]

    Hot, Retrograde Tilted Mag- netically Arrested Disks: Misaligned, Precessing, and Shaped by Electromagnetic Torques,

    S. Gupta and J. Dexter, “Hot, Retrograde Tilted Mag- netically Arrested Disks: Misaligned, Precessing, and Shaped by Electromagnetic Torques,”Astrophys. J., vol. 1004, no. 1, p. 42, 2026

    work page 2026

  41. [41]

    Foundations of Black Hole Accretion Disk Theory,

    M. A. Abramowicz and P. C. Fragile, “Foundations of Black Hole Accretion Disk Theory,”Living Rev. Rel., vol. 16, p. 1, 2013

    work page 2013

  42. [42]

    Magnetohydrody- namics Simulations of Active Galactic Nucleus Disks and Jets,

    S. W. Davis and A. Tchekhovskoy, “Magnetohydrody- namics Simulations of Active Galactic Nucleus Disks and Jets,”Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., vol. 58, pp. 407–439, 2020

    work page 2020

  43. [43]

    On Black Holes in Magnetic Universes,

    W. A. Hiscock, “On Black Holes in Magnetic Universes,” J. Math. Phys., vol. 22, p. 1828, 1981

    work page 1981

  44. [44]

    Schwarzschild black hole immersed in a homogeneous electromagnetic field,

    G. A. Alekseev and A. A. Garcia, “Schwarzschild black hole immersed in a homogeneous electromagnetic field,” Phys. Rev. D, vol. 53, pp. 1853–1867, 1996

    work page 1996

  45. [45]

    Insights from Melvin–Kerr–Newman spacetimes,

    I. Booth, M. Hunt, A. Palomo-Lozano, and H. K. Kun- duri, “Insights from Melvin–Kerr–Newman spacetimes,” Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 32, no. 23, p. 235025, 2015

    work page 2015

  46. [46]

    The extremal limits of the C metric: Nariai, Bertotti-robinson and anti-Nariai C metrics,

    O. J. C. Dias and J. P. S. Lemos, “The extremal limits of the C metric: Nariai, Bertotti-robinson and anti-Nariai C metrics,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 68, p. 104010, 2003

    work page 2003

  47. [47]

    Nariai, Bertotti-Robinson and anti-Nariai solutions in higher di- mensions,

    V. Cardoso, O. J. C. Dias, and J. P. S. Lemos, “Nariai, Bertotti-Robinson and anti-Nariai solutions in higher di- mensions,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 70, p. 024002, 2004

    work page 2004

  48. [48]

    Kerr black hole in a uniform bertotti-robinson magnetic field: An exact solu- tion,

    J. Podolsk` y and H. Ovcharenko, “Kerr black hole in a uniform bertotti-robinson magnetic field: An exact solu- tion,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 135, no. 18, p. 181401, 2025

    work page 2025

  49. [49]

    Er- goregions in Magnetised Black Hole Spacetimes,

    G. W. Gibbons, A. H. Mujtaba, and C. N. Pope, “Er- goregions in Magnetised Black Hole Spacetimes,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 30, no. 12, p. 125008, 2013

    work page 2013

  50. [50]

    Near-horizon description of ex- tremal magnetized stationary black holes and Meissner effect,

    J. Biˇ c´ ak and F. Hejda, “Near-horizon description of ex- tremal magnetized stationary black holes and Meissner effect,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 92, no. 10, p. 104006, 2015

    work page 2015

  51. [51]

    Energy extraction from the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole via magnetic recon- nection in a circular and a plunging plasma,

    X.-X. Zeng and K. Wang, “Energy extraction from the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole via magnetic recon- nection in a circular and a plunging plasma,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 112, no. 6, p. 064032, 2025

    work page 2025

  52. [52]

    Geodesics and shadows in the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole spacetime,

    X. Wang, Y. Hou, X. Wan, M. Guo, and B. Chen, “Geodesics and shadows in the Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black hole spacetime,”JCAP, vol. 02, p. 050, 2026

    work page 2026

  53. [53]

    Optical character- istics of the Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black hole,

    X.-X. Zeng, C.-Y. Yang, and H. Yu, “Optical character- istics of the Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black hole,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 85, no. 11, p. 1242, 2025

    work page 2025

  54. [54]

    Parameter estimation of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holes using their shadows,

    H. Ali and S. G. Ghosh, “Parameter estimation of Kerr-Bertotti-Robinson black holes using their shadows,” JCAP, vol. 01, p. 018, 2026

    work page 2026

  55. [55]

    Effects of magnetic fields on spinning test particles orbiting Kerr-Bertotti- Robinson black holes,

    Y.-K. Zhang and S.-W. Wei, “Effects of magnetic fields on spinning test particles orbiting Kerr-Bertotti- Robinson black holes,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 113, no. 10, p. 104024, 2026

    work page 2026

  56. [56]

    Kerr-bertotti- robinson black holes surrounded by a cloud of strings,

    F. Ahmed, ˙I. Sakallı, and A. Al-Badawi, “Kerr-bertotti- robinson black holes surrounded by a cloud of strings,” arXiv:2511.11792, 2025

    work page arXiv 2025

  57. [57]

    Non-monotonic enhancement of the magnetic penrose process in kerr-bertotti-robinson spacetime and its implication for electron acceleration,

    M. Mirkhaydarov, T. Xamidov, P. Sheoran, S. Shayma- tov, and H. Nandan, “Non-monotonic enhancement of the magnetic penrose process in kerr-bertotti-robinson spacetime and its implication for electron acceleration,” arXiv:2601.09919, 2026

    work page arXiv 2026

  58. [58]

    Probing strong-gravity chaos in rotat- ing Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black holes,

    P. Singh, S. Kala, H. Nandan, M. Yousaf, F. Atamurotov, and G. Mustafa, “Probing strong-gravity chaos in rotat- ing Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson black holes,”Chaos, Soli- tons &amp; Fractals, vol. 208, p. 118379, 2026

    work page 2026

  59. [59]

    Particle creation by black holes,

    S. W. Hawking, “Particle creation by black holes,”Com- munications in Mathematical Physics, vol. 43, pp. 199– 220, 1975

    work page 1975

  60. [60]

    Black holes and entropy,

    J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,”Physical Review D, vol. 7, p. 2333, 1973

    work page 1973

  61. [61]

    Thermodynamics of kerr-bertotti-robinson black hole,

    L. Hu, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, “Thermodynamics of kerr-bertotti-robinson black hole,”arXiv:2603.18821, 2026

    work page internal anchor Pith review arXiv 2026

  62. [62]

    Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson spacetime and the Kerr/CFT correspondence,

    H. M. Siahaan, “Kerr–Bertotti–Robinson spacetime and the Kerr/CFT correspondence,”Nucl. Phys. B, vol. 1028, p. 117514, 2026

    work page 2026

  63. [63]

    Thermo- dynamics of Kerr-Newman-AdS black holes and confor- mal field theories,

    M. M. Caldarelli, G. Cognola, and D. Klemm, “Thermo- dynamics of Kerr-Newman-AdS black holes and confor- mal field theories,”Class. Quant. Grav., vol. 17, pp. 399– 420, 2000

    work page 2000

  64. [64]

    Thermodynamics of rotating black branes in Gauss-Bonnet-Born-Infeld grav- ity,

    M. H. Dehghani and S. H. Hendi, “Thermodynamics of rotating black branes in Gauss-Bonnet-Born-Infeld grav- ity,”Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, vol. 16, pp. 1829–1843, 2007

    work page 2007

  65. [65]

    Thermodynamics of rotating charged dilaton black holes in an external magnetic field,

    S. S. Yazadjiev, “Thermodynamics of rotating charged dilaton black holes in an external magnetic field,”Phys. Lett. B, vol. 723, pp. 411–416, 2013

    work page 2013

  66. [66]

    Thermody- namics of magnetized Kerr-Newman black holes,

    G. W. Gibbons, Y. Pang, and C. N. Pope, “Thermody- namics of magnetized Kerr-Newman black holes,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 89, no. 4, p. 044029, 2014

    work page 2014

  67. [67]

    Thermodynamics of Charged, Rotating, and Accelerating Black Holes,

    A. Anabal´ on, F. Gray, R. Gregory, D. Kubizˇ n´ ak, and R. B. Mann, “Thermodynamics of Charged, Rotating, and Accelerating Black Holes,”JHEP, vol. 04, p. 096, 2019

    work page 2019

  68. [68]

    Topological classes of ther- modynamics of black holes in perfect fluid dark matter background,

    M. Rizwan and K. Jusufi, “Topological classes of ther- modynamics of black holes in perfect fluid dark matter background,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 83, no. 10, p. 944, 2023

    work page 2023

  69. [69]

    Thermodynamic topology of Hot NUT-Kerr-Newman- Kasuya-Anti-de Sitter black hole,

    M. U. Shahzad, N. Alessa, A. Mehmood, and R. Javed, “Thermodynamic topology of Hot NUT-Kerr-Newman- Kasuya-Anti-de Sitter black hole,”Astron. Comput., vol. 51, p. 100900, 2025

    work page 2025

  70. [70]

    Bhattacharya and M

    A. Bhattacharya and M. Bandyopadhyay, “Thermal sta- bility and phase transitions of static magnetic charged black holes in the background of perfect fluid-type dark matter: Analysis of crucial thermodynamic parameters andP−Vcriticality along with higher-order entropy corrections,”Mod. Phys. Lett. A, vol. 39, no. 35 & 36, p. 2450160, 2024

    work page 2024

  71. [71]

    Thermodynamics of Kerr black hole: Tsallis–Cirto composition law and entropy quantization,

    G. E. Volovik, “Thermodynamics of Kerr black hole: Tsallis–Cirto composition law and entropy quantization,” Pisma Zh. Eksp. Teor. Fiz., vol. 123, no. 8, pp. 515–517, 2026

    work page 2026

  72. [72]

    Thermodynamic topology of Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton theories,

    H. Babaei-Aghbolagh, H. Esmaili, S. He, and H. Mohammadzadeh, “Thermodynamic topology of Einstein–Maxwell-dilaton theories,”Eur. Phys. J. C, vol. 86, no. 1, p. 78, 2026

    work page 2026

  73. [73]

    Charged black holes 18 in bumblebee gravity with global monopole: Thermody- namics and shadow,

    F. Ahmed, S. Kala, and E. O. Silva, “Charged black holes 18 in bumblebee gravity with global monopole: Thermody- namics and shadow,”Annals of Physics, p. 170532, 2026

    work page 2026

  74. [74]

    Energy extraction from the Kerr- Bertotti-Robinson black hole via magnetic reconnection in a circular and a plunging plasma,

    X. Zeng and K. Wang, “Energy extraction from the Kerr- Bertotti-Robinson black hole via magnetic reconnection in a circular and a plunging plasma,”Phys. Rev. D, vol. 112, p. 064032, 2025

    work page 2025

  75. [75]

    The influence of uniform magnetic fields on strong field gravitational lensing by kerr black holes,

    A. K. Amnish Vachher and S. G. Ghosh, “The influence of uniform magnetic fields on strong field gravitational lensing by kerr black holes,”JCAP, vol. 2025, p. 021, 2025

    work page 2025

  76. [76]

    Parameter estimation of kerr-bertotti-robinson black holes using their shadows,

    H. Ali and S. G. Ghosh, “Parameter estimation of kerr-bertotti-robinson black holes using their shadows,” JCAP, vol. 2026, p. 018, 2026

    work page 2026

  77. [77]

    New class of rotat- ing charged black holes with nonaligned electromagnetic field,

    H. Ovcharenko and J. Podolsk` y, “New class of rotat- ing charged black holes with nonaligned electromagnetic field,”Physical Review D, vol. 112, no. 6, p. 064076, 2025

    work page 2025

  78. [78]

    Maximal analytic extension of the kerr metric,

    R. H. Boyer and R. W. Lindquist, “Maximal analytic extension of the kerr metric,”Journal of Mathematical Physics, vol. 8, no. 2, pp. 265–281, 1967

    work page 1967

  79. [79]

    R. M. Wald,General Relativity. University of Chicago Press, 2010

    work page 2010

  80. [80]

    Gravity probe b: final results of a space experiment to test general relativity,

    C. F. Everittet al., “Gravity probe b: final results of a space experiment to test general relativity,”Physical Review Letters, vol. 106, no. 22, p. 221101, 2011

    work page 2011

Showing first 80 references.