Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 45 references

Periodic orbits and gravitational wave signatures from magnetic dipoles around magnetized Kerr black holes

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A magnetic dipole coupling to a Kerr black hole changes periodic orbits and leaves detectable gravitational-wave signatures.

desk verdict A competent extension of zoom-whirl periodic-orbit techniques to magnetized dipoles, with a genuine beta-vs-spin timing/amplitude separation in the waveforms, but the load-bearing interaction profile F(r) is imported without derivation. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.11048 v1 pith:SSTO4ATD submitted 2026-08-11 gr-qc

Shokhzod Jumaniyozov , Javlon Rayimbaev , Chengxun Yuan , Satimbay Palvanov , Khurshida Khaknazarova , Faisal Javed This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C1083C35 PACS 04.30.-w04.70.Bw
keywords magnetizedKerrblackholesmagneticdipolecouplingperiodicorbitszoom-whirlclassificationextreme-mass-ratioinspiralgravitationalwavesinnermoststablecircularorbitmarginallybound
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

This paper tries to establish that a magnetic dipole interaction of an uncharged star orbiting a magnetized, rotating black hole leaves a measurable imprint both on the orbit and on the gravitational waves it emits. Using an effective potential imported from earlier work, the authors show that increasing the magnetic coupling $\beta$ moves the marginally bound orbit (MBO) and the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) outward and lowers their energy and angular momentum, the opposite of what electric charge does. They classify the resulting bound orbits by the zoom-whirl integers $(z,w,v)$, build closed rosette orbits at fixed angular momentum, and compute their waveforms in the numerical-kludge quadrupole approximation. They find that the zoom-whirl structure appears directly as quiescent zoom phases punctuated by whirl bursts, that $\beta$ mostly stretches the waveform in time while spin changes both timing and amplitude, and that for a nearby Sgr A*-like source the characteristic strain sits within an order of magnitude of LISA, Taiji, and TianQin sensitivity. If correct, the results offer a way to separate magnetic coupling from black-hole spin using a single waveform's morphology.

What carries the argument

The argument is carried by the modified mass-shell condition $g^{\mu\nu}p_\mu p_\nu = -m^2(1+\beta F(r))^2$, whose position-dependent factor encodes the whole magnetic dipole coupling, together with the closed-form radial profile $F(r)$ that tends to $-1$ at infinity and makes the escape energy $|1-\beta|$. These feed an effective potential $V_{\rm eff}(r,L)$ whose extrema define the ISCO and MBO and whose radial oscillations define bound orbits. Periodic orbits are labelled by the rational rotation number $q = w + v/z$, built from the integrated azimuthal advance per radial libration, and waveforms are computed with the numerical-kludge, leading-order mass-quadrupole formula using the instantaneous orbital separation and phase from the integrated orbits.

What would settle it

A direct re-derivation of the orbit from the full covariant pole-dipole equations, without the imported $F(r)$, should reproduce $r_{\mathrm{ISCO}} = 5.17135M$ at $a=0.3$, $\beta=0.1$; a different value would falsify the outward-shift claim. Observational counterpart: a detected EMRI whose whirl-burst onsets do not lengthen with inferred magnetic coupling, or whose spectral peak shifts in amplitude rather than only in frequency, would contradict the predicted signature.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that a magnetic dipole coupling of strength $\beta$, entering through the modified mass-shell condition $g^{\mu\nu}p_\mu p_\nu = -m^2(1+\beta F(r))^2$ with the external-field radial profile $F(r)$, systematically changes the strong-field orbital landscape of a Kerr black hole: both the marginally bound orbit and the innermost stable circular orbit move outward and lose energy and angular momentum as $\beta$ grows. At fixed angular momentum the same coupling expands every zoom-whirl orbit of a given topological class $(z,w,v)$ nearly homologously, so the emitted quadrupole waveform keeps the same burst count while its whirl bursts arrive later; black-hole spin acts oppositely and more strongly, compressing the orbit and raising the burst amplitude. The paper further claims that these timing-versus-amplitude signatures survive in the frequency domain, where the $\beta$-scan shifts the spectral peak to lower frequency at nearly fixed height while the $a$-scan moves it to higher frequency and higher strain, leaving the two parameters separable from one observed waveform, and that at a representative extreme-mass-ratio-inspiral distance the peak characteristic strain falls close to the projected sensitivity of LISA, Taiji, and TianQin.

Load-bearing premise

The entire analysis inherits the radial interaction profile $F(r)$ and the modified mass-shell condition from earlier papers without re-deriving them; if that profile's sign, normalization, or radial shape is wrong, every orbital shift and waveform prediction changes.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A magnetized secondary makes the plunge and innermost circular orbits sit farther out with lower specific energy and angular momentum than vacuum Kerr predicts, so ignoring magnetic coupling biases estimates of disk inner edges and EMRI radii.
  • For a fixed periodic-orbit class $(z,w,v)$, the rosette radius, orbital period, and orbital energy are monotone functions of $\beta$, giving a direct way to read off the magnetic coupling from an observed orbit.
  • Because $\beta$ mainly stretches the waveform timing while spin changes both timing and amplitude, the two parameters are separable from one observed zoom-whirl waveform without an independent spin measurement.
  • The computed characteristic strain of the larger-$z$ periodic orbits lands within about an order of magnitude of LISA, Taiji, and TianQin sensitivity at 200 Mpc, so these systems are plausible detection targets once the inspiral signal is accumulated by matched filtering.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's fixed-$(E,L)$ approximation stops short of radiation reaction; an inference one can draw is that during a real inspiral the frequency sweep will blur the clean $\beta$-versus-$a$ timing separation, which is worth checking with a self-consistent kludge inspiral.
  • A consequence the authors leave implicit is that vacuum-Kerr templates used in EMRI searches would misattribute a magnetized source's outward-shifted, stretched waveform to a lower spin or a different mass, making magnetic coupling a potential systematic for parameter estimation.
  • A testable extension is to push $\beta$ beyond 0.3, as would occur for magnetar-class secondaries or stronger external fields: the monotonic trends predict even larger outward shifts and longer whirl-burst delays, which could be compared with full dipole-trajectory numerics.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies a chargeless test particle with a magnetic dipole moment (coupling β) moving in the equatorial plane of a Kerr black hole immersed in a Wald magnetic field. It uses a modified mass-shell condition and an effective potential to compute the MBO and ISCO as functions of spin a and β, constructs the allowed (L,E) region for bound motion, classifies periodic orbits using the Levin-Perez-Giz zoom-whirl numbers, and computes numerical-kludge restricted-quadrupole gravitational waveforms, comparing characteristic strain with LISA, Taiji, and TianQin sensitivity curves. The central claims are that increasing β shifts the MBO and ISCO outward and lowers their energy and angular momentum, that zoom-whirl structure is imprinted in the waveform morphology, and that the resulting signals are near the reach of upcoming space-based detectors for the chosen parameters.

Significance. If the central results hold, the paper offers a concrete, parameter-dependent distinction between magnetic coupling and black-hole spin in EMRI-like periodic-orbit waveforms, which would be a useful observational discriminant for future space-based detectors. The manuscript contains several genuine strengths: the β=0 limit reproduces standard Kerr ISCO/MBO values (e.g., r_ISCO=6M, r_MBO=4M at a=0), the periodic-orbit construction is systematic and clearly tabulated, and the astrophysical estimate of β for a magnetized neutron-star secondary is explicit. However, the novel β-dependent physics rests entirely on the radial interaction profile F(r) imported from earlier work, and the manuscript contains several internal inconsistencies in the effective-potential formalism and in the waveform amplitude scaling. These issues must be resolved before the conclusions can be accepted as stated.

major comments (4)
  1. [Sec. II.C, Eqs. (10)-(12) and (16)] The radial interaction profile F(r) is the sole β-dependent input in the dynamics, entering the modified mass-shell condition in Eq. (16) and therefore every subsequent β-dependent result. Yet Eq. (12) is quoted from Refs. [16,20] without being derived from Eq. (10) in the present manuscript, and the β=0 checks in Sec. III cannot validate it because F(r) drops out of all equations when β=0. Since an error in the sign, normalization, or radial dependence of F(r) would change or reverse the outward MBO/ISCO shift, the periodic-orbit energies, and the waveform morphology, please provide an explicit derivation of Eq. (12) from Eq. (10) or an independent numerical verification of this profile.
  2. [Sec. II.D, Eqs. (19)-(21)] Equations (19) and (20) are inconsistent as written: Eq. (19) gives \dot{r}^2 = (Δ/r^2)[αE^2 + 2δE − γ], so no function V_eff can satisfy \dot{r}^2 + V_eff = E identically; Eq. (21) defines the value of E for which \dot{r}^2=0, not a potential appearing in Eq. (20). In addition, the bound-motion condition stated after Eq. (21), namely "E < V_eff(r,L) at those turning points," is incorrect: at a turning point \dot{r}^2=0, so E=V_eff(r,L), and the inequality between turning points has the opposite sign for the usual interpretation. Please correct the formal effective-potential construction; the root-finding used for Tables I-IV may be correct, but the text as it stands does not justify it.
  3. [Sec. III, Eq. (23) and Table I] The monotonic decrease of E_MBO with β is imposed by construction through E_esc = |1−β| in Eq. (23), so the table entry E_MBO = 1−β is an input, not a dynamical output. The nontrivial β-dependent statements are the outward shift of r_MBO and the behavior of L_MBO, as well as the corresponding ISCO quantities, where E_ISCO is not fixed by definition. Please state this distinction explicitly so that the abstract's claim that β "lowers their orbital energy" is not overstated for the MBO.
  4. [Sec. V.A, Eq. (34) and Fig. 8] There is a large internal inconsistency between the quoted amplitude scale and the plotted time-domain strain. With A+ = −9.536×10^{-22}, M• = 4×10^6 M_sun, m_p = 2 M_sun, D = 200 Mpc, and r_i between about 5 and 15 M, Eq. (33) gives |h+| in the range roughly 3×10^{-22} to 1×10^{-22}. Figure 8, however, displays |h+| ≈ 5×10^{-18}, which is larger by a factor of about 10^4. Table V and the characteristic-strain construction appear consistent with the smaller time-domain amplitude, so either Fig. 8 has a normalization error or there is an omitted scaling factor; this must be reconciled because the waveform amplitude and the detectability comparison in Figs. 10-12 are central to the paper's claims.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. IV.B, Table II footnote] The orbit labeled "irrational, q = 901/500" actually has a rational rotation number, so it is periodic with z = 500 and v = 401, not quasi-periodic; if a non-closing rosette is intended, use a genuinely irrational rotation number such as q = 1 + (√2 − 1).
  2. [Sec. II.C, Eq. (12)] The typesetting of F(r) is ambiguous: the radical and denominator are not clearly separated, making it difficult to verify the algebraic form; please rewrite the expression with explicit parentheses and brackets.
  3. [Sec. II.C, after Eq. (10)] The parenthetical sentence defining the ZAMO four-velocity contains malformed notation; the expressions for u^t and u^φ should be displayed as separate, properly labeled equations.
  4. [Sec. II.C, Code Availability] The text mentions an "accompanying numerical implementation" in the paragraph after Eq. (12), while the Code Availability statement says no code or software was generated; please clarify this apparent contradiction.
  5. [Sec. V.B, Eq. (35)] The frequency-domain calculation uses a Hann-windowed DFT of a finite number of orbital cycles; please specify the number of cycles, the window length, and whether zero-padding was used, since these choices affect the characteristic strain shown in Figs. 11 and 12.
  6. [Table I caption] The statement that the β=0.10 row "reproduces the independent Mathematica computation" is a self-consistency check against the same imported formulas, not an independent validation of F(r); please rephrase to avoid implying otherwise.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 3.0 of 10

Mostly self-contained computation; one MBO-energy entry is definitional, but the central ISCO, periodic-orbit, and waveform results are genuinely computed.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II.C after Eq. (12) and Sec. III, Eq. (23); Table I]
    "This closed form satisfies F(r)->-1 as r->infinity, so that a magnetized particle released at rest at infinity has specific energy E_esc=|1-beta| rather than unity ... the marginally bound orbit (MBO) is the circular orbit whose energy equals the generalized escape energy Eesc=|1-beta| introduced above, Veff(r,L)=Eesc, dVeff/dr=0."

    In Table I the EMBO column is exactly 1-beta (1.0000, 0.9500, 0.9000, 0.8500, ... for beta=0, 0.05, 0.10, 0.15, ...). This is not a dynamical output: Eq. (23) defines the MBO as the circular orbit with Veff=E_esc, and E_esc was set to |1-beta| by the normalization F(infinity)=-1. Therefore the abstract's statement that increasing beta 'lowers their orbital energy' is, for the MBO energy, a restatement of the defining escape-energy convention rather than a computed prediction. The MBO radius and angular momentum, and all ISCO and periodic-orbit energies, are still obtained by solving Veff and its derivatives, so the circularity is confined to this one labeled output.

full rationale

The paper's load-bearing input is the interaction profile F(r) (Eq. 12) and modified mass-shell condition (Eq. 16), imported from Refs. [16,20,24]. Ref. [20] (Tursunov-Stuchlik-Kolos) is external and parameter-free; Refs. [16,24] overlap with present authors but are earlier derivations, and the paper sketches a Hamilton-Jacobi re-derivation in Sec. II.D and verifies the beta=0 Kerr limit against the Bardeen-Press-Teukolsky ISCO formula. Thus the imported premise is supported independently rather than being a restatement of the target claim. Given that premise, the MBO/ISCO radii, the (L,E) bound region, the zoom-whirl rational rotation numbers, orbit integration, and numerical-kludge waveforms are all genuinely computed. The only by-construction item is EMBO=|1-beta|, which is the defining escape energy, not a dynamical prediction. This is a minor definitional convention, not a collapse of the central derivation; hence a low score rather than a finding of substantial circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 4 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central dynamics rest on the pole-dipole effective potential imported from the authors' earlier work (refs. [16,20]); β is a scanned physical parameter, not fitted to the results. The only built-in constancy is E_MBO = 1 - β, which follows from defining the escape energy as E_esc = |1 - β|. No invented entities are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • β (magnetic coupling) = 0.1 fiducial; scanned 0.0-0.3
    Dimensionless dipole-field coupling β = 2 μ B / m; not fitted to data, but scanned as a free model parameter. The astrophysical estimate in Eq. (13) brackets the scanned range.
assumptions (4)
  • domain assumption The external magnetic field is a test field on the fixed Kerr background and does not backreact on the geometry.
    Sec. II.A, following Wald [15]; standard for astrophysical fields but an approximation that ignores magnetic-energy contributions to the spacetime.
  • domain assumption The magnetized particle is described by the pole-dipole approximation with the mass-shell condition g^{μν} p_μ p_ν = -m^2 (1 + β F(r))^2.
    Eq. (16) in Sec. II.C; imported from refs. [16,20]. This is the central dynamical input.
  • domain assumption The particle's magnetic dipole moment is perpendicular to the equatorial plane and aligned with the external field.
    Sec. II.C, orientation μ_hat_θ; restricts the problem to the equatorial plane and removes velocity-dependent terms.
  • domain assumption Gravitational waves from the periodic orbits are computed in the restricted-quadrupole numerical-kludge approximation, treating the orbit as fixed over a few periods.
    Sec. V.A, Eqs. (33)-(34); ignores radiation reaction and higher multipoles.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Periodic orbits and gravitational wave signatures from magnetic dipoles around magnetized Kerr black holes." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/SSTO4ATD

@misc{pith2026260811048,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Periodic orbits and gravitational wave signatures from magnetic dipoles around magnetized Kerr black holes},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/SSTO4ATD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.11048}
}
read the original abstract

We study periodic orbits and the associated gravitational radiation of a magnetized (uncharged) test particle carrying a magnetic dipole moment with coupling constant beta, moving in the equatorial plane of a rotating, magnetized Kerr black hole immersed in an external asymptotically uniform magnetic field, starting from the effective potential derived for such particles. We compute the marginally bound orbit (MBO) and the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) as functions of the black hole spin a and the magnetic coupling beta, and map out the allowed region of the orbital energy-angular momentum (L, E) plane for bound motion. We then classify periodic orbits using the topological zoom-whirl scheme of Levin and Perez-Giz, characterized by three integers (z,w,v) through the rational rotation number q=w+v/z, and construct a family of closed rosette orbits at fixed angular momentum. Using the numerical-kludge, restricted-quadrupole approximation for an extreme-mass-ratio inspiral consisting of a stellar-mass magnetized secondary orbiting a supermassive magnetized Kerr black hole, we compute the time-domain gravitational waveforms h_+(t), h_\times(t) produced by these periodic orbits and their frequency-domain characteristic strain, and compare the latter with the anticipated instrumental sensitivity curves of LISA, Taiji and TianQin. We find that the magnetic coupling \beta systematically shifts the MBO and ISCO outward and lowers their orbital energy and angular momentum, that the zoom-whirl structure of the periodic orbits is imprinted directly on the burst-like morphology of the emitted waveform, and that the resulting gravitational-wave signals fall within the sensitivity band of upcoming space-based detectors for suitably close and massive sources.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.11048 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: Radial dependence of the effective potential [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Dependence of the ISCO radius, MBO radius, ISCO angular momentum and ISCO energy on the magnetic [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Allowed region of the orbital angular momentum-energy [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Rational rotation number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Periodic (rosette) orbits for the six [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Quasi-periodic orbit with irrational rotation number [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Time-domain gravitational waveforms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Time-domain gravitational waveforms [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Fourier amplitude spectra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Characteristic strain spectra of all six rational periodic orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Characteristic strain spectrum of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

45 extracted references · 17 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  2. [2]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019)

    2019

  3. [3]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022)

    2022

  4. [4]

    Amaro-Seoaneet al., arxiv (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    P. Amaro-Seoaneet al., arxiv (2017), arXiv:1702.00786 [astro-ph.IM]

    arXiv 2017

  5. [5]

    Hu and Y.-L

    W.-R. Hu and Y.-L. Wu, Natl. Sci. Rev.4, 685 (2017)

    2017

  6. [6]

    Ruan, Z.-K

    W.-H. Ruan, Z.-K. Guo, R.-G. Cai, and Y.-Z. Zhang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. A35, 2050075 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Luoet al., Class

    J. Luoet al., Class. Quant. Grav.33, 035010 (2016)

    work page 2016

  8. [8]

    Levin and G

    J. Levin and G. Perez-Giz, Phys. Rev. D77, 103005 (2008)

    2008

Show all 45 references
  1. [9]

    Levin and G

    J. Levin and G. Perez-Giz, Phys. Rev. D79, 124013 (2009)

    2009

  2. [10]

    Glampedakis and D

    K. Glampedakis and D. Kennefick, Phys. Rev. D66, 044002 (2002)

    2002

  3. [11]

    Lin and X.-M

    H.-Y. Lin and X.-M. Deng, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 311 (2023)

    2023

  4. [12]

    Deng, Phys

    X.-M. Deng, Phys. Dark Univ.30, 100629 (2020)

    2020

  5. [13]

    Gao and X.-M

    B. Gao and X.-M. Deng, Astrophys. Space Sci.365, 194 (2020)

    2020

  6. [14]

    Yang, Y.-P

    S. Yang, Y.-P. Zhang, T. Zhu, L. Zhao, and Y.-X. Liu, JCAP01, 091 (2025)

    2025

  7. [15]

    R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D10, 1680 (1974)

    1974

  8. [16]

    Jumaniyozov, S

    S. Jumaniyozov, S. U. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 291 (2024)

    2024

  9. [17]

    A. N. Aliev and D. V. Galtsov, Sov. Phys. Usp.32, 75 (1989)

    1989

  10. [18]

    Rayimbaev, Astrophys

    J. Rayimbaev, Astrophys. Space Sci.365, 33 (2020)

    2020

  11. [19]

    Oteev, Z

    T. Oteev, Z. Stuchlík, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, M. Sharibaev, and A. Abdujabbarov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 953 (2025)

    2025

  12. [20]

    Tursunov, Z

    A. Tursunov, Z. Stuchlík, and M. Kološ, Phys. Rev. D93, 084012 (2016), arXiv:1603.07264 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Preti, Phys

    G. Preti, Phys. Rev. D70, 024012 (2004)

    2004

  14. [22]

    Narzilloev, J

    B. Narzilloev, J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, B. Ahmedov, and C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D103, 124066 (2021), arXiv:2103.11090 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  15. [23]

    K. Mori, E. V. Gotthelf, S. Zhang, H. An, F. K. Baganoff, N. M. Barrière, A. M. Beloborodov, S. E. Boggs, F. E. Christensen, W. W. Craig, F. Dufour, B. W. Grefenstette, C. J. Hailey, F. A. Harrison, J. Hong, V. M. Kaspi, J. A. Kennea, K. K. Madsen, C. B. Markwardt, M. Nynka, D...

    2013 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Uktamov, M

    U. Uktamov, M. Fathi, and J. Rayimbaev, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 833 (2026), arXiv:2510.16315 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  17. [25]

    J. M. Bardeen, W. H. Press, and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J.178, 347 (1972)

    1972

  18. [26]

    Alloqulov, S

    M. Alloqulov, S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 117 (2026), arXiv:2508.05245 [gr-qc]

    2026

  19. [27]

    Jumaniyozov, J

    S. Jumaniyozov, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, Y. Turaev, A. Seytov, and J. Khasanov, Indian J. Phys.100, 3479 (2026)

    2026

  20. [28]

    Wang, X.-C

    C.-H. Wang, X.-C. Meng, Y.-P. Zhang, T. Zhu, and S.-W. Wei, JCAP07, 021 (2025), arXiv:2502.08994 [gr-qc]

    2025

  21. [29]

    Choudhury, P

    S. Choudhury, P. Padiyar, M. K. Hossain, G. Bauyrzhan, and K. Yerzhanov, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 777 (2026), arXiv:2507.00904 [gr-qc]. 19

    2026 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Jumaniyozov, J

    S. Jumaniyozov, J. Rayimbaev, Y. Sekhmani, S. Palvanov, O. Tursunboyev, and D. Karshiev, arxiv (2026), arXiv:2607.11851 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Lu and T

    S. Lu and T. Zhu, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102141 (2025), arXiv:2505.00294 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Alloqulov, S

    M. Alloqulov, S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and T. Zhu, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 259 (2026), arXiv:2511.15237 [gr-qc]

    2026

  25. [33]

    Ahmed, Q

    F. Ahmed, Q. Wu, S. G. Ghosh, and T. Zhu, JCAP02, 004 (2026), arXiv:2511.08456 [gr-qc]

    2026

  26. [34]

    Sharipov, T

    J. Sharipov, T. Xamidov, Q. Wu, S. Shaymatov, and T. Zhu, Chin. Phys. C50, 085105 (2026), arXiv:2511.10043 [gr-qc]

    2026

  27. [35]

    S. Zare, T. Zhu, L. M. Nieto, S. Lu, and H. Hassanabadi, JCAP01, 059 (2026), arXiv:2510.05166 [gr-qc]

    2026

  28. [36]

    P. C. Peters and J. Mathews, Phys. Rev.131, 435 (1963)

    1963

  29. [37]

    K. S. Thorne, Rev. Mod. Phys.52, 299 (1980)

    1980

  30. [38]

    Xamidov, S

    T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, Q. Wu, and T. Zhu, arxiv (2026), arXiv:2602.09453 [gr-qc]

    2026

  31. [39]

    Alloqulov, T

    M. Alloqulov, T. Xamidov, S. Shaymatov, and B. Ahmedov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 798 (2025), arXiv:2504.05236 [gr-qc]

    2025 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Lu, H.-J

    S. Lu, H.-J. Lin, T. Zhu, Y.-X. Liu, and X. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C86, 283 (2026), arXiv:2512.11911 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Zahra, O

    T. Zahra, O. Shabbir, B. Majeed, M. Jamil, J. Rayimbaev, and A. Shermatov, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 1340 (2025), arXiv:2510.22761 [gr-qc]

    2025

  34. [42]

    Alloqulov, A

    M. Alloqulov, A. Abdujabbarov, B. Ahmedov, and C. Yuan, arxiv (2025), arXiv:2512.12672 [gr-qc]

    2025

  35. [43]

    Jumaniyozov, J

    S. Jumaniyozov, J. Rayimbaev, O. Sirajiddin, J. Khasanov, and A. Seytov, Nucl. Phys. B1025, 117404 (2026)

    2026

  36. [44]

    Shokirov, A

    B. Shokirov, A. Mirzakulov, T. Xamidov, and S. Shaymatov, arxiv (2026), arXiv:2607.00812 [gr-qc]

    2026 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Robson, N

    T. Robson, N. J. Cornish, and C. Liu, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 105011 (2019)

    2019

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.