Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 101 references

Orbital data limit the LQG quantum parameter P to ≤4.3×10⁻⁵, and the resulting self-dual black hole would appear as a slightly smaller, brighter accretion disk than Schwarzschild.

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

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

T0 review · deepseek-v4-flash

2026-08-04 17:19 UTC pith:YJWIUA4J

load-bearing objection Routine but competent application of standard disk imaging to the self-dual LQG metric; the constraints reproduce known bounds, and the headline observable differences are illustrated at P values the paper's own analysis excludes. the 1 major comments →

arxiv 2509.10953 v1 pith:YJWIUA4J submitted 2025-09-13 gr-qc

Observable thin accretion disk around a self-dual black hole in loop quantum gravity

Tursunali Xamidov , Javokhir Sharipov , Sanjar Shaymatov This is my paper
classification gr-qc
keywords loop quantum gravityself-dual black holepolymeric functionaccretion diskphoton sphereperihelion shiftS2 starNovikov-Thorne model
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.

The paper argues that the self-dual black hole of loop quantum gravity leaves observable imprints on orbital motion and accretion-disk images. Using Mercury's perihelion shift and the S2 star's orbit around Sgr A*, it pins down the polymeric parameter P to P≤0.000043 and P≤0.067419. It then shows that for larger P the photon sphere shrinks, light is deflected less, and the thin accretion disk appears smaller and brighter than in Schwarzschild. A distant observer would see roughly 25% more flux from a P=0.1 self-dual BH than from a Schwarzschild BH at an 85° inclination. The paper's point is that loop quantum gravity effects are not necessarily hidden.

Core claim

For the self-dual LQG black hole metric obtained in the µ0-scheme, the polymeric function P controls the deviation from Schwarzschild: it moves the horizons, shrinks the photon sphere (the critical impact parameter falls from 5.196 to 4.803 as P goes from 0 to 0.03), and weakens the gravitational deflection of light. The paper derives the P-dependence of the perihelion precession, uses Mercury and S2 data to bound P, and shows via Novikov-Thorne modeling that the accretion disk around the self-dual BH is smaller and brighter, with slightly smaller redshifts, than around Schwarzschild.

What carries the argument

The central object is the self-dual spacetime metric of LQG, a quantum-corrected Schwarzschild geometry expressed in terms of the polymeric function P = (√(1+ε²)−1)/(√(1+ε²)+1) with ε = γδ, where γ is the Barbero-Immirzi parameter and δ the LQG polymeric parameter. The argument proceeds from the geodesic equations of this metric: a linearized perihelion-shift formula yields the P bounds, and numerical ray tracing of the null geodesic equation for the impact parameter b, combined with the Novikov-Thorne radiation flux formula, produces the predicted disk images and fluxes.

Load-bearing premise

The predictions rest on the assumption that the LQG-corrected Schwarzschild spacetime is the one obtained by fixing the polymer parameters δ_b and δ_c as constants (the µ0-scheme) and by neglecting the minimal-area term a0; if loop quantum gravity instead picks a different quantization scheme, the effective metric, the parameter P, and all derived signals change.

What would settle it

Measure Sgr A*'s photon-ring diameter to about 8% precision: the self-dual BH with P=0.03 predicts a critical impact parameter of 4.803 versus 5.196 for Schwarzschild, a 7.6% smaller ring; a ring diameter consistent with Schwarzschild at that precision would falsify the large-P prediction of this µ0-scheme metric.

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

If this is right

  • Mercury data constrain P to ≤4.3×10⁻⁵ and S2 to ≤0.067, forcing LQG corrections to be tiny at solar-system scales.
  • For larger P, the photon sphere and shadow shrink: the critical impact parameter decreases from 5.196 for Schwarzschild to 4.803 for P=0.03.
  • Both direct and secondary disk images shrink as P increases, with secondary images shrinking slightly faster than direct ones.
  • The observed flux brightens: at 85° inclination, the self-dual BH with P=0.1 is about 25% brighter than Schwarzschild.
  • The redshift is slightly weaker: z_max is about 0.95 for P=0.1 versus 1.12 for Schwarzschild at the same inclination.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • If future high-resolution observations measure the Sgr A* ring diameter to about 8% precision, they could directly test the µ0-scheme prediction without relying on orbital dynamics.
  • The paper's disk images at P=0.05–0.1 use values far above the Mercury bound (P≤4.3×10⁻⁵), so the realistic brightening at currently allowed P is likely much smaller unless alternative LQG schemes permit larger strong-field deviations.
  • Because the metric reduces to Schwarzschild when a0=0 and P=0, the predictions form a one-parameter family; measuring both the shadow size and the disk flux could break degeneracies with spin in rotating generalizations.

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

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper studies timelike and null geodesics in the self-dual (quantum-corrected Schwarzschild) black hole spacetime of loop quantum gravity in the mu0-scheme. It derives constraints on the polymeric function P from the Mercury perihelion shift and the S2-star orbit around Sgr A*, finding P<=4.3e-5 and P<=6.74e-2, respectively. It then uses the Novikov-Thorne thin-disk model to compute direct and secondary images, the observed energy flux, and the redshift distribution for P=0, 0.05, and 0.1 at inclinations 17, 53, and 85 degrees. The central claim is that, compared with Schwarzschild, the self-dual black hole appears smaller and brighter and that these differences may serve as observational signatures of LQG.

Significance. If the adopted metric and the computations are taken at face value, the paper provides a concrete set of predictions for one specific LQG-inspired regular black hole model. The perihelion-shift and S2 constraints are derived from independent astronomical data in a transparent manner, and no circularity is present in the constraint-to-prediction logic: the disk images are obtained from the input metric, not fitted to the data. The main weakness is that the parameter values used in the central observational comparison (P=0.05 and, especially, P=0.1) are excluded by the paper's own Mercury and S2 bounds, so the headline 'smaller and brighter' claim is not supported within the allowed parameter region.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. IV; Fig. 5; Sec. V] The conclusion that these distinctions 'may provide new insights... in future observations' is an overreach given that no estimate is provided of the magnitude of the effect at the allowed P<=4.3e-5. The only allowed-P calculation shown is the perihelion constraint itself; the disk images use excluded values. A quantitative statement about detectability, or at least about the trend as P approaches the allowed upper bound, is needed before the observational-signature claim can be assessed.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Fig. 6 caption] The caption says 'From top to bottom, the columns represent inclination angles' and 'from left to right, the rows correspond to P values'; the words 'columns' and 'rows' appear to be swapped.
  2. [Eqs. (25) and (28)] The bounds P<=0.000043 and P<=0.067419 are quoted without specifying the confidence level or the propagation of the observational uncertainties; please state whether these are 1-sigma, 2-sigma, or worst-case limits.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (6)] The notation is confusing: P is called the 'polymeric function' but is defined in terms of epsilon=delta*gamma, while delta is called the 'polymeric parameter'. Clarify the relation between P, delta, and the quantities fixed in the mu0-scheme.
  4. [Sec. II, after Eq. (5)] There is a typo: 'Planck length l_P l' should read 'Planck length l_P' or similar. Also, the sentence about a0=0 is an important approximation and should be stated as an explicit assumption in the conclusions.
  5. [Sec. II.B, Eqs. (23) and (26)] The units of the perihelion shift are not uniform: Eq. (23) is in rad/revolution, while Eq. (26) is in arcsec/year. State both units explicitly to avoid confusion.
  6. [Sec. IV, Eq. (54)] The symbol b appears in the redshift factor without being redefined in this section; it is the impact parameter introduced in Sec. III, but this should be stated explicitly.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: the disk images and fluxes are direct consequences of the input LQG metric, and the P constraints come from independent Mercury and S2 data.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: start with a known effective LQG self-dual Schwarzschild metric (with free parameter P), compute timelike geodesics, fit/constrain P using independent observed perihelion shifts (Mercury and S2), then use the same metric to compute null geodesics, accretion disk images, redshift, and flux. No fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction: the disk calculations use hand-picked P values (0.05, 0.1) as an illustration, not as values inferred from disk observations. The constraints on P from Mercury and S2 are external empirical inputs, not outputs of the disk model. The self-citations (e.g., refs. [36], [70], [72], [77], [88], [99]) are used for standard geodesic/flux formulas or for observational data compilations and are not load-bearing; the core metric comes from Modesto [12], an external source. The use of P=0.05 and P=0.1 in the disk figures, despite the paper's own Mercury bound P<=4.3e-5, is an internal consistency/overinterpretation concern, not circularity, because the disk observables are not used to infer or validate P. Therefore the central derivations are self-contained with respect to their inputs, and there is no circular step that reduces a prediction to an input by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 7 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central results rest on the LQG metric construction, the small-P expansion, the Novikov-Thorne disk model, and the adopted observational data. No machine-checked proofs or shipped code/data exist to verify any of these, so the ledger is dominated by domain assumptions from the LQG and accretion disk literature.

free parameters (4)
  • Polymeric function P = Constraints: P <= 4.3e-5 (Mercury), P <= 0.067 (S2); disk figures use P = 0, 0.01, 0.03, 0.05, 0.1
    P is the central model parameter; the disk image and flux comparisons are parameter scans over hand-chosen values, some outside the paper's own bounds.
  • Mass accretion rate Mdot0
    Flux F(r) in Eq. (49) scales linearly with Mdot0; the axis in Fig. 7 is in units of 1e-6 with Mdot0 not specified, so absolute flux is undetermined.
  • Observer inclination angles = 17 deg, 53 deg, 85 deg
    Chosen in Figs. 6, 8, 9 to illustrate viewing-angle dependence; not fitted to data.
  • Disk outer radius = R = 25 (also 10, 15, 20 in Fig. 5)
    The integration upper limit for disk images is chosen by hand; flux integrals extend from ISCO to R=25.
axioms (7)
  • domain assumption The self-dual LQG metric (Eqs. 2-5), taken from Modesto 2010, is the correct effective description of a quantum-corrected Schwarzschild black hole.
    Invoked at the start of Sec. II as the spacetime under study; all results depend on this metric.
  • domain assumption The mu0-scheme fixes delta_b and delta_c as constants, with P defined by Eq. (6).
    Sec. II states this construction choice; if replaced by the mu-scheme, the metric changes.
  • domain assumption The Planck-area term a0 can be set to zero.
    Sec. II after Eq. (6): 'its contribution can be regarded as negligible as it is proportional to the Planck length. Consequently a0=0 can be set'.
  • standard math P is small enough to truncate the geodesic equation at linear order.
    Eq. (18): 'Since P is a small parameter ... we expand ... keep only the linear order'.
  • domain assumption The Novikov-Thorne model describes the accretion disk.
    Sec. IV: disk treated as optically thick, geometrically thin; Eq. (49) is the NT flux.
  • domain assumption The observed Mercury perihelion shift and S2-star precession values are accurate and applicable.
    Eqs. (24) and (27) adopt values from Refs. [85-89].
  • standard math The Luminet redshift formula (54) correctly maps emitted to observed flux.
    Sec. IV, Eq. (54), following Ref. [101].

pith-pipeline@v1.3.0-alltime-deepseek · 16328 in / 17927 out tokens · 184763 ms · 2026-08-04T17:19:35.345213+00:00 · methodology

0 comments
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study a self-dual black hole (BH) in Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), analyzing both timelike and null geodesics. Using observational data from Mercury's perihelion shift and the orbit of the S2 star around Sagittarius A$^{\star}$ (Sgr A$^{\star}$), we derive constraints on the polymeric function $P$. We further investigate photon trajectories near the self-dual BH under various scenarios to explore their observational relevance. Finally, we examine the properties of accretion disks around the self-dual BH in LQG, including their direct and secondary images, and study the redshift and the observed energy flux distribution across the accretion disk as measured by distant observers for different inclination angles. Our findings provide new insights into the physical nature and accretion properties of self-dual BHs in LQG and their possible observational consequences.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.10953 by Javokhir Sharipov, Sanjar Shaymatov, Tursunali Xamidov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. The trajectories of photons are shown in separate plots for different values of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2. The trajectories of photons as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3. The plot shows the number of photon orbits [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Schematic representation of the coordinate system used to construct the accretion disk image. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. The image formation diagram for various values of the quantum correction parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_5.png] view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Direct and secondary image of the thin accretion disk around a self-dual BH in LQG. From top to bottom, the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. The energy flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. The distribution of the observed flux [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The distribution of the redshift factor [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.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

101 extracted references · 1 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    However, its contribution can be regarded as negligible as it is pro- portional to Planck lengthl P l

    ,(4) C(r) =r 2 + a2 0 r2 ,(5) wherer + = 2/(1 +P) 2 andr − = 2P 2/(1 +P) 2 refer to the two BH horizons, respectively, andr ∗ = 2P/(1 +P) 2 with the polymeric functionP, which is given by P≡ √ 1 +ϵ 2 −1√ 1 +ϵ 2 + 1 .(6) Note thatϵrefers to the product of the Immirzi parame- terγand the polymeric parameterδ, i.e.,ϵ=δγ≪1 as a small quantity, whilea 0 =A min...

  2. [2]

    B. P. Abbott and et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 061102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  3. [3]

    B. P. Abbott and et al. (Virgo and LIGO Scientific Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett.116, 241102 (2016), arXiv:1602.03840 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  4. [4]

    Akiyama and et al

    K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Tele- scope Collaboration), Astrophys. J.875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  5. [5]

    Akiyama and et al

    K. Akiyama and et al. (Event Horizon Tele- scope Collaboration), Astrophys. J.875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  6. [6]

    Penrose, Phys

    R. Penrose, Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57 (1965)

    1965

  7. [7]

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc R. Soc. Lond. A 314, 529 (1970)

    1970

  8. [8]

    R. J. Adler, Am. J. Phys.78, 925 (2010), arXiv:1001.1205 [gr-qc]. 12 FIG. 9. The distribution of the redshift factorzin the direct and secondary images of a self-dual BH in LQG is presented for inclination angles of 17 ◦, 53◦, and 85 ◦

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  9. [9]

    Y. J. Ng, Mod. Phys. Lett. A18, 1073 (2003), arXiv:gr- qc/0305019 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2003

  10. [10]

    Borde, A

    A. Borde, A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.90, 151301 (2003), arXiv:gr-qc/0110012 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2003

  11. [11]

    Borde and A

    A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, Phys. Rev. Lett.72, 3305 (1994), arXiv:gr-qc/9312022 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1994

  12. [12]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis,The large-scale struc- ture of space-time.(1973)

    1973

  13. [13]

    Modesto, Int

    L. Modesto, Int. J. Theor. Phys.49, 1649 (2010), arXiv:0811.2196 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  14. [14]

    Modesto and I

    L. Modesto and I. Pr´ emont-Schwarz, Phys. Rev. D80, 064041 (2009), arXiv:0905.3170 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2009

  15. [15]

    S. Sahu, K. Lochan, and D. Narasimha, Phys. Rev. D 91, 063001 (2015), arXiv:1502.05619 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2015

  16. [16]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241301 (2018), arXiv:1806.00648 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  17. [17]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D 98, 126003 (2018), arXiv:1806.02406 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  18. [18]

    Bojowald, S

    M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and D.-h. Yeom, Phys. Rev. D98, 046015 (2018), arXiv:1803.01119 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  19. [19]

    Alesci, S

    E. Alesci, S. Bahrami, and D. Pranzetti, Phys. Lett. B 797, 134908 (2019), arXiv:1904.12412 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  20. [20]

    Assanioussi, A

    M. Assanioussi, A. Dapor, and K. Liegener, Phys. Rev. D101, 026002 (2020), arXiv:1908.05756 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  21. [21]

    Perez, Rep

    A. Perez, Rep. Prog. Phys.80, 126901 (2017), arXiv:1703.09149 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  22. [22]

    Barrau, K

    A. Barrau, K. Martineau, and F. Moulin, Universe4, 102 (2018), arXiv:1808.08857 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  23. [23]

    Rovelli, APS Physics11, 127 (2018)

    C. Rovelli, APS Physics11, 127 (2018)

    2018

  24. [24]

    Ashtekar, Universe6, 21 (2020), arXiv:2001.08833 [gr-qc]

    A. Ashtekar, Universe6, 21 (2020), arXiv:2001.08833 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  25. [25]

    W.-C. Gan, N. O. Santos, F.-W. Shu, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D102, 124030 (2020), arXiv:2008.09664 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  26. [26]

    Alesci and L

    E. Alesci and L. Modesto, Gen. Rel. Grav.46, 1656 (2014). 13

    2014

  27. [27]

    Chen and Y.-J

    J.-H. Chen and Y.-J. Wang, Chin. Phys. B20, 030401 (2011)

    2011

  28. [28]

    Barrau, C

    A. Barrau, C. Rovelli, and F. Vidotto, Phys. Rev. D 90, 127503 (2014), arXiv:1409.4031 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  29. [29]

    Dasgupta, SIGMA9, 013 (2013), arXiv:1203.5119 [gr-qc]

    A. Dasgupta, SIGMA9, 013 (2013), arXiv:1203.5119 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  30. [30]

    M. B. Cruz, C. A. S. Silva, and F. A. Brito, Eur. Phys. J. C79, 157 (2019)

    2019

  31. [31]

    Moulin, K

    F. Moulin, K. Martineau, J. Grain, and A. Bar- rau, Class. Quant. Grav.36, 125003 (2019), arXiv:1808.00207 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  32. [32]

    Moulin, A

    F. Moulin, A. Barrau, and K. Martineau, Universe5, 202 (2019), arXiv:1908.06311 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  33. [33]

    M. B. Cruz, F. A. Brito, and C. A. S. Silva, Phys. Rev. D102, 044063 (2020), arXiv:2005.02208 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  34. [34]

    J. S. Santos, M. B. Cruz, and F. A. Brito, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 1082 (2021), arXiv:2103.11212 [hep-th]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  35. [36]

    Jiang, M

    H. Jiang, M. Alloqulov, Q. Wu, S. Shaymatov, and T. Zhu, Phys. Dark Universe46, 101627 (2024)

    2024

  36. [37]

    Uktamov, M

    U. Uktamov, M. Alloqulov, S. Shaymatov, T. Zhu, and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Dark Universe47, 101743 (2025), arXiv:2412.01809 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  37. [38]

    C. Liu, T. Zhu, Q. Wu, K. Jusufi, M. Jamil, M. Azreg- A ¨ ınou, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D101, 084001 (2020), arXiv:2003.00477 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  38. [39]

    Liu, J.-X

    Y.-C. Liu, J.-X. Feng, F.-W. Shu, and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D104, 106001 (2021), arXiv:2109.02861 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  39. [40]

    R. G. Daghigh, M. D. Green, and G. Kunstatter, Phys. Rev. D103, 084031 (2021), arXiv:2012.13359 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  40. [41]

    Bouhmadi-L´ opez, S

    M. Bouhmadi-L´ opez, S. Brahma, C.-Y. Chen, P. Chen, and D.-h. Yeom, JCAP2020, 066 (2020), arXiv:2004.13061 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  41. [42]

    Fu and X

    Q.-M. Fu and X. Zhang, Phys. Rev. D105, 064020 (2022), arXiv:2111.07223 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2022

  42. [43]

    Brahma, C.-Y

    S. Brahma, C.-Y. Chen, and D.-h. Yeom, Phys. Rev. Lett.126, 181301 (2021), arXiv:2012.08785 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  43. [44]

    Shu and J.-H

    Y.-H. Shu and J.-H. Huang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2412.05670 (2024), arXiv:2412.05670 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2024

  44. [45]

    R. A. Konoplya and O. S. Stashko, Phys. Rev. D111 (2025), 10.1103/physrevd.111.104055

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.111.104055 2025

  45. [46]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, Phys. Lett. B858, 139052 (2024), arXiv:2408.05569 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  46. [47]

    Liu, M.-Y

    H. Liu, M.-Y. Lai, X.-Y. Pan, H. Huang, and D.-C. Zou, Phys. Rev. D110, 104039 (2024), arXiv:2408.11603 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  47. [48]

    Y. Du, Y. Liu, and X. Zhang, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.2025, 045 (2025)

    2025

  48. [49]

    Y. Wang, A. Vachher, Q. Wu, T. Zhu, and S. G. Ghosh, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 302 (2025), arXiv:2410.12382 [astro- ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2025

  49. [50]

    Bambi, Phys

    C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D85, 043002 (2012), arXiv:1201.1638 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2012

  50. [51]

    Bambi, J

    C. Bambi, J. Jiang, and J. F. Steiner, Classical and Quantum Gravity33, 064001 (2016), arXiv:1511.07587 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  51. [52]

    M. A. Abramowicz and P. C. Fragile, Living Rev. Rel- ativ.16, 1 (2013), arXiv:1104.5499 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2013

  52. [53]

    R. P. Fender, T. M. Belloni, and E. Gallo, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.355, 1105 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0409360 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2004

  53. [54]

    Auchettl, J

    K. Auchettl, J. Guillochon, and E. Ramirez-Ruiz, As- trophys. J.838, 149 (2017), arXiv:1611.02291 [astro- ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2017

  54. [55]

    Czerny, S

    B. Czerny, S. Cao, V. K. Jaiswal, V. Karas, N. Khadka, M. L. Mart ´ ınez-Aldama, M. H. Naddaf, S. Panda, F. Pozo Nu˜ nez, R. Prince, B. Ratra, M. Sniegowska, Z. Yu, and M. Zajaˇ cek, Astrophys. Space Sci.368, 8 (2023), arXiv:2209.06563 [astro-ph.GA]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  55. [56]

    C. W. Morgan, C. S. Kochanek, N. D. Morgan, and E. E. Falco, Astrophys. J.712, 1129 (2010), arXiv:1002.4160 [astro-ph.CO]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2010

  56. [57]

    Y. Yao, S. N. Zhang, and X. Zhang, inGamma 2001: Gamma-Ray Astrophysics, American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 587, edited by S. Ritz, N. Gehrels, and C. R. Shrader (AIP, 2001) pp. 106–110, arXiv:astro-ph/0105537 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2001

  57. [58]

    Schultz,Studies of accretion disks in X-ray binaries, Ph.D

    J. Schultz,Studies of accretion disks in X-ray binaries, Ph.D. thesis, University of Helsinki, Finland (2005)

    2005

  58. [59]

    Black holes: Accretion processes in x-ray binaries,

    Q. Bu and S. Zhang, “Black holes: Accretion processes in x-ray binaries,” inHandbook of X-ray and Gamma- ray Astrophysics(Springer Nature Singapore, 2023) p. 1–28

    2023

  59. [60]

    Optical properties of euler-heisenberg black hole in the cold dark matter halo,

    L. You, R. bo Wang, S.-J. Ma, J.-B. Deng, and X.-R. Hu, “Optical properties of euler-heisenberg black hole in the cold dark matter halo,” (2024), arXiv:2403.12840 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  60. [61]

    A. A. Nucita, F. De Paolis, G. Ingrosso, A. Qadir, and A. F. Zakharov, PASP119, 349 (2007), arXiv:0705.0494 [astro-ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2007

  61. [62]

    A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, S. D. Hornstein, A. Tanner, J. R. Lu, M. Morris, E. E. Becklin, and G. Duchˆ ene, Astro- phys. J.620, 744 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0306130 [astro- ph]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2005

  62. [63]

    A. M. Ghez, M. Morris, E. E. Becklin, A. Tanner, and T. Kremenek, Nature407, 349 (2000), arXiv:astro- ph/0009339 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 2000

  63. [64]

    ˙I. ˙I. C ¸ imdiker, A.¨Ovg¨ un, and D. Demir, Class. Quan- tum Gravity40, 184001 (2023), arXiv:2308.03947 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2023

  64. [65]

    Vagnozzi, R

    S. Vagnozzi, R. Roy, Y.-D. Tsai, L. Visinelli, M. Afrin, A. Allahyari, P. Bambhaniya, D. Dey, S. G. Ghosh, P. S. Joshi, K. Jusufi, M. Khodadi, R. K. Walia, A. ¨Ovg¨ un, and C. Bambi, Classical and Quantum Gravity40, 165007 (2023)

    2023

  65. [66]

    Afrin, S

    M. Afrin, S. Vagnozzi, and S. G. Ghosh, Astrophys. J. 944, 149 (2023)

    2023

  66. [67]

    Boshkayev, A

    K. Boshkayev, A. Idrissov, O. Luongo, and D. Mala- farina, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.496, 1115 (2020), arXiv:2006.01269 [astro-ph.HE]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  67. [68]

    Gyulchev, J

    G. Gyulchev, J. Kunz, P. Nedkova, T. Vetsov, and S. Yazadjiev, Eur. Phys. J. C80, 1017 (2020), arXiv:2003.06943 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  68. [69]

    Gyulchev, P

    G. Gyulchev, P. Nedkova, T. Vetsov, and S. Yazadjiev, Eur. Phys. J. C81, 885 (2021), arXiv:2106.14697 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2021

  69. [70]

    Narzilloev and B

    B. Narzilloev and B. Ahmedov, Symmetry14(2022), 10.3390/sym14091765

    doi:10.3390/sym14091765 2022

  70. [71]

    Shaymatov, K

    S. Shaymatov, K. Jusufi, M. Alloqulov, and B. Ahme- dov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus138, 997 (2023)

    2023

  71. [72]

    L. G. Collodel, D. D. Doneva, and S. S. Yazadjiev, The Astrophysical Journal910, 52 (2021)

    2021

  72. [73]

    Alloqulov, S

    M. Alloqulov, S. Shaymatov, B. Ahmedov, and A. Jawad, Chin. Phys. C48, 025101 (2024)

    2024

  73. [74]

    Boshkayev, T

    K. Boshkayev, T. Konysbayev, E. Kurmanov, O. Lu- ongo, D. Malafarina, and H. Quevedo, Phys. Rev. D 14 104(2021), 10.1103/physrevd.104.084009

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.084009 2021

  74. [75]

    S. Hu, C. Deng, S. Guo, X. Wu, and E. Liang, Eur. Phys. J. C83, 264 (2023)

    2023

  75. [76]

    Kurmanov, K

    Y. Kurmanov, K. Boshkayev, T. Konysbayev, O. Lu- ongo, N. Saiyp, A. Urazalina, G. Ikhsan, and G. Suliyeva, Phys. Dark Universe46, 101566 (2024), arXiv:2404.15437 [gr-qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  76. [77]

    Y.-H. Cui, S. Guo, Y.-X. Huang, Y. Liang, and K. Lin, Eur. Phys. J. C84, 772 (2024), arXiv:2408.03387 [gr- qc]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2024

  77. [78]

    Alloqulov and S

    M. Alloqulov and S. Shaymatov, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 731 (2024)

    2024

  78. [79]

    Optical appearance of schwarzschild black holes with optically thin and thick accretion disks at various inclination angles,

    J. Chen and J. Yang, “Optical appearance of schwarzschild black holes with optically thin and thick accretion disks at various inclination angles,” (2025), arXiv:2506.22891 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  79. [80]

    Z. Cai, Z. Ban, L. Wang, H. Feng, and Z.- W. Long, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.08424 (2025), arXiv:2503.08424 [gr-qc]

    arXiv 2025

  80. [81]

    Bambi,Black Holes: A Laboratory for Testing Strong Gravity(Springer, Singapore, 2017)

    C. Bambi,Black Holes: A Laboratory for Testing Strong Gravity(Springer, Singapore, 2017)

    2017

Showing first 80 references.