Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 5 cited by

An Exact Black Hole Scattering Amplitude

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Adding an imaginary NUT charge to a black hole makes the perihelion precession vanish at all orders in G and determines the full quantum scattering amplitude from the classical integrable orbits.

desk verdict The precession cancellation is real and elegant, but the two independent derivations of the claimed exact amplitude disagree, so the central claim is not yet established. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.19627 v1 pith:U6VHOZBV submitted 2024-12-27 hep-th gr-qc

Alfredo Guevara , Uri Kol , Huy Tran This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-thgr-qc
keywords self-dualTaub-NUTNUTchargeperihelionprecessioneikonalformulaPost-MinkowskianexpansionKerr-Taub-NUTintegrableblackholesgravity
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 particular non-astrophysical deformation of a Kerr black hole, the self-dual Taub-NUT solution with NUT charge $N=M$ in Euclidean signature (equivalently $N=iM$ in Lorentzian signature), is an exactly solvable scattering problem in general relativity. Its first claim is that the perihelion precession vanishes to all orders in Newton's constant $G$ for this background, even when the black hole rotates, because the radial problem collapses to a Coulomb problem plus a monopole angular problem. Its second claim is that the full quantum scattering amplitude is exactly given by a generalized eikonal formula whose phase is the classical Post-Minkowskian radial action, so that the integrable classical trajectories determine the complete amplitude. A sympathetic reader would care because such exact solvability is almost unheard-of for a black-hole wave equation, and it provides an integrable base around which corrections away from the self-dual point (toward astrophysical $N=0$) can be organized. The paper also argues that the expected one-loop correction to the two-body amplitude vanishes in self-dual gravity, which would extend integrability beyond the probe limit.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the generalized eikonal formula $f(k) = \frac{p}{2\pi}\int d^2b\, e^{ik\cdot b+i2q\varphi}e^{i\chi(b)}$, which inserts the monopole phase $e^{i2q\varphi}$ into the usual impact-parameter eikonal and exponentiates the classical Post-Minkowskian radial action $\chi(b)$; the paper presents it as an exact relation, with a heuristic derivation from an ansatz wavefunction and the Lippmann-Schwinger equation. The second piece is the reduction of the radial problem to a Coulomb problem with effective potential $V(r)=2Mp^2/r$ after the shift $r\to r+M$, which makes the radial action resummable to all orders in $GM/b$ and cancels the higher-PM terms at the self-dual point. The third piece is the parabolic complex coordinate system in which the Klein-Gordon equation becomes $\partial_+\bar\partial_+\psi+\partial_-\bar\partial_-\psi+p^2(z_+\bar z_++z_-\bar z_-)\psi=-2Mp^2\psi$, so the spin parameter drops out of the dynamics and the scattering wavefunction is a product of generalized Laguerre functions.

What would settle it

Solve the full Klein-Gordon (or Teukolsky) equation numerically at the self-dual point $N=M$ for finite mass and compare the scattering phase with the gamma-function expression above; any deviation beyond the leading WKB order, e.g. an extra piece of order $M^2G^2$ in the phase, would falsify the exponentiation claim. A cheaper check is the $\hbar^2$ WKB equation, which the paper sets aside: if its correction is not removable by a gauge choice, the amplitude is only the leading semiclassical approximation.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the central result is that at the self-dual point the Taub-NUT black hole is a hydrogen-atom-like system with an extra monopole interaction: after the shift $r\to r+M$, the radial action becomes $\int \sqrt{p^2 r^2+2Mp^2 r-J^2}\, dr/r$, and the $O(G^2)$ terms in the Hamilton-Jacobi equation cancel identically. The bound radial action evaluates to $S_{\rm bound}=(iMp-J)\pi$, which through the Hamilton-Jacobi equation means the precession angle is exactly $\pi$ and the perihelion precession vanishes to all orders in $G$; for the spinning case the same action is recovered because the spin is removed by a coordinate change and enters the amplitude only through a factor $e^{ia\cdot k}$. The paper then conjectures that the scattering amplitude is exactly $f(k)=\frac{p}{2\pi}\int d^2b\, e^{ik\cdot b+i2q\varphi}e^{i\chi(b)}$, with $\chi(b)$ the classical radial action and $q=2N\omega$, and argues by three routes, WKB, Lippmann-Schwinger/eikonal, and an exact wave-equation solution in parabolic coordinates, that this yields the closed form $f(k)=\frac{e^{i\pi q}}{2p\sin^2(\theta/2)}e^{iMp\log\sin^2(\theta/2)}(q-iMp)\frac{\Gamma(1+q+iMp)}{\Gamma(1+q-iMp)}$.

Load-bearing premise

The exact-amplitude claim rests on the conjecture that the generalized eikonal formula $f(k)=\frac{p}{2\pi}\int d^2b\, e^{ik\cdot b+i2q\varphi}e^{i\chi(b)}$ is exactly true; Section 4 derives it from an ansatz wavefunction, a Lippmann-Schwinger approximation, and the paper's statement that a detailed derivation is left for later work, so if this exponentiation is only approximate the closed-form amplitude fails even though the classical no-precession result might survive.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The perihelion precession of the self-dual Taub-NUT black hole is exactly $\pi$ (i.e., no precession) to all orders in $G$, including for rotating Kerr-Taub-NUT, so the bound-state spectrum is degenerate in the same way as the hydrogen atom.
  • The full scalar scattering amplitude is given in closed form by the gamma-function expression above; all Post-Minkowskian orders in $GM/b$ are generated by the resummed radial action instead of loop-by-loop computation.
  • Spin in the self-dual Kerr-Taub-NUT background enters only through the overall factor $e^{ia\cdot k}$, so the rotating amplitude is obtained from the static one by a momentum-space shift.
  • The absence of the $1/\sqrt{k^2}$ one-loop term in the amplitude is consistent with the expectation that two-body radiative corrections vanish in self-dual gravity, supporting integrability beyond the probe limit.
  • In the massless continuation the amplitude has zeros at $\omega = in/(4M)$ along the imaginary axis, which the paper interprets as a signal that the Lorentzian continuation must be handled with care.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Beyond the paper: if the exponentiation conjecture is exact, it converts the entire Post-Minkowskian expansion of this black hole into a single resummation identity, so near-self-dual corrections could be organized as perturbations around an exactly solvable base, with precession emerging as a discontinuity of the radial action in the complex $J$ plane.
  • Beyond the paper: the same generalized eikonal formula may hold for any monopole-like angular problem, not just Taub-NUT; testing (1.2) at finite $N$ against direct solutions of the separated radial equation would show whether the formula's validity extends beyond the self-dual point, as the paper expects.
  • Beyond the paper: a concrete check of the no-precession claim is to compute the WKB bound-state spectrum at $N=M$ and verify the degeneracy predicted by (2.26), or to compute the scattering-angle discontinuity at two-loop order and compare it with the leading precession correction away from the self-dual point.
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

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the self-dual Taub-NUT/Kerr-Taub-NUT backgrounds (N=M) and makes two central claims: (i) the perihelion precession vanishes to all orders in G, even for rotating black holes, as shown by a residue evaluation of the bounded radial action; and (ii) the quantum scattering amplitude is exactly given by the generalized eikonal formula f(k)=(p/2π)∫d²b e^{ik·b+i2qφ}e^{iχ(b)}, where χ(b) is the classical radial action. The amplitude is derived by two routes: a Post-Minkowskian eikonal argument in Section 4 and an exact separable wave-equation solution in Section 5. The paper also discusses Kleinian scattering, massless amplitudes, Lyapunov exponents, and general-helicity extensions.

Significance. If the amplitude claim is correct, the paper provides a rare exact, all-orders Post-Minkowskian scattering amplitude for a black hole background, with concrete consequences for integrability, the Newman-Janis shift, and the hydrogen-atom analogy. The residue-based precession argument in Section 2.1 is self-contained and constitutes a clean, checkable result independent of the amplitude. The exact separable wave-equation treatment in Section 5 is a strong point. However, the central exact-amplitude claim is currently blocked by an internal contradiction between the two derivations, so the manuscript cannot be accepted in its present form.

major comments (3)
  1. [§4–§5, Eqs. (4.13) and (5.11)] For a=0 the two expressions claimed to agree are not equal. Up to the common prefactor 1/(2p sin²(θ/2)) e^{iMp log sin²(θ/2)}, Eq. (4.13) contains (q−iMp) Γ(1+q+iMp)/Γ(1+q−iMp) together with an overall e^{iπq}, while Eq. (5.11) contains (q+iMp) Γ(1+q−iMp)/Γ(1+q+iMp). The two differ by (q−iMp)/(q+iMp) times the square of the Gamma ratio, and no standard Gamma-function identity makes this ratio 1 for generic q and Mp. The e^{iπq} prefactor in (4.13) does not repair the mismatch. Since the text explicitly asserts that the independent wave-equation derivation agrees with the eikonal formula, at least one of these derivations contains an error, and the central exact-amplitude claim cannot be assessed until this contradiction is resolved.
  2. [§4, Eqs. (4.4)–(4.10)] The derivation of the generalized eikonal formula (1.2) is not a proof of exactness. The wavefunction (4.6) is an eikonal ansatz, the action in (4.7) is approximated as linear in G, and the text states 'We will provide a simple argument and leave detailed derivation for later work.' The passage from (4.9) to (4.10) replaces k·x by k·b and drops the z-integration after a linearized action approximation. If (1.2) is intended as an exact statement, it must be proven from the exact solution in Section 5 or by an independent argument; otherwise the paper should explicitly present it as a conjecture and derive the claimed exact amplitude solely from the wave equation.
  3. [§5, Eq. (5.2)] The exactness of the Section 5 route hinges on the claim that the coordinate change (5.1) transforms the Klein-Gordon equation on (2.28) into Eq. (5.2), but this computation is not shown. Since Eq. (5.2) is the basis for the claimed exact solution leading to (5.11), please include the coordinate transformation of the metric and wave operator, or provide a precise reference for the a=0 case, so that the exact amplitude can be verified independently.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§5, just after Eq. (4.13)] The sentence 'in agreement (4.13) with for a=0' is grammatically incomplete and should be rewritten; this is also where the sign/conjugation mismatch with Eq. (5.11) needs to be resolved.
  2. [Eq. (5.8)] The term q²/ξ± in the second equation should read q²/ξ−, as the printed subscript is ambiguous and does not match the derivation from Eq. (5.6).
  3. [Abstract and §4] The formula (1.2) is called a conjecture in the abstract but an exact formula in Sections 4 and 5; the wording should be reconciled and the proven versus conjectural status stated explicitly.
  4. [§6.2–6.3] The Lorentzian continuation that yields the massless amplitude (6.16) is described very briefly; defining the analytic continuation of the Gamma-function ratios and the status of the zeros at ω=in/4M would make the massless claim checkable.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the precession and amplitude results are derived from the metric via Hamilton-Jacobi and exact wave-equation methods, with self-cited coordinate inputs that are checkable building blocks rather than load-bearing assumptions.

full rationale

The paper's central results are not equivalent to their inputs by construction. The vanishing-precession claim follows from a direct residue evaluation of the bounded radial action at the self-dual point (Eq. 2.23), and the all-orders radial action comes from integrating the Hamilton-Jacobi equation for the Taub-NUT metric. The generalized eikonal formula (1.2) is explicitly introduced as a conjecture, and Section 5 provides an independent route: the Klein-Gordon equation is transformed to parabolic coordinates (5.1) and solved exactly with generalized Laguerre functions (5.9), giving the amplitude (5.11) without invoking the eikonal ansatz. The coordinates (5.1) are imported from the authors' prior work [6], but they are a parameter-free coordinate transformation whose stated assumptions do not include the target amplitude; this is a reusable building block, not load-bearing circularity. No parameter is fitted to the quantum amplitude: q and M are fixed by the background metric and kinematics. The paper does contain caveats — Section 4 says 'leave detailed derivation for later work,' and the claimed agreement between Eq. (4.13) and Eq. (5.11) is not algebraically transparent for a=0 and may reflect a sign/conjugation discrepancy — but these are completeness and correctness risks, not cases where a prediction reduces to its input by definition. The amplitude also connects to external results such as [7], supporting that the outcome is not forced by the authors' own prior definitions.

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

The central claims rest on the background metric, standard HJ separability, the conjectured eikonal formula, and the asserted reduction to a Coulomb-dyon Schrodinger problem. No free parameters are fitted to data; M, N, a, ω, p are physical inputs. No new entities are invented.

assumptions (4)
  • ad hoc to paper The generalized eikonal formula f(k) = p/(2π) ∫ d²b e^{ik·b+i2qφ} e^{iχ(b)} is exact at the self-dual point.
    Stated as a conjecture in the abstract and introduced heuristically in Section 4, where the authors defer a detailed derivation: 'We will provide a simple argument and leave detailed derivation for later work.' The amplitude depends on this formula.
  • domain assumption The equivalent Schrodinger equation (∂i + qAi)^2 - q²/r² + V(r) = p² with V(r) = 2Mp²/r describes the quantum amplitude of the SD black hole.
    Introduced in Section 4 as a starting point for the eikonal argument; the connection to the original Klein-Gordon equation is asserted, not derived in the paper.
  • domain assumption Analytic continuation N = iM in Lorentzian signature defines a physical S-matrix for the self-dual black hole.
    Section 6.2 notes the SD metric is not real under this continuation but assumes the S-matrix is still defined by analytic continuation; causality is left for future work.
  • domain assumption The complex coordinates (5.1) from prior work [6] transform the Klein-Gordon equation on the SD Kerr-Taub-NUT background into (5.2).
    Section 5 states 'After working out the coordinate change... it turns into (5.2)' without showing the computation; the derivation of the exact amplitude relies on this step.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An Exact Black Hole Scattering Amplitude." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/U6VHOZBV

@misc{pith2026241219627,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An Exact Black Hole Scattering Amplitude},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/U6VHOZBV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.19627}
}
abstract

General Relativity famously predicts precession of orbital motions in the Schwarzschild metric. In this paper we show that by adding a NUT charge $N = iM$ the precession vanishes to all orders in $G$ even for rotating black holes. Moreover, we conjecture a generalization of the eikonal formula and show that the classical integrable trajectories determine the full quantum amplitude for this black hole, by means of exponentiation of the Post-Minkowskian radial action. Several consequences of integrability in self-dual gravity are discussed.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 5 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Schwarzschild black holes from twistor space

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The Schwarzschild metric is derived as a Kähler metric on a holomorphic 'coincidence locus' within the twistor space of self-dual Taub-NUT, solving the googly problem for this specific spacetime.

  2. Mass/electric versus NUT/magnetic charges: duality from scattering amplitudes in $D\geq4$ and for all bosonic spins

    hep-th 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Kerr-NUT mass/electric and equal-NUT/magnetic charges are dual in D≥4, realized as J_σ ↔ J_−σ in 3-point amplitudes generated by a spin-raising operator for all bosonic spins.

  3. Memory effect from the scattering of Taub-NUT black holes

    hep-th 2026-03 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Soft theorems yield a gauge-invariant nutty soft factor and the associated memory tensor for Kerr-Taub-NUT scattering, with magnetic components and directional divergences absent in electromagnetism.

  4. Incidence Relations for Self-Dual Black Holes

    hep-th 2026-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Closed-form deformed incidence relations are constructed for Eguchi-Hanson, self-dual Taub-NUT, and self-dual Plebanski-Demianski spacetimes by resumming the Dunajski-Mason recursion in Plebanski coordinates.

  5. Celestial Chiral Algebras and Self-Dual Gravity

    hep-th 2025-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    This thesis derives deformations of celestial chiral algebras in self-dual gravity on curved backgrounds, obtaining W(infinity) on Eguchi-Hanson space, Ldiff_q(C) under Moyal deformation, and a two-parameter deformati...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

32 extracted references · 11 canonical work pages · cited by 5 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    Radiation damping in a gravitationa l field,

    B. S. DeWitt and R. W. Brehme, “Radiation damping in a gravitationa l field,” Annals of Physics 9 no. 2, (1960) 220–259

    work page 1960

  2. [2]

    Gravitational Multi - Instanto ns,

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, “Gravitational Multi - Instanto ns,” Phys. Lett. B 78 (1978) 430

    work page 1978

  3. [3]

    Green’s Functions for Gravitational Multi - Instan tons,

    D. N. Page, “Green’s Functions for Gravitational Multi - Instan tons,” Phys. Lett. B 85 (1979) 369–372

    work page 1979

  4. [4]

    Self-du al black holes in celestial holography,

    E. Crawley, A. Guevara, E. Himwich, and A. Strominger, “Self-du al black holes in celestial holography,” JHEP 09 (2023) 109, arXiv:2302.06661 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2023

  5. [5]

    Kleinian black holes,

    D. A. Easson and M. W. Pezzelle, “Kleinian black holes,” Phys. Rev. D 109 no. 4, (2024) 044007, arXiv:2312.00879 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  6. [6]

    Self Dual Black Holes as the Hydrogen Ato m,

    A. Guevara and U. Kol, “Self Dual Black Holes as the Hydrogen Ato m,” arXiv:2311.07933 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  7. [7]

    Scattering on s elf-dual Taub-NUT,

    T. Adamo, G. Bogna, L. Mason, and A. Sharma, “Scattering on s elf-dual Taub-NUT,” Class. Quant. Grav. 41 no. 1, (2024) 015030, arXiv:2309.03834 [hep-th]

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    Gluon scatterin g on the self-dual dyon,

    T. Adamo, G. Bogna, L. Mason, and A. Sharma, “Gluon scatterin g on the self-dual dyon,” arXiv:2406.09165 [hep-th]

    arXiv

Show all 32 references
  1. [9]

    Reconstructing Classical Spacetimes from the S- Matrix in Twistor Space,

    A. Guevara, “Reconstructing Classical Spacetimes from the S- Matrix in Twistor Space,” arXiv:2112.05111 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  2. [10]

    Single Kerr-Schild Metric for Taub-NUT Instanton,

    J.-H. Kim, “Single Kerr-Schild Metric for Taub-NUT Instanton,” arXiv:2405.09518 [hep-th]

    arXiv

  3. [11]

    Near Self Dual Black Holes,

    A. Guevara, U. Kol, and H. Tran, “Near Self Dual Black Holes,” In preparation

  4. [12]

    From boundary data to bound state s. Part II. Scattering angle to dynamical invariants (with twist),

    G. K¨ alin and R. A. Porto, “From boundary data to bound state s. Part II. Scattering angle to dynamical invariants (with twist),” JHEP 02 (2020) 120, arXiv:1911.09130 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Black hole s in Klein space,

    E. Crawley, A. Guevara, N. Miller, and A. Strominger, “Black hole s in Klein space,” JHEP 10 (2022) 135, arXiv:2112.03954 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Semiclassical description of scat tering,

    K. W. Ford and J. A. Wheeler, “Semiclassical description of scat tering,” Annals of Physics 7 (1959) 259–286

    1959

  7. [15]

    Nonrelativistic dyon-dyon scattering,

    J. S. Schwinger, K. A. Milton, W. y. Tsai, J. L. L. DeRaad, and D. C. Clark, “Nonrelativistic dyon-dyon scattering,” Annals of Physics 101 (1976) 451–495. 23

    1976

  8. [16]

    The radial action from probe a mplitudes to all orders,

    U. Kol, D. O’connell, and O. Telem, “The radial action from probe a mplitudes to all orders,” JHEP 03 (2022) 141, arXiv:2109.12092 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Scat tering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part I,

    Y. F. Bautista, A. Guevara, C. Kavanagh, and J. Vines, “Scat tering in black hole backgrounds and higher-spin amplitudes. Part I,” JHEP 03 (2023) 136, arXiv:2107.10179 [hep-th]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Amplitudes from Coulomb to Kerr-Taub-NUT,

    W. T. Emond, Y.-T. Huang, U. Kol, N. Moynihan, and D. O’Connell, “ Amplitudes from Coulomb to Kerr-Taub-NUT,” JHEP 05 (2022) 055, arXiv:2010.07861 [hep-th]

    2022 arXiv

  11. [19]

    High energy collision theory,

    R. J. Glauber, “High energy collision theory,” in Lectures in Theoretical Physics , W. E. Brittin and L. G. Dunham, eds., vol. 1, pp. 315–414. Interscience P ublishers, 1959

    1959

  12. [20]

    Classical and Quantum Dynamics of B PS Monopoles,

    G. Gibbons and N. Manton, “Classical and Quantum Dynamics of B PS Monopoles,” Nucl. Phys. B 274 (1986) 183–224

    1986

  13. [21]

    The hidden symmetries of multic enter metrics,

    G. W. Gibbons and P. J. Ruback, “The hidden symmetries of multic enter metrics,” Communications in Mathematical Physics 115 (1988) 267–300

    1988

  14. [22]

    Kerr black hole s as elementary particles,

    N. Arkani-Hamed, Y.-t. Huang, and D. O’Connell, “Kerr black hole s as elementary particles,” JHEP 01 (2020) 046, arXiv:1906.10100 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Scattering of Spinning B lack Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,

    A. Guevara, A. Ochirov, and J. Vines, “Scattering of Spinning B lack Holes from Exponentiated Soft Factors,” JHEP 09 (2019) 056, arXiv:1812.06895 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Double copy of electric-ma gnetic duality,

    Y.-T. Huang, U. Kol, and D. O’Connell, “Double copy of electric-ma gnetic duality,” Phys. Rev. D 102 no. 4, (2020) 046005, arXiv:1911.06318 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Holomorphic Classical Limit for Spin Effects in Gravit ational and Electromagnetic Scattering,

    A. Guevara, “Holomorphic Classical Limit for Spin Effects in Gravit ational and Electromagnetic Scattering,” JHEP 04 (2019) 033, arXiv:1706.02314 [hep-th]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Polarization whorls from M87* at the event horizon telescope,

    A. Lupsasca, D. Kapec, Y. Shi, D. E. A. Gates, and A. Stroming er, “Polarization whorls from M87* at the event horizon telescope,” Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 476 no. 2237, (2020) 20190618, arXiv:1809.09092 [hep-th]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Quasinormal-mode spectrum of Kerr black holes and its geometric in terpretation,

    H. Yang, D. A. Nichols, F. Zhang, A. Zimmerman, Z. Zhang, and Y . Chen, “Quasinormal-mode spectrum of Kerr black holes and its geometric in terpretation,” Phys. Rev. D 86 (2012) 104006, arXiv:1207.4253 [gr-qc]

    2012 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Massles s field perturbations and gravitomagnetism in the Kerr-Taub-NUT space-time,

    D. Bini, C. Cherubini, R. T. Jantzen, and B. Mashhoon, “Massles s field perturbations and gravitomagnetism in the Kerr-Taub-NUT space-time,” Phys. Rev. D 67 (2003) 084013, arXiv:gr-qc/0301080

    2003 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Topology of light rings for extremal and n on-extremal kerr-newman taub-nut black holes without z 2 symmetry,

    S.-P. Wu and S.-W. Wei, “Topology of light rings for extremal and n on-extremal kerr-newman taub-nut black holes without z 2 symmetry,” arXiv preprint 2307 (2023) , 2307.14003. 24

    2023 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Nut charges and black hole shadows,

    M. Zhang and J. Jiang, “Nut charges and black hole shadows,” Physics Letters B 816 (2021) 136213

    2021

  23. [31]

    Gravitational scattering and beyond from extreme mass ratio effective field theo ry,

    C. Cheung, J. Parra-Martinez, I. Z. Rothstein, N. Shah, and J. Wilson-Gerow, “Gravitational scattering and beyond from extreme mass ratio effective field theo ry,” JHEP 10 (2024) 005, arXiv:2406.14770 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Integrability of Black Hole Orb its in Maximal Supergravity,

    S. Caron-Huot and Z. Zahraee, “Integrability of Black Hole Orb its in Maximal Supergravity,” JHEP 07 (2019) 179, arXiv:1810.04694 [hep-th] . 25

    2019 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.