Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

The shadow and accretion disk images of the rotation loop quantum black bounce

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-08 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that in a rotating loop-quantum black bounce, both the LQG parameter α and the spin a shrink the black hole shadow, with spin dominant; thin-disk images at high inclination develop hat-like direct and lensed structures…

desk verdict The disk-image analysis is a reasonable template, but the shadow and image calculations rest on geodesic equations that do not follow from the metric, so the central claims are unsupported as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2502.08388 v1 pith:L4S3TGBU submitted 2025-02-12 gr-qc

Ke-Jian He , Huan Ye , Xiao-Xiong Zeng , Li-Fang Li , Peng Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords blackholeshadowloopquantumgravitybounceaccretiondiskimagebackwardray-tracingredshiftdistributionKerr-likephotongeodesics
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

The paper studies the shadow and emission images of a rotating black hole whose central singularity is replaced by a bounce, as motivated by loop quantum gravity. It claims that both the LQG parameter α and the spin a shrink the apparent shadow, with spin dominating and α acting as a secondary effect. At high observer inclination the direct and lensed images of a thin accretion disk separate into a hat-like structure, and Doppler shifts put blueshift and redshift on opposite sides of the image. If correct, these signatures give a way to constrain black hole parameters and to distinguish a quantum-gravity black hole from a Kerr black hole.

What carries the argument

The workhorse is the Hamilton–Jacobi separation of null geodesics in the Kerr-like LQBB metric, which yields radial and angular potentials with Carter-type constants; the unstable spherical photon orbits from these potentials fix the shadow boundary. Images are produced by backward ray-tracing from a zero-angular-momentum observer through a fisheye camera model to either a celestial sphere or a thin equatorial accretion disk. The disk model treats the region outside the ISCO as circular orbits and the region inside as a critical plunge, with separate redshift factors for each, and sums the intensity over successive disk crossings (direct, lensed, and higher-order images) using a Doppler-weighted transfer formula.

What would settle it

Numerically integrate null geodesics in the full rotating LQBB metric, without substituting χ(r)=r²+a², for a=0.9, α=0.47, and θ_obs=85°, then compare the resulting shadow boundary and inner shadow with Figures 3–4 of the paper; a mismatch would settle whether the α-driven shrinkage is real or an artefact of the assumed Kerr-form reduction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper's central claim is that the rotating LQG-inspired black bounce casts a shadow whose size depends measurably on the LQG parameter α: increasing α shrinks the shadow radius, and the effect survives even at high spin and high inclination, although rotation a remains the dominant factor. For a thin accretion disk extending to the event horizon, the direct and lensed images separate at high inclination into a hat-shaped structure, and the redshift distribution of the direct and lensed images tracks the accretion flow direction: prograde flow piles intensity and blueshift on one side, retrograde flow on the other. The paper argues these features, especially the α-dependence of the inner shadow and intensity, provide a potential observational discriminator between the LQBB and a Kerr black hole.

Load-bearing premise

The shadow boundary and critical curves rest on the unproven assumption that the rotating LQBB metric's photon equations separate exactly as Kerr's, even though the metric contains r_b² in the rotational terms; if that separation fails, the computed shadow sizes change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shadow size as a function of (a, α) can be converted into an observational bound on α once a is known from other measurements.
  • The hat-like separation between direct and lensed images at high inclination gives a geometric probe of the observer's viewing angle and of the accretion flow direction.
  • The opposite bright-side and redshift-side behavior of prograde versus retrograde flows makes the image asymmetry a spin-magnitude and spin-orientation diagnostic.
  • If future black hole images resolve the inner shadow, its α-dependent contraction would distinguish this LQG bounce from a Kerr black hole.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The paper's geodesic equations assume χ(r)=r²+a² even though the metric's rotational terms contain r²+r_b²+a²; testing whether the exact metric is separable would show whether the α shrinkage is robust or an artefact of that substitution.
  • The same backward ray-tracing machinery could be applied to other regular black bounce metrics to see whether a 'bounce parameter' leaves a universal shadow signature or one specific to this LQG construction.
  • The redshift maps suggest a practical estimator: the side of the bright arc in a single image carries independent information about the disk's rotation sense, which could be cross-checked against the shadow asymmetry.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript studies the shadow and accretion-disk images of a rotating loop-quantum-gravity-inspired black bounce (LQBB), using backward ray tracing with both a celestial-sphere light source and a thin equatorial accretion disk. The authors report that the LQG parameter α and the rotation parameter a both reduce the shadow size, that the images become asymmetric and D-shaped with increasing spin and inclination, that direct/lensed images separate into a hat-like structure at high inclination, and that Doppler redshift/blueshift distributions depend on prograde versus retrograde accretion flow. The paper is primarily numerical: parameters are scanned, and no fitting to observational data is performed.

Significance. If the results were correct, the paper would provide a useful observational-discrimination study for an LQG-inspired black bounce against Kerr black holes, with concrete predictions for future EHT-like observations. The strengths are that the parameters are scanned rather than fitted to the shadow size, so no target-fitting circularity is present, and the numerical pipeline follows established ray-tracing methods from Refs. [57,84,90]. However, the central physical input, the null geodesic equations, is not derived for the stated metric and appears to be taken from Kerr spacetime. Because all shadow contours, critical curves, lensing bands, images, and redshift maps are computed from those equations, the main quantitative claims are unsupported as written.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section III, Eqs. (13)-(18)] The null geodesic equations are written in the standard Kerr form with χ(r)=r²+a², but the metric in Eqs. (8)-(10) contains the combinations r²+r_b²+a² and Σ=r²+r_b²+a²cos²θ. For the Hamilton-Jacobi separation used in Eq. (12) to work, one needs χ-a²sin²θ=Σ, which gives χ=r²+r_b²+a², not χ=r²+a². The text states "χ(r)=(r²+a²)" directly after Eq. (18) and gives no derivation or supporting reference for this substitution. Since Eqs. (20)-(23) for the impact parameters, Figure 1 for the shadow contours, and all ray-traced images in Figures 2-11 are obtained from these geodesic equations, every numerical result is computed for a different spacetime unless the replacement is justified. The effect is not numerically negligible: with r_b=(α²M/2)^{1/3}, α=0.47 and M=1 give r_b²≈0.23M², which is comparable to a² for small spin and is still a non-negligible correction at a=0.9.
  2. [Abstract and Section VI] The paper is internally inconsistent about the sign of the rotation dependence. The abstract states that "both the LQG parameter alpha and the rotation parameter a contribute to a reduction in the shadow size," while Section VI states that "the contour size of the shadow expands as the parameter a increases," and the discussion of Figure 1 describes the y-axis size as constant and the contour as deforming with increasing a. The authors need to state unambiguously whether the shadow size increases or decreases with a, since this directly bears on the claimed observational signature.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract contains an incomplete sentence: "while the effect of alpha circular orbit" appears to be missing words, probably describing the effect of α on circular photon orbits.
  2. [Section IV] The text says robs=120 in the celestial-source setup, while the caption of Figure 2 says robs=100; please make these consistent.
  3. [Figures 8 and 11] The captions of Figures 8 and 11 label both rows as "bottom row," although the text refers to direct (top) and lensed (bottom) images; the captions should distinguish the rows correctly.
  4. [Section VI and throughout] There are several typographical issues, including "the the contour size" in Section VI, "countercurrent" used for retrograde flow, and "correlation parameter" used to mean the pair (α,a); these should be corrected in a revision.
  5. [References] Reference [25] contains a stray entry "Shaikh:2018lcc" in the author list and should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the LQG parameter and spin are scanned, not fitted, and the metric and ray-tracing method are grounded in external prior work.

full rationale

The paper's shadow and image calculations are parameter studies: alpha and a are scanned over a grid, and the resulting shadow contours, celestial-sphere images, thin-disk images, and redshift maps are generated by backward ray-tracing. There is no step in which a parameter is fitted to the quantity that is then presented as a prediction; in particular, the shadow size is not used to infer alpha or a. The metric is imported from Muniz et al. [84], and the ray-tracing and camera models come from [57,90], which are external sources not authored by the present authors. The paper's many self-citations appear only in the introduction as contextual background and are not load-bearing. The emissivity profile in Eq. (47) is a modeling choice calibrated to 230 GHz observations, not a fitted target of the paper's claims. The most serious defect flagged in review is a technical consistency issue, not circularity: Eqs. (13)-(18) use chi(r)=r^2+a^2, whereas the metric (8) contains r^2+r_b^2+a^2 in the corresponding rotational terms, so a full Hamilton-Jacobi separation for this metric would require chi=r^2+r_b^2+a^2. That error, if confirmed, would mean the images are computed for a spacetime different from the stated metric, but it does not make the derivation equivalent to its inputs or reduce a prediction to a fit. Accordingly, the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central shadow and image results rest on the LQG-inspired metric taken from Refs. [84,85], the Simpson-Visser regularization, and the Newman-Janis rotation procedure. No new particle, field, or entity is invented. The free parameters are the model parameters alpha, a, r_b, and the ad hoc emissivity coefficients; none are fitted to observational data. The most fragile unproved input is the Kerr-form geodesic substitution chi(r) = r^2 + a^2 in a metric whose rotational terms contain r^2 + r_b^2 + a^2.

free parameters (4)
  • LQG parameter alpha = scanned values 0.001 to 0.47; not fitted
    Enters the seed metric (Eq. 2) and the rotating metric (Eq. 8). The paper claims it shrinks the shadow, but the value is not determined by data.
  • rotation parameter a = scanned values 0.1 to 0.99; not fitted
    The spin of the rotating LQBB metric (Eq. 8). The paper studies its effect on shadows and images but does not fit it to observations.
  • bounce radius r_b = treated as a free parameter, sometimes tied to alpha via Eq. (5)
    Section II states “the parameter r_b can be regarded as a free parameter.” Its value controls the bounce in the metric and affects the shadow and disk images, but it is not derived within this paper.
  • emissivity profile coefficients in Eq. (47) = coefficients 1/2 and 2; no fit shown
    The intensity images depend on the chosen emissivity J = exp[-1/2 (log r/r_h)^2 - 2 log r/r_h]. The paper says it is based on 230 GHz EHT data but gives no reference or fitting procedure.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The seed LQG metric (Eqs. 1-2) from Ref. [85] is a valid description of a spherically symmetric LQG black hole.
    Section II invokes the Kelly-Santacruz-Wilson-Ewing solution without deriving it.
  • domain assumption The Simpson-Visser substitution r -> sqrt(r^2 + r_b^2) removes the singularity and defines the LQBB metric (Eq. 6).
    Section II applies Ref. [87] to the LQG seed metric. This is a regularization choice, not a consequence of the preceding LQG quantization.
  • domain assumption The Newman-Janis algorithm yields a physically valid rotating metric with Psi = rho^2 and G_{r theta} = 0 (Eq. 8).
    Section II relies on Refs. [88,89] for the NJA. The consistency of the resulting metric with the Carter form of geodesic separation is asserted, not proven.
  • ad hoc to paper Photon motion in the rotating LQBB spacetime is governed by Eqs. (13)-(18) with chi(r) = r^2 + a^2.
    Eqs. (13)-(18) are written in the standard Kerr form, but the metric (8)-(10) has r^2 + r_b^2 + a^2 in the rotational terms. No derivation shows the Carter radial potential for this spacetime reduces to the Kerr form.
  • domain assumption The thin accretion disk is geometrically and optically thin, extends from the event horizon to r_f = 1000, and contains matter on equatorial timelike geodesics.
    Section V.A sets the disk inner edge at the horizon, with circular geodesics outside the ISCO and critical plunging orbits inside the ISCO.
  • domain assumption The emissivity profile in Eq. (47) describes the emission of M87* and Sgr A* at 230 GHz.
    The paper states this without citing a source or fitting procedure. The coefficients are arbitrary enough that the intensity images are model-dependent.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of The shadow and accretion disk images of the rotation loop quantum black bounce." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4S3TGBU

@misc{pith2026250208388,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: The shadow and accretion disk images of the rotation loop quantum black bounce},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4S3TGBU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2502.08388}
}
read the original abstract

In this paper, we study the shadow and observational image of the Kerr-like Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG) inspired black bounce with the help of the celestial light source and the thin disk source by employing the backward ray-tracing method. The results indicate that both the LQG parameter alpha and the rotation parameter a contribute to a reduction in the shadow size; however, the influence of a is predominant, while the effect of alpha circular orbit. One can find that the correlation parameter (a, alpha), along with the observer's inclination angle, affect the image's asymmetry and the distortion of the inner shadow. As the inclination increases, the direct and lensed images diverge, creating a structure resembling a hat. Meanwhile, we also investigate the redshift distribution of the direct lensed images of the accretion disk under different parameters and observation angle. The results show that the distribution of redshift and observed intensity is obviously related to the behavior of accretion flow. These results may provide a potential approach to limit black hole parameters, detect quantum gravity effects, and distinguish the LQG black hole from other black hole models.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2502.08388 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The shadow contours of a rotating loop quantum black bounce are illustrated for varying [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: The shadow of the LQBB under several representative parameters using the numerical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: The image of the LQBB surrounded by prograde flow at 230 GHz, where the relevant [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (9 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The image of the rotating LQBB illuminated by prograde flows at 230 GHz, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: The image of the rotating LQBB illuminated by retrograde flows at 230 GHz, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: In the case of prograde accretion flow, the lensing bands of the LQBB are shown under [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: In the case of prograde accretion flow, the lensing bands of the LQBB are illustrated for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: The redshift distribution of the direct image (bottom row) and lensed image (bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: The redshift distribution of the direct image under prograde accretion flow, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The redshift distribution of the lensed image under prograde accretion flow, where the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_10.png]
Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Furthermore, when the rotation parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_1.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: The redshift distribution of the direct image (bottom row) and lensed image (bottom [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_11.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Echoes and quasinormal modes for static loop quantum black bounces

    gr-qc 2026-07 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Scalar perturbations of the loop quantum black bounce spacetime produce echoes in traversable-wormhole configurations with a double-barrier effective potential, but not in regular-black-hole configurations with a sing...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

90 extracted references · 52 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [84]

    C. R. Muniz, G. Alencar, M. S. Cunha and G. J. Olmo, arXiv:2408.08542 [gr-qc] 26

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    Akiyama et al

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

    2019

  3. [2]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.875, no.1, L2 (2019)

    2019

  4. [3]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.875, no.1, L3 (2019)

    2019

  5. [4]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.875, no.1, L4 (2019)

    2019

  6. [5]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.875, no.1, L5 (2019)

    2019

  7. [6]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.875, no.1, L6 (2019)

    2019

  8. [7]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L12 (2022)

    2022

Show all 90 references
  1. [8]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L13 (2022)

    2022

  2. [9]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L14 (2022)

    2022

  3. [10]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L15 (2022)

    2022

  4. [11]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L16 (2022)

    2022

  5. [12]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett.930, no.2, L17 (2022)

    2022

  6. [13]

    J. L. Synge, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.131, no.3, 463-466 (1966)

    1966

  7. [14]

    Bardeen, Proceedings, Ecole d’Eté de Physique Théorique: Les Astres Occlus: Les Houches, France, August, 1972, pp

    J.M. Bardeen, Proceedings, Ecole d’Eté de Physique Théorique: Les Astres Occlus: Les Houches, France, August, 1972, pp. 215-240 (1973). 24

    1973

  8. [15]

    Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University Press, New York (1992)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The Mathematical Theory of Black Holes, Oxford University Press, New York (1992)

    1992

  9. [16]

    S. W. Wei and Y. X. Liu, JCAP11, 063 (2013)

    2013

  10. [17]

    S. W. Wei, P. Cheng, Y. Zhong and X. N. Zhou, JCAP08, 004 (2015)

    2015

  11. [18]

    Huang, S

    Y. Huang, S. Chen and J. Jing, Eur. Phys. J. C76, no.11, 594 (2016)

    2016

  12. [19]

    M. Wang, S. Chen and J. Jing, JCAP10, 051 (2017)

    2017

  13. [20]

    K. J. He, J. T. Yao, X. Zhang and X. Li, Phys. Rev. D109, no.6, 064049 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    M. Wang, G. Guo, P. Yan, S. Chen and J. Jing, Chin. Phys. C48, no.10, 105103 (2024)

    2024

  15. [22]

    Guo and P

    M. Guo and P. C. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C80, no.6, 588 (2020)

    2020

  16. [23]

    Atamurotov, A

    F. Atamurotov, A. Abdujabbarov and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D88, no.6, 064004 (2013)

    2013

  17. [24]

    Perlick, O

    V. Perlick, O. Y. Tsupko and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D92, no.10, 104031 (2015)

    2015

  18. [25]

    R. A. Konoplya,Shaikh:2018lcc Phys. Lett. B795, 1-6 (2019)

    2019

  19. [26]

    Shaikh, P

    R. Shaikh, P. Kocherlakota, R. Narayan and P. S. Joshi, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.482, no.1, 52-64 (2019)

    2019

  20. [27]

    Abdujabbarov, M

    A. Abdujabbarov, M. Amir, B. Ahmedov and S. G. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D93, no.10, 104004 (2016)

    2016

  21. [28]

    Amarilla and E

    L. Amarilla and E. F. Eiroa, Phys. Rev. D85, 064019 (2012)

    2012

  22. [29]

    P. G. Nedkova, V. K. Tinchev and S. S. Yazadjiev, Phys. Rev. D88, no.12, 124019 (2013)

    2013

  23. [30]

    Papnoi, F

    U. Papnoi, F. Atamurotov, S. G. Ghosh and B. Ahmedov, Phys. Rev. D90, no.2, 024073 (2014)

    2014

  24. [31]

    Y. Meng, X. M. Kuang, X. J. Wang and J. P. Wu, Phys. Lett. B841, 137940 (2023)

    2023

  25. [32]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y. Hou and M. Guo, Chin. Phys. C48, no.8, 085106 (2024)

    2024

  26. [33]

    Zhang, H

    Z. Zhang, H. Yan, M. Guo and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D107, no.2, 024027 (2023)

    2023

  27. [34]

    Hashimoto, S

    K. Hashimoto, S. Kinoshita and K. Murata, Phys. Rev. Lett.123, no.3, 031602 (2019)

    2019

  28. [35]

    Hashimoto, S

    K. Hashimoto, S. Kinoshita and K. Murata, Phys. Rev. D101, no.6, 066018 (2020)

    2020

  29. [36]

    X. X. Zeng, L. F. Li, P. Li, B. Liang and P. Xu, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.68, no.2, 220412 (2025)

    2025

  30. [37]

    X. X. Zeng, K. J. He, J. Pu, G. p. Li and Q. Q. Jiang, Eur. Phys. J. C83, no.10, 897 (2023)

    2023

  31. [38]

    Y. Liu, Q. Chen, X. X. Zeng, H. Zhang, W. L. Zhang and W. Zhang, JHEP10, 189 (2022)

    2022

  32. [39]

    K. J. He, Y. W. Han and G. P. Li, Nucl. Phys. B1010, 116768 (2025)

    2025

  33. [40]

    K. J. He, Y. W. Han and G. P. Li, Phys. Dark Univ.44, 101468 (2024)

    2024

  34. [41]

    Narayan, M

    R. Narayan, M. D. Johnson and C. F. Gammie, Astrophys. J. Lett.885, no.2, L33 (2019)

    2019

  35. [42]

    S. E. Gralla, D. E. Holz and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D100, no. 2, 024018 (2019)

    2019

  36. [43]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Phys. Rev. D103, no.10, 104033 (2021)

    2021

  37. [44]

    Chowdhuri and A

    A. Chowdhuri and A. Bhattacharyya, Phys. Rev. D104, no.6, 064039 (2021)

    2021

  38. [45]

    Tsukamoto, Z

    N. Tsukamoto, Z. Li and C. Bambi, JCAP06, 043 (2014)

    2014

  39. [46]

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu and H. F. Runarsson, Phys. Rev. Lett.115, no.21, 211102 (2015)

    2015

  40. [47]

    S. Chen, J. Jing, W. L. Qian and B. Wang, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.66, no.6, 260401 (2023)

    2023

  41. [48]

    K. J. He, Z. Luo, S. Guo and G. P. Li, Chin. Phys. C48, no.6, 065105 (2024)

    2024

  42. [49]

    X. X. Zeng, G. P. Li and K. J. He, Nucl. Phys. B974, 115639 (2022) 25

    2022

  43. [50]

    K. J. He, S. C. Tan and G. P. Li, Eur. Phys. J. C82, no.1, 81 (2022)

    2022

  44. [51]

    K. J. He, X. Zhang and X. Li, Chin. Phys. C46, no.7, 075103 (2022)

    2022

  45. [52]

    G. P. Li and K. J. He, Eur. Phys. J. C81, no.11, 1018 (2021)

    2021

  46. [53]

    X. X. Zeng, K. J. He and G. P. Li, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.65, no.9, 290411 (2022)

    2022

  47. [54]

    Zhang, S

    Z. Zhang, S. Chen and J. Jing, JCAP09, 027 (2024)

    2024

  48. [55]

    H. M. Wang, Z. C. Lin and S. W. Wei, Nucl. Phys. B985, 116026 (2022)

    2022

  49. [56]

    Q. Gan, P. Wang, H. Wu and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D104, no.4, 044049 (2021)

    2021

  50. [57]

    Y. Hou, Z. Zhang, H. Yan, M. Guo and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D106, no.6, 064058 (2022)

    2022

  51. [58]

    C. Y. Yang, M. I. Aslam, X. X. Zeng and R. Saleem, arXiv:2411.11807 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  52. [59]

    S. Guo, Y. X. Huang, E. W. Liang, Y. Liang, Q. Q. Jiang and K. Lin, Astrophys. J.975, no.2, 237 (2024)

    2024

  53. [60]

    K. J. He, G. P. Li, C. Y. Yang and X. X. Zeng, arXiv:2411.11680 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  54. [61]

    G. P. Li, H. B. Zheng, K. J. He and Q. Q. Jiang, arXiv:2410.17295 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  55. [62]

    K. J. He, C. Y. Yang and X. X. Zeng, arXiv:2501.06778 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv

  56. [63]

    Y. Meng, X. J. Wang, Y. Z. Li and X. M. Kuang, arXiv:2501.02496 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  57. [64]

    Rovelli, Living Rev

    C. Rovelli, Living Rev. Rel.1, 1 (1998)

    1998

  58. [65]

    K. A. Meissner, Class. Quant. Grav.21, 5245-5252 (2004)

    2004

  59. [66]

    M. Han, W. Huang and Y. Ma, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D16, 1397-1474 (2007)

    2007

  60. [67]

    J. Yang, Y. Ding and Y. Ma, Phys. Lett. B682, 1-7 (2009)

    2009

  61. [68]

    Zhang and Y

    X. Zhang and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. Lett.106, 171301 (2011)

    2011

  62. [69]

    Y. Ma, C. Soo and J. Yang, Phys. Rev. D81, 124026 (2010)

    2010

  63. [70]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, P. Singh and K. Vandersloot, Phys. Rev. D75, 024035 (2007)

    2007

  64. [71]

    Vandersloot, Phys

    K. Vandersloot, Phys. Rev. D75, 023523 (2007)

    2007

  65. [72]

    Bojowald, Phys

    M. Bojowald, Phys. Rev. Lett.86, 5227-5230 (2001)

    2001

  66. [73]

    Bojowald, Class

    M. Bojowald, Class. Quant. Grav.19, 2717-2742 (2002)

    2002

  67. [74]

    Ashtekar, M

    A. Ashtekar, M. Bojowald and J. Lewandowski, Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7, no.2, 233-268 (2003)

    2003

  68. [75]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski and P. Singh, Phys. Rev. D74, 084003 (2006)

    2006

  69. [76]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo and P. Singh, [arXiv:2301.01309 [gr-qc]]

    arXiv

  70. [77]

    Modesto, Int

    L. Modesto, Int. J. Theor. Phys.45, 2235-2246 (2006)

    2006

  71. [78]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Bojowald, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 391-411 (2006)

    2006

  72. [79]

    Modesto, Class

    L. Modesto, Class. Quant. Grav.23, 5587-5602 (2006)

    2006

  73. [80]

    Ongole, P

    G. Ongole, P. Singh and A. Wang, Phys. Rev. D109, no.2, 026015 (2024)

    2024

  74. [81]

    Perez, Living Rev

    A. Perez, Living Rev. Rel.16, 3 (2013)

    2013

  75. [82]

    Engle and S

    J. Engle and S. Speziale, arXiv:2310.20147 [gr-qc]

    arXiv

  76. [83]

    Rovelli and F

    C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics. Cambridge University Press, 11, (2014)

    2014

  77. [85]

    J. G. Kelly, R. Santacruz and E. Wilson-Ewing, Phys. Rev. D102, no.10, 106024 (2020)

    2020

  78. [86]

    Lewandowski, Y

    J. Lewandowski, Y. Ma, J. Yang and C. Zhang, Phys. Rev. Lett.130, no.10, 101501 (2023)

    2023

  79. [87]

    Simpson and M

    A. Simpson and M. Visser, JCAP02, 042 (2019)

    2019

  80. [88]

    Azreg-Aïnou, Phys

    M. Azreg-Aïnou, Phys. Rev. D90, no.6, 064041 (2014)

    2014

  81. [89]

    Azreg-Ainou, Phys

    M. Azreg-Ainou, Phys. Lett. B730, 95-98 (2014)

    2014

  82. [90]

    Z. Hu, Z. Zhong, P. C. Li, M. Guo and B. Chen, Phys. Rev. D103, no.4, 044057 (2021)

    2021

Pith tools

Reviewed August 8, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.