Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 112 references

A Black Hole Solution in Kalb-Ramond Gravity with Quintessence Field: From Geodesic Dynamics to Thermal Criticality

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-05 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A two-parameter metric captures both Lorentz violation and quintessence and predicts shifts in every black-hole observable.

desk verdict A broad but standard KR-plus-quintessence parameter study whose central metric does not satisfy the authors' own field equations as printed. read the letter →

arxiv 2508.16693 v2 pith:55WGVLKU submitted 2025-08-21 gr-qc hep-th

Ahmad Al-Badawi , Faizuddin Ahmed , İzzet Sakall{i} This is my paper
classification gr-qchep-th
keywords blackholeKalb-RamondgravityLorentzsymmetryviolationquintessencephotonsphereshadowgravitationallensingthermodynamics
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 proposes a static, spherically symmetric black hole whose metric function combines a Kalb-Ramond field's Lorentz-violating parameter η with quintessence parameters (C, w): A(r) = 1/(1−η) − 2M/r − C/r^(3w+1). It argues this two-parameter family is a legitimate solution, reducing to known Kalb-Ramond-Schwarzschild and quintessence-Schwarzschild limits, and then derives how η and C shift photon spheres, shadow radii, ISCO radii, lensing deflection, scalar and electromagnetic perturbation potentials, and heat capacity. The reason to care: each shift is parameter-dependent and the two effects push in opposite directions—η strengthens gravitational effects, C weakens them—so precise black-hole observations could in principle distinguish this framework from general relativity. The whole construction rests on the assumed consistency of the superposed field equations, which is not demonstrated by substitution.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the metric function A(r) = 1/(1−η) − 2M/r − C/r^(3w+1), where η = εb²/2 measures the Lorentz-violation strength and (C, w) are the quintessence normalization and equation-of-state parameter. This function enters the effective potential, the photon-sphere condition, the shadow radius, the perturbation potentials, and the surface-gravity temperature, so every derived observable is a direct consequence of its form.

What would settle it

Directly substitute A(r) = 1/(1−η) − 2M/r − C/r^(3w+1) into the displayed field equations (2.8) and (2.9); the substitution is a finite algebra step and settles whether the claimed solution satisfies the equations. Observationally, measure a black hole shadow radius for a known mass at better precision than the predicted deviations; if no (η, C) in the allowed range reproduces the measured radius along with the lensing and thermal constraints, the model is falsified.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

In the paper's own terms, the central claim is that the metric (2.10) with A(r) = 1/(1−η) − 2M/r − C/r^(3w+1) describes a black hole in Kalb-Ramond gravity immersed in a quintessence background, and that this single metric function governs all subsequent physics. The paper derives analytical expressions for the photon sphere and shadow radius for w = −1/3, −2/3, −1; the null Lyapunov exponent; the ISCO condition; the Gauss-Bonnet weak-field deflection angle; scalar and electromagnetic perturbation potentials; and the Hawking temperature, Gibbs free energy, and specific heat. The recurring pattern is that η enhances gravitational attraction while quintessence opposes it, producing systematic,

Load-bearing premise

The whole construction rests on the assumption that the chosen Kalb-Ramond field vacuum and the added quintessence energy-momentum can be combined into one consistent solution; no derivation shows the metric actually satisfies the field equations, and if that consistency fails, every later result built on the metric fails with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Shadow radii shrink as η grows and expand as C grows, with explicit analytical formulas for three quintessence states; high-resolution black-hole imaging could bound η and C.
  • ISCO radii increase sharply with both C and |η|, reaching hundreds of M in the paper's tables, which would push the inner edge of an accretion disk outward relative to general relativity.
  • The weak-field deflection angle gains a (1−η) enhancement of the leading 4M/b term plus C-dependent power-law corrections, giving lensing surveys a concrete signature to test.
  • Scalar and electromagnetic perturbation potentials grow with η and shrink with C, shifting quasinormal-mode frequencies and damping rates in ways a gravitational-wave ringdown measurement could probe.
  • The specific heat diverges and changes sign for certain parameter combinations, indicating second-order phase transitions absent in Schwarzschild thermodynamics.
  • The metric reduces to the pure Kalb-Ramond-Schwarzschild solution at C = 0 and to the quintessence-Schwarzschild solution at η = 0, so the model contains both known limits as special cases.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because η and C act oppositely on shadow radius and ISCO, a single observable leaves a one-parameter degeneracy in the (η, C) plane; only joint fits across shadow, lensing, and thermal measurements could pin both parameters down.
  • The printed field equations are not satisfied by the printed metric on direct substitution, so the cleanest next step is a first-principles derivation of A(r) from the action; until then the observable predictions are conditional on that consistency step.
  • Extending the model to rotation would add spin-dependent shadow asymmetry and stronger ISCO and ringdown signatures, likely sharpening the constraints the static solution can provide.
  • Validating the solution and comparing its shadow predictions to the observed shadow diameters of nearby black holes would be a direct, near-term observational test once the field-equation issue is resolved.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes a static spherically symmetric black hole solution in Kalb-Ramond gravity with a surrounding quintessence field, with metric function A(r)=1/(1−η)−2M/r−C/r^{3w+1}. The authors then derive a large set of phenomenological consequences: photon and timelike geodesics, photon sphere and shadow radius, ISCOs, scalar and electromagnetic perturbations, Gauss-Bonnet lensing, and extended thermodynamics. The central physical claim is that the combined Lorentz-violating (η) and quintessence (C,w) effects produce observable deviations from Schwarzschild across shadow, lensing, ISCO, and thermal observables.

Significance. If the proposed metric were a genuine solution, the paper would provide a useful catalogue of analytic expressions for shadow radii, ISCOs, lensing angles, and heat capacities in a two-parameter extension of Schwarzschild, and the systematic parameter dependence would be easy to use for observational comparison with EHT and LISA-type measurements. The paper also has the merit of checking several GR limits and presenting numerical tables for shadows and ISCOs. However, the significance is entirely conditional on the validity of the spacetime, and the central validation step is missing. No numerical or symbolic verification is reported, and the perturbations are not used to compute quasinormal frequencies. As it stands, the paper's main contribution is an algebraic exploration of a metric that does not satisfy the displayed field equations.

major comments (4)
  1. [§II, Eqs. (2.8), (2.9), (2.11)] Direct substitution of A(r)=1/(1−η)−2M/r−C/r^{3w+1} into the reduced field equations does not produce zero. For Eq. (2.8) the residual is −(15/4)Cw(3w+1)r^{−3w−3}; for Eq. (2.9) it is 3Cw(1/η−3w−2)r^{−3w−3}. For the paper's flagship case w=−2/3 these become −5C/(2r) and −2C/(ηr). Thus Eq. (2.11) is not a solution of the printed field equations except in trivial limits (C=0 or special w). Since every later section—photon sphere, shadow, ISCO, lensing, heat capacity—uses Eq. (2.11), the advertised observable predictions inherit this failure. The paper contains no independent check (numerical residual, symbolic verification, or consistency condition) that would rescue the solution.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (4.3), Table V] The text states that the C=0 limit recovers the pure KRG shadow R_s=3√3 M√(1−η). Using Eq. (4.3) with r_ph=3(1−η)M gives R_s=3√3(1−η)^{3/2}M, not 3√3 M√(1−η). The numerical entries in Table V for C=0, η=0.3,0.6,0.9 (3.043, 1.315, 0.164) agree with the (1−η)^{3/2} form. The claimed limit is therefore inconsistent with the paper's own formulas and should be corrected, along with the comparison to the cited KRG result.
  3. [§III, Eq. (2.13), Table II] For w=−2/3, M=1, η=0, C=0.01, the cosmological horizon from Eq. (2.13) is r_c≈97.96, whereas Table II lists r_ISCO=295.718. Many other entries similarly give r_ISCO>r_c. These ISCO radii lie outside the static region between the event and cosmological horizons, so presenting them as physical ISCOs is problematic. The claim of order-of-magnitude ISCO enhancement is not supported unless the authors identify which branch of the marginal-stability polynomial is the physical one and restrict the parameter range to r_ISCO<r_c.
  4. [§V–VI, Eqs. (5.8), (6.3)] The abstract and conclusions claim that the perturbation analysis shows how Lorentz violation and quintessence alter wave propagation and stability properties. However, Sections V and VI only plot effective potentials; they do not compute quasinormal frequencies, damping times, or any stability criterion for the scalar or electromagnetic sectors. No mode analysis, WKB/eikonal calculation, or time-domain evolution is presented. The statements about 'stability properties' and 'QNM spectra' are therefore unsupported, even setting aside the invalid background metric.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Notation, §II and §III] The symbol r_c is used both for the cosmological horizon in Eq. (2.13)/Fig. 2 and for the circular photon orbit radius in Eq. (3.12). This makes several equations ambiguous.
  2. [Eq. (3.15)] The factor ((3w+1)(3w+2)−2)/2 inside the Lyapunov expression is typeset in a way that is easy to misread; parentheses should clarify whether the denominator 2 belongs to the whole expression.
  3. [Throughout] The text contains multiple typographical issues, e.g. 'spacetime', 'T rajectories', 'L V' with inconsistent spacing, and 'Gauss-Bonnet Theorem (GBT)' appearing in different styles. These should be cleaned up.
  4. [References] Several references are duplicated or overlap closely (e.g. refs [11] and [17] appear to be the same paper; refs [5], [30], [34] share the same author group). A careful revision should consolidate citations and avoid apparent self-citation inflation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: observables are algebraic consequences of the assumed metric, not fitted targets; the main flaw is a solution-status error, not a circular reduction.

full rationale

The paper's central derivations are not circular. The metric function A(r) = 1/(1-eta) - 2M/r - C/r^(3w+1) is an explicit ansatz, and every subsequent quantity—effective potential, photon sphere, shadow radius, ISCO, perturbation potentials, lensing deflection, and thermodynamic functions—is derived algebraically from A(r) and its derivatives. No parameter is fitted to the target observables, no uniqueness theorem is imported from the authors' prior work, and no prediction is inserted as an assumption. The self-citations appearing in the introduction and around the lensing formula (refs. 5, 11, 17, 30, 34, 90) are background or methodological references; they are not load-bearing for the central solution. A separate, serious correctness issue should not be mislabeled as circularity: substituting Eq. (2.11) into the printed reduced field equations does not satisfy them. For Eq. (2.8) the residual is -(15/4) C w (3w+1) r^{-3w-3}, and for Eq. (2.9) it is 3 C w (1/eta - 3w - 2) r^{-3w-3}, neither of which vanishes for generic (C,w,eta). Thus the stated derivation of the metric as a solution of the field equations is unsupported, and all later predictions inherit that failure. This is a derivation error, not a circular equivalence, so the circularity score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the KR field ansatz, the quintessence stress tensor, the metric ansatz, and the assumed decoupling of the two sectors. None of these is discharged with machine-checked proof or numerical verification in the paper. The theory parameters eta, C, and w are free inputs scanned by hand rather than fitted or observed.

free parameters (3)
  • eta
    Lorentz-violation strength parameter from the Kalb-Ramond VEV; varied by hand in all plots, not fitted to data.
  • C
    Quintessence normalization constant; chosen by hand to scan parameter space, not fitted to observations.
  • w
    Quintessence equation-of-state parameter; specific values (-1/3, -2/3, -1) are adopted for tables and figures.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Static, spherically symmetric metric ansatz with G(r)=1/F(r)=A(r), Eqs (2.6) and (2.10).
    Standard symmetry reduction used without derivation.
  • ad hoc to paper Kalb-Ramond field frozen at its VEV with only b01=-b10 nonzero, Eq (2.7).
    A specific field ansatz that is not derived; the metric's validity depends on it.
  • domain assumption Quintessence stress tensor has T^t_t=T^r_r=rho_q and T^theta_theta=T^phi_phi=-(1/2)rho_q(3w+1), Eq (2.5).
    Standard Kiselev quintessence assumption, here combined with the KR source without cross-coupling.
  • ad hoc to paper The KR and quintessence field equations decouple and their solutions superpose, Eqs (2.8)-(2.11).
    No Bianchi or consistency check is shown; as printed Eq (2.8) is not satisfied by the claimed solution.
  • domain assumption Weak-field straight-line trajectory in the Gauss-Bonnet lensing calculation, Section VII around Eq (7.6).
    Standard weak-lensing approximation, but questionable for the w=-2/3 quintessence term that does not decay at infinity.
  • standard math Bekenstein-Hawking area entropy and surface-gravity temperature, Section VIII.
    Standard black hole thermodynamics framework applied to the solution.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Black Hole Solution in Kalb-Ramond Gravity with Quintessence Field: From Geodesic Dynamics to Thermal Criticality." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55WGVLKU

@misc{pith2026250816693,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Black Hole Solution in Kalb-Ramond Gravity with Quintessence Field: From Geodesic Dynamics to Thermal Criticality},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55WGVLKU}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2508.16693}
}
abstract

We present a theoretical investigation of black hole solutions in Kalb-Ramond gravity embedded with quintessence fields. Our study examines how combined effects of Lorentz violation through the Kalb-Ramond field parameter $\eta$ and exotic matter contributions via quintessence parameters $(\mathrm{C}, w)$ systematically modify spacetime geometry, particle dynamics, and observational signatures compared to standard Schwarzschild black holes. The analysis encompasses geodesic motion for both photons and massive particles, revealing substantial modifications to effective potentials, photon sphere characteristics, and innermost stable circular orbit properties. We derive analytical expressions for black hole shadow radii across different quintessence states, demonstrating systematic parameter dependencies enabling observational discrimination between theoretical frameworks. Our perturbation analysis of scalar and electromagnetic fields shows how Lorentz violation and quintessence effects alter wave propagation and stability properties. Using Gauss-Bonnet theorem methodology, we calculate gravitational lensing deflection angles incorporating both modified gravity and exotic matter contributions. The thermodynamic investigation reveals complex phase structures with modified Hawking temperature evolution, Gibbs free energy characteristics, and specific heat capacity behavior significantly deviating from general relativity predictions. Lorentz violation amplifies gravitational effects, whereas quintessence exerts counteractive forces, generating complex parameter spaces allowing precise manipulation of observable quantiti

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2508.16693 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. demonstrates that the event horizon increases with C but decreases with η, while the cosmological horizon exhibits opposite behavior. This reflects the complex interplay between LV and QF effects in determining the causal structure. The spacetime curvature properties are characterized by the Ricci and Kretschmann scalars: R = 1 r 3  2 η r η − 1 + 3 C w r−3w(3w − 1) , (2.14) K = 1 r 6 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. illustrates the profound impact of KRG-QF modifications on the effective potential landscape. The left panel reveals that increasing the LV parameter η systematically elevates the potential barrier, indicating enhanced gravitational binding effects due to spontaneous Lorentz symmetry breaking. Conversely, the right panel demonstrates that increasing the QF normalization constant C reduces the potential magnitude, re… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (23 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Effective radial force on photons as a function of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: presents a remarkable visualization of how LV systematically modifies photon geodesic structures. The progressive evolution from panels (a) through (f) reveals increasingly complex orbital patterns as η increases from 0.23 to 0.28. The transition from relatively simple…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: demonstrates the universal instability of circular photon orbits in the KRG-QF framework. The consistently positive Lyapunov exponent values across both parameter variations confirm that all circular null orbits remain fundamentally unstable, characteristic of photon s…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: reveals the modified potential landscape governing massive particle motion. The enhanced potential barriers with increasing η (left panel) and the reduced barriers with growing C (right panel) demonstrate how LV and QF effects oppositely influence particle binding and …
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: provides crucial insights into the observational discrimination potential between different theoretical frameworks. The left panel demonstrates how varying QF state parameters w systematically modify shadow radius scaling with the normalization constant C, while the r…
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]
Figure 15
Figure 15. Figure 15: provides fundamental insights into how KRG-QF modifications alter scalar wave propagation characteristics. The left panel demonstrates that increasing LV parameter η systematically enhances the potential magnitude, indicating stronger wave scattering and modified QNM …
Figure 16
Figure 16. Figure 16: FIG. 16 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_16.png]
Figure 17
Figure 17. Figure 17: FIG. 17 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_17.png]
Figure 18
Figure 18. Figure 18: FIG. 18 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_18.png]
Figure 19
Figure 19. Figure 19: presents comprehensive three-dimensional visualizations that illuminate the complex parameter-dependent structure of the EM potential landscape. Panel (a) demonstrates how the potential surface evolves with both radial coordinate x and QF parameter y for fixed LV stre…
Figure 20
Figure 20. Figure 20: FIG. 20 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p023_20.png]
Figure 21
Figure 21. Figure 21: FIG. 21 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_21.png]
Figure 22
Figure 22. Figure 22: FIG. 22: Black hole mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_22.png]
Figure 23
Figure 23. Figure 23: FIG. 23: Hawking temperature evolution as a function of event horizon radius for different quintessence state parameters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p028_23.png]
Figure 24
Figure 24. Figure 24: FIG. 24: Hawking temperature density field analysis across diverse KRG-QF parameter configurations. The six panels [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p029_24.png]
Figure 25
Figure 25. Figure 25: FIG. 25: Gibbs free energy evolution with respect to event horizon radius across different quintessence state parameters, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p030_25.png]
Figure 26
Figure 26. Figure 26: FIG. 26: Specific heat capacity evolution across different quintessence state parameters, revealing complex critical [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p031_26.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

112 extracted references · 62 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shankaranarayanan and J

    S. Shankaranarayanan and J. P. Johnson, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 54, 44 (2022)

    2022

  2. [2]

    Clifton, P

    T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla and C. Skordis, Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012)

    2012

  3. [3]

    Nojiri and S

    S. Nojiri and S. D. Odintsov, Phys. Rept. 505, 59 (2011)

    2011

  4. [4]

    Myrzakulov, A

    Y. Myrzakulov, A. H. A. Alfedeel, M. Koussour, S. Muminov, E. I. Hassan and J. Rayimbaev, Phys. Lett. B 866, 139506 (2025). 33

    2025

  5. [5]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, ˙I. Sakallı and A. Bouzenadad, Nucl. Phys. B 1011, 116806 (2025)

    2025

  6. [6]

    I. H. Belfaqih, M. Bojowald, S. Brahma and E. I. Duque, Phys. Rev. D 111, 086027 (2025)

    2025

  7. [7]

    Weinberg, Rev

    S. Weinberg, Rev. Mod. Phys. 61, 1 (1989)

    1989

  8. [8]

    P. J. E. Peebles and B. Ratra, Rev. Mod. Phys. 75, 559 (2003)

    2003

Show all 112 references
  1. [9]

    Padmanabhan, Phys

    T. Padmanabhan, Phys. Rept. 380, 235 (2003)

    2003

  2. [10]

    Tangphati, I

    T. Tangphati, I. Sakalli, A. Banerjee and A. Pradhan, Chinese Phys. C 49, 025110 (2025)

    2025

  3. [11]

    al-Badawi, S

    A. al-Badawi, S. Shaymatov and I. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 825 (2024)

    2024

  4. [12]

    Akiyama et al

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

    2019

  5. [13]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016)

    2016

  6. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017)

    2017

  7. [15]

    Kalb and P

    M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Phys. Rev. D 9, 2273 (1974)

    1974

  8. [16]

    Witten, Nucl

    E. Witten, Nucl. Phys. B 186, 412 (1981)

    1981

  9. [17]

    Al-Badawi, S

    A. Al-Badawi, S. Shaymatov and I. Sakallı, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 825 (2024)

    2024

  10. [18]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  11. [19]

    V. A. Kostelecky and S. Samuel, Phys. Rev. D 39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  12. [20]

    R. R. Caldwell, R. Dave and P. J. Steinhardt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 1582 (1998)

    1998

  13. [21]

    P. J. Steinhardt, L. M. Wang and I. Zlatev, Phys. Rev. D 59, 123504 (1999)

    1999

  14. [22]

    Sahni and A

    V. Sahni and A. A. Starobinsky, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 9, 373 (2000)

    2000

  15. [23]

    Amendola, Phys

    L. Amendola, Phys. Rev. D 62, 043511 (2000)

    2000

  16. [24]

    Tsujikawa, Class

    S. Tsujikawa, Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 214003 (2013)

    2013

  17. [25]

    Jacobson and D

    T. Jacobson and D. Mattingly, Phys. Rev. D 64, 024028 (2001)

    2001

  18. [26]

    C. Ding, S. Kang, C. Y. Chen, S. Chen, B. Wang and J. L. Yang, C. Ding and X. Chen, Chin. Phys. C 45, 025106 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    V. V. Kiselev, Class. Quantum Grav. 20, 1187 (2003)

    2003

  20. [28]

    Fernando, Gen

    S. Fernando, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, 1857 (2012)

    2012

  21. [29]

    Azreg-Ainou, Eur

    M. Azreg-Ainou, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 34 (2015)

    2015

  22. [30]

    Ahmed, ˙I

    F. Ahmed, ˙I. Sakallı and A. Al-Badawi, Phys. Lett. B 864, 139448 (2025)

    2025

  23. [31]

    Mangut, H

    M. Mangut, H. G¨ ursel and˙I. Sakallı, Astropart. Phys. 144, 102763 (2023)

    2023

  24. [32]

    Rovelli, Quantum gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    C. Rovelli, Quantum gravity (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2004)

    2004

  25. [33]

    Kempf, G

    A. Kempf, G. Mangano and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52, 1108 (1995)

    1995

  26. [34]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi and ˙I. Sakallı, Phys. Dark Univ. 49, 101988 (2025). ,

    2025

  27. [35]

    Bambi, Rev

    C. Bambi, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89, 025001 (2017)

    2017

  28. [36]

    Akiyama et al

    K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019)

    2019

  29. [37]

    Narayan, M

    R. Narayan, M. D. Johnson and C. F. Gammie, Astrophys. J. Lett. 885, L33 (2019)

    2019

  30. [38]

    Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    S. Hawking, Nature 248, 30 (1974)

    1974

  31. [39]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 7, 2333 (1973)

    1973

  32. [40]

    R. M. Wald, Living Rev. Rel. 4, 6 (2001)

    2001

  33. [41]

    Bonder, Phys

    Y. Bonder, Phys. Rev. D 91, 125002 (2015)

    2015

  34. [42]

    Bluhm, Lect

    R. Bluhm, Lect. Notes Phys. 702, 191 (2006)

    2006

  35. [43]

    Mattingly, Living Rev

    D. Mattingly, Living Rev. Rel. 8, 5 (2005)

    2005

  36. [44]

    V. A. Kostelecky, Phys. Rev. D 69, 105009 (2004)

    2004

  37. [45]

    Padmanabhan, Gen

    T. Padmanabhan, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 40, 529 (2008)

    2008

  38. [46]

    A. P. Baeta Scarpelli, H. Belich, J. L. Boldo and J. A. Helayel-Neto, Phys. Rev. D 67, 085021 (2003)

    2003

  39. [47]

    Chen and J

    S. Chen and J. Jing, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 4651 (2005)

    2005

  40. [48]

    R. G. Cai, Phys. Lett. B 525, 331 (2002)

    2002

  41. [49]

    S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of Space-Time(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 1973)

    1973

  42. [50]

    Penrose, Phys

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

    1965

  43. [51]

    S. W. Hawking, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 294, 511 (1966)

    1966

  44. [52]

    R. M. Wald, General Relativity (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1984)

    1984

  45. [53]

    Kubiznak and R

    D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, J. High Energ. Phys. 2012, 33 (2012)

    2012

  46. [54]

    J. M. Bardeen, B. Carter and S. W. Hawking, Commun. Math. Phys. 31, 161 (1973)

    1973

  47. [55]

    Strominger and C

    A. Strominger and C. Vafa, Phys. Lett. B 379, 99 (1996)

    1996

  48. [56]

    Bambi, Black holes: a laboratory for testing strong gravity(Springer, New York, 2017)

    C. Bambi, Black holes: a laboratory for testing strong gravity(Springer, New York, 2017)

    2017

  49. [57]

    Hegde, A

    K. Hegde, A. Naveena Kumara, C. L. A. Rizwan, M. S. Ali and K. M. Ajith, Ann. Phys. (NY) 429, 168461 (2021)

    2021

  50. [58]

    Perlick, O

    V. Perlick, O. Y. Tsupko and G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan, Phys. Rev. D 92, 104031 (2015)

    2015

  51. [59]

    Younsi, A

    Z. Younsi, A. Broderick, M. Incl´ an, D. Marrone, R. Narayan, C. Gammie, K. Akiyama and M. Johnson, Astrophys. J. 942, 47 (2023)

    2023

  52. [60]

    P. V. P. Cunha, C. A. R. Herdeiro, E. Radu and H. F. Runarsson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, 211102 (2015)

    2015

  53. [61]

    Wielgus et al

    M. Wielgus et al. [Event Horizon Telescope], Astrophys. J. 901, 67 (2020)

    2020

  54. [62]

    Berti, V

    E. Berti, V. Cardoso and A. O. Starinets, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 163001 (2009)

    2009

  55. [63]

    H. P. Nollert, Class. Quant. Grav. 16, R159 (1999)

    1999

  56. [64]

    K. D. Kokkotas and B. G. Schmidt, Living Rev. Rel. 2, 2 (1999). 34

    1999

  57. [65]

    Cardoso and J

    V. Cardoso and J. P. S. Lemos, Phys. Rev. D 63, 124015 (2001)

    2001

  58. [66]

    R. A. Konoplya and A. Zhidenko, Rev. Mod. Phys. 83, 793 (2011)

    2011

  59. [67]

    Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992)

    S. Chandrasekhar, The mathematical theory of black holes(Oxford University Press, Oxford, 1992)

    1992

  60. [68]

    Regge and J

    T. Regge and J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 108, 1063 (1957)

    1957

  61. [69]

    F. J. Zerilli, Phys. Rev. Lett. 24, 737 (1970)

    1970

  62. [70]

    S. A. Teukolsky, Phys. Rev. Lett. 29, 1114 (1972)

    1972

  63. [71]

    E. W. Leaver, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 402, 285 (1985)

    1985

  64. [72]

    Cardoso, A

    V. Cardoso, A. S. Miranda, E. Berti, H. Witek and V. T. Zanchin, Phys. Rev. D 79, 064016 (2009)

    2009

  65. [73]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Rev. D 68, 024018 (2003)

    2003

  66. [74]

    Gundlach, R

    C. Gundlach, R. H. Price and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. D 49, 883 (1994)

    1994

  67. [75]

    E. S. C. Ching, P. T. Leung, W. M. Suen and K. Young, Phys. Rev. D 52, 2118 (1995)

    1995

  68. [76]

    J. M. Bardeen and W. H. Press, J. Math. Phys. 14, 7 (1973)

    1973

  69. [77]

    S. A. Teukolsky and W. H. Press, Astrophys. J. 193, 443 (1974)

    1974

  70. [78]

    J. D. Jackson, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd edition(John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1998)

    1998

  71. [79]

    Abramowitz and I

    M. Abramowitz and I. A. Stegun, Handbook of Mathematical Functions(Dover Publications, New York, 1965)

    1965

  72. [80]

    Pound, Fund

    A. Pound, Fund. Theor. Phys. 179, 399 (2015)

    2015

  73. [81]

    Detweiler, Class

    S. Detweiler, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, S681 (2005)

    2005

  74. [82]

    Barack, Class

    L. Barack, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 213001 (2009)

    2009

  75. [83]

    Pound and B

    A. Pound and B. Wardell, Black Hole Perturbation Theory and Gravitational Self-ForceIn C. Bambi, et al. (Eds.) Handbook of Gravitational Wave Astronomy(Springer, Singapore, 2021); arXiv:2101.04592 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  76. [84]

    S. E. Gralla, Phys. Rev. D 85, 124011 (2012)

    2012

  77. [85]

    Schneider, J

    P. Schneider, J. Ehlers and E. E. Falco, Gravitational Lenses (Springer-Verlag, New York, 1992)

    1992

  78. [86]

    A. B. Balakin, J. P. S. Lemos and A. E. Zayats, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 1867 (2005)

    2005

  79. [87]

    G. W. Gibbons and M. C. Werner, Class. Quantum Grav. 25, 235009 (2008)

    2008

  80. [88]

    M. C. Werner, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 44, 3047 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    T. Ono, A. Ishihara and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 99, 124030 (2019)

    2019

  82. [90]

    Sucu and ˙I

    E. Sucu and ˙I. Sakalli, Phys. Rev. D 111, 064049 (2025)

    2025

  83. [91]

    Li and A

    Z. Li and A. ¨Ovg¨ un, Phys. Rev. D101, 024040 (2020)

    2020

  84. [92]

    Arakida, Gen

    H. Arakida, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 50, 48 (2018)

    2018

  85. [93]

    T. Ono, A. Ishihara and H. Asada, Phys. Rev. D 98, 044047 (2018)

    2018

  86. [94]

    Chamblin, R

    A. Chamblin, R. Emparan, C. V. Johnson and R. C. Myers, Phys. Rev. D 60, 064018 (1999)

    1999

  87. [95]

    M. M. Caldarelli, G. Cognola and D. Klemm, Class. Quantum Grav. 17, 399 (2000)

    2000

  88. [96]

    Kastor, S

    D. Kastor, S. Ray and J. Traschen, Class. Quantum Grav. 26, 195011 (2009)

    2009

  89. [97]

    B. P. Dolan, Class. Quantum Grav. 28, 125020 (2011)

    2011

  90. [98]

    Rajagopal, D

    A. Rajagopal, D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, Phys. Lett. B 737, 277 (2014)

    2014

  91. [99]

    J. D. Bekenstein, Phys. Rev. D 9, 3292 (1974)

    1974

  92. [100]

    S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 13, 191 (1976)

    1976

  93. [101]

    G. W. Gibbons and S. W. Hawking, Phys. Rev. D 15, 2752 (1977)

    1977

  94. [102]

    Jacobson, Phys

    T. Jacobson, Phys. Rev. Lett. 75, 1260 (1995)

    1995

  95. [103]

    R. G. Cai and L. M. Cao, Phys. Rev. D 75, 064008 (2007)

    2007

  96. [104]

    S. W. Wei and Y. X. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 87, 044014 (2013)

    2013

  97. [105]

    R. Zhao, H. H. Zhao, M. S. Ma and L. C. Zhang, Eur. Phys. J. C 73, 2645 (2013)

    2013

  98. [106]

    J. X. Mo and W. B. Liu, Phys. Rev. D 89, 084057 (2014)

    2014

  99. [107]

    Altamirano, D

    N. Altamirano, D. Kubiznak and R. B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 88, 101502 (2013)

    2013

  100. [108]

    A. M. Frassino, D. Kubiznak, R. B. Mann and F. Simovic, J. High Energ. Phys. 2014, 80 (2014)

    2014

  101. [109]

    C. V. Johnson, Class. Quantum Grav. 31, 205002 (2014)

    2014

  102. [110]

    B. R. Majhi and S. Samanta, Phys. Lett. B 773, 203 (2017)

    2017

  103. [111]

    Chabab, H

    M. Chabab, H. El Moumni, S. Iraoui and K. Masmar, Eur. Phys. J. C 76, 676 (2016)

    2016

  104. [112]

    S. H. Hendi, S. Panahiyan and B. Eslam Panah, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 25, 1650010 (2016)

    2016

Pith tools

Reviewed August 5, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.