Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Image of a quantum-corrected black hole without Cauchy horizons illuminated by a static thin accretion disk

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A quantum-corrected black hole without Cauchy horizons would cast a larger shadow and tighter, brighter photon rings than Schwarzschild, with the rings converging as the quantum parameter grows.

desk verdict Sound ray-tracing applied to a new LQG-inspired metric, but the abstract overstates what EHT data can say and promises a simulation that is not in the body. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.09956 v2 pith:4VMJVDY7 submitted 2025-10-11 gr-qc

Shilong Huang , Jiawei Chen , Jinsong Yang This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C4583C10 PACS 04.70.-s04.60.Pp97.60.Lf
keywords quantum-correctedblackholeeffectivequantumgravityshadowphotonringthinaccretiondisktransferfunctionCauchyhorizonEHTconstraints
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 argues that a specific quantum-corrected black hole solution—a covariant effective loop-quantum-gravity spacetime without Cauchy horizons—leaves a measurable imprint on its image when lit by a thin accretion disk. As the quantum parameter ζ grows, the event horizon, photon sphere, critical impact parameter, and ISCO all shift outward; the shadow becomes larger, the lensed and photon rings brighten slightly, and the spacing between them shrinks near the critical impact parameter. These features would allow the quantum-corrected black hole to be told apart from a Schwarzschild black hole and from two earlier quantum-corrected solutions. The paper also confronts the parameter with EHT shadow-size measurements of M87* and Sgr A*, finding both give weaker limits than the theoretical horizon-existence bound ζ/M < 3.9374.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the covariant effective quantum-gravity line element (2.1)-(2.2) imported from a companion solution: f^(0)(r)=1 - (r²/ζ²) arcsin(2Mζ²/r³) and μ(r)=1 - 4M²ζ⁴/r⁶, with h(r)=r². The photon dynamics reduces to the trajectory equation (2.10) with effective potential V_eff=f^(0)/h and the quantum-modified radial factor μ(r); the critical impact parameter b_c is where V_eff peaks. Image construction uses the transfer functions r_m(b) classifying direct, lensed, and photon-ring rays, plus three thin-disk emission models.

What would settle it

Measure the shadow diameter of M87* or Sgr A* at sub-percent precision with next-generation EHT: if it agrees with Schwarzschild to within about 1%, the ζ/M≈3.5 regime (which predicts ~7.5% larger b_c) is excluded. Alternatively, derive the metric from a fully covariant effective Hamiltonian constraint and check whether the μ(r) factor survives, or detect photon ring spacing inconsistent with the compressed-ring prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that the quantum parameter ζ in the metric (2.1)-(2.2) controls the black hole's optical appearance in a monotone, observable way. For ζ/M=3.5 the critical impact parameter is b_c/M=5.586, about 7.5% larger than Schwarzschild's 5.196, and all four landmark radii (r_h, r_ph, b_c, r_isco) increase with ζ/M. Under three emission models for a static thin disk, larger ζ yields a bigger shadow, slightly brighter rings, and smaller separation between bright rings near b_c, making the solution optically distinct from Schwarzschild and from the two earlier covariant solutions BH-I and BH-II. The paper interprets current EHT measurements as not excluding the solution, with

Load-bearing premise

The entire set of image predictions and parameter constraints is a mechanical consequence of the imported metric (2.1)-(2.2); if that covariant effective-Hamiltonian spacetime is not the correct semiclassical description of a loop-quantum-gravity black hole, every result inherits the error. A secondary fragile step is reading EHT shadow diameters as 2b_c/D for a static, spherical metric, ignoring spin.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • A shadow measurement about 7.5% larger than Schwarzschild's would point to ζ/M near 3.5; current EHT error bars are too wide to distinguish.
  • The ring-compression effect (reduced spacing between bright rings) offers a second, independent observable for future very-long-baseline interferometry.
  • The theoretical horizon bound ζ/M < 3.9374 is the tightest constraint available; any observation requiring larger ζ would rule out the horizon structure.
  • If the metric is right, the same ζ also shifts the ISCO outward, which would affect accretion disk inner-edge spectra and quasi-periodic oscillations.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The metric is imported from a companion paper by the corresponding author's group; the present paper performs a mechanical consequence analysis, so all image predictions inherit whatever validity that effective Hamiltonian constraint has.
  • The EHT comparison is non-binding: the Schwarzschild limit ζ=0 fits all current data, so the exercise establishes an upper bound, not evidence for quantum gravity.
  • The shadow-diameter formula 2b_c/D assumes a static, spherically symmetric, non-spinning black hole; real M87* and Sgr A* are spinning, so the quoted ζ bounds should be read as indicative only.
  • The abstract's claim that Sgr A* gives a stronger constraint than theory is reversed relative to the paper's own numbers (4.0241 > 3.9374), a discrepancy a careful reader should note.
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 paper studies the optical appearance of a spherically symmetric quantum-corrected black hole spacetime (the 'third' covariant solution from ref. [55]) that has no Cauchy horizons. It computes the event horizon, photon sphere, critical impact parameter, and ISCO as functions of the quantum parameter ζ/M (Fig. 1, Table I), derives the null geodesic equation (2.10), classifies direct, lensed, and photon-ring trajectories via the orbit number (3.3)-(3.5), and produces synthetic images for three thin-disk emission models (Eqs. (4.3)-(4.5), Fig. 13). It also compares the shadow angular diameter (2.18) with EHT data for M87* and Sgr A*, obtaining upper bounds ζ/M ≤ 6.6761 and ≤ 4.0241, respectively. The central quantitative claims are that all four geometric quantities increase monotonically with ζ/M and that the images show a larger shadow, brighter lensed/photon rings, and reduced ring spacing as ζ/M increases.

Significance. If the imported metric is the correct effective-quantum-gravity spacetime, the paper provides a clear, falsifiable optical fingerprint of that spacetime: the monotonic enlargement of r_h, r_ph, b_c, and r_isco, and the contraction of the lensed/photon-ring impact-parameter window. The ray-tracing and transfer-function machinery is standard, and the paper passes internal checks (Schwarzschild limits at ζ=0, b_c = 3√3 in Table I; Eq. (2.10) correctly reduces to the massless geodesic equation for the metric). The concrete predictions in Table I and Fig. 13 are reproducible in principle. However, the empirical significance is limited: the EHT constraints are non-binding (both upper limits exceed the theoretical horizon-existence bound), so the data cannot validate this solution; the abstract overstates the empirical support.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. V] The abstract states that 'the observational constraint from Sgr A* is stronger than the theoretical one,' but this is numerically false. Sec. V and Fig. 4 report ζ/M ≤ 4.0241 for Sgr A*, whereas the theoretical horizon-existence bound is ζ/M < 3.9374 (Eq. 2.5). Since 4.0241 > 3.9374, the Sgr A* constraint is weaker than, not stronger than, the theoretical bound. The body correctly says 'less restrictive than the theoretical bound'; the abstract must be corrected.
  2. [Abstract (no corresponding section)] The abstract promises: 'we also implement Johnson's unbound distribution to simulate the image of the quantum-corrected black hole under large quantum parameters and reach the same conclusion.' The full text contains no such simulation; 'Johnson' never appears in Sections I–V, and no unbound-distribution calculation is reported. This is an advertised result that is entirely absent. The authors must either supply the missing simulation or delete the sentence, since as written the abstract is not a faithful summary of the paper.
  3. [Sec. II, Eq. (2.18) and Fig. 4] The abstract claims the analysis 'validates the rationality of this black hole solution through observational data.' This is not supported by the paper's own constraint analysis. Both EHT upper limits (6.6761 and 4.0241) are larger than the theoretical bound ζ/M < 3.9374, so the Schwarzschild limit ζ=0 is allowed and every ζ in the physical window is consistent with the data. The observations are consistent with the metric but cannot discriminate it from Schwarzschild or validate it. The validation language should be replaced by a statement of consistency, or removed.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Eq. (2.3) vs. Eq. (3.3)] The symbol r_min is used in two different senses: in Eq. (2.3) it is the lower bound of the arcsin domain, (2Mζ^2)^{1/3}, while in Eq. (3.3) it denotes the turning point of a photon trajectory. This is confusing; please rename one of them (e.g., r_turn for the turning point).
  2. [Sec. II, text after Eq. (2.17)] Typo: 'beharvior' should be 'behavior'. Also in Sec. V, 'the the quantum gravity effects' should read 'the quantum gravity effects'.
  3. [Fig. 13 caption] The caption is ambiguous: 'the right column includes images: the Schwarzschild BH (left), ζ/M=1.5 (upper right), and ζ/M=3.5 (lower right)' — each panel row appears to contain two images, so the left/right wording should be clarified.
  4. [Sec. II, Eq. (2.18)] The shadow angular-diameter formula is used without explicitly noting that b_c and M must be converted to common geometric units and that the spin of M87*/Sgr A* is neglected. Since the EHT constraints are non-binding, this is acceptable, but a brief remark on the static-spherical assumption would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: geodesic/image pipeline is forward; self-citations are inputs rather than reductions, though abstract overstates validation.

full rationale

The derivation chain is forward. Starting from the line element (2.1)-(2.2) (imported from ref. [55]), the paper defines Veff, solves dVeff/dr=0 for r_ph, uses Veff(r_ph)=1/b_c^2, solves r_isco conditions, integrates the trajectory equation for transfer functions, and convolves with three emission models. No quantity used to produce the images is fitted to the EHT shadow data: the images use fixed ζ/M=0,1.5,3,3.5, and the EHT comparison in Sec. II only gives upper limits on ζ that are then explicitly not used as inputs to the geodesic solver. Thus no 'prediction' reduces by the paper's own equations to a fitted parameter. The metric from ref. [55] is author-overlapping self-citation, but it is an external input with its own derivation; the paper does not invoke a uniqueness theorem or an ansatz from that citation to force its results. For that reason, score 0. Non-circularity concerns (correctness/evidence, not circularity): (1) the Abstract promises 'Johnson's unbound distribution' simulation, but the body contains no such simulation; (2) the Abstract says 'observational constraint from Sgr A* is stronger than the theoretical one,' while Sec. V says both limits are 'less restrictive' and numerically 4.0241 > 3.9374; (3) because both EHT limits are weaker than the horizon-existence bound, ζ=0 (Schwarzschild) remains allowed, so the Abstract's claim that the data 'validate the rationality' of the quantum-corrected solution is unsupported.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's input is a metric from the authors' own prior work plus a standard imaging pipeline; the only tunable knob is ζ/M, which is scanned and weakly bounded. The dominant axiom is the validity of the imported metric; the EHT-based constraint applies a standard shadow formula that is non-binding for this model. No invented entities. The paper's added value is computational: numerical image predictions for one specific metric.

free parameters (1)
  • Quantum parameter ζ/M = scanned values 0, 1.5, 3, 3.5; theory bound < 3.9374; EHT limits 6.6761 (M87*), 4.0241 (Sgr A*)
    The only model parameter beyond M; all curves and images are scans over it. The EHT-derived limits are one-sided, non-binding constraints (both exceed the theoretical bound), so they do not pin ζ down.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The quantum-corrected metric (2.1)-(2.2) with f^(0)(r), μ(r) from ref. [55] is the correct covariant effective-quantum-gravity spacetime.
    Sec. II imports the line element without re-derivation; ref. [55] shares the corresponding author (J. Yang). No independent verification is offered in this paper.
  • domain assumption A black hole exists only when M > (ζ/2)(2/π)^{3/2}, i.e., ζ/M < 3.9374 (Eq. 2.5).
    Taken from the horizon analysis of ref. [55] and used to restrict all subsequent parameter scans and the final ζ window.
  • domain assumption EHT shadow angular diameters equal 2 b_c/D for a distant observer in this static spherical metric (Eq. 2.18).
    Standard identification (refs. [62,64]) but ignores spin-dependent shadow morphology of M87*/Sgr A* and the mass-distance degeneracy; directly affects the quoted ζ upper limits.
  • domain assumption Thin, static, geometrically and optically thin equatorial accretion disk with observer at the north pole; observed intensity sums over disk crossings (Eqs. 4.1-4.2).
    Framework of Gralla-Holz-Wald (ref. [8]) inherited without modification; the disk is non-rotating, which is an idealization.
  • standard math Standard geodesic conservation laws (E, L) and effective-potential treatment for null and timelike orbits.
    Eqs. (2.6)-(2.14) use textbook GR geodesic theory (refs. [59,60]).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Image of a quantum-corrected black hole without Cauchy horizons illuminated by a static thin accretion disk." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VMJVDY7

@misc{pith2026251009956,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Image of a quantum-corrected black hole without Cauchy horizons illuminated by a static thin accretion disk},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VMJVDY7}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.09956}
}
read the original abstract

Latest advances in effective quantum gravity propose a quantum-corrected black hole solution that avoids Cauchy horizons. This paper studies the images of this black hole when illuminated by a static thin accretion disk and explores the effect of the quantum parameter {\zeta} on its appearance. First, we investigate the influence of {\zeta} on the event horizon, photon sphere, critical impact parameter, and innermost stable circular orbit associated with the black hole. We find that all these quantities exhibit an increase with increasing {\zeta}. Meanwhile, we also use observational data from M87* and Sgr A* to impose constraints on {\zeta} and compare the results with the theoretical constraint. Our analysis reveals that the observational constraint from Sgr A* is stronger than the theoretical one. We then derive the photon trajectory equation and analyze briefly the behavior of the trajectories. A detailed analysis shows that as {\zeta} increases, the trajectories of photons undergo slight modifications when approaching the event horizon. Finally, by plotting the black hole's optical appearance under three emission models, we find that as {\zeta} increases, the quantum-corrected black hole exhibits a larger shadow, along with narrower lensed and photon rings and reduced spacing between them. Furthermore, we also implement Johnson's unbound distribution to simulate the image of the quantum-corrected black hole under large quantum parameters and reach the same conclusion. This work validates the rationality of this black hole solution through observational data, and provides its unique optical signatures that can serve as a promising avenue for probing quantum gravity effects near black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.09956 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The event horizon [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Variation of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. FIG. 4: Constraints on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Total number of orbits with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Photon trajectories plotted against the impact parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: Relative positions of the event horizon radius [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: The transfer functions of the quantum-corrected BH [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11: Slope of the second transfer functions for the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12: Emission intensity profiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13: The observed intensity and visual structure of three accretion disks around a quantum-corrected BH under di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_13.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in 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. Electric Penrose process in the spacetime of a quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole

    gr-qc 2026-01 conditional novelty 4.0 of 10

    Quantum corrections reduce electric Penrose energy extraction and can trap a fragment that would escape classically near critical turning points.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

66 extracted references · 2 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [55]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, Y . Ma, and J. Yang, Black holes and covariance in effective quantum gravity: A solution without Cauchy horizons. Phys. Rev. D112, 044054 (2025). https://doi. org/10.1103/d6ks-d576. arXiv:2412.02487

    arXiv 2025

  2. [1]

    Einstein, Explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury from the general theory of relativity

    A. Einstein, Explanation of the perihelion motion of Mercury from the general theory of relativity. Sitzungsber. Preuss. Akad. Wiss. Berlin (Math. Phys. )1915, 831 (1915)

    1915

  3. [2]

    Einstein and N

    A. Einstein and N. Rosen, On gravitational waves. J. Franklin Inst.223, 43 (1937). https://doi.org/10.1016/S0016-0032(37) 90583-0

    work page doi:10.1016/s0016-0032(37 1937

  4. [3]

    Peters, Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses

    P.C. Peters, Gravitational radiation and the motion of two point masses. Phys. Rev.136, B1224 (1964). https://doi.org/10.1103/ 8 0 2 4 6 8 10 r/M0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Iem/I0 ζ/M 0 1.5 3.5 (a) Model-I 0 2 4 6 8 10 r/M0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Iem/I0 ζ/M 0 1.5 3.5 (b) Model-II 0 2 4 6 8 10 r/M0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 Iem/I0 ζ/M 0 1.5 3.5 (c) Model-III FIG. 1...

    1964

  5. [4]

    Bondi, M.G.J

    H. Bondi, M.G.J. van der Burg, and A.W.K. Metzner, Gravita- tional waves in general relativity. VII. Waves from axisymmet- ric isolated systems. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A269, 21 (1962). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1962.0161

    arXiv 1962

  6. [5]

    Luminet, Image of a spherical black hole with thin accretion disk

    J.P. Luminet, Image of a spherical black hole with thin accretion disk. Astron. Astrophys.75, 228 (1979)

    1979

  7. [6]

    Holz and J.A

    D.E. Holz and J.A. Wheeler, Retro-machos:πin the sky? Astrophys. J.578, 330 (2002). https://doi.org/10.1086/342463. arXiv:astro-ph/0209039

    arXiv 2002

  8. [7]

    Virbhadra and G.F.R

    K.S. Virbhadra and G.F.R. Ellis, Schwarzschild black hole lens- ing. Phys. Rev. D62, 084003 (2000). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.62.084003. arXiv:astro-ph/9904193

    arXiv 2000

Show all 66 references
  1. [8]

    Gralla, D.E

    S.E. Gralla, D.E. Holz, and R.M. Wald, Black hole shadows, photon rings, and lensing rings. Phys. Rev. D 100, 024018 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.100. 024018. arXiv:1906.00873

    2019 arXiv

  2. [9]

    J. Peng, M. Guo, and X.-H. Feng, Influence of quantum cor- rection on black hole shadows, photon rings, and lensing rings. Chin. Phys. C45, 085103 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1088/1674-1137/ac06bb. arXiv:2008.00657

    2021 arXiv

  3. [10]

    Y . Hou, M. Guo, and B. Chen, Revisiting the shadow of braneworld black holes. Phys. Rev. D104, 024001 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.104.024001. arXiv:2103.04369

    2021 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Y . Hou, Z. Zhang, H. Yan, M. Guo, and B. Chen, Image of a Kerr-Melvin black hole with a thin accretion disk. Phys. Rev. D106, 064058 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106. 064058. arXiv:2206.13744

    2022 arXiv

  5. [12]

    J. Yang, C. Zhang, and Y . Ma, Shadow and stability of quantum- corrected black holes. Eur. Phys. J. C83, 619 (2023). https:// doi.org/10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-11800-8. arXiv:2211.04263

    2023 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Zhang, Y

    Z. Zhang, Y . Hou, M. Guo, and B. Chen, Imaging thick accretion disks and jets surrounding black holes. J. Cos- mol. Astropart. Phys.05, 032 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1475-7516/2024/05/032. arXiv:2401.14794

    2024 arXiv

  7. [14]

    Chen and J

    J. Chen and J. Yang, Shadows and optical appearance of quantum-corrected black holes illuminated by static thin accre- tions. Eur. Phys. J. C85, 512 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1140/ epjc/s10052-025-14230-w. arXiv:2503.06215

    2025 arXiv

  8. [15]

    Chen and J

    J. Chen and J. Yang, Optical appearance of Schwarzschild black holes with optically thin and thick accretion disks at various inclination angles. arXiv:2506.22891

  9. [16]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger

    B.P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.116. 061102. arXiv:1602.03837

    2016 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral

    B.P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.119. 161101. arXiv:1710.05832

    2017 arXiv

  11. [18]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope results

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope results. I. The shadow of the supermassive black hole. Astrophys. J. Lett.875, L1 (2019). https://doi.org/10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7. arXiv:1906.11238

    2019 arXiv

  12. [19]

    Penrose, Gravitational Collapse and Space-time Singular- ities

    R. Penrose, Gravitational Collapse and Space-time Singular- ities. Phys. Rev. Lett.14, 57 (1965). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.14.57

    1965

  13. [20]

    Hawking and R

    S.W. Hawking and R. Penrose, The Singularities of gravita- tional collapse and cosmology. Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A314, 529 (1970). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1970.0021

    1970

  14. [21]

    Cassidy and S.W

    M.J. Cassidy and S.W. Hawking, Models for chronology se- lection. Phys. Rev. D57, 2372 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.57.2372. arXiv:hep-th/9709066

    1998 arXiv

  15. [22]

    DeWitt, Quantum theory of gravity

    B.S. DeWitt, Quantum theory of gravity. I. The canonical theory. Phys. Rev.160, 1113 (1967). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRev.160.1113

    1967

  16. [23]

    Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity

    M. Reuter, Nonperturbative evolution equation for quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. D57, 971 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevD.57.971. arXiv:hep-th/9605030

    1998 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Rovelli,Quantum Gravity(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004)

    C. Rovelli,Quantum Gravity(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2004). https://doi.org/10.1017/ CBO9780511755804

    2004

  18. [25]

    Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Rel- ativity(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2007)

    T. Thiemann,Modern Canonical Quantum General Rel- ativity(Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, England, 2007). https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511755682. arXiv:gr- qc/0110034

    2007

  19. [26]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Background indepen- dent quantum gravity: A status report. Class. Quant. Grav. 21, R53 (2004). https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/R01. arXiv:gr-qc/0404018

    2004 arXiv

  20. [27]

    M. Han, Y . Ma, and W. Huang, Fundamental structure of loop quantum gravity. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D16, 1397 (2007). https: //doi.org/10.1142/S0218271807010894. arXiv:gr-qc/0509064

    2007 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Ashtekar, New Variables for Classical and Quantum Grav- ity

    A. Ashtekar, New Variables for Classical and Quantum Grav- ity. Phys. Rev. Lett.57, 2244 (1986). https://doi.org/10.1103/ PhysRevLett.57.2244

    1986

  22. [29]

    Barbero G., Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian signa- ture space times

    J.F. Barbero G., Real Ashtekar variables for Lorentzian signa- ture space times. Phys. Rev. D51, 5507 (1995). https://doi.org/ 10.1103/PhysRevD.51.5507. arXiv:gr-qc/9410014

    1995 arXiv

  23. [30]

    Rovelli and L

    C. Rovelli and L. Smolin, Discreteness of area and volume in quantum gravity. Nucl. Phys. B442, 593 (1995). https://doi. org/10.1016/0550-3213(95)00150-Q. arXiv:gr-qc/9411005

    1995 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Quantum theory of geometry: I. Area operators. Class. Quant. Grav.14, A55 (1997). https: //doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/14/1A/006. arXiv:gr-qc/9602046

    1997 arXiv

  25. [32]

    Ashtekar and J

    A. Ashtekar and J. Lewandowski, Quantum theory of geom- etry II: V olume operators. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.1, 388 (1997). https://doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.1997.v1.n2.a8. arXiv:gr- qc/9711031

    1997

  26. [33]

    Thiemann, A length operator for canonical quantum grav- ity

    T. Thiemann, A length operator for canonical quantum grav- ity. J. Math. Phys.39, 3372 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1063/1. 532445. arXiv:gr-qc/9606092

    1998 arXiv

  27. [34]

    Y . Ma, C. Soo, and J. Yang, New length operator for loop quan- tum gravity. Phys. Rev. D81, 124026 (2010). https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.81.124026. arXiv:1004.1063

    2010 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Yang and Y

    J. Yang and Y . Ma, New volume and inverse volume operators for loop quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. D94, 044003 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.94.044003. arXiv:1602.08688

    2016 arXiv

  29. [36]

    Ashtekar, J

    A. Ashtekar, J. Baez, A. Corichi, and K. Krasnov, Quantum Geometry and Black Hole Entropy. Phys. Rev. Lett.80, 904 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.904. arXiv:gr- qc/9710007

    1998

  30. [37]

    S. Song, H. Li, Y . Ma, and C. Zhang, Entropy of black holes with arbitrary shapes in loop quantum gravity. Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron.64, 120411 (2021). https://doi.org/10. 1007/s11433-021-1770-3. arXiv:2002.08869

    2021 arXiv

  31. [38]

    Baez, An introduction to spin foam models ofBFtheory and quantum gravity

    J.C. Baez, An introduction to spin foam models ofBFtheory and quantum gravity. Lect. Notes Phys.543, 25 (2000). https: //doi.org/10.1007/3-540-46552-9 2. arXiv:gr-qc/9905087

    2000 arXiv

  32. [39]

    Oriti, Space-time geometry from algebra: Spin foam mod- els for nonperturbative quantum gravity

    D. Oriti, Space-time geometry from algebra: Spin foam mod- els for nonperturbative quantum gravity. Rept. Prog. Phys. 64, 1703 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1088/0034-4885/64/12/203. arXiv:gr-qc/0106091

    2001 arXiv

  33. [40]

    Perez, Spin foam models for quantum gravity

    A. Perez, Spin foam models for quantum gravity. Class. Quant. 10 Grav.20, R43 (2003). https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/20/6/

    2003 doi

  34. [41]

    Perez, Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams, in2nd International Conference on Fundamental Interactions (2004)

    A. Perez, Introduction to loop quantum gravity and spin foams, in2nd International Conference on Fundamental Interactions (2004). arXiv:gr-qc/0409061

    2004 arXiv

  35. [42]

    Perez, The spin foam approach to quantum gravity

    A. Perez, The spin foam approach to quantum gravity. Liv- ing Rev. Rel.16, 3 (2013). https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2013-3. arXiv:1205.2019

    2013 arXiv

  36. [43]

    Ashtekar, M

    A. Ashtekar, M. Bojowald, and J. Lewandowski, Mathemati- cal structure of loop quantum cosmology. Adv. Theor. Math. Phys.7, 233 (2003). https://doi.org/10.4310/ATMP.2003.v7.n2. a2. arXiv:gr-qc/0304074

    2003 arXiv

  37. [44]

    Bojowald, Loop quantum cosmology

    M. Bojowald, Loop quantum cosmology. Living Rev. Rel. 8, 11 (2005). https://doi.org/10.12942/lrr-2005-11. arXiv:gr- qc/0601085

    2005

  38. [45]

    Ashtekar, T

    A. Ashtekar, T. Pawlowski, and P. Singh, Quantum nature of the big bang: Improved dynamics. Phys. Rev. D74, 084003 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.74.084003. arXiv:gr-qc/0607039

    2006 arXiv

  39. [46]

    Y . Ding, Y . Ma, and J. Yang, Effective Scenario of Loop Quan- tum Cosmology. Phys. Rev. Lett.102, 051301 (2009). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.102.051301. arXiv:0808.0990

    2009 arXiv

  40. [47]

    J. Yang, Y . Ding, and Y . Ma, Alternative quantization of the Hamiltonian in loop quantum cosmology. Phys. Lett. B 682, 1 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2009.10.072. arXiv:0904.4379

    2009 arXiv

  41. [48]

    Bojowald, Spherically symmetric quantum geometry: States and basic operators

    M. Bojowald, Spherically symmetric quantum geometry: States and basic operators. Class. Quant. Grav.21, 3733 (2004). https: //doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/21/15/008. arXiv:gr-qc/0407017

    2004 arXiv

  42. [49]

    Ashtekar and M

    A. Ashtekar and M. Bojowald, Quantum geometry and the Schwarzschild singularity. Class. Quant. Grav.23, 391 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1088/0264-9381/23/2/008. arXiv:gr- qc/0509075

    2006

  43. [50]

    Modesto, Semiclassical loop quantum black hole

    L. Modesto, Semiclassical loop quantum black hole. Int. J. Theor. Phys.49, 1649 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/ s10773-010-0346-x. arXiv:0811.2196

    2010 arXiv

  44. [51]

    Gambini, J

    R. Gambini, J. Olmedo, and J. Pullin, Spherically symmet- ric loop quantum gravity: Analysis of improved dynamics. Class. Quant. Grav.37, 205012 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/ 1361-6382/aba842. arXiv:2006.01513

    2020 arXiv

  45. [52]

    Zhang, Y

    C. Zhang, Y . Ma, S. Song, and X. Zhang, Loop quantum Schwarzschild interior and black hole remnant. Phys. Rev. D102, 041502 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.102. 041502. arXiv:2006.08313

    2020 arXiv

  46. [53]

    Zhang, Loop quantum black hole

    X. Zhang, Loop quantum black hole. Universe9, 313 (2023). https://doi.org/10.3390/universe9070313. arXiv:2308.10184

    2023 arXiv

  47. [54]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, Y . Ma, and J. Yang, Black holes and covariance in effective quantum gravity. Phys. Rev. D 111, L081504 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.111. L081504. arXiv:2407.10168

    2025

  48. [56]

    Konoplya and O.S

    R.A. Konoplya and O.S. Stashko, Probing the effective quan- tum gravity via quasinormal modes and shadows of black holes. Phys. Rev. D111, 104055 (2025). https://doi.org/10. 1103/PhysRevD.111.104055. arXiv:2408.02578

    2025 arXiv

  49. [57]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, Light rings and shadows of static black holes in effective quantum gravity. Phys. Lett. B858, 139052 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2024. 139052. arXiv:2408.05569

    2024 arXiv

  50. [58]

    Chen and J

    J. Chen and J. Yang, Periodic orbits and gravitational wave- forms in quantum-corrected black hole spacetimes. Eur. Phys. J. C85, 726 (2025). https://doi.org/10.1140/epjc/ s10052-025-14457-7. arXiv:2505.02660

    2025 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Wald,General Relativity(Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1984)

    R.M. Wald,General Relativity(Chicago University Press, Chicago, 1984). https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/ 9780226870373.001.0001

    1984 doi

  52. [60]

    Liang and B

    C. Liang and B. Zhou,Differential Geometry and General Rel- ativity: V olume 1(Springer, Singapore, 2023). https://doi.org/ 10.1007/978-981-99-0022-0

    2023 doi

  53. [61]

    Wang, X.-M

    X.-J. Wang, X.-M. Kuang, Y . Meng, B. Wang, and J.-P. Wu, Rings and images of Horndeski hairy black hole illuminated by various thin accretions. Phys. Rev. D107, 124052 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.124052. arXiv:2304.10015

    2023 arXiv

  54. [62]

    Kumar and S.G

    R. Kumar and S.G. Ghosh, Rotating black holes in 4DEinstein- Gauss-Bonnet gravity and its shadow. J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys.07, 053 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1088/1475-7516/2020/ 07/053. arXiv:2003.08927

    2020 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Kocherlakotaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collabora- tion), Constraints on black-hole charges with the 2017 EHT ob- servations of M87*

    P. Kocherlakotaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collabora- tion), Constraints on black-hole charges with the 2017 EHT ob- servations of M87*. Phys. Rev. D103, 104047 (2021). https: //doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104047. arXiv:2105.09343

    2017 arXiv

  56. [64]

    Kuang, Z.-Y

    X.-M. Kuang, Z.-Y . Tang, B. Wang, and A. Wang, Con- straining a modified gravity theory in strong gravitational lensing and black hole shadow observations. Phys. Rev. D 106, 064012 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.106. 064012. arXiv:2206.05878

    2022 arXiv

  57. [65]

    Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope results

    K. Akiyamaet al.(Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration), First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope results. I. The shadow of the supermassive black hole in the center of the Milky Way. Astrophys. J. Lett.930, L12 (2022). https://doi.org/ 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6674. arXiv:2311.08680

    2022 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Wang, Z.-C

    H.-M. Wang, Z.-C. Lin, and S.-W. Wei, Optical appear- ance of Einstein-Æther black hole surrounded by thin disk. Nucl. Phys. B985, 116026 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1016/j. nuclphysb.2022.116026. arXiv:2205.13174 11

    2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.