Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 61 references

Electric Penrose process in the spacetime of a quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-03 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that in a covariant quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordström black hole, the electric Penrose process can still extract energy, but the quantum parameter ζ shrinks the ergoregion, lowers efficiency, and under critical conditio

desk verdict The ζ-suppression of the electric Penrose process is solid and worth publishing, but the claimed rigorous escape proof is only a local velocity condition and silently assumes q1>0. read the letter →

arxiv 2601.01508 v2 pith:ZUZ6CNJP submitted 2026-01-04 gr-qc

Jiawei Chen , Jinsong Yang This is my paper
classification gr-qc MSC 83C5783C10 PACS 04.70.-s
keywords electricPenroseprocessquantum-correctedReissner-Nordströmblackholeeffectivepotentialgeneralizedergoregionenergyextractionefficiencychargedparticletrajectoriesescapeconditionkinematicsignature
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 electric Penrose process in a covariant quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordström black hole, where a charged particle splits inside the generalized ergoregion and one fragment falls in with negative energy while the other escapes with more energy than the original. The authors derive the equations of motion and effective potential, show that the quantum parameter ζ shrinks the ergoregion and lowers the extraction efficiency, and prove that in the simplified L2=0 case the high-energy fragment always escapes to a distant observer, a result that relies only on mild conditions on the metric function. They also identify a critical regime where the initial particle is bound yet its fragment can escape, and where ζ can qualitatively change the outcome: a fragment that would escape in the classical black hole can become trapped in the quantum-corrected one. This offers a kinematic signature to distinguish the two spacetimes.

What carries the argument

The central object is the effective potential for radial motion of a charged particle on the equatorial plane, V± = qQ/r ± sqrt(f(r)(1+L²/r²)), together with the sign analysis of its derivative at the turning point. The proof that particle 3 escapes relies on comparing the derivative terms T1 and T2 for particles 1 and 3, using the inequality chain in Appendix A that reduces to the algebraic condition L1²(M1²−1)/(r_t²+L1²) < M1K−1, all under the metric conditions f(r)>0 and f'(r)>0 outside the horizon. The quantum-corrected metric is f(r) = (1 − 2M/r + Q²/r²)(1 + ζ²/r²(1 − 2M/r + Q²/r²)), and the generalized ergoregion boundary is set by V+=0, which depends on q, L, and ζ.

What would settle it

A numerical integration of the radial equation (2.13) for the L2=0 case with q1<0, using the same parameters as Table I, could settle whether the escape theorem holds for the opposite charge sign; if a returning trajectory appears, the proof's sign assumption is essential. Even more directly, finding any spherically symmetric metric with f(r)>0 and f'(r)>0 outside the horizon for which the L2=0 electric Penrose process produces a particle 3 that reaches a turning point and falls back would violate the claimed universal escape.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Under the simplified electric Penrose process with the splitting point coinciding with the turning point and zero angular momentum for the infalling fragment (L2=0), the energy-gaining fragment particle 3 always escapes to a distant observer with net energy gain, as long as the charge of the infalling particle is positive (q1>0, so q3>M1q1>0). The proof uses only f(r)>0 and f'(r)>0 outside the event horizon, making the escape theorem applicable to a wide range of charged black hole models. In the special process where the initial particle is bound inside the effective-potential peak, the fragment can either escape or fall in depending on the distance of the turning point; under critical cond

Load-bearing premise

The escape theorem assumes the infalling particle has positive charge (so the inequality q3 > M1q1 > 0 holds), and it verifies only that the fragment's effective potential is decreasing at the turning point, not that it stays below the fragment's energy at every larger radius.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Energy-extraction efficiency η decreases monotonically as ζ increases and drops to zero beyond a critical ζ where the ergoregion boundary re falls inside the turning point, halting the process.
  • The generalized ergoregion boundary re shrinks with increasing ζ, so the quantum-corrected black hole has a smaller effective energy-extraction region than the classical Reissner-Nordström black hole for the same charge parameters.
  • For L2=0, the high-energy fragment always escapes to a distant observer; the escape theorem holds for any spherically symmetric charged black hole metric with f(r)>0 and f'(r)>0 outside the horizon, not just the quantum-corrected solution.
  • In the special process where the initial particle is bound inside the potential peak, a fragment that would escape in the classical spacetime can become trapped when ζ is nonzero, due to the outward shift of the effective-potential peak of particle 3.
  • ζ has a weak effect on trajectory shapes in generic cases, but the qualitative escape-to-trap transition provides a measurable kinematic signature for distinguishing quantum-corrected from classical black holes via charged-particle orbits.
  • The framework extends directly to other gravitational models where the same mild conditions on f(r) hold, offering a general test of alternative gravity theories.
  • When the turning point r_t is too close to the horizon, particle 3 can fall into the black hole instead of escaping, demonstrating that the special electric Penrose process has two possible dynamical outcomes depending on r_t.
  • The proof relies only on f'>0 and f>0 outside the horizon, so the escape result is model-independent within that broad class.
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 analyzes the electric Penrose process for charged test particles around the covariant quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordström black hole of Ref. [58]. The authors derive the equations of motion and effective potential, study the generalized ergoregion boundary and the energy-extraction efficiency as functions of the quantum parameter ζ, and examine the subsequent motion of the fragments produced by the splitting. For the simplified case L2=0 with the splitting at the common turning point, they claim a rigorous proof that the high-energy fragment particle 3 always escapes to a distant observer, and that this conclusion holds for a broad class of metric functions. They also identify a critical regime in which particle 1 is bound but particle 3 can escape, and show that ζ can switch the outcome from escape to trapping.

Significance. If the main claims are correct, the paper provides a concrete application of the electric Penrose process to a popular quantum-corrected black-hole model and offers a potentially model-independent escape theorem. The qualitative results — that ζ contracts the generalized ergoregion, lowers the efficiency, and can cause a qualitative escape-to-trapping transition for particle 3 — are physically interesting and presented with explicit trajectories and effective-potential plots. The derivation is self-contained and does not rely on numerical fitting. However, the advertised rigorous escape theorem is not demonstrated as stated, and there is an apparent sign inconsistency in the central conservation equation. These issues affect the paper's main novel claim and must be resolved before publication.

major comments (3)
  1. [§IV and Appendix A] The proof establishes at most V'_3(r_t)<0 at the splitting point. Eq. (4.2) and Eqs. (A1)–(A19) evaluate all quantities at the fixed point r_t; the appendix never treats r as a variable. A negative derivative at r_t guarantees only that particle 3 initially moves outward; escape to a distant observer requires V_3(r)<E_3 for all r>r_t, i.e. absence of a second turning point. The appendix heading claims V'_3<0 for r≥r_t, but no such global statement is proved. Therefore the abstract's 'rigorously prove ... can always escape' and the concluding paragraph of Sec. IV overstate the logical strength of the result.
  2. [§IV, Eq. (4.5)] The inequality chain q3 > M1 q1 > 0 assumes q1>0, which is never stated as a prerequisite. If q1<0, the step from Eq. (A13) to Eq. (A14) divides by the negative quantity 2 q1 Q S1, reversing the inequality, and Eq. (A15) no longer follows from charge conservation. The theorem should either explicitly state q1>0 as a hypothesis or provide a separate treatment for the q1<0 case. As written, the claimed universal escape result does not cover all allowed charge configurations.
  3. [§III, Eqs. (3.7) and (3.10)] Eq. (3.7) and Eq. (3.10) contain an apparent sign inconsistency. With є_i ≡ E_i − q_i Q/r_t and the turning-point condition є_i^2 = f(r_t)(1+L_i^2/r_t^2), the expression √{−є_i^2+f(r_t)} is imaginary for L_i≠0, so Eq. (3.10) cannot be the conservation constraint that leads to Eqs. (3.12)–(3.15). The later formulas use the opposite sign, √{є_i^2−f(r_t)}, suggesting a typographical sign error rather than a conceptual one. Nevertheless, the printed derivation cannot be reproduced as it stands and should be corrected.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 12 caption] The caption lists 'particle 2' twice; one of these should presumably be 'particle 3'.
  2. [Eq. (4.7) and Sec. IV] The root r_z in Eq. (4.7) and the statement that G(r)≤0 for r≥r_z use the explicit form of the metric (2.2). If the escape claim is meant to apply to a wide class of charged black holes, the manuscript should identify which steps rely on the specific f(r) and which steps are truly model-independent.
  3. [Figs. 9, 11, 13] The insets showing the detailed behavior near the turning points are very small and hard to read. Larger panels or separate zoomed figures would help the reader verify the claimed qualitative changes.
  4. [Sec. II A] The statement that the root of Eq. (2.7) is always less than r_+ is asserted without proof. A short argument or a reference would be useful.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: derivation is self-contained from the given quantum-corrected metric; self-citations are background, not load-bearing.

full rationale

The core derivation chain begins with the quantum-corrected RN metric (2.1)-(2.2), taken as input from Ref. [58]. All subsequent results—effective potential (2.13)-(2.14), ergoregion boundary (3.1), energy conservation equations (3.2)-(3.10), efficiency (3.20)-(3.21), and the escape inequalities in Sec. IV/Appendix A—are derived algebraically from this metric, the test-particle Lagrangian (2.8), and standard conservation laws. No parameter is fitted to data and then renamed a prediction. The escape proof uses hypotheses L2=0, q2<0, f'(r)>0 and the conservation-derived inequality q3>M1 q1>0; the conclusion V'_3<0 at r_t does not appear among the assumptions. The self-citations (e.g., Refs. [30,31,58]) supply the background effective-quantum-gravity model and previous studies of the same spacetime; they do not replace a derivation step or assert the present target result. Possible logical gaps—the proof establishes only a local outward motion at r_t rather than global escape for all r>r_t, and Eq. (4.5) silently assumes q1>0—are correctness issues, not circularity, because the derivation is not equivalent to its conclusion by construction. Similarly, the qualitative ζ results are numerical consequences of the displayed potential, not renamed inputs. Therefore no circular step is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's analysis rests on the quantum-corrected metric, the test-particle approximation, and a set of simplifying assumptions for the Penrose process (turning-point splitting, L2=0, q1>0). No new entities are introduced.

free parameters (5)
  • quantum parameter ζ = varied 0..7
    Free parameter of the quantum-corrected metric; central to the paper's analysis. Chosen values (0,0.5,1,2) for figures.
  • BH mass M = 1
    Set to 1 for numerical calculations.
  • particle parameters (m_i, q_i) = m1=2, q1=3.3; m2=0.9, q2=-6; m3=1, q3=12
    Chosen by hand for numerical illustrations; central to the qualitative flip example.
  • turning point r_t = 2.4, 1.9, 1.93, 3
    Position of splitting; chosen to illustrate general and special processes.
  • angular momentum L2 = 0 in proof; varied 0,1,2 in efficiency
    The escape theorem assumes L2=0.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Test particle approximation (neglect backreaction)
    Particle motion is treated in a fixed background; standard in Penrose process literature.
  • domain assumption Quantum-corrected RN metric with f(r) as in Eq. (2.2) is the correct spacetime
    The analysis relies entirely on this metric from Ref. [58]; if wrong, all results change.
  • standard math 4-momentum and charge are conserved at splitting
    Assumed in Eqs. (3.2)-(3.5); standard.
  • domain assumption f'(r)>0 and f(r)>0 outside the horizon
    Used in the escape proof; holds for this metric with Q<M.
  • ad hoc to paper q1>0 (unstated)
    Eq. (4.5) assumes q1>0 to derive q3>M1 q1>0; this sign restriction is not stated in the setup.
  • ad hoc to paper Splitting point coincides with turning point of all particles
    Simplifies to a special case; the proof of escape relies on this.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Electric Penrose process in the spacetime of a quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZUZ6CNJP

@misc{pith2026260101508,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Electric Penrose process in the spacetime of a quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZUZ6CNJP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2601.01508}
}
abstract

In this paper, we study the electric Penrose process for charged particles in the spacetime of a covariant quantum-corrected Reissner-Nordstr\"om black hole. We first derive the equations of motion for charged particles around the black hole, and then analyze how the quantum parameter $\zeta$ modifies the generalized ergoregion boundary and affects the energy-extraction efficiency. We further analyze the subsequent motion of charged particles in the electric Penrose process, and rigorously prove that under specific simplified conditions, the resulting fragment particle can always escape to a distant observer with a net energy gain, a conclusion applicable to a wide range of charged black hole models. Finally, we study the electric Penrose process in a critical regime where the initial particle is bound, yet its high-energy fragment particle may still escape. A key finding is that while $\zeta$ slightly alters the particle trajectories, it can qualitatively alter outcomes near critical conditions, causing a fragment particle that would escape in the classical black hole spacetime to become trapped in the quantum-corrected one. These results collectively demonstrate the obstructive effect of quantum corrections on the Penrose process and provide potential kinematic signatures to distinguish the quantum-corrected from classical Reissner-Nordstr\"om black holes.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2601.01508 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. delineates the behavior of the function F(r) as it varies with r for different parameter values, showing that F(r) may exhibit zero, one, or two roots depending on the values of ζ and Q. Furthermore, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Root structure of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The relative magnitude between the e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. The e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Variation of the ergoregion boundary [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Variation of the energy extraction e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Behavior of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Trajectories of particles 1, 2, and 3 for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Trajectories of particles 1, 2, and 3 for di [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Partial trajectories of the particles at the turning point [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: FIG. 13. E [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: FIG. 14. Partial particle trajectories at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_14.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 3 linked inside Pith

  1. [58]

    Du, J.-R

    Y . Du, J.-R. Sun, and X. Zhang, Information paradox and island of covariant black holes in LQG, arXiv:2510.11921

    arXiv

  2. [1]

    B. P. Abbottet al.(LIGO Scientific Collaboration and Virgo Collaboration), Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Bi- nary Black Hole Merger, inCentennial of General Relativity: A 12 Celebration, edited by C. A. Z. Vasconcellos (World Scientific, Singapore, 2017)

    2017

  3. [2]

    (4.5), this leads directly to M1K−1<RK−1.(A15) Likewise, if the inequality L2 1(M 2 1−1) r2 t +L 2 1 <M 1K−1 (A16) holds, then Eq

    After simplification, we obtain L2 1(M 2 1−1) r2 t +L 2 1 <RK−1.(A14) Together with Eq. (4.5), this leads directly to M1K−1<RK−1.(A15) Likewise, if the inequality L2 1(M 2 1−1) r2 t +L 2 1 <M 1K−1 (A16) holds, then Eq. (A14) is automatically satisfied. Inserting the explicit form ofKfrom Eq. (A10) and setting U≡ L2 1(M 2 1−1) r2 t +L 2 1 ,(A17) we can rew...

  4. [3]

    quantum-corrected BH

    Consequently, particle 3 carries a higher energy E3 (>E 1) and returns to infinity along an outgoing geodesic. The energy extracted from the BH in this process isE 3−E 1; theoretical analyses show that up to about 29% of the total energy of the rotating BH can be extracted [5]. To date, the Penrose process and its various extensions remain an active resea...

    arXiv 2026

  5. [4]

    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)

    2022

  6. [5]

    Falcke, K

    H. Falcke, K. Mannheim, and P. L. Biermann, The Galactic cen- ter radio jet, Astron. Astrophys.278, L1 (1993)

    1993

  7. [6]

    Penrose and R

    R. Penrose and R. M. Floyd, Extraction of rotational energy from a black hole, Nature229, 177 (1971)

    1971

  8. [7]

    S. M. Wagh and N. Dadhich, The energetics of black holes in electromagnetic fields by the Penrose process, Phys. Rept.183, 137 (1989)

    1989

Show all 61 references
  1. [8]

    Patel, K

    V . Patel, K. Acharya, P. Bambhaniya, and P. S. Joshi, Energy ex- traction from Janis-Newman-Winicour naked singularity, Phys. Rev. D107, 064036 (2023)

    2023

  2. [9]

    O. B. Zaslavskii, General properties of the Penrose process with neutral particles in the equatorial plane, Phys. Rev. D108, 084022 (2023)

    2023

  3. [10]

    Ruffini, M

    R. Ruffini, M. Prakapenia, H. Quevedo, and S. Zhang, Single versus the Repetitive Penrose Process in a Kerr Black Hole, Phys. Rev. Lett.134, 081403 (2025)

    2025

  4. [11]

    D. P. Viththani, T. Bhanja, V . Patel, and P. S. Joshi, Magnetic Penrose process and Kerr black hole mimickers, Phys. Rev. D 110, 123035 (2024)

    2024

  5. [12]

    A. Kar, A. Dey, and S. Kar, A note on the Penrose process in rotating regular black holes, arXiv:2510.11364

  6. [13]

    Zhao, Z.-Y

    Z. Zhao, Z.-Y . Fan, X. Wang, M. Guo, and B. Chen, Probing the Penrose process: Images of split hotspots and their observa- tional signatures, arXiv:2510.27409

  7. [14]

    Wang and X.-X

    K. Wang and X.-X. Zeng, Repetitive Penrose process in Kerr-de Sitter black holes, arXiv:2512.05491

  8. [15]

    Denardo and R

    G. Denardo and R. Ruffini, On the energetics of Reissner Nord- str¨om geometries, Phys. Lett. B45, 259 (1973)

    1973

  9. [16]

    Denardo, L

    G. Denardo, L. Hively, and R. Ruffini, On the generalized er- gosphere of the Kerr-Newman geometry, Phys. Lett. B50, 270 (1974)

    1974

  10. [17]

    Dadhich, On energetics of a charged black hole relative to tachyons, Phys

    N. Dadhich, On energetics of a charged black hole relative to tachyons, Phys. Lett. A68, 291 (1978)

    1978

  11. [18]

    Kokubu, S.-L

    T. Kokubu, S.-L. Li, P. Wu, and H. Yu, Confined Penrose pro- cess with charged particles, Phys. Rev. D104, 104047 (2021)

    2021

  12. [19]

    O. B. Zaslavskii, General properties of the electric Penrose pro- cess, Phys. Rev. D109, 124053 (2024)

    2024

  13. [20]

    L. T. Sanches and M. Richartz, Energy extraction from non- coalescing black hole binaries, Phys. Rev. D104, 124025 (2021)

    2021

  14. [21]

    A. Baez, N. Breton, and I. Cabrera-Munguia, Energy extraction in electrostatic extreme binary black holes, Phys. Rev. D106, 124042 (2022)

    2022

  15. [22]

    Tursunov, B

    A. Tursunov, B. Juraev, Z. Stuchl ´ık, and M. Kolo ˇs, Electric Penrose process: High-energy acceleration of ionized particles by nonrotating weakly charged black hole, Phys. Rev. D104, 084099 (2021)

    2021

  16. [23]

    Vertogradov, Extraction energy from charged Vaidya black hole via the Penrose process, Commun

    V . Vertogradov, Extraction energy from charged Vaidya black hole via the Penrose process, Commun. Theor. Phys.75, 045404 (2023)

    2023

  17. [24]

    Xamidov, P

    T. Xamidov, P. Sheoran, S. Shaymatov, and T. Zhu, Energy ex- traction from loop quantum black holes: The role of magnetic Penrose process and quantum gravity effects with astrophysical insights, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 03 (2025) 053

    2025

  18. [25]

    Alloqulov and S

    M. Alloqulov and S. Shaymatov, Electric Penrose process and the accretion disk around a 4D-charged Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet black hole, Eur. Phys. J. Plus139, 731 (2024)

    2024

  19. [26]

    Vertogradov and A

    V . Vertogradov and A. Rincon, Energy extraction and evolution of regular black holes: The case of Bardeen spacetime, Phys. Dark Universe50, 102066 (2025)

    2025

  20. [27]

    Feiteira, J

    D. Feiteira, J. P. S. Lemos, and O. B. Zaslavskii, Penrose pro- cess in Reissner-Nordstr¨om-AdS black hole spacetimes: Black hole energy factories and black hole bombs, Phys. Rev. D109, 064065 (2024)

    2024

  21. [28]

    A. Baez, N. Breton, and I. Cabrera-Munguia, Energy extraction from a Reissner-Nordstr ¨om–de Sitter black hole, Phys. Rev. D 110, 064065 (2024)

    2024

  22. [29]

    Feiteira, J

    D. Feiteira, J. P. S. Lemos, and O. B. Zaslavskii, Penrose and super-Penrose energy extraction from a Reissner-Nordstr ¨om black hole spacetime with a cosmological constant through the Ba ˜nados-Silk-West mechanism, Phys. Rev. D111, 024022 (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    H. Chen, H. Xu, Y . Zhan, and S.-J. Zhang, Electric Penrose process in Ay ´on-Beato-Garc´ıa(-dS) black holes, arXiv:2508.12657

    arXiv

  24. [31]

    Hu, R.-G

    L. Hu, R.-G. Cai, and S.-J. Wang, Third law of repetitive elec- tric Penrose process, arXiv:2510.26866

  25. [32]

    Zhang, J

    C. Zhang, J. Lewandowski, Y . Ma, and J. Yang, Black holes and covariance in effective quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D111, L081504 (2025)

    2025

  26. [33]

    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)

    2025

  27. [34]

    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)

    2025

  28. [35]

    W. Liu, D. Wu, and J. Wang, Light rings and shadows of static black holes in effective quantum gravity, Phys. Lett. B858, 139052 (2024)

    2024

  29. [36]

    Liu, M.-Y

    H. Liu, M.-Y . Lai, X.-Y . Pan, H. Huang, and D.-C. Zou, Gravi- tational lensing effect of black holes in effective quantum grav- ity, Phys. Rev. D110, 104039 (2024)

    2024

  30. [37]

    Li and X

    H. Li and X. Zhang, Gravitational lensing effects from mod- els of loop quantum gravity with rigorous quantum parameters, Universe10, 421 (2024)

    2024

  31. [38]

    Y . Wang, A. Vachher, Q. Wu, T. Zhu, and S. G. Ghosh, Strong gravitational lensing by static black holes in effective quantum gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 302 (2025)

    2025

  32. [39]

    Skvortsova, Quantum corrected black holes: Testing the correspondence between grey-body factors and quasinormal modes, Eur

    M. Skvortsova, Quantum corrected black holes: Testing the correspondence between grey-body factors and quasinormal modes, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 854 (2025)

    2025

  33. [40]

    Z. Ban, J. Chen, and J. Yang, Shadows of rotating black holes in effective quantum gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 878 (2025)

    2025

  34. [41]

    Y . Du, Y . Liu, and X. Zhang, Spinning particle dynamics and the innermost stable circular orbit in covariant loop quantum gravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2025) 045

    2025

  35. [42]

    J. Lin, X. Zhang, and M. Bravo-Gaete, Mass inflation and strong cosmic censorship conjecture in the covariant quantum black hole, Phys. Rev. D111, 106025 (2025)

    2025

  36. [43]

    Shu and J.-H

    Y .-H. Shu and J.-H. Huang, Circular orbits and thin accretion disk around a quantum corrected black hole, Phys. Lett. B864, 139411 (2025)

    2025

  37. [44]

    Y . Liu, J. Jiang, and B. Sun, Repulsive effect of covariant effec- tive quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D112, 124042 (2025)

    2025

  38. [45]

    Cafaro, L

    L. Cafaro, L. Cipriani, F. Fazzini, and F. Soltani, Stellar collapse with pressure in effective loop quantum gravity, Phys. Rev. D 111, 124006 (2025)

    2025

  39. [46]

    R. A. Konoplya and O. S. Stashko, Transition from regular black holes to wormholes in covariant effective quantum grav- ity: Scattering, quasinormal modes, and Hawking radiation, Phys. Rev. D111, 084031 (2025)

    2025

  40. [47]

    Chen and J

    J. Chen and J. Yang, Shadows and optical appearance of 13 quantum-corrected black holes illuminated by static thin accre- tions, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 512 (2025)

    2025

  41. [48]

    Ai, R.-T

    W.-J. Ai, R.-T. Chen, L.-G. Zhu, and J.-P. Wu, Probing loop quantum effects through solar system experiments: Observa- tional signatures and parameter constraints, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 792 (2025)

    2025

  42. [49]

    B. C. L ¨utf¨uo˘glu, Long-lived quasinormal modes around regu- lar black holes and wormholes in covariant effective quantum gravity, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 06 (2025) 057

    2025

  43. [50]

    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)

    2025

  44. [51]

    Motaharfar and P

    M. Motaharfar and P. Singh, Love numbers of covariant loop quantum black holes, Phys. Rev. D112, 066008 (2025)

    2025

  45. [52]

    Sahlmann and C

    H. Sahlmann and C. Zhang, Dust shell in effective loop quan- tum black hole model, Phys. Rev. D112, 084079 (2025)

    2025

  46. [53]

    Zhang and Z

    C. Zhang and Z. Cao, Covariant Dynamics from Static Spher- ically Symmetric Geometries, Phys. Rev. Lett.135, 261401 (2025)

    2025

  47. [54]

    Calz `a, D

    M. Calz `a, D. Pedrotti, G.-W. Yuan, and S. Vagnozzi, Primordial regular black holes as all the dark matter. III. Covariant canoni- cal quantum gravity models, Phys. Rev. D112, 124015 (2025)

    2025

  48. [55]

    Umarov, F

    D. Umarov, F. Atamurotov, S. G. Ghosh, A. Abdujabbarov, and G. Mustafa, Dynamics of spinning particles around static black holes in effective quantum gravity, Eur. Phys. J. C85, 800 (2025)

    2025

  49. [56]

    Liu and X

    Y . Liu and X. Zhang, Quasinormal modes and tidal Love num- bers of covariant effective quantum black holes with cosmolog- ical constant, arXiv:2509.12013

  50. [57]

    Huang, J

    S. Huang, J. Chen, and J. Yang, Image of a quantum-corrected black hole without Cauchy horizons illuminated by a static thin accretion disk, arXiv:2510.09956

    arXiv

  51. [59]

    X. Liu, W. Liu, and S.-M. Wu, Entanglement degrada- tion of static black holes in effective quantum gravity, arXiv:2511.12245

  52. [60]

    J. Yang, C. Zhang, and Y . Ma, Covariant effective spacetimes of spherically symmetric electrovacuum with a cosmological constant, Phys. Rev. D112, 064049 (2025)

    2025

  53. [61]

    Pugliese, H

    D. Pugliese, H. Quevedo, and R. Ruffini, Motion of charged test particles in Reissner-Nordstr ¨om spacetime, Phys. Rev. D 83, 104052 (2011)

    2011

Pith tools

Reviewed August 3, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.