pith. sign in

arxiv: 2607.01723 · v1 · pith:7OQCX2CFnew · submitted 2026-07-02 · 🌀 gr-qc

Particle dynamics and quasi-periodic oscillations of a Reissner--Nordstr\"om-like black hole in Kalb--Ramond gravity under an external magnetic test field

Faizuddin Ahmed , Ahmad Al-Badawi , Sardor Murodov , Bekzod Rahmatov , Javlon Rayimbaev This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-07-03 08:51 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌀 gr-qc
keywords Kalb-Ramond gravityReissner-Nordström-like black holequasi-periodic oscillationscharged test particlesexternal magnetic fieldrelativistic precession modelMarkov chain Monte CarloLorentz violation
0
0 comments X

The pith

A Kalb-Ramond black hole with charge and external magnetic field reproduces observed twin-peak QPO frequencies from three sources via the relativistic precession model.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper studies charged test particles orbiting a Reissner-Nordström-like black hole modified by Kalb-Ramond gravity, where a Lorentz-violating parameter alters the metric and an external magnetic field is adapted from the source-free Maxwell equations on that background. It computes the effective potential, conditions for circular orbits, and the orbital plus radial epicyclic frequencies, then inserts those frequencies into the relativistic precession model that equates the upper QPO to the orbital frequency and the lower QPO to the periastron-precession frequency. Markov chain Monte Carlo fitting to the observed QPO pairs in GRO J1655-40, XTE J1550-564, and M82 X-1 shows that choices of black-hole charge, KR parameter, particle charge, and magnetic coupling can match the data within the explored ranges. A sympathetic reader cares because the work supplies a concrete route to test Lorentz-violating geometries against existing X-ray timing observations.

Core claim

In the charged Kalb-Ramond black-hole spacetime the Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ modifies the line element, horizon radii, and geodesic motion; the magnetic field is obtained by solving the source-free Maxwell equations on this geometry rather than by the standard Wald prescription. The resulting orbital frequency and periastron-precession frequency, when identified with the upper and lower QPO peaks, permit posterior distributions on the four parameters (Q/M, ℓ, ε, β) that are consistent with the measured frequencies of the three named sources.

What carries the argument

The Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ that deforms the Reissner-Nordström-like metric and permits a geometry-adapted magnetic-field profile whose strength enters the Lorentz force on charged particles.

If this is right

  • The location of the innermost stable circular orbit depends jointly on black-hole charge Q/M, KR parameter ℓ, particle charge ε, and magnetic coupling β.
  • Both the orbital frequency and the radial epicyclic frequency shift when any of the four parameters is varied.
  • Markov chain Monte Carlo sampling produces posterior constraints on all four parameters from the QPO data of the three sources.
  • The charged KR model with the adapted magnetic field reproduces the observed QPO pairs inside the sampled ranges.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • The same frequency expressions could be applied to additional X-ray binaries to test whether the same narrow ranges of ℓ remain viable.
  • Higher-precision timing from future missions could tighten bounds on ℓ independently of electromagnetic charge effects.
  • The adapted magnetic-field construction may alter accretion-disk stability criteria beyond the test-particle level.
  • Comparison with QPO data in other modified-gravity spacetimes would reveal whether the KR deformation is uniquely compatible with the observed pairs.

Load-bearing premise

The relativistic precession model correctly identifies the upper observed QPO frequency with the orbital frequency and the lower one with the periastron-precession frequency computed in the modified spacetime.

What would settle it

A recomputation of the orbital and periastron-precession frequencies at the best-fit MCMC parameter values that yields values lying outside the 1σ error bars of any of the three observed QPO pairs would falsify the reported consistency.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.01723 by Ahmad Al-Badawi, Bekzod Rahmatov, Faizuddin Ahmed, Javlon Rayimbaev, Sardor Murodov.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: Metric function f(r) of the charged KR black hole for different values of the Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ. The parameters are fixed as M = 1 and Q = 0.3M. The zero crossings determine the horizon positions, while the large-radius value reflects the KR-modified asymptotic normalization. Table I. Horizon structure and asymptotic magnetic exponent for the charged KR black hole. The calculations are performe… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Cauchy horizon r− and event horizon r+ as functions of the KR parameter ℓ for M = 1 and Q = 0.3M. Increasing ℓ decreases the horizon separation and drives the fixed-charge configuration closer to the extremal bound. With this convention, the radial electric-field component is Frt = ∂rAt = Q (1 − ℓ)r 2 . (14) We now introduce an external magnetic test field aligned with the symmetry axis of the black hole. … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Magnetic-field lines in the meridional plane for the charged KR black hole. The parameters are [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Effective potential Veff (r) for different magnetic coupling parameters bM. The fixed parameters are M = 1, Q = 0.3M, ε = 0.1, ℓ = 0.2, and L = 3M. The variation with bM comes from the magnetic modification of the mechanical angular momentum L − bΨKR. For future-directed motion outside the event horizon, the relevant branch is Veff(r;L, b, ε, Q, ℓ) = −εAt + vuutf(r) " 1 + (L − bΨKR(r))2 r 2 # . (58) Using … view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Specific canonical angular momentum L(r) of charged-particle circular orbits for different values of bM. The parameters are M = 1, Q = 0.3M, ε = 0.1, and ℓ = 0.2. The curve separation reflects the magnetic vector-potential contribution to the canonical angular momentum. Differentiating Eq. (54) with respect to r and setting the result to zero gives 2 (E + εAt) εA′ t − f ′  1 + X2 r 2  + 2f bXΨ′ KR r 2 + … view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Specific energy E(r) of charged-particle circular orbits for different values of bM. The parameters are M = 1, Q = 0.3M, ε = 0.1, and ℓ = 0.2. The smoother response compared with L(r) follows from the energy being controlled by the full gravitational–electromagnetic balance. The equivalent stability condition in terms of the radial function has the opposite sign. Indeed, R(r) = E − V + eff E − V − eff , … view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: ISCO radius as a function of the KR parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_7.png] view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: ISCO radius as a function of the magnetic coupling parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Generalized Keplerian frequency ΩK ≡ Ωϕ as a function of radius for the charged KR black hole in the presence of the source-free magnetic field. The parameters are fixed as M = 1, Q = 0.3M, ε = 0.1, and ℓ = 0.2, while several values of the magnetic coupling bM are shown. With the magnetic coupling parameter b, the radial force-balance equation becomes −f ′ (r) + 2rΩ 2 = −2 p f(r) − r 2Ω2  εQ (1 − ℓ)r 2 + … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Radial epicyclic frequency Ωr as a function of radius for the charged KR black hole. The parameters are fixed as M = 1, Q = 0.3M, ε = 0.1, and ℓ = 0.2, while several values of the magnetic coupling bM are shown. The point where Ωr vanishes marks the onset of marginal radial stability. In the absence of magnetic interaction, b = 0, spherical symmetry gives Ωθ = Ωϕ. (93) Since the KR metric is not asymptoti… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Marginalized posterior distributions of M/M⊙, Q/M, ℓ, ϵ, β, and r/M for XTE J1550–564 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png] view at source ↗
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Marginalized posterior distributions of M/M⊙, Q/M, ℓ, ϵ, β, and r/M for M82 X-1. Table VII. Comparison between the observed and best-fit theoretical QPO frequencies. All frequencies are given in Hz. Source ν obs U ν th U ν obs L ν th L χ 2 min GRO J1655–40 451.00 450.9703 298.00 298.0015 3.55 × 10−5 XTE J1550–564 276.00 276.0261 184.00 183.8560 9.05 × 10−4 M82 X-1 5.07 5.0689 3.32 3.3178 1.64 × 10−3 [PIT… view at source ↗
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Marginalized posterior distributions of M/M⊙, Q/M, ℓ, ϵ, β, and r/M for GRO J1655–40 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_13.png] view at source ↗
read the original abstract

We investigate the dynamics of charged test particles and quasi-periodic oscillations around a Reissner--Nordstr\"om-like black hole in Kalb--Ramond (KR) gravity in the presence of an external magnetic test field. The KR background introduces a Lorentz-violating parameter $\ell$, which modifies the spacetime geometry, horizon structure, circular orbits, and characteristic frequencies of particle motion. In contrast to the standard Wald-type prescription, the magnetic-field configuration is constructed from the source-free Maxwell equation on the charged KR background, allowing the magnetic profile to be consistently adapted to the modified geometry. We derive the equations of motion, the effective potential, the conditions for circular orbits, and the orbital and radial epicyclic frequencies of charged particles. The results show that the black-hole charge $Q/M$, the KR parameter $\ell$, the specific particle charge $\epsilon$, and the magnetic coupling $\beta=bM$ jointly affect the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) and the quasi-periodic oscillation (QPO) frequencies. We then apply the obtained frequencies to the relativistic precession model, where the upper QPO frequency is identified with the orbital frequency and the lower one with the periastron-precession frequency. Using the observed twin-peak QPO data of GRO J1655--40, XTE J1550--564, and M82 X-1, we perform a Markov chain Monte Carlo analysis to constrain the model parameters. The obtained posterior constraints indicate that the charged KR black-hole model with an external magnetic field can consistently reproduce the observed QPO pairs within the adopted parameter ranges. These findings suggest that QPO observations may serve as a useful phenomenological tool for probing Lorentz-violating black-hole geometries and electromagnetic effects in strong-gravity environments.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

1 major / 1 minor

Summary. The paper derives the equations of motion, effective potential, circular orbit conditions, and orbital/radial epicyclic frequencies for charged test particles around a charged Reissner-Nordström-like black hole in Kalb-Ramond gravity with an external magnetic test field (constructed via source-free Maxwell equations on the modified background). It applies the relativistic precession model (upper QPO = orbital frequency, lower = periastron precession) and performs MCMC fitting of the four parameters (ℓ, Q/M, ε, β) to twin-peak QPO data from GRO J1655-40, XTE J1550-564, and M82 X-1, concluding that the model reproduces the observations within the adopted ranges.

Significance. If the frequency derivations hold, the work provides a concrete phenomenological framework for constraining Lorentz-violating effects and electromagnetic couplings in strong gravity using QPO data. The consistent adaptation of the magnetic field to the KR geometry and the MCMC posteriors are strengths. However, the reproduction is achieved by direct parameter adjustment to the same observations, so the result demonstrates viability rather than independent predictive power.

major comments (1)
  1. [abstract] The central claim of consistent reproduction rests on MCMC fitting of the four free parameters (ℓ, Q/M, ε, β) directly to the observed frequency pairs. This procedure necessarily yields acceptable posteriors if the model is sufficiently flexible, but the abstract presents it as a test of the spacetime rather than a fit (abstract and MCMC analysis).
minor comments (1)
  1. [abstract] The mapping from derived frequencies to observed QPOs assumes the standard relativistic precession model without explicit validation or sensitivity checks in the modified metric; this is standard but should be stated as an assumption.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

1 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments. We address the single major comment below and agree that a revision to the abstract is warranted to avoid any implication of an independent test.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [abstract] The central claim of consistent reproduction rests on MCMC fitting of the four free parameters (ℓ, Q/M, ε, β) directly to the observed frequency pairs. This procedure necessarily yields acceptable posteriors if the model is sufficiently flexible, but the abstract presents it as a test of the spacetime rather than a fit (abstract and MCMC analysis).

    Authors: We agree that the abstract wording risks overstating the result as a test of the spacetime geometry rather than a demonstration of viability via direct fitting. The MCMC analysis constrains the four parameters to values that allow the model to match the observed frequency pairs from the three sources; this is a consistency check within the model's flexibility, not an a priori prediction. We will revise the abstract (and the corresponding sentence in the conclusions) to state explicitly that the posteriors show the charged KR model with magnetic field can reproduce the data within the adopted ranges, thereby clarifying the phenomenological nature of the constraint. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: standard parameter fitting to QPO data after independent frequency derivation

full rationale

The paper derives orbital and epicyclic frequencies from the modified KR metric (with parameters ℓ, Q/M, ε, β) using the effective potential and geodesic equations. It then applies the standard relativistic precession model (upper QPO = orbital freq, lower = periastron precession) and performs MCMC to constrain those parameters against observed frequencies from three sources. This is a conventional phenomenological fit to constrain model parameters and demonstrate consistency within ranges; the paper does not present the frequency match as an independent prediction or first-principles result. No self-definitional steps, fitted inputs renamed as predictions, or load-bearing self-citations appear in the abstract or described procedure. The central claim reduces to showing that acceptable posteriors exist, which is tautological only in the trivial sense of any fit but does not meet the criteria for circularity (no quoted reduction of a claimed derivation to its own inputs by construction).

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

4 free parameters · 3 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on one new free parameter ℓ introduced by the KR modification, three additional fitted parameters, and three domain assumptions about the background metric, the magnetic-field construction, and the applicability of the relativistic precession model; no independent evidence is supplied for the new parameter beyond the fit itself.

free parameters (4)
  • ℓ
    Lorentz-violating parameter that modifies the spacetime geometry and is adjusted in the MCMC fit
  • Q/M
    Black-hole charge-to-mass ratio adjusted in the MCMC fit
  • ε
    Specific charge of the test particle adjusted in the MCMC fit
  • β = bM
    Magnetic coupling strength adjusted in the MCMC fit
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The background is the Reissner-Nordström-like metric of Kalb-Ramond gravity
    Taken as the starting geometry whose horizons and potentials are modified by ℓ
  • domain assumption Magnetic field is obtained from the source-free Maxwell equation on the KR background
    Used in place of the standard Wald prescription to adapt the field to the modified geometry
  • domain assumption Relativistic precession model correctly identifies upper QPO with orbital frequency and lower QPO with periastron precession
    Invoked when mapping derived frequencies to the observed pairs from the three sources
invented entities (1)
  • Kalb-Ramond Lorentz-violating parameter ℓ no independent evidence
    purpose: Modifies the black-hole geometry to incorporate Lorentz violation
    Introduced by the underlying KR gravity theory; no independent falsifiable evidence supplied beyond the QPO fit

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5890 in / 1787 out tokens · 38299 ms · 2026-07-03T08:51:33.571384+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 3 canonical work pages · 1 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Physical Review D39, 683 (1989)

    1989

  2. [2]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y and S. Samuel, Physical Review D40, 1886 (1989)

    1989

  3. [3]

    Amelino-Camelia, J

    G. Amelino-Camelia, J. Ellis, N. E. Mavromatos, D. V. Nanopoulos, and S. Sarkar, Nature393, 763 (1998)

    1998

  4. [4]

    Mattingly, Living Reviews in Relativity8, 5 (2005)

    D. Mattingly, Living Reviews in Relativity8, 5 (2005)

    2005

  5. [5]

    Bertolami, J

    O. Bertolami, J. G. Rosa, C. M. L. de Arag˜ ao, P. Castorina, and D. Zapall` a, Physical Review D72, 025010 (2005)

    2005

  6. [6]

    Kanno, M

    S. Kanno, M. Kimura, J. Soda, and S. Yokoyama, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2008, 034

  7. [7]

    S. M. Carroll and E. A. Lim, Physical Review D70, 123525 (2004)

    2004

  8. [8]

    Colladay and V

    D. Colladay and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Physical Review D58, 116002 (1998)

    1998

  9. [9]

    V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Physical Review D69, 105009 (2004)

    2004

  10. [10]

    O’Neal-Ault, Q

    K. O’Neal-Ault, Q. G. Bailey, and N. A. Nilsson, Physical Review D103, 044010 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    A. A. A. Filho, N. Heidari, and I. P. Lobo, Physics Letters B875, 140350 (2026)

    2026

  12. [12]

    K. Abe, Y. Haga, Y. Hayato, M. Ikeda, K. Iyogi, J. Kameda, Y. Kishimoto, M. Miura, S. Moriyama,et al., Physical Review D91, 052003 (2015)

    2015

  13. [13]

    Bluhm and V

    R. Bluhm and V. A. Kosteleck´ y, Physical Review D71, 065008 (2005)

    2005

  14. [14]

    Capelo and J

    D. Capelo and J. P´ aramos, Physical Review D91, 104007 (2015)

    2015

  15. [15]

    Casana, A

    R. Casana, A. Cavalcante, F. P. Poulis, and E. B. Santos, Physical Review D97, 104001 (2018)

    2018

  16. [16]

    C. F. S. Pereira, M. V. de S. Silva, H. Belich, D. C. Rodrigues, J. C. Fabris, and M. E. Rodrigues, Physical Review D 111, 124005 (2025)

    2025

  17. [17]

    L. A. Lessa, R. B. Magalh˜ aes, and M. M. F. Jr, Physical Review D112, 064031 (2025)

    2025

  18. [18]

    X. Zhu, R. Xu, and D. Xu, Physics of the Dark Universe50, 102127 (2025)

    2025

  19. [19]

    X. Lai, Y. Dong, Y. Fan, and Y. Liu, Physical Review D113, 044003 (2026)

    2026

  20. [20]

    R. V. Maluf and J. C. S. Neves, Physical Review D103, 044002 (2021)

    2021

  21. [21]

    Kalb and P

    M. Kalb and P. Ramond, Physical Review D9, 2273 (1974)

    1974

  22. [22]

    K. Yang, Y. Chen, Z. Duan, and J. Zhao, Physical Review D108, 124004 (2023)

    2023

  23. [23]

    Duan, J.-Y

    Z.-Q. Duan, J.-Y. Zhao, and K. Yang, European Physical Journal C84, 798 (2024), arXiv:2310.13555

    work page arXiv 2024

  24. [24]

    E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Junior, F. S. N. Lobo, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, European Physical Journal C84, 1257 (2024)

    2024

  25. [25]

    E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Junior, F. S. N. Lobo, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, Physical Review D110, 024077 (2024)

    2024

  26. [26]

    E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Junior, F. S. N. Lobo, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, European Physical Journal C85, 557 (2025)

    2025

  27. [27]

    D. S. J. Cordeiro, E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Junior, F. S. N. Lobo, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, Physical Review D112, 104018 (2025)

    2025

  28. [28]

    D. S. J. Cordeiro, E. L. B. Junior, J. T. S. S. Junior, F. S. N. Lobo, J. A. A. Ramos, M. E. Rodrigues, D. Rubiera-Garcia, L. F. D. da Silva, and H. A. Vieira, European Physical Journal C85, 1141 (2025)

    2025

  29. [29]

    Al-Badawi, F

    A. Al-Badawi, F. Ahmed, and I. Sakalli, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102076 (2025)

    2025

  30. [30]

    Al-Badawi, S

    A. Al-Badawi, S. Sanjar, and I. Sakalli, Eur. Phys. J C84, 825 (2024)

    2024

  31. [31]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakalli, Mod. Phys. Lett. A41, 2650061 (2026)

    2026

  32. [32]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, I. Sakalli, F. Javed, and S. Kanzi, Int. J Geom. Meth. Mod. Phys. , 2650130 (2026), online first

    2026

  33. [33]

    Ahmed, A

    F. Ahmed, A. Al-Badawi, and I. Sakalli, Physics of the Dark Universe52, 102315 (2026)

    2026

  34. [34]

    Jumaniyozov, S

    S. Jumaniyozov, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, B. Madaminov, S. Urinbaev, and A. Abdujabbarov, European Physical Journal C85(2025), cited by: 27; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2025

  35. [35]

    Rahmatov, I

    B. Rahmatov, I. Egamberdiev, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, E. Davletov, and S. Djumanov, Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025), cited by: 8

    2025

  36. [36]

    Jumaniyozov, M

    S. Jumaniyozov, M. Zahid, M. Alloqulov, I. Ibragimov, J. Rayimbaev, and S. Murodov, European Physical Journal C85 (2025), cited by: 50; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2025

  37. [37]

    Rahmatov, I

    B. Rahmatov, I. Egamberdiev, O. Umarov, M. Vapayev, S. Karshiboev, Y. Turaev, and S. Murodov, Nuclear Physics B 1022(2026), cited by: 8; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  38. [38]

    Rahmatov, S

    B. Rahmatov, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, Y. Turaev, I. Egamberdiev, K. Badalov, S. Ahmedov, and S. Usanov, Annals of Physics488(2026), cited by: 7

    2026

  39. [39]

    Saydullayev, I

    S. Saydullayev, I. Nishonov, M. Dusaliyev, O. Xoldorov, S. Murodov, S. Karshiboev, S. Urinov, and B. Rahmatov, European Physical Journal C85(2025), cited by: 4; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2025

  40. [40]

    Rahmatov, I

    B. Rahmatov, I. Nishonov, S. Murodov, I. Egamberdiev, O. Umarov, S. Karshiboev, M. Vapayev, and M. Matyoqubov, Physics of the Dark Universe52(2026), cited by: 6. 25

    2026

  41. [41]

    Meliyeva, O

    L. Meliyeva, O. Xoldorov, O. Tursunboyev, S. Karshiboev, S. Murodov, I. Nishonov, and B. Rahmatov, Chinese Physics C49(2025), cited by: 3

    2025

  42. [42]

    R. M. Zulqarnain, A. Ashraf, A. Bouzenada, E. Demir, E. G¨ udekli, S. Murodov, and F. Atamurotov, International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics (2026), cited by: 0

    2026

  43. [43]

    Shermatov, J

    A. Shermatov, J. Rayimbaev, S. Murodov, B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, B. Ahmedov, M. Zahid, I. Ibragimov, and B. Shermatov, Physics of the Dark Universe50(2025), cited by: 5

    2025

  44. [44]

    S. U. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, H. Hayat, Z.-M. Chen, M. Abdullaev, S. Murodov, and W. Wang, European Physical Journal C86(2026), cited by: 0; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  45. [45]

    Nishonov, S

    I. Nishonov, S. Murodov, B. Ahmedov, S. U. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, and S. Sabirov, European Physical Journal C85(2025), cited by: 9; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2025

  46. [46]

    Rahmatov, S

    B. Rahmatov, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, S. Muminov, I. Ibragimov, and R. Eshburiev, Physics of the Dark Universe50 (2025), cited by: 7

    2025

  47. [47]

    Murodov, I

    S. Murodov, I. Egamberdiev, O. Umarov, J. Rayimbaev, E. Davletov, and I. Davletov, European Physical Journal C86 (2026), cited by: 0; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  48. [48]

    J. Guo, F. Javed, S. Murodov, A. Shermatov, J. Rayimbaev, and M. Matyoqubov, Physics of the Dark Universe52 (2026), cited by: 2

    2026

  49. [49]

    Ditta, G

    A. Ditta, G. Mustafa, S. Mehmood, F. Atamurotov, O. D¨ onmez, S. Maurya, and S. Murodov, European Physical Journal Plus141(2026), cited by: 0

    2026

  50. [50]

    Errehymy, S

    A. Errehymy, S. Maurya, M. Govender, K. Singh, J. Rayimbaev, B. Myrzakulova, and S. Murodov, Physics Letters, Section B: Nuclear, Elementary Particle and High-Energy Physics878(2026), cited by: 0; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  51. [51]

    J. Guo, A. Eid, A. Waseem, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, N. Mustapha, A. Seytov, and O. Sirajiddin, Nuclear Physics B 1025(2026), cited by: 0; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  52. [52]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, S. Murodov, M. Abdullaev, J. Rayimbaev, M. Akhmedov, and M. Matyoqubov, Nuclear Physics B1029 (2026), cited by: 0; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  53. [53]

    B. C. L¨ utf¨ uo˘ glu, J. Rayimbaev, S. Murodov, J. Kurbanov, and M. Matyoqubov, Annals of Physics491(2026), cited by: 0; All Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  54. [54]

    S. Khan, S. Murodov, J. Rayimbaev, I. Davletov, I. Ibragimov, and S. Muminov, Nuclear Physics B1022(2026), cited by: 3; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2026

  55. [55]

    Banerjee, I

    A. Banerjee, I. Karar, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, S. Murodov, S. Muminov, and S. Jumaniyozov, Chinese Physics C49 (2025), cited by: 1; All Open Access; Hybrid Gold Open Access

    2025

  56. [56]

    Banerjee, B

    A. Banerjee, B. Dayanandan, J. Rayimbaev, S. Murodov, I. Ibragimov, S. Muminov, and I. Davletov, European Physical Journal C85(2025), cited by: 1; All Open Access; Gold Open Access; Green Open Access

    2025

  57. [57]

    Rahaman, M

    F. Rahaman, M. Kalam, A. DeBenedicts, A. A. Usmani, and S. Ray, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 389, 27 (2008)

    2008

  58. [58]

    C. Liu, H. Siew, T. Zhu, Q. Wu, Y. Sun, Y. Zhao, and H. Xu, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2023, 096

  59. [59]

    Abdulkhamidov, P

    F. Abdulkhamidov, P. Nedkova, J. Rayimbaev, J. Kunz, and B. Ahmedov, Physical Review D109, 104074 (2024)

    2024

  60. [60]

    Ashraf, A

    A. Ashraf, A. Ditta, T. Nasser, S. K. Maurya, S. Ray, P. Channuie, and F. Atamurotov, European Physical Journal C 85, 633 (2025)

    2025

  61. [61]

    Nishonov, S

    I. Nishonov, S. Murodov, B. Ahmedov, S. U. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, I. Ibragimov, and S. Sabirov, European Physical Journal C85, 1029 (2025)

    2025

  62. [62]

    Z. Ahal, H. E. Moumni, and K. Masmar, Physics of the Dark Universe52, 102311 (2026)

    2026

  63. [63]

    M. Wu, H. Guo, and X. Kuang, European Physical Journal C86, 79 (2026)

    2026

  64. [64]

    Psaltis, Living Reviews in Relativity11, 9 (2008)

    D. Psaltis, Living Reviews in Relativity11, 9 (2008)

    2008

  65. [65]

    Bambi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012, 014

    C. Bambi, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics2012, 014

  66. [66]

    Falanga, T

    M. Falanga, T. Belloni, P. Casella, M. Gilfanov, P. Jonker, and A. King,The Physics of Accretion onto Black Holes (Springer New York, New York, 2015)

    2015

  67. [67]

    T. M. Belloni, A. Sanna, and M. M´ endez, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society426, 1701 (2012)

    2012

  68. [68]

    Stella and M

    L. Stella and M. Vietri, The Astrophysical Journal492, L59 (1998)

    1998

  69. [69]

    M. A. Abramowicz and W. Klu´ zniak, Astronomy and Astrophysics374, L19 (2001)

    2001

  70. [70]

    Stuchl´ ık, A

    Z. Stuchl´ ık, A. Kotrlov´ a, and G. T¨ or¨ ok, Acta Astronomica58, 441 (2008)

    2008

  71. [71]

    Stuchl´ ık, A

    Z. Stuchl´ ık, A. Kotrlov´ a, and G. T¨ or¨ ok, Astronomy and Astrophysics552, A10 (2013)

    2013

  72. [72]

    Ditta, F

    A. Ditta, F. Javed, G. Mustafa, F. Atamurotov, and S. Salimov, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics43, 51 (2024)

    2024

  73. [73]

    R. A. Remillard, E. H. Morgan, J. E. McClintock, C. D. Bailyn, and J. A. Orosz, The Astrophysical Journal522, 397 (1999)

    1999

  74. [74]

    R. A. Remillard, M. P. Muno, J. E. McClintock, and J. A. Orosz, The Astrophysical Journal580, 1030 (2002)

    2002

  75. [75]

    D. R. Pasham, T. E. Strohmayer, and R. F. Mushotzky, Nature513, 74 (2014)

    2014

  76. [76]

    Z. Wang, S. Chen, and J. Jing, European Physical Journal C82, 528 (2022)

    2022

  77. [77]

    Y. Liu, G. Mustafa, S. K. Maurya, G. D. A. Yildiz, and E. G¨ udekli, Physics of the Dark Universe42, 101311 (2023)

    2023

  78. [78]

    Shaymatovet al., The Astrophysical Journal959, 6 (2023)

    S. Shaymatovet al., The Astrophysical Journal959, 6 (2023)

    2023

  79. [79]

    Boshkayev, A

    K. Boshkayev, A. Idrissov, O. Luongo, and M. Muccino, Physical Review D108, 044063 (2023)

    2023

  80. [80]

    Jumaniyozov, S

    S. Jumaniyozov, S. U. Khan, J. Rayimbaev, A. Abdujabbarov, S. Urinbaev, and S. Murodov, European Physical Journal C84, 964 (2024). 26

    2024

Showing first 80 references.