Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 48 references

Weak deflection angle of charged signal in magnetic fields

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper shows that in asymptotically flat stationary axisymmetric spacetimes whose electromagnetic potential falls off as a Coulomb term plus a magnetic dipole, the weak deflection angle of a charged signal expands as a power series in…

desk verdict A useful perturbative extension of weak-deflection formulae to magnetized spacetimes, whose printed derivation has a fixable gap but whose final series checks out. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.03554 v1 pith:4VNQEYRZ submitted 2025-01-07 gr-qc

Qianchuan Wang , Junji Jia This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc
keywords weakdeflectionanglechargedparticlemagneticfieldgravitationallensingcosmicraysstationaryaxisymmetricspacetimespost-NewtonianexpansionKerr-Newmanspacetime
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 works out the weak deflection angle of an electrically charged particle moving in the equatorial plane of any stationary, axisymmetric, asymptotically flat spacetime whose electromagnetic four-potential has only t and phi components and falls off at infinity like a Coulomb field plus a magnetic dipole. Its central result is a master series: the deflection angle is a power series in the inverse impact parameter 1/b, and at every order it splits into a neutral gravitational part beta_n and an electromagnetic part gamma_n with no cross terms. The first coefficients show gravitational and electrostatic bending both beginning at order 1/b, while magnetic dipole bending begins at order 1/$b^{2}$; the electromagnetic part is amplified by the particle's specific charge and suppressed by the factor $\sqrt$(1-$v^{2}$). This matters because it turns deflection of charged cosmic rays by magnetized compact objects into a coefficient-reading exercise that can be pushed to arbitrary post-Newtonian order and includes finite source and detector distances. The general formula is applied to Kerr-Newman, Kerr with a dipole magnetic field, and a mass with an intrinsic magnetic dipole moment, with the truncated series checked against numerical integration.

What carries the argument

The central object is the function p(1/r0) defined by Eq. (6), which maps the periastron distance r0 to the inverse impact parameter 1/b; its inverse h(u/b) changes the deflection integral into an integral over u in (0,1). Expanding the transformed integrand in u/b produces coefficients y_n(b), and the remaining integrals against du/$\sqrt$(1-$u^{2}$) are evaluated in closed form as the factors l_n. This turns the problem into algebra: from the asymptotic coefficients a_n, b_n, c_n, d_n, q_{0n}, q_{3n} of Eq. (16), one obtains the series (15) and, in particular, Eq. (18).

What would settle it

In a spacetime satisfying Eq. (16) with q_{01} = 0, numerically integrate the Lorentz equation for charged particles at several impact parameters and fit the residual against the truncated series: if a 1/b term appears in the residual, the claimed order assignment for magnetic contributions in Eq. (18) is wrong.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that in any such spacetime the weak deflection angle of a charged signal can be written as $\Delta$ phi = s sum_{n=0}^\infty (beta_n + gamma_n)/b^n, where the beta_n are the usual gravitational coefficients for neutral particles and the gamma_n are the electromagnetic coefficients produced by the interaction of the signal's charge with the potential (At, 0, 0, Aphi). Concretely, the first coefficients are beta_1 = (d_1/2 - a_1/($2v^{2}$)) l_1 and gamma_1 = \hat q q_{01} \sqrt{1-$v^{2}$} l_1/$v^{2}$, so both gravitational and electrostatic bending start at order 1/b; the magnetic dipole coefficient q_{31} enters gamma_2, making magnetic dipole bending start at order 1/$b^{2}$. The split is exact in the sense that the two series have no overlapping or coupling terms, and the same procedure generates every higher order from the asymptotic expansion coefficients in Eq. (16).

Load-bearing premise

The method requires that the magnetic field's potential fall off at large distance at least as fast as a dipole; a uniform magnetic field, whose potential grows with the square of the distance, lies outside the calculation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For any spacetime satisfying the falloff conditions, deflection angles for charged signals can be computed to arbitrary post-Newtonian order by expanding the metric and potential, without solving the equations of motion case by case.
  • The gravitational and electromagnetic contributions add linearly, so magnetic lensing effects can be isolated from pure gravity by comparing charged and neutral signals with the same energy and impact parameter.
  • Magnetic dipole bending enters one power of 1/b later than electric and gravitational bending, so it dominates only at small impact parameter or when the central charge is absent.
  • Because the electromagnetic part carries \hat q and \sqrt{1-v^2}, low-energy particles with high specific charge feel magnetic deflection most strongly, while ultra-relativistic charged signals behave almost like neutral ones.
  • In all three worked spacetimes, the magnetic contribution follows the Lorentz-force expectation: an attractive magnetic force increases the total deflection angle and a repulsive one decreases it.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because uniform magnetic fields are explicitly outside the method, applying this formula to realistic environments such as the Milky Way's magnetic field, which often contains a uniform component, would require either a cutoff or a separate matching treatment.
  • The \hat q enhancement and Lorentz-factor suppression imply that measuring the same lens with different particle species at the same velocity could separate the gamma_n coefficients from the beta_n coefficients, potentially extracting the spacetime charge and magnetic dipole moment of the lens.
  • The same expansion algorithm should transfer to other stationary axisymmetric solutions in modified gravity, as long as their metric and potential admit the same 1/r falloff, giving a quick route to test those theories with charged-particle lensing.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper presents a post-Newtonian (weak-deflection) perturbative method for the equatorial-plane deflection angle of a charged test particle in stationary axisymmetric spacetimes with electromagnetic four-potential (A_t, 0, 0, A_phi). Starting from the Lorentz equation, it relates the impact parameter b to the turning-point radius r0 and performs a change of integration variable via the inverse of a function p(1/r0). The integrand is then expanded in powers of u/b, and the deflection is written as a quasi-series in 1/b whose coefficients are determined by the asymptotic expansion coefficients of the metric and of the potential. The authors claim that the result splits into a purely gravitational series beta_n and an electromagnetic series gamma_n, with electrostatic contributions at order b^{-1} and magnetic dipole contributions at order b^{-2}. The method is applied to the Kerr-Newman spacetime, to Kerr with a dipole magnetic field, and to the Gutsunaev-Manko magnetized mass; the truncated Kerr-Newman series is compared with numerical integration.

Significance. If correct, the general formulas (15)-(19) provide a systematic and useful tool for charged-particle deflection in a class of magnetized, asymptotically flat spacetimes, including finite source/detector effects. The explicit coefficients pass several nontrivial checks: the neutral parts reduce to the known Schwarzschild/Kerr limits, the electromagnetic parts are consistent with earlier results for the Kerr-dipole case [36], and the numerical comparison in Fig. 1 confirms that the truncated series converges to the solution of the same equations without any tuned parameters. The physical ordering identified by the authors (gravitational and electrostatic at order b^{-1}, magnetic dipole at order b^{-2}) is clean and potentially useful for observational estimates. The main caveats are the incomplete definition of p in Eq. (6), which needs repair, and the restriction to potentials with dipole-like falloff, which excludes uniform magnetic fields as acknowledged in Sec. IV.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (6) and Eq. (8)] The function p(1/r0) is not well defined as printed. The right-hand side of Eq. (6) contains 1/b explicitly through the terms proportional to qhat A_phi(r0)/b and B(r0) Xi(r0)/b, so p(1/r0) is not a function of 1/r0 alone. Consequently the inverse function h introduced after Eq. (6) and used in the change of variables (8) is not defined, and the derivation of the central expansion (15) via Eqs. (11)-(14) is incomplete. The explicit 1/b term in y1 in Eq. (17) is a symptom of this unresolved implicit equation. This is repairable: solving Eq. (6) for 1/b yields p(x) = 2A Sigma / (S + s K), with Sigma = sqrt(Ehat^2 - 1), S = sqrt[(4AC + B^2)(Xi^2 - A)], and K = 2A qhat A_phi + Xi B, evaluated at r = 1/x. With this definition, p is a genuine function of 1/r0 and the b1 and q31 terms appear at the expected order b^{-2}. The known limit checks suggest the final coefficients are correct, but as printed the proof is not self-contained.
  2. [Sec. II, Eqs. (14)-(15) and Appendix A] For finite source and detector distances, Eq. (15) is not a genuine power series in 1/b, because the coefficients beta_n and gamma_n depend on l_i(delta_s, delta_d), and delta_s,d depend on b through Eq. (10) and Eq. (A2). The text correctly calls the expression a quasi-series after Eq. (14), but the abstract and the statement of Eq. (15) present it as a series expansion in inverse powers of b. Please either expand the l_i in powers of b using Eq. (A2), as the text says is possible, or explicitly qualify Eq. (15) and the abstract as a quasi-series with weak b dependence in the coefficients. This matters because the advertised central result is the 1/b expansion.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract and Sec. I] The wording 'arbitrary such SAS spacetimes with quite general electromagnetic potentials' overstates the scope: the method requires A_phi to fall off as O(1/r) (or faster) according to Eq. (16), and uniform magnetic fields are explicitly excluded in Sec. IV. Please state this restriction in the abstract and introduction.
  2. [Keywords] The keyword 'delection angle' should be 'deflection angle'.
  3. [Sec. III B, Eq. (27)] The expansions of A_t and A_phi in Eq. (27) are central to the coefficients in Eqs. (29)-(30), but the notation is dense; a small table collecting q01, q02, q31, q32 and the relevant a_n, b_n, c_n, d_n for this case would improve reproducibility.
  4. [Appendix A, Eq. (A2)] The notation l_n for the integrals is easily confused with the natural logarithm in the surrounding text; consider renaming these integrals to I_n or L_n. Also, the typography of Eq. (A2) makes the second-order term hard to parse; please reformat.
  5. [Sec. III C, Eq. (31)] In Eq. (31c) the remainder is written as O(1/r)^1; this should be O(1/r).

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the deflection coefficients are derived from the Lorentz equation and assumed asymptotic expansions, with no fitted parameter renamed as a prediction.

full rationale

The paper's core derivation is not circular. The deflection coefficients beta_n and gamma_n are obtained by starting from the Lorentz equation (2), integrating to the first-order equations (3), using the connection between impact parameter and turning point (5)-(6), and expanding the integral (7) under the explicitly stated asymptotic assumptions (16); the resulting series coefficients (17)-(18) are algebraic consequences of those assumptions, not quantities fitted to the deflection angle. The numerical comparison in Fig. 1 integrates the same equations of motion and therefore serves as an internal consistency check of the algebra rather than an independent empirical benchmark, but nothing is tuned to reproduce the numerical result. The paper cites prior work by the same group (Refs. [32,33,37]) for the general perturbative method and for the l_n integrals; these are ordinary methodological citations and are not used as a uniqueness theorem or as a substitute for the derivation. One presentation defect should be flagged: in Eq. (6) the quantity called p(1/r0) still contains 1/b on the right-hand side, so the inverse function h introduced immediately afterward is not well-defined as printed; the implicit relation can be solved to give a genuine function of 1/r0, so this is an omitted inversion step rather than a circularity of the physical claim. The stated exclusion of uniform magnetic fields (Sec. IV) is an honest limitation of the assumed asymptotic expansion (16), and the ordering result that magnetic dipole terms begin at order b^-2 follows from the assumed r^-1 falloff of A_phi; it is an assumption, not a fitted input. Overall, no prediction reduces by construction to a definition, a fit, or a self-citation chain.

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

The derivation has no fitted free parameters. The flag eta introduced in Sec. III A is bookkeeping and set to 1. The central formula depends on the stated asymptotic expansions and equatorial-plane restriction; no new particles, forces, or conserved quantities are introduced.

assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption Charged test particles obey the Lorentz equation of motion in a fixed curved background, Eq. (2).
    This is the physical law adopted for the signal's motion; no derivation of the Lorentz equation is given.
  • domain assumption The spacetime is stationary, axisymmetric, and the motion is confined to the equatorial plane with ∂θAt=∂θAphi=0 there.
    The method only covers equatorial trajectories; off-equatorial charged orbits are not treated.
  • domain assumption The spacetime is asymptotically flat and the metric functions and potentials admit the expansions in Eq. (16), with At~q01/r and Aphi~q31/r at infinity.
    This excludes uniform magnetic fields and other non-dipolar large-scale fields, as the authors state in the conclusion.
  • domain assumption In the weak deflection limit, the sign of the angular momentum and the direction of rotation coincide (s1=s0).
    Used after Eq. (5) to set s1=s0 and to identify the orbit direction.
  • domain assumption Known metric and potential solutions used for applications: Kerr-Newman, Kerr with dipolar magnetic field from Refs. [40,41], and Gutsunaev-Manko mass with magnetic dipole [42].
    These are external solutions imported from the literature; their validity is assumed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Weak deflection angle of charged signal in magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4VNQEYRZ

@misc{pith2026250103554,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Weak deflection angle of charged signal in magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4VNQEYRZ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.03554}
}
abstract

We use the perturbative method to study the influence of the magnetic field on the weak deflection angle of charged signals in magnetized stationary and axisymmetric spacetimes within general electromagnetic potentials. The deflection angle is expressed as a series expansion of the inverse of the impact parameter $b$, with coefficients determined by the asymptotic expansions of the metric functions and the electromagnetic four-potential. It is found that in general, the deflection angle can always be separated into two parts, the usual gravitational part as for neutral particles, and the electromagnetic part due to the interaction between the (electro)magnetic field and the signal. The leading order of the gravitational, electrostatic (from nonzero spacetime charge) and magnetic (from nonzero magnetic dipole moment) contributions are $b^{-1},\,b^{-1}$ and $b^{-2}$ respectively. The entire electromagnetic part is enhanced by the large specific charge of elementary particles but suppressed by the reciprocal Lorentz factor. The deflection angle result is then applied to three spacetimes with intrinsic or externally enforced magnetic fields. Effects of the magnetic field on the deflection angle from various parameters, including the spacetime spin, magnetic dipole moment and magnetic parameters, are analyzed. In all these cases, it is found that in the weak deflection limit, these effects agree with the expectation for a Lorentz force; that is, an attractive (or repulsive) one will enlarge (or decrease) the deflection angle.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.03554 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The perturbative ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. ∆ [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_5.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

48 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [36]

    Deflection of charged signals in a dipole magnetic field in Kerr background

    Z. Li and J. Jia, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, no.9, 989 (2024) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-024-13329-w [arXiv:2312.00318 [gr-qc]]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

  2. [1]

    F. W. Dyson, A. S. Eddington and C. Davidson, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 220, 291-333 (1920) doi:10.1098/rsta.1920.0009

    arXiv 1920

  3. [2]

    Miralda-Escude, Astrophys

    J. Miralda-Escude, Astrophys. J. 370, 1-14 (1991) doi:10.1086/169789

    doi:10.1086/169789 1991

  4. [3]

    Jullo, P

    E. Jullo, P. Natarajan, J. P. Kneib, A. D’Aloisio, M. Limousin, J. Richard and C. Schimd, Sci- ence 329, 924-927 (2010) doi:10.1126/science.1185759 [arXiv:1008.4802 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2010

  5. [4]

    J. P. Kneib and P. Natarajan, Astron. Astro- phys. Rev. 19, 47 (2011) doi:10.1007/s00159-011-0047-3 [arXiv:1202.0185 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2011

  6. [5]

    Umetsu, Astron

    K. Umetsu, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 28, no.1, 7 (2020) doi:10.1007/s00159-020-00129-w [arXiv:2007.00506 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2020

  7. [6]

    Refregier, Ann

    A. Refregier, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 41, 645- 668 (2003) doi:10.1146/annurev.astro.41.111302.102207 [arXiv:astro-ph/0307212 [astro-ph]]

    work page arXiv 2003

  8. [7]

    Hildebrandt, M

    H. Hildebrandt, M. Viola, C. Heymans, S. Joudaki, K. Kuijken, C. Blake, T. Erben, B. Joachimi, D. Klaes and L. Miller, et al. Mon. Not. Roy. As- tron. Soc. 465, 1454 (2017) doi:10.1093/mnras/stw2805 [arXiv:1606.05338 [astro-ph.CO]]

    arXiv 2017

Show all 48 references
  1. [8]

    C. S. Lorenz, D. Alonso and P. G. Fer- reira, Phys. Rev. D 97, no.2, 023537 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.023537 [arXiv:1710.02477 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [9]

    X. P. Wu, T. Chiueh, L. Z. Fang and Y. J. Xue, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 301, 861 (1998) doi:10.1046/j.1365- 8711.1998.02055.x [arXiv:astro-ph/9808179 [astro-ph]]

    1998

  3. [10]

    Inada et al

    N. Inada et al. [SDSS], Nature 426, 810-812 (2003) doi:10.1038/nature02153 [arXiv:astro-ph/0312427 [astro- ph]]

    2003 arXiv

  4. [11]

    Acquaviva, C

    V. Acquaviva, C. Baccigalupi and F. Perrotta, Phys. Rev. D 70, 023515 (2004) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.70.023515 [arXiv:astro-ph/0403654 [astro-ph]]

    2004 arXiv

  5. [12]

    P. V. P. Cunha and C. A. R. Herdeiro, Gen. Rel. Grav. 50, no.4, 42 (2018) doi:10.1007/s10714-018-2361-9 [arXiv:1801.00860 [gr-qc]]

    2018 arXiv

  6. [13]

    Mukherjee, B

    S. Mukherjee, B. D. Wandelt and J. Silk, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 494, no.2, 1956-1970 (2020) doi:10.1093/mnras/staa827 [arXiv:1908.08951 [astro- ph.CO]]

    2020 arXiv

  7. [14]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific and Virgo], Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, no.6, 061102 (2016) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102 [arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]]

    2016 arXiv

  8. [15]

    B. P. Abbott et al. [LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM and INTEGRAL], Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, no.2, L13 (2017) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c [arXiv:1710.05834 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2017 arXiv

  9. [16]

    Mishra, A

    A. Mishra, A. K. Meena, A. More, S. Bose and J. S. Bagla, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 508, no.4, 4869-4886 (2021) doi:10.1093/mnras/stab2875 [arXiv:2102.03946 [astro-ph.CO]]. 12

    2021 arXiv

  10. [17]

    Lewis and A

    A. Lewis and A. Challinor, Phys. Rept. 429, 1-65 (2006) doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2006.03.002 [arXiv:astro- ph/0601594 [astro-ph]]

    2006

  11. [18]

    Hirata et al

    K. Hirata et al. [Kamiokande-II], Phys. Rev. Lett. 58, 1490-1493 (1987) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.58.1490

    1987 doi

  12. [19]

    Harnois-D´ eraps, L

    J. Harnois-D´ eraps, L. van Waerbeke, M. Viola and C. Heymans, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 450, no.2, 1212-1223 (2015) doi:10.1093/mnras/stv646 [arXiv:1407.4301 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2015 arXiv

  13. [20]

    M. G. Aartsen et al. [IceCube], Science 361, no.6398, 147-151 (2018) doi:10.1126/science.aat2890 [arXiv:1807.08794 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2018 arXiv

  14. [21]

    P. G. Tinyakov and I. I. Tkachev, Astropart. Phys. 24, 32-43 (2005) doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2005.05.003 [arXiv:astro-ph/0411669 [astro-ph]]

    2005 arXiv

  15. [22]

    Keivani, G

    A. Keivani, G. R. Farrar and M. Suther- land, Astropart. Phys. 61, 47-55 (2014) doi:10.1016/j.astropartphys.2014.07.001 [arXiv:1406.5249 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2014 arXiv

  16. [23]

    G. R. Farrar and M. S. Sutherland, JCAP 05, 004 (2019) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/05/004 [arXiv:1711.02730 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [24]

    Tanabashi et al

    M. Tanabashi et al. [Particle Data Group], Phys. Rev. D 98, no.3, 030001 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.98.030001

    2018 doi

  18. [25]

    J. P. Vall´ ee, New Astron. Rev.48, no.10, 763-841 (2004) doi:10.1016/j.newar.2004.03.017

    2004 doi

  19. [26]

    Durrer and A

    R. Durrer and A. Neronov, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 21, 62 (2013) doi:10.1007/s00159-013-0062-7 [arXiv:1303.7121 [astro-ph.CO]]

    2013 arXiv

  20. [27]

    Beck, Astron

    R. Beck, Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 24, 4 (2024) doi:10.1007/s00159-015-0084-4 [arXiv:1509.04522 [astro- ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [28]

    Unger and G

    M. Unger and G. R. Farrar, Astrophys. J. 970, no.1, 95 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad4a54 [arXiv:2311.12120 [astro-ph.GA]]

    2024 arXiv

  22. [29]

    Xu and JL

    J. Xu and JL. Han, Astrophys. J. 966, 240 (2024) doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad3a61

    2024 doi

  23. [30]

    Crisnejo, E

    G. Crisnejo, E. Gallo and J. R. Villanueva, Phys. Rev. D 100, no.4, 044006 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.100.044006 [arXiv:1905.02125 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  24. [31]

    Jusufi, [arXiv:1906.12186 [gr-qc]]

    K. Jusufi, [arXiv:1906.12186 [gr-qc]]

    1906 arXiv

  25. [32]

    X. Xu, T. Jiang and J. Jia, JCAP 08, 022 (2021) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2021/08/022 [arXiv:2105.12413 [gr-qc]]

    2021 arXiv

  26. [33]

    S. Zhou, M. Chen and J. Jia, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, no.9, 883 (2023) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-023-12047-z [arXiv:2203.05415 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  27. [34]

    G. W. Gibbons and M. C. Werner, Class. Quant. Grav. 25, 235009 (2008) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/25/23/235009 [arXiv:0807.0854 [gr-qc]]

    2008 arXiv

  28. [35]

    Z. Li, W. Wang and J. Jia, Phys. Rev. D 106, no.12, 124025 (2022) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.106.124025 [arXiv:2208.11458 [gr-qc]]

    2022 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Huang and J

    K. Huang and J. Jia, JCAP 08, 016 (2020) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2020/08/016 [arXiv:2003.08250 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  30. [38]

    E. T. Newman, R. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Prakash and R. Torrence, J. Math. Phys. 6, 918-919 (1965) doi:10.1063/1.1704351

    1965 doi

  31. [39]

    Carter, Phys

    B. Carter, Phys. Rev. 174, 1559-1571 (1968) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.174.1559

    1968 doi

  32. [40]

    J. A. Petterson, Phys. Rev. D 12, 2218-2225 (1975) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.12.2218

    1975 doi

  33. [41]

    Takahashi and H

    M. Takahashi and H. Koyama, Astrophys. J. 693, 472-485 (2009) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/693/1/472 [arXiv:0807.0277 [astro-ph]]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Gutsunaev and V.S

    Ts.I. Gutsunaev and V.S. Manko, Phys. Lett. A123 no.5, 215-216 (1987) doi:10.1016/0375-9601(87)90063-6

    1987 doi

  35. [43]

    D. M. Chase Phys. Rev. 95, 243 (1954) doi:10.1103/PhysRev.95.243

    1954 doi

  36. [44]

    Y. Duan, S. Lin and J. Jia, JCAP 07, 036 (2023) doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2023/07/036 [arXiv:2304.07496 [gr-qc]]

    2023 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Jia, Eur

    J. Jia, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, no.3, 242 (2020) doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-020-7796-y [arXiv:2001.02038 [gr-qc]]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    Pang and J

    X. Pang and J. Jia, Class. Quant. Grav. 36, no.6, 065012 (2019) doi:10.1088/1361-6382/ab0512 [arXiv:1806.04719 [gr-qc]]

    2019 arXiv

  39. [47]

    R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237-238 (1963) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.11.237

    1963 doi

  40. [104]

    Other parameters used are Q = M/2, a = M/3, ˆq = 1/10, s = 1, v = 1 − 10−2 and rs = rd = 106M . Moreover, since the gravitational and pure electric effects on the deflection have been well studied previously [32, 37, 45], in this work, we will concentrate on the effect of the ...

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.