Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 58 references

Testing Einstein Maxwell Power-Yang-Mills Hair via Black Hole Photon Rings

T0 review · 4 major / 4 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 A growing Yang-Mills hair parameter monotonically shrinks the photon sphere, shadow, and photon ring of a p=1/2 Einstein-Maxwell hairy black hole, producing a non-degenerate optical fingerprint.

desk verdict The paper's own Eq. (3) forces the hair parameter to vanish at the p=1/2 case it studies, so the advertised Yang-Mills-hair signature is just a mass shift of Reissner-Nordström, and the numerical tables do not match the metric. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.06690 v1 pith:GPRPHBKT submitted 2025-01-12 gr-qc

Zuting Luo , Meirong Tang , Zhaoyi Xu This is my paper · ORCID
classification gr-qc PACS 04.70.-s04.70.Bw
keywords blackholeshadowphotonringnullgeodesicsYang-MillshairReissner-Nordströmbackwardraytracingeffectivepotentialhairy
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 claims that the optical appearance of a static, spherically symmetric black hole with a p-power Yang-Mills term, studied at p=1/2, encodes the Yang-Mills hair parameter Q_YM in a monotonic way. As Q_YM increases, the event horizon, photon sphere, innermost stable circular orbit, and critical impact parameter all shrink, and the shadow and photon ring shrink with them. The paper argues that different Q_YM values produce non-degenerate photon rings and shadows, so a future observation could in principle distinguish these spacetimes from each other and from Reissner-Nordström, thereby testing for Yang-Mills hair. The support comes from backward ray tracing with a thin accretion disk under three toy emission models.

What carries the argument

The metric f(r)=1 - 2M/r + $Q^{2}$/$r^{2}$ + Q_YM/$r^{{4p-1}}$ with Q_YM normalized by Eq. (3); the p=1/2 specialization is used throughout. The load-bearing objects are the effective potential V_eff(r)=f(r)/$r^{2}$, whose maximum locates the unstable photon sphere r_ph, and the critical impact parameter b_ph = r_ph / $\sqrt$(f(r_ph)). The backward ray-tracing method with transfer functions r_m(b), which count intersections of null geodesics with the equatorial thin accretion disk, classifies images into direct emission, lensing rings, and photon rings, and the redshift-weighted intensity sum over m captures the total observed brightness.

What would settle it

Compute the shadow radius and photon-ring image for the p=1/2 metric with a nonzero Q_YM and compare them pixel-by-pixel with the standard Reissner-Nordström black hole of mass M - Q_YM/2 and charge Q=0.6. If the images are identical, the claimed hair effect is a mass renormalization and there is no independent Yang-Mills hair to verify; alternatively, evaluating Eq. (3) at p=1/2 yields Q_YM = 0 for any q_YM, which already undermines the numerical parameter range.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper's central finding is that for p=1/2 and Abelian charge Q=0.6, increasing the hairy parameter Q_YM makes the metric function f(r) decrease at fixed r, which pulls the event horizon radius r_h, the photon sphere radius r_ph, the innermost stable circular orbit r_isco, and the critical impact parameter b_ph all downward. The effective photon potential V_eff(r)=f(r)/$r^{2}$ grows with Q_YM, and its maximum—the unstable photon sphere—moves inward. Consequently the shadow's angular radius and the photon ring's radius shrink, the impact-parameter intervals for lensing and photon rings narrow, and the observed intensity peaks shift to smaller b. The paper concludes that because no degeneracy appears across different hairy parameters, photon geodesics and optical images can be used to distinguish spacetime properties and theoretically verify the Yang-Mills hair.

Load-bearing premise

The argument requires that the hairy parameter Q_YM can be nonzero at p=1/2, but the paper's own normalization Eq. (3) makes Q_YM vanish identically at p=1/2, so the 'hair' as used in the numerics may simply renormalize the mass in the Reissner-Nordström metric.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For p=1/2, larger hair parameter Q_YM means a smaller shadow and photon ring, with all characteristic radii moving inward.
  • The non-degeneracy of the optical appearance across Q_YM values means a measurement of the shadow radius could constrain the hair parameter.
  • The intensity peaks from direct emission, lensing ring, and photon ring shift systematically to smaller impact parameters as hair grows, giving a testable sequence.
  • The same ray-tracing framework can be applied to other values of p and Q, extending the method to more general Einstein-Maxwell-Yang-Mills spacetimes.

Reading between the lines

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

  • At p=1/2, the paper's own normalization Eq. (3) gives Q_YM = 0 identically for any non-Abelian charge, so a nonzero Q_YM as used in the numerics falls outside the stated definition of hair.
  • With p=1/2, f(r) reduces to the Reissner-Nordström form with effective mass M - Q_YM/2, meaning the claimed 'hair' effect may be degenerate with a mass shift rather than a genuinely new charge.
  • A direct check would be to compare the computed shadow radius for Q_YM > 0 with the standard RN shadow for mass M - Q_YM/2 and charge Q=0.6; if they agree, the optical discrimination is testing mass, not hair.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Formalized claims in Lean

  1. Claim #1: Monotonic decrease of the event horizon, photon sphere, ISCO, and critical impact parameter with increasing hairy parameter q.

  2. Claim #2: No degeneracy: different hairy parameters lead to different shadow/photon-ring critical impact parameters.

  3. Claim #3: The hairy black hole's optical appearance differs from the standard Reissner-Nordstrom black hole, allowing theoretical verification of Yang-Mills hair.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper studies the optical appearance of static, spherically symmetric black holes in Einstein-Maxwell theory with a p-power Yang-Mills term, focusing on the case p=1/2 with Abelian charge Q=0.6. It computes the event horizon radius, photon sphere radius, ISCO radius, critical impact parameter, and shadow/photon ring images using the backward ray-tracing method and three toy emission models. The central claim is that increasing the ``hairy parameter'' Q_YM decreases all these radii and the shadow size, so photon rings and shadows can distinguish different spacetimes and thereby verify Yang-Mills hair.

Significance. If the calculation were valid, the paper would be a routine but acceptable extension of the photon-ring literature to a specific hairy black hole solution, with a standard ray-tracing pipeline and three toy emission models. However, the central premise fails: the paper's own definition of Q_YM makes it identically zero at p=1/2, and even if Q_YM were treated as an independent parameter, the p=1/2 metric is merely Reissner-Nordström with a rescaled mass. The claimed monotonic trends are therefore not a signature of Yang-Mills hair. The numerical results also disagree with the stated metric. The paper does not contain circular data fitting or self-citation; the issue is an internal inconsistency that invalidates the advertised conclusion.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section II, Eq. (3)] Equation (3) defines Q_YM ≡ [(2p−1)/(4p−3)] q_YM^{2p}. At p=1/2, the prefactor (2p−1)/(4p−3) is exactly zero, so Q_YM is identically zero for any finite q_YM. Nevertheless, the paper sets Q_YM=0.1, 0.2, and 0.3 throughout (Table I, Figs. 3, 5, 6, 8–10). The nonzero ``hairy parameter'' used in all subsequent calculations is therefore not the Yang-Mills charge defined by the solution, and the paper's central premise is internally contradicted by its own equation.
  2. [Section II, Eq. (2) and Section V] For p=1/2, Eq. (2) reduces to f(r)=1−(2M−Q_YM)/r+Q^2/r^2, which is exactly the Reissner-Nordström metric with effective mass M−Q_YM/2 (with M=1). Consequently, varying Q_YM is equivalent to varying the mass of an RN black hole; it does not introduce an independent hair charge. The Conclusion's statement that different Q_YM values ``verify the Yang-Mills hair'' is unsupported: the no-degeneracy of shadows and photon rings for different Q_YM is merely the well-known mass dependence of RN shadows, not a test of Yang-Mills hair.
  3. [Table I and Fig. 1] The numerical values in Table I do not satisfy the metric. For Q_YM=0.1 and Q=0.6, Eq. (2) gives r_h=1.6865 and r_ph=2.5698, whereas Table I lists r_h=1.6156 and r_ph=2.4613. Similar discrepancies occur for Q_YM=0.2 and 0.3. These are far too large to be rounding errors and indicate that the computations were not based on the stated metric.
  4. [Section II, Eq. (5) and Fig. 1] The claimed critical value Q_YM=1.77778 for a single horizon is incorrect. The horizon condition f(r)=0 at p=1/2 is r^2−(2−Q_YM)r+Q^2=0. Its discriminant vanishes when (2−Q_YM)^2=4Q^2, i.e., Q_YM=0.8 for Q=0.6. At Q_YM=1.77778, the discriminant is negative and no horizon exists, so the statement in Section II and Fig. 1 that this value gives a single horizon is wrong.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Fig. 7] The horizontal axis in Fig. 7 is labeled ``D''; this symbol is not defined anywhere, and from context it should be the impact parameter b.
  2. [Fig. 10 caption] The caption of Fig. 10 says ``Images of the second toy model'' but the text and the emission function refer to the third toy model. The caption should be corrected.
  3. [Section IV, Eq. (26)] Equation (26) for the ISCO radius contains an undefined quantity u and appears dimensionally inconsistent; even if it is quoted from Ref. [54], the notation should be defined and the result verified against the metric used in this paper.
  4. [Acknowledgments] The acknowledgments state that the paper was improved by an anonymous referee report before submission; this is an unusual statement in a submitted manuscript and should be removed unless the journal's production process requires it.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

At p=1/2, Eq. (3) makes Q_YM vanish, and Eq. (2) collapses to RN with mass M-Q_YM/2, so the photon-ring 'hair' predictions reduce to RN mass variation.

  1. self definitional [Section II, Eq. (3); premise used with p=1/2 in Sections III-V and Table I]
    "QY M≡ 2p − 1 / 4p − 3 q^{2p}_{YM}. (3) In this paper, the cases of p = 1/2 and the Abelian charge Q = 0.6 are taken."

    At the adopted p=1/2 the numerator 2p−1 is zero, so the paper's own normalization Eq. (3) makes Q_YM identically zero for any finite q_YM. The paper nevertheless treats Q_YM=0.1, 0.2, 0.3 as nonzero Yang-Mills hair throughout the geodesic and shadow analysis, and attributes the resulting changes in r_h, r_ph, r_isco and b_ph to Yang-Mills hair. The central quantity whose effect is being 'predicted' is therefore defined to vanish at the chosen power p, so the claim that photon rings can verify Yang-Mills hair is vacuous by the paper's own definition.

  2. renaming known result [Section II, Eq. (2) at p=1/2; Section V conclusion and Table I]
    "f (r) = 1 − 2M/r + Q^2/r^2 + QY M/r^{4p−1}. (2) ... when the hairy parameter increased, the event horizon radius rh, photon sphere radius rph, the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit risco and critical impact parameter bph of the black hole would all decrease."

    If Q_YM is instead read as a free parameter despite Eq. (3), inserting p=1/2 in Eq. (2) gives f(r)=1−(2M−Q_YM)/r+Q^2/r^2, which is exactly the Reissner-Nordström metric with effective mass M−Q_YM/2. Thus increasing Q_YM is just decreasing the effective mass, and the 'predicted' monotonic shrinkage of r_h, r_ph, r_isco and b_ph is the standard RN mass dependence already contained in the input metric. The conclusion that different optical appearances can 'verify the Yang-Mills hair' therefore reduces by construction to a renaming of RN mass variation as a hair effect.

full rationale

The ray-tracing and intensity-transfer computation (Eqs. (14), (21), (27)-(32)) is applied self-containedly to a specified metric and is not fitted to any observational or simulated data; there are no fitted inputs called predictions. The only same-author citation, Ref. [44], is a background statement about photon rings and no-hair tests and is not load-bearing for the numerical derivation. The circularity lies in the central premise. Eq. (3) defines Q_YM through (2p−1)/(4p−3), and at the chosen p=1/2 that coefficient is zero, so the 'hair parameter' used in all later sections is not the Yang-Mills charge of the paper's own definition. If one ignores Eq. (3) and treats Q_YM as a free parameter, Eq. (2) at p=1/2 is exactly RN with mass M−Q_YM/2, making the computed shrinkage of the horizon, photon sphere, ISCO and shadow with Q_YM a restatement of standard RN mass dependence rather than an independent Yang-Mills effect. For this reason the central claim that photon rings can verify Yang-Mills hair is partially circular: the optical-appearance machinery is legitimate, but the advertised physical conclusion is forced by the input metric's structure or by disregarding the paper's own parameter definition. The numerical inconsistency at the claimed single-horizon value (Q_YM=1.77778 versus the RN extremal value 0.8) is a correctness symptom of the same premise problem, not a separate circular step.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

All physical content is inherited from the metric in ref [54] and the standard GR geodesic framework; the paper contributes no new entity. The ad hoc parts are the choice p=1/2, which makes Q_YM act as a mass shift, the use of nonzero Q_YM despite Eq. (3) giving zero at p=1/2, the restriction to Q_YM below an incorrect critical value, and the toy emission functions.

free parameters (3)
  • power exponent p = 1/2
    Chosen for discussion; it makes the Yang-Mills term behave as 1/r and reduces the metric to a mass-shifted Reissner-Nordström form.
  • Abelian charge Q = 0.6
    Fixed value used in all examples; arbitrary and not fitted to data.
  • hairy parameter Q_YM = 0, 0.1, 0.2, 0.3, and the claimed critical value 1.77778
    Model parameter varied to show monotonic changes; it enters the metric linearly for p=1/2.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The line element Eq. (1) with f(r) from Eq. (2) is a valid solution of Einstein-Maxwell power-Yang-Mills theory.
    Central input taken from the cited literature, specifically ref [54], and not re-derived in this paper.
  • ad hoc to paper Q_YM can be nonzero when p=1/2.
    Contradicts Eq. (3), which gives Q_YM=0 at p=1/2; the paper relies on nonzero Q_YM to define its hair parameter.
  • domain assumption Cosmic censorship restricts the analysis to Q_YM below a critical value.
    Invoked to exclude naked singularities; however, the stated threshold Q_YM=1.77778 is inconsistent with the p=1/2 metric, which loses horizons at Q_YM=0.8.
  • domain assumption The thin accretion disk is the only light source, lies in the equatorial plane, and has no absorption or reflection.
    Idealization used throughout Section IV for all intensity and imaging calculations.
  • ad hoc to paper Three toy emission functions model the disk emission.
    Chosen for convenience; they are not derived from a physical accretion disk model.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Testing Einstein Maxwell Power-Yang-Mills Hair via Black Hole Photon Rings." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GPRPHBKT

@misc{pith2026250106690,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Testing Einstein Maxwell Power-Yang-Mills Hair via Black Hole Photon Rings},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GPRPHBKT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.06690}
}
abstract

In this paper, the optical appearance of static and spherically symmetric hairy black holes is studied under the standard Einstein-Maxwell theory considering the p-power Yang-Mills term. During the research process, the specific case of $p=1/2$ was mainly selected for discussion. To understand the impact of the hairy parameter on black holes, we have studied the event horizon radius $r_{h} $, the photon sphere radius $r_{ph}$ and the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit $r_{isco}$ of this hairy black hole. Then, we utilized the backward ray-tracing method to analyze the geodesics of photons around this black hole and discussed the influence of the hairy parameter on the photon geodesics. In addition, we also calculated the unique shadow and photon ring of the black hole irradiated by a static thin accretion disk with three toy model emission functions. The research results show that as the hairy parameter gradually increases, the event horizon radius $r_{h} $, the photon sphere radius $r_{ph}$, the radius of the innermost stable circular orbit $r_{isco}$ and the critical impact parameter $b_{ph}$ of the black hole all exhibit a decreasing trend. Meanwhile, it also causes the area of the black hole shadow and the photon ring to decrease accordingly. Consequently, in the case of the static and spherically symmetric standard Einstein Maxwell power-Yang-Mills hairy black hole, there is no degeneracy in the photon ring and the shadow. Theoretically, it can reflect different black hole solutions and thus verify the Yang-Mills hair.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.06690 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: The situation of the metric function for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: This is the curve of the variation of the effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: This is the curve of the variation of the effective [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_2.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: The variation curve of the number of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: These are the null geodesic diagrams of photons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7: The images of the first three transfer functions [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8: Images of the first toy model when the Yang-Mills hairy parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9: Images of the second toy model when the Yang-Mills hairy parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10: Images of the second toy model when the Yang-Mills hairy parameter [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 14 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Penrose, Phys

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

    1965

  2. [2]

    S. W. Hawking and R. Penrose, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A 314, 529 (1970)

    1970

  3. [3]

    Rovelli, Quantum gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Univ

    C. Rovelli, Quantum gravity, Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical Physics (Univ. Pr., Cambridge, UK, 2004)

    work page 2004

  4. [4]

    On (Cosmological) Singularity Avoidance in Loop Quantum Gravity

    J. Brunnemann and T. Thiemann, Class. Quant. Grav. 23, 1395 (2006), arXiv:gr-qc/0505032

    work page Pith review arXiv 2006

  5. [5]

    Modesto, in 17th SIGRA V Conference (2007) arXiv:hep-th/0701239

    L. Modesto, in 17th SIGRA V Conference (2007) arXiv:hep-th/0701239

    arXiv 2007

  6. [6]

    New Variables for Classical and Quantum Gravity in all Dimensions III. Quantum Theory

    N. Bodendorfer, T. Thiemann, and A. Thurn, Class. Quant. Grav. 30, 045003 (2013), arXiv:1105.3705 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2013

  7. [7]

    Coherent intertwiner solution of simplicity constraint in all dimensional loop quantum gravity

    G. Long, C.-Y. Lin, and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 100, 064065 (2019), arXiv:1906.06534 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2019

  8. [8]

    General geometric operators in all dimensional loop quantum gravity

    G. Long and Y. Ma, Phys. Rev. D 101, 084032 (2020), arXiv:2003.03952 [gr-qc]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    Bojowald, Phys

    M. Bojowald, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5227 (2001), arXiv:gr- qc/0102069

    2001

  2. [10]

    F. W. Hehl, P. Von Der Heyde, G. D. Kerlick, and J. M. Nester, Rev. Mod. Phys. 48, 393 (1976)

    1976

  3. [11]

    M. B. Green and J. H. Schwarz, Nucl. Phys. B 218, 43 (1983)

    1983

  4. [12]

    M. Han, W. Huang, and Y. Ma, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 16, 1397 (2007), arXiv:gr-qc/0509064

    2007 arXiv

  5. [13]

    Ashtekar and P

    A. Ashtekar and P. Singh, Class. Quant. Grav.28, 213001 (2011), arXiv:1108.0893 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Zhang, H

    C. Zhang, H. Liu, and M. Han, Class. Quant. Grav. 40, 205022 (2023), arXiv:2212.00933 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Gambini and J

    R. Gambini and J. Pullin, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 161301 (2008), arXiv:0805.1187 [gr-qc]

    2008 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Jackiw and C

    R. Jackiw and C. Rebbi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 37, 172 (1976)

    1976

  9. [17]

    Brink, J

    L. Brink, J. H. Schwarz, and J. Scherk, Nucl. Phys. B 121, 77 (1977)

    1977

  10. [18]

    Dorigoni, Z

    D. Dorigoni, Z. Duan, D. R. Pavarini, C. Wen, and H. Xie, JHEP 11, 084 (2024), arXiv:2409.12786 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Koutrolikos, Phys

    K. Koutrolikos, Phys. Rev. D 110, 105010 (2024), arXiv:2405.13139 [hep-th]

    2024 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Barnich and P.-H

    G. Barnich and P.-H. Lambert, Phys. Rev. D 88, 103006 (2013), arXiv:1310.2698 [hep-th]

    2013 arXiv

  13. [21]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L1 (2019), arXiv:1906.11238 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L2 (2019), arXiv:1906.11239 [astro-ph.IM]

    2019 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L3 (2019), arXiv:1906.11240 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L4 (2019), arXiv:1906.11241 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L5 (2019), arXiv:1906.11242 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 875, L6 (2019), arXiv:1906.11243 [astro-ph.GA]

    2019 arXiv

  19. [27]

    Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys

    K. Akiyama et al.(Event Horizon Telescope), Astrophys. J. Lett. 930, L12 (2022), arXiv:2311.08680 [astro-ph.HE]

    2022 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Guo and S

    M. Guo and S. Gao, Phys. Rev. D 103, 104031 (2021), arXiv:2011.02211 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Johannsen, Astrophys

    T. Johannsen, Astrophys. J. 777, 170 (2013), arXiv:1501.02814 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  22. [30]

    J. L. Synge, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.131, 463 (1966)

    1966

  23. [31]

    Johannsen and D

    T. Johannsen and D. Psaltis, Astrophys. J. 718, 446 (2010), arXiv:1005.1931 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Li and K.-J

    G.-P. Li and K.-J. He, JCAP 06, 037 (2021), arXiv:2105.08521 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  25. [33]

    Sui, Z.-L

    T.-T. Sui, Z.-L. Wang, and W.-D. Guo, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 441 (2024), arXiv:2311.10946 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  26. [34]

    Abdujabbarov, M

    A. Abdujabbarov, M. Amir, B. Ahmedov, and S. G. Ghosh, Phys. Rev. D 93, 104004 (2016), arXiv:1604.03809 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  27. [35]

    Wei and Y.-X

    S.-W. Wei and Y.-X. Liu, JCAP 11, 063 (2013), arXiv:1311.4251 [gr-qc]

    2013 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Mizuno, Z

    Y. Mizuno, Z. Younsi, C. M. Fromm, O. Porth, M. De Laurentis, H. Olivares, H. Falcke, M. Kramer, and L. Rezzolla, Nature Astron. 2, 585 (2018), arXiv:1804.05812 [astro-ph.GA]

    2018 arXiv

  29. [37]

    R. A. Konoplya, Phys. Lett. B 795, 1 (2019), arXiv:1905.00064 [gr-qc]

    2019 arXiv

  30. [38]

    S. Zare, L. M. Nieto, X.-H. Feng, S.-H. Dong, and H. Hassanabadi, JCAP 08, 041 (2024), arXiv:2406.07300 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  31. [39]

    Wang, X.-M

    X.-J. Wang, X.-M. Kuang, Y. Meng, B. Wang, and J.-P. Wu, Phys. Rev. D 107, 124052 (2023), arXiv:2304.10015 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Wang, Z.-C

    H.-M. Wang, Z.-C. Lin, and S.-W. Wei, Nucl. Phys. B 985, 116026 (2022), arXiv:2205.13174 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Q. Gan, P. Wang, H. Wu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 044049 (2021), arXiv:2105.11770 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Meng, X.-M

    Y. Meng, X.-M. Kuang, X.-J. Wang, B. Wang, and J.-P. Wu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 305 (2024), arXiv:2401.05634 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  35. [43]

    J. Yang, C. Zhang, and Y. Ma, Eur. Phys. J. C 83, 619 (2023), arXiv:2211.04263 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  36. [44]

    X. Yang, M. Tang, and Z. Xu, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 977 (2024), arXiv:2408.12318 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  37. [45]

    S. E. Gralla, D. E. Holz, and R. M. Wald, Phys. Rev. D 100, 024018 (2019), arXiv:1906.00873 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  38. [46]

    D. J. Gogoi and S. Ponglertsakul, Eur. Phys. J. C 84, 652 (2024), arXiv:2402.06186 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    G. S. Bisnovatyi-Kogan and O. Y. Tsupko, Phys. Rev. D 105, 064040 (2022), arXiv:2201.01716 [gr-qc]

    2022 arXiv

  40. [48]

    Rincon and G

    A. Rincon and G. G´ omez, Phys. Dark Univ. 46, 101576 (2024), arXiv:2308.11756 [gr-qc]

    2024 arXiv

  41. [49]

    S. W. Hawking, M. J. Perry, and A. Strominger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 231301 (2016), arXiv:1601.00921 [hep- th]

    2016 arXiv

  42. [50]

    C. A. R. Herdeiro and E. Radu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 221101 (2014), arXiv:1403.2757 [gr-qc]

    2014 arXiv

  43. [51]

    Antoniou, A

    G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos, and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 131102 (2018), arXiv:1711.03390 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Antoniou, A

    G. Antoniou, A. Bakopoulos, and P. Kanti, Phys. Rev. D 97, 084037 (2018), arXiv:1711.07431 [hep-th]

    2018 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Hod, Phys

    S. Hod, Phys. Rev. D 84, 124030 (2011), arXiv:1112.3286 [gr-qc]

    2011 arXiv

  46. [54]

    G´ omez, A

    G. G´ omez, A. Rinc´ on, and N. Cruz, Annals Phys.459, 169489 (2023), arXiv:2308.05209 [gr-qc]. 14

    2023 arXiv

  47. [55]

    S. H. Mazharimousavi and M. Halilsoy, Phys. Lett. B 681, 190 (2009), arXiv:0908.0308 [gr-qc]

    2009 arXiv

  48. [56]

    D. J. Gogoi, Y. Sekhmani, D. Kalita, N. J. Gogoi, and J. Bora, Fortsch. Phys. 71, 2300010 (2023), arXiv:2306.02881 [gr-qc]

    2023 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Q. Gan, P. Wang, H. Wu, and H. Yang, Phys. Rev. D 104, 024003 (2021), arXiv:2104.08703 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

  50. [58]

    J. Peng, M. Guo, and X.-H. Feng, Chin. Phys. C 45, 085103 (2021), arXiv:2008.00657 [gr-qc]

    2021 arXiv

Pith tools

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