← Recent

AG-2024.10-315·astro-ph.CO·cross-listed: gr-qc

Strong Gravitational Lensing by Static Black Holes in Effective Quantum Gravity

Authors

  • Yiyang Wang
  • Amnish Vachher
  • Qiang Wu
  • Tao Zhu
  • Sushant G. Ghosh

Abstract

We investigate strong gravitational lensing by two static black hole models (Model-1 and Model-2) within the Effective Quantum Gravity (EQG) framework, characterized by mass $M$ and parameter $ζ$. For $ζ= 0$, they reduce to the Schwarzschild solution, and depending on the parameters, they describe black holes with an event and Cauchy horizon (Model-1), a single horizon (Model-2), or no horizons. Using SMBHs Sgr A* and M87* as lenses and integrating theoretical predictions with recent EHT data, we identify significant differences in lensing signatures due to quantum corrections. For Model-1, the deviations of the lensing observables: $|δθ_{\infty}|$ of black holes in EQG from Schwarzschild black hole, for SMBHs Sgr A* and M87, can reach as much as $1.75~μ$as and $1.32~μ$as, while $|δs|$ is about $30.12$~nas for Sgr A* and $22.63$~nas for M87*. The flux ratio of the first image to all subsequent packed images indicates that EQG black hole images are brighter than their Schwarzschild counterparts, with a deviation in the brightness ratio $|δr_{mag}|$ reaching up to 2.02. The time delays between the second and first images, denoted $|δT_{2,1}|$, exhibit substantial deviations from the GR counterpart, reaching up to 1.53 min for Sgr A* and 1159.9 min for M87*. The EHT constraints on $θ_{sh}$ of Sgr A* and M87* within the $1σ$ region limit the parameters $ζ$. Our analysis concludes that EQG black holes are consistent with the EHT observations within this finite space.

Submitted

16 October 20241 year ago

Version

v1

License

CC-BY-4.0

DOI

10.48550/arXiv.2410.12382

Cite this preprint

Imports into BibLaTeX, Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote.

PDF

Open PDF

Opens in a new tab · v1.

Chat with this PDF

Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.

Community

Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.