Analysis reveals quantum gravitational effects on black hole observables, suggesting new astrophysical insights.
We investigate the observational viability of regular rotating black holes emerging from asymptotically safe gravity, a quantum gravitational framework where spacetime curvature is modified through a scale-dependent Newton’s constant. By incorporating ultraviolet corrections to the near-horizon geometry, these solutions deviate from the classical Kerr metric while preserving asymptotic flatness and avoiding central singularities. In such spacetimes, both the radiative efficiency of accretion disks and the power output of relativistic jets are sensitive to the deformation parameter governing the quantum corrections. We compute the theoretical predictions for radiative efficiency and Blandford–Znajek jet power in quantum corrected rotating geometries and compare them with observational estimates for six well-studied stellar mass black holes. Our analysis reveals that for several systems with low to moderate spin, the asymptotically safe regular black hole model successfully reproduces both observables within reported uncertainties. In contrast, highly spinning systems such as GRS 1915 $$+$$ + 105 challenge the compatibility of this framework, suggesting a restricted deformation range or the need for additional physical inputs. The results demonstrate that quantum corrections, although confined to the strong field regime, can leave measurable imprints on high-energy astrophysical processes. Radiative and jet-based diagnostics thus serve as complementary probes of near-horizon geometry and provide a novel pathway to test quantum gravitational effects using electromagnetic observations. This work illustrates how precision measurements of spin, luminosity, and jet dynamics can offer indirect access to the ultraviolet structure of spacetime, motivating future studies of gravitational wave signatures, polarization spectra, and photon ring morphology in the presence of scale-dependent gravity.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bhattacharjee et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: