Constraining the Generalized Uncertainty Principle with the light twisted by rotating

black holes and M87*

Fabrizio Tamburini,1, ∗ Fabiano Feleppa,2, † and Bo Thidé3, ‡

1
ZKM – Zentrum für Kunst und Medien,
Lorenzstraße 19, D-76135 Karlsruhe, Germany
2
Institute for Theoretical Physics, Utrecht University,
Princetonplein 5, 3584 CC Utrecht, The Netherlands
3
Swedish Institute of Space Physics, Uppsala, Sweden
We test the validity of the Generalized Heisenberg’s Uncertainty principle in the presence of
strong gravitational fields nearby rotating black holes; Heisenberg’s principle is supposed to require
additional correction terms when gravity is taken into account, leading to a more general formula-
arXiv:2103.13750v1 [gr-qc] 25 Mar 2021

tion also known as the Generalized Uncertainty Principle. Using as probe electromagnetic waves
acquiring orbital angular momentum when lensed by a rotating black hole, we find from numerical
simulations a relationship between the spectrum of the orbital angular momentum of light and the
corrections needed to formulate the Generalized Uncertainty Principle, here characterized by the
rescaled parameter β0 , a function of the Planck’s mass and the bare mass of the black hole. Then,
from the analysis of the observed twisted light due to the gravitational field of the compact object
observed in M87*, we find new limits for the parameter β0 . With this method, complementary to
black hole shadow circularity analyses, we obtain more precise limits from the experimental data of
M87*, confirming the validity of scenarios compatible with General Relativity, within the uncertain-
ties due to the experimental errors present in EHT data and those due to the numerical simulations
and analysis.

INTRODUCTION during the observations. Specifically, we will focus on the

Most of the knowledge we have about our Universe is
obtained by extracting the information encoded in the
spectrum of electromagnetic (EM) waves emitted by ce-
lestial bodies and, more recently, from neutrinos and
gravitational waves in the framework of multi-messenger
astronomy [1–3], including new phenomena observed at
extremely high energies and in strong gravitational fields,
where the classical formulation of the Heisenberg uncer-
tainty principle (HUP) can loose its validity. Following
this ansatz, the formulation of a new Generalized Uncer-
tainty Principle (GUP) should be mandatory to study
physics at very high energies or, equivalently, at short
distance scales; quantum gravitational corrections are ex-
pected to prevent black hole (BH) evaporation near the
Planck scale [4], as also suggested in Ref. [5]. The formu-
lation of a GUP has implications in various fields [6–25];
black hole physics, String Theory [26, 27], Loop Quantum
Gravity [28], Deformed Special Relativity [29–40], where
not only General Relativity (GR) but also Quantum Me-
chanics (QM) breaks down, suggest that the HUP can
be obtained by introducing quantum-gravitational cor-
rections to the classical definition of the commutator of
two conjugate variables, such as the coordinate x and the
momentum p with their corresponding operators x̂ and
p̂, [x, p] = i~. In order to test the validity of the GUP
in strong gravity conditions we use a new method that
is now starting to be used in astronomy and astrophysics
and could give a hint to multi-messenger astronomy: the
exploitation of the whole set of total and partial con-
served quantities of the EM field [41] to obtain more in-
formation about the source from the EM waves collected
use of the EM orbital angular momentum (OAM) [42, 43]
of light lensed by a Kerr BH to constrain the GUP pa-
rameter β. In fact, up to now, astronomical observations
have used only a small subset of the EM field proper-
ties such as the conserved quantity energy, related to the
invariance with respect to time, intensity and polariza-
tion. Energy, for example, is related to the frequency of
the EM wave and through spectroscopy chemical abun-
dances are revealed; including the Doppler effect one gets
additional information about the motion of a source or
reveals the presence of a gravitational well. Similarly, by
using in a clever way the intensity of the field one reveals
e.g. the distance of a galaxy with standard candles.
OAM, theorized by Abraham in 1914 [44], is one of
the two components of the EM total angular momen-
tum, namely J, a conserved quantity of the EM field
concomitant with the ten-dimensional Poincaré group of
Noether invariants [45]. The quantity J is composed
and transported in two different forms: the spin angular
momentum (SAM) S, and L, the OAM, in a superposi-
tion J = S + L; SAM and OAM, however, do not gen-
erally behave as two independently separated EM con-
served quantities: an interplay between OAM and SAM
occurs. Only in the paraxial approximation OAM and
SAM behave as they were two independently propagat-
ing gauge–invariant observables. SAM is associated with
the polarization of light and its helicity and, down to the
quantum level, finds correspondence with the spin of the
photon, while OAM with the spatial configuration of the
beam in amplitude and phase. Each OAM beam is char-
acterized by a number ℓ of twists in its azimuthal phase
and p radial modes, and each photon of the beam carries

a quantized amount of angular momentum ±ℓ~ [42, 46]
down to the quantum level [47]. OAM found numerous
applications in different fields of research and technol-
ogy, including radio waves [48, 49] and radio [50–54] and
optical [55] telecommunications, far beyond the classical
multiplexing schemes [56].
The novel use of the EM OAM offers new tools of in-
vestigation for astronomy and astrophysics [57, 58]. The
most striking result obtained so far is the measure of the
rotation parameter of the compact object in M87* [59].
Rotating BHs initially described by Kerr [60], then ob-
served by the Event Horizon (EHT) collaboration [61–66]
can be revealed by the presence of twisted light and thus
of OAM [67]: when light passes nearby a rotating BH,
the twisted geometry of this type of spacetime imparts
a twist in light’s spatial phase distribution, thus reveal-
ing the BH’s rotation. OAM can be naturally emitted or
imposed to the light of distant sources also by other dif-
ferent astrophysical phenomena: EM waves can acquire
OAM when they traverse peculiar regions in space con-
taining, e.g., plasma inhomogeneities, in which case they
are resonant with the turbulent plasma [68, 69]. The
use of OAM in astronomical instrumentation allowed the
first direct imaging of extrasolar planets [70] by artifi-
cially imposing OAM to the light coming from celestial
bodies [71–75] and improve the resolving power of any
optical instrument up to one order of magnitude [76].
In this letter we present new limits for the GUP from
the OAM analysis of spacetimes of rotating BHs by us-
ing the software KERTAP [77]; GUP corrections have
been obtained and then compared with the results com-
ing from the OAM analysis of EHT data [59].
GUP LIMITS FROM M87* WITH OAM
It is usually assumed that, in order to formulate the
GUP, one has to modify the HUP by using a dimen-
sionless parameter β (with a value which is a priori
unknown and thought to be of the order of unity or
slightly different [40, 78, 79]) and including in the for-
mulation the presence of linear and quadratic terms,
[x, p] = i~(1 − 2βp + β 2 p2 ), leading to
!
~ lp2
∆x∆p ≥ 1+ β 2 ∆p2 , (1)
2 ~
when we consider e.g. the position, x, and the conjugate
momentum, p, of a test particle with their corresponding
quantum observables, x̂ and p̂; in Eq. (1), lp refers to the
Planck length.
However, the choice of β ∼ 1 renders quantum gravity
effects too small to be measured; therefore, without im-
posing a priori any constraint on the value of the GUP
parameter β, current experiments can predict larger up-
per bounds on it, which are compatible with observations
2
(see for example [78–89]), including extreme astrophysi-
cal scenarios like those that can be observed in the neigh-
borhoods of black holes or with alternative theories of
gravity in the presence of dilaton BHs [90] or boson stars
[91].
A new quantum-corrected Schwarzschild solution, re-
cently proposed in [92], connects the deformation of the
Schwarzschild metric of a static BH directly to the GUP
uncertainty relation, without relying on a specific rep-
resentation of commutators. Moreover, such a solution
has been extended to charged and rotating black holes
in Ref. [93], followed by the analysis of the M87∗ BH’s
shadow [94, 95]. In the case of rotating BHs, an effect of
the GUP can be found in the variation of the Arnowitt-
Deser-Misner (ADM) mass of a BH.
Let us now define the parameter β0 = β/2M 2 (the
rescaled GUP parameter). The ADM mass of the black
hole is modified as M ′ = M + β0 Mp2 , where M is its
bare mass and Mp denotes the Planck mass. For any
given value of the GUP parameter β, there should exists
a critical spin above which the solutions bifurcate into
sub-Planckian and super-Planckian phases, separated by
a mass gap in which no black holes can form. Hereinafter
we will use Planck’s units, where Mp is set to unity as
well as the speed of light c, the Planck constant ~ and
the gravitational constant G.
The quantum version of a rotating BH can be obtained
from the line element of the Kerr metric with mass M
and angular momentum J [93]. In Boyer-Lindquist coor-
dinates,
ρ2 2rS ra sin2 θ
ds2 = −Adt2 + dr2 − dtdφ + ρ2 dθ2
∆ ρ2
rS ra2
 
+ r 2 + a2 + sin2
θ sin2 θdφ2 , (2)
ρ2
where r is the spheroidal radial coordinate, rS = 2M the
gravitational radius, A = 1 − rS r/ρ2 , ρ2 = r2 + a2 cos2 θ
and ∆ = r2 − rS r + a2 are the quantities that define
the classical Kerr spacetime characterized by the rotation
parameter a = J/M . The GUP-corrected metric can be
found by replacing the BH mass with
M → M + β0 , (3)
−1
where β0 is the GUP parameter and γ = (1 + β0 ) . The
GUP-corrected spacetime is given by replacing
−1
rS → 2M (1 + β0 ) = 2M γ −1; a → a (1 + β0 ) = aγ
2 2 2 2
ρ → r + a γ cos θ; 2 2
∆ → r − 2M γ −1
r + a2 γ 2 .
To determine the limits to the GUP parameter β0 , we
solve numerically the null geodesic equations in strong
gravity conditions for different values of β0 with the
MATLAB version of the software KERTAP [77] and per-
form the OAM beam analysis to relate the OAM spec-
trum with the rotation of the GUP-modified BHs as it
 3

was made in Ref. [59] to measure the rotation param-

eter of the compact object in M87* from EHT data. 50 50

Analysing the OAM content in the lensed light observed 100 100

in the neighborhoods of the black hole with the spiral 150 150

spectrum [96], we can see that the rotation is revealed by 200 200

the ratio q between the ℓ = 1 and ℓ = −1 OAM spectral 250 250

components [59, 67]. 300

50 100 150 200 250 300
300
50 100 150 200 250 300
To determine the effects of the GUP-corrected gravita- 0.8 1
tional field, we fixed the size of the accretion disk’s (AD)
0.8
to rdisk = 10, given in units of BH masses of an ideal Kerr 0.6

0.6

Weight

Weight
BH, and the rotation parameter a = 0.85 with inclina- 0.4
tion i = 17◦ . It is immediately evident, as seen in the 0.4

0.2
upper panels of Fig. 1, that the result of the gravitational 0.2

lensing due to a rotating compact object in the presence 0

-10 -5 0 5 10
0
-10 -5 0 5 10
of gravitational GUP corrections appears different from OAM OAM

that of a Kerr BH described by the standard equations

of GR. The image in the inner parts of the AD nearby
the BH results modified, as expected [94, 95]. In this
way, a double action on the vorticity of the lensed EM
radiation occurs: the central region of the AD, where the
gravitational field of the BH is more effective to imprint
its swirling effects to twist the lensed light, is replaced
by regions of the GUP-corrected spacetime that are less
efficient to imprint a twist. At the same time the size
of the GUP BH increases, invading the center of the AD
and modifying the local geometry of the spacetime and
the inner shape of the AD. This is evident from the spi-
ral spectra in the lower panels of Fig. 1: the standard
Kerr solution shows an OAM spectrum richer in high-
order components with q = 1.2549 and a central peak
with height hℓ=0 = 0.7350. On the other side, the GUP
FIG. 1. Upper panels: Intensity of the z-component of
an ideal accretion disk around a rotating BH with rotation
parameter a = 0.85 for a Kerr with β0 = 0 (left), and a GUP
BH with β0 = 1 (right). The scales are in arbitrary numbers.
We note that the more the GUP parameter grows the more
the shadow of the BH increases.
Lower panels: the corresponding OAM spectra for Kerr
(β0 = 0) and GUP BH (β0 = 1) show that the rotation of a
GUP BH imposes a smaller twist to the lensed light as the
parameter β0 increases (see text).
a Vs q Plot i=17°
1.5
Comparison with TIE 1 =0 (GR)
DIFMAP 0
EHT data analysis
Ratio q = height (l=+1) / (l=-1)

TIE 2 Exp. Data (TIE)

1.4
spacetime shows q = 1.1842 and a higher ℓ = 0 compo- SMILI EHT10 DIFMAP, SMILI,
EHT10
nent (hℓ=0 = 0.8243), indicating a less effective transfer
95% C.I.
of OAM to the lensed light by the compact object. 1.3
0
=0.5
=0.3 0
=0.1
In Fig. 2 we report the simulations of the rotation =0.1
0
0 =0.3
parameter a Vs q (OAM asymmetry parameter) of Kerr 1.2
0

and GUP BH with rotation parameters varying in the in- 0

=0.5

terval 0.4 ≤ a ≤ 0.985 and GUP parameter 0 < β0 ≤ 1. 0

=0.7
The more the GUP parameter β0 increases, the more the 1.1
=0.9 =1 0
=0.9
=0.7 0 0
corresponding (a, q) curve is confined to lower regions of 0
=1
0
the plot, towards values of the parameter q. This effect 1
clearly indicates that the rotation of the compact object 0.4 0.5 0.6 0.7 0.8 0.9 1 1.1 1.2
is less effective in the transfer of OAM to the lensed light
because of the GUP corrections. By comparing the BH
parameters obtained with other independent methods or FIG. 2. Plot of the BH rotation parameter a Vs q (the asym-
from experimental data, one can constrain the values of metry parameter of the OAM spectrum) of rotating black
the GUP parameter with twisted light. To this aim, we holes in GUP geometries, obtained for different values of the
compare our numerical results with those obtained by the rescaled GUP parameter β0 . The numerical results have been
EHT collaboration [61–66] in epochs 1 and 2 (TIE 1 and obtained with KERTAP and the curves between the estimates
2) [59] as reported in Fig. 2, and with the simulations of have been interpolated with Hilbert polynomials. Then, the
a Kerr BH with the parameters of M87*. In this case, we results of the numerical simulations have been compared with
those obtained from the numerical simulations of Kerr met-
assume for M87* a rotation parameter a = 0.90 ± 0.05 ric and the analysis of the data performed by the EHT team
(95% confidence level) and inclination i = 17◦ ± 2◦ ac- in their observational epochs 1 and 2. The parameter q de-
cording to Ref. [59]. To determine the limits to β0 we creases as β0 increases: GUP BHs with high β0 values twist
take as reference the 95% confidence zone defined by the much less the light lensed by them.
analysis of M87* OAM data, and we find from the nu-

merical simulations that the GUP parameter is restricted
in the interval 0 < β0 ≤ 0.01064. This shows that the
use of the additional information encoded in the phase of
OAM beams allows us to extract more information from
the experimental data, obtaining a better upper limit to
the value of the GUP parameter β0 , smaller than two
up to three orders of magnitude than the one previously
estimated with rotating BHs. We did not set as lower
limit β0 = 0 in the inequality because the errors intro-
duced by the numerical simulations are of the order of
5 × 10−7 , and the experimental errors introduced by the
EHT OAM data analysis are ∼ 2%, setting the indetermi-
nation on the GUP parameter to 2.128 × 10−4. The only
way to improve this result is to use full detailed numer-
ical simulations of M87* as performed by EHT coupled
with the OAM analysis of the experimental data.
CONCLUSION REMARKS
In this letter we have determined a new upper limit
on the GUP parameter β0 = β/2M 2 thanks to the OAM
analysis of the twisted light from the compact object ob-
served in M87* [59, 67] by the Event Horizon Telescope
collaboration [61–66]. By using the additional informa-
tion encoded in the phase of the OAM beam, we found
that β0 ≤ 0.01064 ± 0.0002128, a more stringent bound
with respect to the one recently obtained in [95], where
a black hole shadow analysis has been performed. As ex-
pected, the upper limit we found here is far from being
competitive with current constraints on β that can be
obtained from quantum experiments. This shows that
the use of the EM OAM is becoming a mature new tool
for astronomy and astrophysics.
∗
fabrizio.tamburini@gmail.com
†
feleppa.fabiano@gmail.com
‡
bothide@gmail.com
[1] A. De Angelis and M. Pimenta, Introduction to particle
and astroparticle physics (multimessenger astronomy and
its particle physics foundations), Springer (2018).
[2] I. Bartos, and M. Kowalski, Multimessenger Astronomy,
IOP Publishing (2017).
[3] M. Branchesi, Multi-messenger astronomy: gravitational
waves, neutrinos, photons, and cosmic rays, in Journal of
Physics: Conference Series, 718, n. 022004 (2016).
[4] D. Y. Chen, H. W. Wu, H. T. Yang, Adv. High Energy
Phys., Article ID 432412 (2013).
[5] F. Tamburini and I. Licata, General Relativistic Worm-
hole Connections from Planck-Scales and the ER = EPR
Conjecture, Entropy, 22(1), 3 (2020).
[6] A. Paliathanasis, S. Pan, S. Pramanik, Class. Quantum
Grav. 32, 245006 (2015).
[7] A. F. Ali, M. Faizal, M. M. Khalil, JCAP 09, 025 (2015).
[8] R. Garattini, M. Faizal, Nucl. Phys. B 905, 313 (2016).
[9] A.J.M. Medved, E.C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. D 70, 124021
(2004).
4
[10] Y. S. Myung, Y. W. Kim, Y. J. Park, Phys. Lett. B 645,
393 (2007).
[11] M. I. Park, Phys. Lett. B 659, 698 (2008).
[12] K. Nozari, S. H. Mehdipour, EPL 84, 20008 (2008).
[13] B. Majumder, Gen. Relativ. Gravit. 45, 2403 (2013).
[14] P. Bargueño, E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Lett. B 742, 15
(2015).
[15] M. A. Anacleto, F. A. Brito, E. Passos, Phys. Lett. B
749, 181 (2015).
[16] Z. W. Feng, H. L. Li, X. T. Zu, S. Z. Yang, Eur. Phys.
J. C 76, 212 (2016).
[17] S. Das, R. B. Mann, Phys. Lett. B 704, 596 (2011).
[18] M. Sprenger, M. Bleicher, P. Nicolini, Class. Quantum
Gravity 28, 235019 (2011).
[19] T. Zhu, J. R. Ren, M. F. Li, Phys. Lett. B 674, 204
(2009).
[20] W. Chemissany, S. Das, A. F. Ali, E. C. Vagenas, JCAP
1112, 017 (2011).
[21] K. Nozari, P. Pedram, M. Molkara, Int. J. Theor. Phys.
51, 1268 (2012).
[22] Z. W. Feng, S. Z. Yang, H. L. Li, X. T. Zu, Adv. High
Energy Phys. 2016, 2341879 (2016).
[23] X. Zhang, C. Tian, Chinese Phys. Lett. 32, 010303
(2015).
[24] M. Faizal, B. Majumder, Annals of Phys. 357, 49 (2015).
[25] M. Faizal, Phys. Lett. B 757, 244 (2016).
[26] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Can spacetime be
probed below the string size?, Physics Letters B, 216,
41-47 (1989).
[27] S. Hossenfelder, Minimal Length Scale Scenarios for
Quantum Gravity, Living Rev. Relativ., 16, 1 (2013).
[28] C. Rovelli, Loop Quantum Gravity, Living Rev. Relativ.
11, 5 (2008).
[29] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 197,
81 (1987).
[30] D.J. Gross, P.F. Mende, Phys. Lett. B 197, 129 (1987).
[31] D. Amati, M. Ciafaloni, G. Veneziano, Phys. Lett. B 216,
41 (1989).
[32] K. Konishi, G. Paffuti, P. Provero, Phys. Lett. B 234,
276 (1990).
[33] G. Veneziano, in Quantum Gravity Near the Planck
Scale. Proceedings of PASCOS’90, Boston, p. 486 (un-
published) (1990).
[34] M. Maggiore, Phys. Lett. B 304, 65 (1993).
[35] A. Kempf, J. Math. Phys. 35, 4483 (1994).
[36] A. Kempf, G. Mangano, R.B. Mann, Phys. Rev. D 52,
1108 (1995).
[37] M. Bojowald, A. Kempf, Phys. Rev. D 86, 085017 (2012).
[38] F. Scardigli, Phys. Lett. B 452, 39 (1999).
[39] R.J. Adler, D.I. Santiago, Mod. Phys. Lett. A 14, 1371
(1999).
[40] F. Scardigli, R. Casadio, Class. Quantum Gravity 20,
3915 (2003).
[41] V. I. Fushchich and A. G. Nikitin, Symmetries of
Maxwell’s equations. (Reidel Publishing Company -
Kluwer Academic Publishers, Dordrecht, Holland, 1987).
[42] J. P. Torres and L. Torner, Twisted Photons: Applica-
tions of Light With Orbital Angular Momentum, Wiley-
Vch Verlag, John Wiley and Sons, Weinheim, DE (2011).
[43] F. Tamburini, I. Licata, and B. Thidé, Phys. Rev. Re-
search 2, 033343 (2020).
[44] M. Abraham, “Der drehimpuls des lichtes,” Physik.
Zeitschr. XV, 914 (1914).

[45] W. I. Fushchich and A. G. Nikitin, J. Phys. A: Math.
Gen. 25, L231 (1992).
[46] S. Franke-Arnold, L. Allen, and M. Padgett, Advances in
optical angular momentum, Laser & Photon. Rev. 2 (4),
299-313 (2008).
[47] A. Mair, A. Vaziri, G. Weihs, and A. Zeilinger, Entangle-
ment of the orbital angular momentum states of photons,
Nature 412, 313–316 (2001).
[48] B. Thidé, H. Then, J. Sjöholm, K. Palmer, et al., Uti-
lization of photon orbital angular momentum in the low-
frequency radio domain, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 8, 087701
(2007).
[49] F. Tamburini, E. Mari, B. Thidé, C. Barbieri, F. Ro-
manato, Appl. Phys. Lett. 99, 204102 (2011).
[50] F. Tamburini, E. Mari, A. Sponselli, B. Thidé, A. Bian-
chini, and F. Romanato, Encoding many channels on the
same frequency through radio vorticity: first experimen-
tal test, New Journal of Physics, 14, 3, 033001 (2012).
[51] F. Spinello, E. Mari, M. Oldoni, R. A. Ravanelli,
C. G. Someda, F. Tamburini, F. Romanato, P. Coassini,
and G. Parisi, Experimental near field oam-based com-
munication with circular patch array, arXiv preprint
arXiv:1507.06889 (2015).
[52] F. Tamburini, E. Mari, G. Parisi, F. Spinello, M. Oldoni,
R. Ravanelli, P. Coassini, C. G. Someda, B. Thidé, and
F. Romanato, Tripling the capacity of a point-to-point
radio link by using electromagnetic vortices, Radio Sci-
ence, 50, 6, 501–508, (2015).
[53] F. Spinello, C. G. Someda, R. A. Ravanelli, E. Mari,
G. Parisi, F. Tamburini, F. Romanato, P. Coassini, and
M. Oldoni, Radio channel multiplexing with superpo-
sitions of opposite-sign oam modes, AEU-International
Journal of Electronics and Communications, 70, 8, 990–
997 (2016).
[54] M. Oldoni, F. Spinello, E. Mari, G. Parisi, C. G. Someda,
F. Tamburini, F. Romanato, R. A. Ravanelli, P. Coassini,
and B. Thidé, “Space-division demultiplexing in orbital-
angular-momentum-based mimo radio systems,” IEEE
Transactions on Antennas and Propagation, 63, 10,
4582–4587 (2015).
[55] H. Huang, G. Xie, Y. Yan, N. Ahmed, Y. Ren, Y. Yue,
D. Rogawski, M. J. Willner, B. I. Erkmen, K. M. Birn-
baum, et al., 100 tbit/s free-space data link enabled by
three-dimensional multiplexing of orbital angular mo-
mentum, polarization, and wavelength,’ Optics letters,
39, 2, 197–200 (2014).
[56] M. Klemes, Reception of OAM RadioWaves Using
Pseudo-Doppler Interpolation Techniques: A Frequency-
Domain Approach, Appl. Sci., 9, 1082 (2019).
[57] M. Harwit, Astrophys. J. 597, 1266 (2003).
[58] N. M. Elias, II, Astron. Astrophys. 492, 883 (2008).
[59] F. Tamburini, B. Thidé, and M. DellaValle, Monthly No-
tices of the Royal Astronomical Society: Letters 492,
L22, ISSN 1745-3925 (2019).
[60] R. P. Kerr, Phys. Rev. Lett. 11, 237 (1963).
[61] EHT Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L1(17)
(2019), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results I,
https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Fab0ec7.
[62] EHT Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L2(28)
(2019), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results II,
https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Fab0c96.
[63] EHT Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L3(32)
(2019), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results III,
https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Fab0c57.
5
[64] EHT Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L4(52)
(2019), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results IV,
https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Fab0e85.
[65] EHT Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L5(31)
(2019), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results V,
https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Fab0f43.
[66] EHT Collaboration, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L6(44)
(2019), First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results VI,
https://doi.org/10.3847%2F2041-8213%2Fab1141.
[67] Tamburini, F., Thidé, B., Molina-Terriza, G. & Anzolin,
G., Twisting of light around rotating black holes. Nature
Phys. 7, 195–197 (2011).
[68] Tamburini, F., Sponselli, A., Thidé, B., and Mendonça,
J.T.,EPL 90, 45001(2010)
[69] F. Tamburini and B. Thidé, EPL (Europhysics Letters)
96, 64005 (2011)
[70] Serabyn, E., Mawet, D. and Burruss, R. An image of an
exoplanet separated by two diffraction beamwidths from
a star. Nature 464, 1018–1020 (2010).
[71] G. A. Swartzlander, Jr., Opt. Lett. 26, 497 (2001).
[72] G. A. Swartzlander, Jr., Opt. Lett. 30, 2876 (2005).
[73] G. Foo, D. M. Palacios, and G. A. Swartzlander, Jr., Opt.
Lett. 30, 3308 (2005).
[74] J. H. Lee, G. Foo, E. G. Johnson, and G. A. Swartzlan-
der, Jr., Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 053901(4) (2006).
[75] G. Anzolin, F. Tamburini, A. Bianchini, G. Umbriaco,
and C. Barbieri, Astron. Astrophys. 488, 1159 (2008).
[76] F. Tamburini, G. Anzolin, A. Bianchini, and C. Barbieri,
Phys. Rev. Lett. 97, 163903(4) (2006).
[77] B. Chen et al., ApJS 218, 4 (2015).
[78] A. F. Ali, S. Das, E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. D 84, 044013
(2011).
[79] S. Das, E. C. Vagenas, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 221301
(2008).
[80] H. Moradpour, A. H. Ziaie, S. Ghaffari, and F. Feleppa,
MNRAS 488 L69 (2019).
[81] F. Marin, F. Marino, M. Bonaldi, et al., New J. Phys.
16, 085012 (2014).
[82] M. Bawaj, C. Biancofiore, M. Bonaldi, et al., Nat. Com-
mun. 6, 7503 (2015).
[83] F. Scardigli, R. Casadio, Eur. Phys. J. C 75, 425 (2015).
[84] D. Gao, M. Zhan, Phys. Rev. A 94, 013607 (2016).
[85] S. Mirshekari, N. Yunes, C. M. Will, Phys. Rev. D 85,
024041 (2012).
[86] P. A. Bushev, J. Bourhill, M. Goryachev, N. Kukharchyk,
E. Ivanov, S. Galliou, M.E. Tobar, and S. Danilishin,
Phys. Rev. D 100, 066020 (2019).
[87] Z. W. Feng, S. Z. Yang, H. L. Li, and X.-T. Zu, Phys.
Lett. B 768, 81 (2017).
[88] S. Das, E. C. Vagenas, Can. J. Phys. 87, 233 (2009).
[89] F. Marin, et al., Nat. Phys. 9, 71 (2013).
[90] Mizuno, Y., Younsi, Z., Fromm, C. M., et al., Nature
Astronomy, 2, 585. (2018).
[91] Olivares, H., Younsi, Z., Fromm, C. M., et al., Mont.
Not. Roy. Ast. Soc., 497, 521 (2020).
[92] B. Carr, J. Mureika, P. Nicolini, JHEP 1507, 052 (2015).
[93] B. Carr, H. Mentzer, J. Mureika and P. Nicolini, Eur.
Phys. J. C 80, 1166 (2020).
[94] J. C. S. Neves, Eur. Phys. J. C 80, 343 (2020).
[95] K. Jusufi, M. Azreg-Aı̈nou, M. Jamil, arXiv:2008.09115,
(2020).
[96] Torner, L., Torres, J. and Carrasco, S., Digital spiral
imaging. Opt. Express 13, 873–881 (2005).