arXiv:2008.08704v2 [gr-qc] 25 Dec 2020 uvs[ curves h al nvreas uesfo h trans-Planckian the from in suffers [ paradigm also problem dark inflationary universe and standard early energy the the dark Second, introducing without matter. GR of work lc oesao yteEetHrznCollaboration Horizon Event the by [ shadow hole black asbcm l nai.Alteeise niaethat indicate issues these All invalid. all become [ laws spacetimes [ at hole universe both black [ the singularities of mechanics to initial leads quantum the inevitably ques- and GR unsolved GR addition, an In still unifying is of it tion and principles quantum any the by stars neutron [ and/or experiment holes LIGO black of merging the to r fgaiy is,teaclrtdepnino the of expansion accelerated the the- First, [ complete the universe gravity. be not of may GR ory that believe to reasons GR. of predictions the with consistent ably sys- pulsar binary of [ observations tems with confronted also uy h eeto flgtb h u,adtegravi- the and Sun, Mer- the by of [ light redshift advance of tational perihelion deflection the the and three cury, namely ground- the weak various tests, including the with classical experiments, In tested precision was far. space-based GR so all out regime, passed carried successfully field has tests and observational ago the century a over posed ∗ † 4 ,adosrain fgaiainlwvsgnrtddue generated waves gravitational of observations and ], anzhong˙[email protected] author Corresponding [email protected]; ept falteescess hr r lovarious also are there successes, these all of Despite isenster fgnrlrltvt G)wspro- was (GR) relativity general of theory Einstein’s 2 a , 9 nttt o hoeia hsc omlg,Zein Uni Zhejiang Cosmology, & Physics Theoretical for Institute – 3 16 6 13 ,teetariayosraino h M87* the of observation extraordinary the ], – bevtoa et ftesl-ulsaeiei opquan loop in spacetime self-dual the of tests Observational , 9 r icl oepanwti h frame- the within explain to difficult are ] et rmLG nti ae,w osdrteobservational the consider we paper, this In function LQG. polymeric from the (LQG). by fects gravity characterized quantum is loop spacetime in procedure quantization tion in eas ics h oeta osritta a eob co be it can that that show constraints. constraint and potential project, BepiColombo the European-Japanese discuss also we tion, ftegaiainltm ea yteCsiimsin whic mission, Cassini the by tigh delay the time that gravitational find the we the of constraints, adva the these confronting perihelion Among by delay, observations. derived time are gravitational constraints Sun, servational the pur by this light For observations. and of experiments system solar the n h nossece nglx rotation galaxy in inconsistencies the and ] 17 h efda pctm a eie rmtemini-superspa the from derived was spacetime self-dual The P c .Tid isensG osntemploy not does GR Einstein’s Third, ]. .INTRODUCTION I. CPCSE,PyisDprmn,Byo nvriy Waco University, Baylor Department, Physics GCAP-CASPER, natooia bevtoscnutdi h oa system Solar the in conducted observations astronomical on 1 .I h togfil eie Rwas GR regime, field strong the In ]. 5 .Teeosrain r l remark- all are observations These ]. 20 ,a hc u nw physics known our which at ], 18 , hjagUiest fTcnlg,Hnzo,302,China 310023, Hangzhou, Technology, of University Zhejiang b 19 ntdCne o rvttoa aePyis(UCGWP), Physics Wave Gravitational for Center United n nteitrosof interiors the in and ] a Zhu Tao Dtd eebr2,2020) 29, December (Dated: 14 a,b , ∗ 15 n nhn Wang Anzhong and ]. rmLG smnindi [ in mentioned As the arising LQG. parameter by from Barbero-Immirzi characterized the be spacetime and area can self-dual minimal one the prob- Schwarzschild of singularity the ingredi- deviation space-time from fundamental the hole Moreover, the black is the lem. LQG solve full min- to the the ent solution, of the area curvature of imum spacetime construction any the of In free singularity. and regular is spacetime s vn oio eecp ET bevto fthe of observation lat- (EHT) the Telescope to in Horizon implications discussed Event observational been est has their hole and black details rotating the of shadow ain ftesl-ulsaeiehv enarayin- already been have spacetime [ impli- vestigated self-dual phenomenological the several of and deal obser- cations great by lately a directly attention attracted constrained of have or considerations tested Such be vations. can experiments, LQG forthcoming and/or so current sig- the observational any for leave natures can spacetime self-dual the T-duality.of the satisfying as itself marking hence vari- ables, other of re-parameterization suitable with invariant, [ constructed was Schwarzschild spacetime, corrected self-dual LQG or the spacetime as known spacetime, account. into taken after particu- are resolved In effects be gravitational to modified. ought quantum be singularities to spacetime the need lar, might GR classical the -ult.Oecnvrf htudrtetransforma- of the sense under in self-dual that is verify it can tion that One is solution T-duality. this of aspect 1 gap 1 npriua,i a ensonta hsself-dual this that shown been has it particular, In . aebe xesvl tde,se o ntne [ instance, (LQBHs) for holes see, black quantum studied, loop extensively years, been of couple have last the In oedtis erfrraest h eiwatce,[ articles, review the to readers refer we details, more nipratqeto o swehrteLGeffects LQG the whether is now question important An symmetric spherical a LQG, of context the in Recently, P ueydet h emti unu ef- quantum geometric the to due purely , est fTcnlg,Hnzo,302,China 310023, Hangzhou, Technology, of versity A r rtclpeitoswt h otrecent most the with predictions oretical min → c,adgoei rcsin h ob- The procession. geodetic and nce, ils0 yields h oe ecluaei ealteeffects the detail in calculate we pose, etoecmsfo h measurement the from comes one test andi h erftr ytejoint the by future near the in tained eapoc,bsdo h polymeriza- the on based approach, ce a t eito rmteSchwarzschild the from deviation Its fLGvia LQG of l infiatyipoetecurrent the improve significantly uld 0 osrit moe on imposed constraints 32 /r nldn h eeto nl of angle deflection the including , – c with 40 † ea 69-36 USA 76798-7316, Texas , .I atclr h Q ffcso the on effects LQG the particular, In ]. < P < a 0 a en eae otemnmlarea minimal the to related being 0 = 5 . 5 A × min u gravity tum 31 10 / , − 8 P 37 6 π naddi- In . ,temti remains metric the ,, ,aohrimportant another ], yusing by 22 27 – 26 – 30 .For ]. ]. 21 ] 2 supermassive black hole, M87*, has also been explored self-dual spacetime is given by [21] [41]. In addition, with the calculation of the gravitational lensing in the self-dual spacetime, the polymeric function dr2 ds2 = f(r)dt2 + + h(r)(dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2), (2.1) has been constrained by using the Geodetic Very-Long- − g(r) Baseline Interferometry Data of the solar gravitational deflection of Radio Waves [37], which leads to a con- where the metric functions f(r), g(r), and h(r) are given straint on the polymeric parameter δ of LQG, δ < 0.1. by In this paper, we study the effects of LQG to obser- 2 vations conducted in the Solar System. We calculate in (r r+)(r r−)(r + r∗) f(r)= − 4− 2 , details the effects of the polymeric function in the self- r + a0 dual spacetime to the light deflection by the Sun, the 4 (r r+)(r r−)r gravitational time delay, perihelion advance, and geode- g(r)= − 2 −4 2 , tic procession for a spinning object. With these theoret- (r + r∗) (r + a0) ical calculations, we derive the observational constraints a2 h(r)= r2 + 0 . (2.2) from some recent observational datasets, including the r2 VLBI observation of quasars, Cassini experiment, MES- 2 2 2 SENGER mission, LAGEOS satelite, observations of S2 Here r+ =2M/(1+P ) and r− =2MP /(1+P ) denote star at Galactic center, Gravity Probe B, and the lu- the locations of the two horizons, and r∗ √r+r− = ≡ nar laser ranging data. Among these constraints, we find 2MP/(1 + P )2 with M denoting the ADM mass of the that the tightest constraint comes from the measurement solution, and P being the polymeric function of the gravitational time delay by the Cassini mission. In addition, we also discuss the potential constraint that √1+ ǫ2 1 P − , (2.3) can be derived in the near future by the joint European- ≡ √1+ ǫ2 +1 Japanese BepiColombo project. While more detections and experiments are continuously being carried out, it where ǫ denotes a product of the Immirzi parameter γ is expected that the constraints on the LQG effects will and the polymeric parameter δ, i.e., ǫ = γδ 1. From ≪ be improved dramatically and deeper understanding of the considerations of black hole entropy [42], the Immirzi LQG will be achieved. At last, we would like to mention parameter is determined to be γ 0.2375. The parame- ≃ that we only consider the static self-dual spacetime in ter this paper and ignore the effects of the angular momen- Amin tum of the spacetime. For all the observational effects a0 = , (2.4) we considered in this paper, the effects due to rotation 8π of the Sun or Earth are expected to be very small. where Amin is the minimum area gap of LQG. Here we The plan of the rest of the paper is as follows. In would like to emphasize that there exists a lot of choices Sec. II, we present a very brief introduction to the self- of the value of γ from different considerations, see [43– dual spacetime, while in Sec. III, we first consider the 48] and references therein. For example, its value can geodesic equations for both massless and massive objects even be complex [43–47] or considered as a scalar field in this self-dual spacetime. Using these equations we then which value would be fixed by the dynamics [48]. In this derive in details the effects of the polymeric function P paper, in order to derive the observational constraints on to observations conducted in the Solar System, including the polymeric parameter δ derive from the constraints the deflection angle of light by the Sun, gravitational on P , we adopt the commonly used value γ = 0.2375 time delay, and perihelion advance. The upper bounds on from the black hole entropy calculation [42]. Thus it P are obtained by comparing the theoretical predictions is important to mention that the constraints on δ we with observational data. Then, in Sec. IV, we study obtained in the following sections should depend on the a spinning object in the self-dual spacetime and derive choice of the value of γ . the geodetic procession of its spin vector, from which we By taking a0 =0= P , it is easy to see that the above obtain the constraints on the polymeric function P by solution reduces to the Schwarzschild black hole exactly. using the Gravity Probe B and lunar laser ranging data. According to [31, 37], it is natural to assume that the A brief summary of our main results and some discussions minimal area gap in LQG is Amin 4πγ√3lPl with lPl are presented in Sec. V. ≃ being the Planck length. In this sense, a0 is proportional to lPl and thus is expected to be negligible. On the other hand, in order to explore the effects of a0 and P in the II. EQUATION OF MOTION FOR TEST solar system, it is natural to expand (2.1) in power of PARTICLES IN THE SELF-DUAL SPACETIME 1/r. It is clearly to see that the maximal corrections from 4 parameter P is at the order of 1/r while a0 is at 1/r . We start with a brief introduction of the effective self- Thus, phenomenologically, the effects of a0 are expected dual spacetime, which arises from the quantization of a to be very small at the scale of the Solar System, so we symmetry reduced spacetime in LQG. The metric of the can safely set a0 = 0. 3

III. CLASSICAL TESTS OF THE SELF-DUAL Then by using φ˙ = l/h˜ (r), one obtains SPACETIME 2 dr h2(r) E˜2h2(r) = ε + h(r) g(r). (3.13) dφ ˜2 ˜2 − Let us first consider the evolution of a massive particle   " l l f(r) # in the self-dual spacetime. We start with the Lagrangian of the particle, In the following, we shall apply this equation to the cal- culations of the light deflection angle, gravitational time 1 dxµ dxν delay, and perihelion advance in the self-dual spacetime. = g , (3.1) L 2 µν dλ dλ where λ denotes the affine parameter of the world line of A. Light deflection angle the particle. For massless particles we have = 0 and for massive ones we have < 0. Then the geodesicL motion L Let us first investigate the light deflection angle in the of a particle is governed by the Euler-Lagrange equation, self-dual spacetime. We start from Eq. (3.13), in which d ∂ ∂ we have ε = 0 for light. Introducing the impact parame- L L =0, (3.2) ter dλ ∂x˙ µ − ∂xµ   l˜ where a dot denotes the derivative with respect to the b , (3.14) ≡ E˜ affine parameter λ. Then the the generalized momentum pµ of the particle can be obtained via we find Eq. (3.13) reduces to −1/2 ∂L dφ 1 h(r) p = = g x˙ ν , (3.3) = 1 , (3.15) µ µ µν dr ± b2f(r) − ∂x˙ h(r)g(r)   which leads to four equations of motions for a particle where correspondp to increasing and decreasing r, re- ± with energy E˜ and angular momentum ˜l, spectively. Then, the distance of the closest path r0 is

defined as dr/dφ r=r0 = 0, for which we have pt = gttt˙ = E,˜ (3.4) | − 2 h(r0) pφ = gφφφ˙ = ˜l, (3.5) b = . (3.16) f(r0) pr = grrr,˙ (3.6) The light trajectory is deflected by an angle, pθ = gθθθ.˙ (3.7) +∞ dφ From these expressions we obtain ∆φ =2 dr π, (3.17) dr − Zr0 E˜ E˜ t˙ = = , (3.8) with dφ/dr being given by (3.15). Considering the weak −gtt f(r) field approximation and then expanding the above inte- ˜ ˜ gral in terms of the polymeric function P , one obtains ˙ l l φ = = 2 . (3.9) the deflection angle of the light, gφφ h(r) sin θ 4M 2 µ ν ∆φ 1 2P + (P ) Note that one has gµν x˙ x˙ = ε with ε = 1 for timelike ≃ r0 − O geodesics and ε = 0 for null geodesics. Then,− we find   = ∆φGR(1 2P ). (3.18) − 2 ˙2 2 ˙2 grrr˙ + gθθθ = ε gttt˙ gφφφ To obtain the experimental constraints from the light − − E˜2 ˜l2 deflection experiment by the Sun, let us expression the = ε + . (3.10) deflection angle ∆φ in terms of values of ∆φGR for the f(r) − h(r) Sun, Since we are mainly interested in the evolution of ∆φ =1.75′′(1 2P ). (3.19) the particle in the equatorial circular orbits, we will set − θ = π/2 and θ˙ = 0. Then the above expression can be The best available measurement of the solar gravitational simplified into the form deflection comes from the astrometric observations of

2 2 quasars on the solar background performed with the very- r˙ = E˜ Veff , (3.11) − long baseline interferometry (VLBI) [49], which leads to the constraint on the polymeric function P , where Veff is the effective potential of the particle, which is defined as 2.5 10−5

0, thus one has ˜2 E l Veff = E ε + g(r). (3.12) −4 − f(r) − h(r) ! 0

For γ =0.2375, the above constraint can be transformed Here we use the experimental results of the Cassini satel- to a constraint on the polymeric parameter δ as lite for the time delay to constrain the polymeric function in the self-dual spacetime [50]. The Cassini experiment δ < 0.0942 (68% C.L.). (3.22) | | does not measure the time delay directly, but instead the relative change in the frequency in the superior conjunc- It is worth noting that the above constraint is consistent tion case, with that obtained in [37] using the VLBI data in [59]. ν(t) ν0 d δν = − = ∆tS , (3.28) ν0 dt B. Gravitational Time Delay where ν0 is the frequency of the radio waves emitted from We consider the time delay where a radar signal is sent the Earth and then t being reflected back to the Earth from Earth or spacecraft pass to the Sun and reflect off at the frequency ν(t). Hence, the relative shift in the another planet or spacecraft. The time delay can also be frequency is given by studied by using Eq.(3.15), from which one obtains 8M(1 2P ) dr0(t) δν − . (3.29) dt dt dφ dφ t˙ ≃− r0 dt = = dr dφ dr dr φ˙ The Cassini experiment measures the frequency shift for −1/2 approximately 25 days, where 12 days before and 12 days 1 1 1 f(r) = . (3.23) after the superior conjunction. During one day the dis- ± b b2 − h(r) f(r)g(r)   tance of the closet approach of the radio waves changes by about 1.5R⊙, where R⊙ denotes the radius of the Sun. Then the time spentp by a radar signal that travels from Thus, the frequency shift induced by the polymeric func- the Sun to the point r can be obtained by performing A tion P is the integral 256 M⊙ rA −1/2 δνP P vE, (3.30) 1 1 1 f(r) ≃ 27 R⊙ t(rA)= 2 dr. (3.24) b r0 f(r)g(r) b − h(r) Z   in which vE = dr0/dt is the velocity of the Earth. In the Again consideringp the weak field approximations, one Cassini experiment, the accuracy of the relative shift in −14 finds the frequency is 10 [50], from which one obtains the constraint 2 2 rA r0 rA t(rA) rA r0 + M − +2Marccosh −14 ≃ − rA + r0 r0 δνP < 10 , (3.31) q r   r r0 r 4MP A − + arccosh A . (3.25) which leads to − rA + r0 r0 r   0

This effect is proportional to the angular momentum of and the parallel transport equation the Sun and is given by [51] µ ds µ ν λ 6S⊙ cos i +Γνλs u =0, (4.2) ∆φLT = , (3.54) dλ −a3(1 e2)3/2 0 − where the four-velocity vector uµ and four-spin vector sν where S⊙ is the angular momentum of the Sun and i is satisfy the orthogonal condition the inclination of the solar equator to Mercury’s orbit µ plane. According to the analysis in [52], the contribution u sµ =0. (4.3) of ∆φLT per century is smaller than the uncertainty in The spin vector sµ also satisfies the normalization condi- the measurement of the perihelion advance per century, tion thus for the purpose of constraining LQG effects in this LT µ work we ignore the effects of ∆φ and only consider the s sµ =1. (4.4) static case. We then turn to consider the measured perihelion ad- Since the self-dual spacetime we considered here is vance of LAGEOS satellites around the Earth. Using 13 a spherically symmetric spacetime, we can comfortably years of tracking data of the LAGEOS satellites, the pre- choose to work on the equatorial plane, i.e., with θ = π/2 cession of the periapsis of the LAGEOS II satellite was without loss of any generality. To simplify the problem, measured to be [53] we further assume that the test spinning particle moves in a circular orbit, i..e,r ˙ =0= θ˙. Then the four veloc- ∆φ = ∆φGR 1+(0.28 2.14) 10−3 , (3.55) ity uµ =x ˙ µ can be expressed as follows in terms of the ± × constants of motion E˜ and l˜, which corresponds toh a bound on the polymerici function P and parameter δ of E˜ ut = t˙ = , (4.5) f(r) 0

r ds 1 ′ 1 ′ 3πM 4 + g(r)f (r)utst g(r)h (r)uφsφ =0, (4.13) 1 P , (4.23) dλ 2 − 2 ≃ r − 3   dsθ =0, (4.14) where the second term in the bracket represents the cor- dλ rections from the LQG effects in the self-dual spacetime. dsφ 1 h′(r) + uφsr =0. (4.15) It is transparent that the geodetic precession angle ∆Θ dλ 2 h(r) decreases with the polymeric function P . When P = 0 Differentiating (4.13) with respect to the affine parameter the above geodetic precession angle ∆Θ reduces to the λ and converting λ t using the relation dt = utdλ, one result for the Schwarzschild spacetime. arrives at a second-order→ ordinary differential equation of The geodetic procession can be tested by using gyro- sr, scopes in the near-earth artificial satellites, which has been detected by the Gravity Probe B [55]. Consider- d2sr 1 g(r)h′2(r) g(r)f ′2(r) + Ω2 sr =0, ing that the Gravity Probe B was spaced at an attitude dt2 4 h(r) − f(r) of 642 km and had an orbital time period of 97.65 min,   (4.16) the geodetic effect leads to a procession of the gyroscope spin axis by 6,606.1 milliarcseconds (mas) per year, as which can be solved to yield, predicted by GR. This procession is measured by the r r Gravity Probe B to be [55] s (t)= s (0) cos(ωgt), (4.17) where ∆Θ = (6601.8 18.3)mas/year. (4.24) ± ′2 ′2 1 g(r)h (r) 2 g(r)f (r) This measurement leads to a bound on the polymeric ωg = Ω , (4.18) 2s h(r) − f(r) function P of −3 is the frequency of the oscillation pertaining to the spin 0

ω 1 g(r)h′2(r) g(r)f ′(r)h′[r] δ < 0.67. (4.29) g = | | Ω 2s h(r) − f(r) 3M 2M 1 + P, (4.22) V. SUMMARY AND DISCUSSIONS ≃ − 2r r which shows clearly ωg < Ω. This implies that when LQG provides an elegant resolution of both the classi- the spinning particle completes one rotation along the cal big bang and black hole singularities. Recently, a reg- circular orbit, the spin vector has not yet completed a ular static spacetime, the self-dual spacetime, is derived complete circle. This phenomenon is called geodetic pro- from the mini-superspace approach, based on the poly- cession. For one complete period of the circular orbit, merization quantization procedure in LQG [21]. In this the angle of the geodetic procession can be expressed as paper, we study the observational constraints that can be ω imposed on the polymeric function P arising from LQG. ∆Θ=2π 1 g − Ω For this purpose, we calculate theoretically the effects   8

TABLE I. Summary of estimates for upper bounds of the polymeric function P and the parameter δ in the self-dual spacetime from several observations. Experiments/ Observations P |δ| Datasets − Light deflection 1.25 × 10 4 0.0942 VLBI observation of quasars [49] − Time delay 5.5 × 10 6 0.0199 Cassini experiment [50] − Perihelion advance 1.57 × 10 5 0.033 MESSENGER mission [52] − 1.4 × 10 3 0.32 LAGEOS satellites [53] 0.0675 2.3 Observation of S2 star at Galactic center [54] Geodetic procession 2.6 × 10−3 0.43 Gravity Probe B [55] 6.2 × 10−3 0.67 Lunar laser ranging data [56] of the polymeric function P to some astronomical ob- improve the constraints on the polymeric function P to servations conducted in the Solar System, including the 0 < P . 2 10−6, which is much more restricted than deflection angle of light by the Sun, gravitational time that obtained× from the Cassini experiment. delay, perihelion advance, and geodetic procession. Con- We also calculate the effects of the polymeric function fronting the theoretical predictions with the observations, on the geodetic procession of a spinning object in the we derive the upper bound on the polymeric function in self-dual spacetime. The observation constraints on P the self-dual spacetime. Our results are summarized in has also been derived from the Gravity Probe B data and Table. I. the Lunar laser ranging data. Although these constraints It is remarkable that the measurement of the gravi- are not as tighter as those obtained from the observations tational time delay by the Cassini experiment provides of the light deflection angle, gravitational time delay, and by far the most sensitive tool to constrain the effects of perihelion advance of Mercury, they do provide a different LQG in the Solar System. This measurement gives the and interesting window to explore the features of the self- tightest constraints [cf. in Table. I] on the polymeric dual spacetime. function P of 0

[1] C. M. Will, “The Confrontation be- [6] S. Perlmutter et al. [Supernova Cosmology Project], tween General Relativity and Experiment,” “Measurements of Omega and Lambda from 42 High- Living Rev. Relativ. 17, 4 (2014). Redshift Supernovae,” Astrophys. J. 517, 565 (1999). [2] I. H. Stairs, “Testing General Relativity with Pulsar Tim- [7] A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), “Ob- ing,” Living Rev. Rel. 6, 5 (2003). servational Evidence from Supernovae for an Ac- [3] N. Wex, “Testing Relativistic Gravity with Radio Pul- celerating Universe and a Cosmological Constant,” sars,” arXiv:1402.5594 [gr-qc]. Astron. J. 116, 1009 (1998). [4] K. Akiyama et al. [Event Horizon Telescope Collab- [8] A. G. Riess et al. (Supernova Search Team), “Type Ia Su- oration], “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Re- pernova Discoveries at z¿1 From the Hubble Space Tele- sults. I. The Shadow of the Supermassive Black Hole,” scope: Evidence for Past Deceleration and Constraints on Astrophys. J. 875, L1 (2019). Dark Energy Evolution,” Astrophys. J. 607, 665 (2004). [5] B. P. Abbott et al. [The LIGO Scientific Collab- [9] A. Joyce, B. Jain, J. Khoury, and M. Trod- oration and the Virgo Collaboration], “Observa- den, “Beyond the Cosmological Standard Model,” tion of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Phys. Rept. 568, 1 (2015). Hole Merger,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 061102 (2016); [10] B. Famaey and S. McGaugh, “Modified Newtonian “Tests of General Relativity with GW150914,” Dynamics (MOND): Observational Phenomenology and Phys. Rev. Lett. 116, 221101 (2016). Relativistic Extensions,” Living Rev. Rel. 15, 10 (2012). 9

[11] M. Milgrom, “A modification of the Newtonian dynamics [34] A. Dasgupta, “Entropy Production and Semiclassical as a possible alternative to the hidden mass hypothesis,” Gravity,” SIGMA 9, 013 (2013). Astrophys. J. 270, 365 (1983). [35] A. Barrau, C. Rovelli and F. Vidotto, “Fast [12] M. Milgrom, “The MOND paradigm,” Radio Bursts and White Hole Signals,” arXiv:0801.3133 [astro-ph]. Phys. Rev. D 90, 127503 (2014) [arXiv:1409.4031 [13] T. Clifton, P. G. Ferreira, A. Padilla, and C. [gr-qc]]. Skordis, “Modified Gravity and Cosmology,” [36] S. Hossenfelder, L. Modesto and I. Premont- Phys. Rept. 513, 1 (2012). Schwarz, “Emission spectra of self-dual black holes,” [14] R. J. Adler, “Six easy roads to the Planck scale,” arXiv:1202.0412 [gr-qc]. Am. J. Phys. 78, 925 (2010). [37] S. Sahu, K. Lochan and D. Narasimha, “Gravitational [15] Y. J. Ng, “Selected topics in Planck-scale physics,” lensing by self-dual black holes in loop quantum grav- Mod. Phys. Lett. A 18, 1073 (2003). ity,” Phys. Rev. D 91, 063001 (2015) [arXiv:1502.05619 [16] J. Martin and R. H. Brandenberger, “Trans- [gr-qc]]. Planckian problem of inflationary cosmology,” [38] M. B. Cruz, C. A. S. Silva and F. A. Brito, “Gravitational Phys. Rev. D 63, 123501 (2001). axial perturbations and quasinormal modes of loop quan- [17] R. H. Brandenberger and J. Martin, “Trans- tum black holes,” Eur. Phys. J. C 79, 157 (2019). Planckian issues for inflationary cosmology,” [39] F. Moulin, K. Martineau, J. Grain, and A. Class. Quantum Grav. 30, 113001 (2013). Barrau, Quantum Fields in the Background [18] A. Borde and A. Vilenkin, “Eternal inflation and the Spacetime of a Polymeric Loop Black Hole, initial singularity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 72, 3305 (1994). Class. Quantum Grav. 36, 125003 (2019). [19] A. Borde, A. H. Guth, and A. Vilenkin, “Inflation- [40] F. Moulin, A. Barrau and K. Martineau, “An overview ary Space-times are Incomplete in Past Directions,” of quasinormal modes in modified and extended gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 151301 (2003). Universe 5, 202 (2019). [20] S. W. Hawking and G. F. R. Ellis, The Large Scale Struc- [41] C. Liu, T. Zhu, Q. Wu, K. Jusufi, M. Jamil, ture of Space-Time (Cambridge University Press, 1973). M. Azreg-A¨ınou and A. Wang, “Shadow and Quasinor- [21] L. Modesto, “Semiclassical Loop Quantum Black Hole,” mal Modes of a Rotating Loop Quantum Black Hole,” Int. J. Theor. Phys. 49, 1649 (2010). Phys. Rev. D 101, 084001 (2020). [22] A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, and P. Singh, “Quan- [42] K.A. Meissner, “Black-hole entropy in loop quantum tum Transfiguration of Kruskal Black Holes,” gravity,” Classical Quantum Gravity 21, 5245 (2004). Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 241301 (2018). K. A. Meissner, Black hole entropy in Loop Quantum [23] A. Ashtekar, J. Olmedo, and P. Singh, “Quan- Gravity, , Classical Quantum Gravity 21, 5245 (2004). tum extension of the Kruskal spacetime,” [43] J. Ben Achour, J. Grain and K. Noui, “Loop Quan- Phys. Rev. D98, 126003 (2018). tum Cosmology with Complex Ashtekar Variables,” [24] M. Bojowald, S. Brahma, and D.-H. Yeom, “Effective line Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 025011 (2015). elements and black-hole models in canonical loop quan- [44] E. Frodden, M. Geiller, K. Noui and A. Perez, tum gravity,” Phys. Rev. D98, 046015 (2018). “Black Hole Entropy from complex Ashtekar variables,” [25] E. Alescia, S. Bahramia, D. Pranzetti, “Quantum EPL 107, no.1, 10005 (2014). gravity predictions for black hole interior geometry,” [45] J. Ben Achour, A. Mouchet and K. Noui, “Analytic Con- Phys. Lett. B797 (2019) 134908. tinuation of Black Hole Entropy in Loop Quantum Grav- [26] M. Assanioussi, A. Dapor, and K. Liegener, “Per- ity,” JHEP 06, 145 (2015). spectives on the dynamics in a loop quantum grav- [46] M. Han, “Black Hole Entropy in Loop Quantum Grav- ity effective description of black hole interiors,” ity, Analytic Continuation, and Dual Holography,” Phys. Rev. D 101, 026002 (2020). arXiv:1402.2084 [gr-qc]. [27] A. Perez, “Black holes in loop quantum gravity,” [47] S. Carlip, “A Note on Black Hole Entropy in Loop Quan- Rep. Prog. Phys. 80 (2017) 126901. tum Gravity,” Class. Quant. Grav. 32, 155009 (2015). [28] A. Barrau, K. Martineau and F. Moulin, “A Sta- [48] V. Taveras and N. Yunes, “The Barbero-Immirzi Param- tus Report on the Phenomenology of Black Holes in eter as a Scalar Field: K-Inflation from Loop Quantum Loop Quantum Gravity: Evaporation, Tunneling to Gravity?,” Phys. Rev. D 78, 064070 (2008).AF White Holes, Dark Matter and Gravitational Waves,” [49] E. Fomalont, S. Kopeikin, G. Lanyi, and J. Benson, Universe 4 (2018) 102. “PROGRESS IN MEASUREMENTS OF THE GRAV- [29] C. Rovelli, “Black hole evolution traced out with ITATIONAL BENDING OF RADIO WAVES USING Loop Quantum Gravity,” Phys. 11 (2018) 127 THE VLBA,” Astrophys. J. 699, 1395-1402 (2009). [arXiv:1901.04732]. [50] B. Bertotti, L. Iess and P. Tortora, “A test of general [30] A. Ashtekar, “Black Hole evaporation: A Perspective relativity using radio links with the Cassini spacecraft,” from Loop Quantum Gravity,” arXiv:2001.08833. Nature 425, 374 (2003). [31] L. Modesto and I. Premont-Schwarz, “Self-dual [51] J. Lense and H. Thirring, Phy. Z. 19, 156 (1918). Black Holes in LQG: Theory and Phenomenology,” [52] R. S. Park, W. M. Folkner, A. S. Konopliv, J. G. Phys. Rev. D 80, 064041 (2009). Williams, D. E. Smith, and M. T. Zuber, “Precession of [32] E. Alesci and L. Modesto, “Particle Creation by Loop Mercury’s Perihelion from Ranging to the MESSENGER Black Holes,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 46, 1656 (2014). Spacecraft,” Astrophys. J. 153, 121 (2017).. [33] J. H. Chen and Y. J. Wang, “Complex frequencies of a [53] D. M. Lucchesi and R. Peron, “Accurate Measure- massless scalar field in loop quantum black hole space- ment in the Field of the Earth of the General- time,” Chin. Phys. B 20, 030401 (2011). Relativistic Precession of the LAGEOS II Pericen- ter and New Constraints on Non-Newtonian Gravity,” 10

Phys. Rev. Lett. 105, 231103 (2010). Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 191101 (2018). [54] R. Abuter et al. [GRAVITY Collaboration], “Detec- [58] J. Benkhoff, J. van Casteren, H. Hayakawa, M. Fuji- tion of the Schwarzschild precession in the orbit of the moto, H. Laakso, M. Novara, P. Ferri, H. R. Middleton, star S2 near the Galactic centre massive black hole,” and R. Ziethe, “BepiColombo, Comprehensive ex- Astron. Astrophys. 636, L5 (2020). ploration of Mercury: Mission overview and science [55] C. W. F. Everitt et al. [Gravity Probe B re- goals,” Planet. Space Sci. 58, 2 (2010); “Comprehen- sults], “Gravity Probe B: Final Results of a sive Science Investigations of Mercury: The scientific Space Experiment to Test General Relativity,” goals of the joint ESA/JAXA mission BepiColombo,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 221101 (2011). http://www .sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0032063309002840. [56] J. G. Williams, S. G. Turyshev, and D. H. Boggs, [59] S. S. Shapiro, J. L. Davis, D. E. Lebach, and “Progress in Lunar Laser Ranging Tests of Relativistic J. S. Gregory, Measurement of the Solar Gravi- Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 261101 (2004). tational Deflection of Radio Waves using Geodetic [57] C. M. Will, “Progress in Lunar Laser Very-Long-Baseline Interferometry Data, 1979–1999, Ranging Tests of Relativistic Gravity,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 121101 (2004).