Strong lensing of the nonsingular black hole in nonlinear

electrodynamics framework

M. F. Ishlah, F. P. Pratama, I. Alfredo, and H. S. Ramadhan

Departemen Fisika, FMIPA, Universitas Indonesia, Depok, 16424, Indonesia.

Abstract
We model supermassive black hole as the nonsingular black hole viewed from the point of view
arXiv:2303.10921v1 [gr-qc] 20 Mar 2023

of Ayon-Beato-Garcia nonlinear electrodynamics (NLED) and present a complete study of their

corresponding strong gravitational lensing. The NLED modifies the the photon’s geodesic, and
our calculations show that such effect increases the corresponding photon sphere radius and image
separation, but decreases the magnification. We also present the intensity map of the black hole’s
shadow image with thin accretion disk.
I. INTRODUCTION

Black hole (BH) is one of the most straightforward yet profound prediction of General
Relativity (GR). Its extreme gravity distorts its surrounding spacetime and bends light,
creating (among many things) the gravitational lensing phenomenon. The recent observation
by Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) that successfully captured the visual images of the
superheavy BHs M87* [1] and Sgr A* [2] has established a triumph for the gravitational
lensing as a means to empirically prove black hole’s existence. By “image” here is the
corresponding shadow [3] surrounded by accreting materials that emits and lenses light from
the nearby background source.
Theoretically, the study of gravitational lensing is as old as GR itself (see, for example,
[4, 5] and the references therein), but it was Darwin who first applied it for Schwarzschild
BH [6]. His exact calculation on the deflection angle shows that at small impact parameters
there exists a critical value (close to the corresponding photon sphere) where the deflection
angle suffers from logarithmic divergence [7], beyond which photons fall into the horizon.
His results were later rediscovered and developed by other authors, for example in [8, 9]. In
the last two decades the study of gravitational lensing in the strong deflection limit received
revival and extensive elaboration [10–12, 39]. In particular, Bozza shows in [39] that the
analytical expansion of the strong deflection angle in the limit of r → rps (rps being the
photon sphere radius) is given by
 
b
α(b) = −ã1 log − 1 + ã2 + O(b − bc ). (1)
bc

with ã1 and ã2 some constants. Upon closer inspection, Tsukamoto gave correction to the
higher order expansion [13, 14]. This result on Schwarszchild was extended to the case of
Reissner-Nordstrom by Eiroa et al [16], while the strong lensing in Kerr BH was studied
in [17–19].
Probably the most intriguing property of black holes is the existence of singularity due to
the gravitational collapse [20]. It was believed that such singularity is an inherent solution
of general relativity, but the stable ones (like all observable black holes) are disconnected
from the observers by event horizon [21]. Nevertheless, Bardeen in 1968 constructed a metric
function that produced nonsingular spacetime [22]. The metric and all invariants are devoid
of singularity everywhere, including at r = 0. Instead, we have regular de Sitter space at

2
the core. (For an excellent review on regular BH see, for example, [23].) The strong lensing
phenomenon around Bardeen BH has been studied in [24, 25].
At first nobody knows what kind of matter that sources the Bardeen geometry, but
later Ayon-Beato and Garcia (ABG) realized that this nonsingular metric can be obtained
as solutions of Einstein’s equations coupled to some nonlinear electrodynamics (NLED)
source [26, 27]. Invoking NLED turns out to have profound impact on the geodesic of
test photon. Novello et al showed that in nonlinear electrodynamics background, photon
moves in an effective modified geometry [28], and this radically modifies the corresponding
optical observables. In this work, we discuss the effect of effective geometry to the lensing
phenomenon in the Bardeen BH using one of the ABG’s NLED model. In particular, we
calculate the image separation and magnification. We also investigate its shadow with thin
accretion disks. This paper is organized as follows. In Sec. II we briefly review the regular
Bardeen solution and its corresponding ABG models. In Sec. III we present the effective
metric of ABG and the corresponding photon sphere. Sec. IV is devoted to applying the
Bozza’s and Tsukamoto’s strong lensing formalism to our model. Sec. V is devoted to
calculating the strong lensing observables. In Sec. VI we compare the shadow images of
the NLED model to the RN as well as the ordinary Bardeen in the thin accretion disk
approximation. Finally, we summarize our findings in Sec. VIII.

II. BARDEEN SPACETIME

The Bardeen metric is given by [22]:

ds2 = −f (r)dt2 + f (r)−1 dr2 + r2 dΩ2 , (2)

with
2mr2
f (r) ≡ 1 − 3 , (3)
(r2 + q 2 ) 2
and q is the charge. This spacetime is regular at r = 0, as can easily be seen from the
Kretschmann scalar:
96m2
lim Rαβγδ Rαβγδ = , (4)
r→0 q 8/3
while the metric behaves de Sitter-like
2m 2
f (r) ≈ 1 − r . (5)
q3

3
The horizons rh are given by the roots of

3
rh2 + q 2 − 4m2 rh4 = 0. (6)

Bardeen black hole can, in general, possess up to two horizons. The extremal condition is
achieved when [27] r
16 32
2
q = m2 → rextr = m. (7)
27 27
Ayon-Beato and Garcia proposed the NLED matter to source the Bardeen spacetime, given
in [26]. This model, however, produces a slightly different metric function than the original
Bardeen,
2mr2 q 2 r2
f (r) = 1 − + . (8)
(r + 2 + q 2 )2
3
(r2 + q 2 ) 2
Strong lensing of this particular model has been discussed in [29]. Later ABG considered a
simpler NLED sourced by magnetic monopole as follows [27],
p !5/2
3 2q 2 F
L= p , (9)
2sq 2 1 + 2q 2 F

where F ≡ 14 F µν Fµν and s ≡ q/2m. By inserting the monopole ansatz Aµ = δµϕ q (1 − cos θ),
the field strength becomes F = q 2 /2r4 and the Lagrangian produces the metric solution
Eq. (3).

III. EFFECTIVE GEOMETRY

The NLED Lagrangian above induces the effective metric tensor [28]

µν µν 4LF F µ αν
gef f = g − F F , (10)
LF α
where LA ≡ ∂L/∂A. This, in turn, yields the effective length element

ds2ef f = −f (r)dt2 + f (r)−1 dr2 + hm (r)r2 d2 Ω, (11)

where −1
4LF F q 2

hm (r) = 1+ . (12)
LF r 4
Inserting the Lagrangian (9) we obtain
−1
2(6q 2 − r2 )

hABG (r) = 1 − . (13)
(q 2 + r2 )

4
 3.15

3.10

3.05

rps
3.00

2.95

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0

q

FIG. 1: Photon Sphere of Bardeen with ABG source as function of charge (q) for m = 1.

From the corresponding geodesic equation it is not difficult to see that the radial equation
satisfies
1 2
ṙ + Vef f = 0, (14)
2
where we define the effective potential Vef f as
f (r) L2
Vef f ≡ . (15)
h(r) r2
The corresponding photon sphere radius is given by the largest positive root of the following
condition, [39]
f 0 (rps ) 2 h0 (rps )
− − = 0. (16)
f (rps ) rps h(rps )
This yields,


2 28q 2 rps m 4q 2 rps − 2rps
3
+ +
h i = 0. (17)
rps 11q 4 + 8q 2 rps
2 − 3r 4
ps 2 2
q + rps 2
q + rps2

3/2
2
− 2mrps

By solving the roots numerically, the behavior of rps as a function of q, rps = rps (m = 1, q),
is shown in Fig.1. It is shown that the photon sphere decreases as the charge increases until
some critical value qcrit where rps (m = 1, q = qcrit ) is minimum, beyond which rps starts
increasing without bound. Interestingly, the critical value qcrit is not given by the extremal
p
charge q = 16/27m, as in the Bardeen case. Rather, qcrit = 16/27 m = 0.592. In Fig. 2
we show how rps varies with m for several values of q. They differ only at small m. When
the mass is large, rps for different q asymptote to a single gradient. In Fig. 3 we show the
deviation of rps as a function of q from the Schwarzschild (charge-less condition). The ABG

5
 30

25

20

rps
15
3.0
10 2.5
2.0
1.5
5 1.0
0.5
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0
0 2 4 6 8 10
m

FIG. 2: rps as function of m for a variation of charge q.

FIG. 3: rps as function of q for different models.

model we consider here falls between the Schwarzschild and the RN at large q, unlike the
original Bardeen which falls the fastest.

IV. DEFLECTION ANGLE IN THE STRONG FIELD LIMIT

From the spherical symmetry and staticity conditions, Noether’s theorem dictates that
this spacetime has constants of motion, the total test particle’s energy E and angular mo-
mentum L, related to the ∂t and ∂ϕ Killing vectors, respectively. We define the impact

6
parameter for photon as s
L hm (r0 )r02
b(r0 ) ≡ = . (18)
E f (r0 )
Solving the null geodesic equation, the general expression for bending angle of light rays
can be expressed as (see, for example, in [30])
Z s ∞
1
α(r0 ) = 2 dr − π, (19)
r0 r2 f (r)h(r)R(r)

where
r2 h(r)
R(r) = − 1. (20)
b2 f (r)
The integral is divergent at r0 → rps . To circumvent this problem we define z ≡ 1 − r0 /r [14]
and write Eq. (19) as Z 1
α(r0 ) = H(z, r0 )dz − π, (21)
0

with
2 (1 − z)2
H(z, r0 ) ≡ q
. (22)
r0 r0 r0



f 1−z h 1−z R 1−z

The singular part can be isolated by defining

H(z, r0 ) ≡ HR (z, r0 ) + HD (z, r0 ), (23)

where the subscript R(D) refers to the regular (divergent) part, respectively.
To handle the divergent part:
Z 1
ID (r0 ) ≡ HD (z, r0 )dz, (24)
0
p
we define H(z, r0 ) ≡ 2r0 / G(z, r) and, by expanding it around z → 0, obtain the expression
for G(z, r0 ) up to second-order:

G0 (z, r0 ) = c1 (r0 )z + c2 (r0 )z 2 , (25)

where

c1 (r0 ) = C0 D0 r0 f (r0 ),
f00
    
c2 (r0 ) = C0 r0 f0 D0 D0 D0 + 3 r0 − 3
f0

D0 r0
+ , (26)
2

7
with X0 ≡ X(r = r0 ), C(r) ≡ h(r)r2 , and
C 00 (r) f 00 (r)
D(r) ≡ − . (27)
C(r) f (r)
For the ABG model, the values of c1 and c2 are

3/2
2(r02 (11q 4 + 22q 2 r02 − 3r04 )j̃1 + m(9r08 − 61q 2 r06 )))
c1 (r0 ) = − 3/2
,
(11q 2 − 3r2 )2 j̃1
5/2
mr06 j̃2 + r02 (j̃3 j̃1 − j̃3 )
c2 (r0 ) = 5/2
,
(11q 2 − 3r02 )3 j̃1
(28)

with

j̃1 ≡ q 2 + r02 ,
j̃2 ≡ 2013q 6 + 3104q 4 r02 + 57q 2 r04 − 54r06 ,

j̃3 ≡ 121q 6 + 825q 4 r02 − 99Q2 r04 + 9r06 . (29)

Following Bozza [39] and Tsukamoto [14] it can be shown that the divergent integral in the
strong field limit r → rps (or equivalently b → bps ) is expressed as
s
2
ID (b) = − 00 00 C
fps Cps − fps ps
  00 00  
Cps fps
  
b 2
× log − 1 + log rps − .
bc Cps fps
(30)

The regular part is Z 1

IR ≡ HR (z, r0 )dz. (31)
0
Likewise, by expanding around r → rps the integral can be expressed as
Z 1 Z 1s
IR (rps ) dz 2
= − dz,
2rps 0 F (rps , z) 0 Cps rps fr psDps z 2
(32)

with s      
rps rps rps
F (rps , z) ≡ C R f (1 − z)4 . (33)
1−z 1−z 1−z

8
 FIG. 4: The values of ã1 and ã2 for Bardeen with ABG source

For the ABG model, the integral can be evaluated numerically. Putting (30) and (32)
into (21), we can express it as Eq. (1) by identifying
s
2Aps Bps
ã1 ≡ 00 − A00 C
,
Aps Cps ps ps

ã2 ≡ a˜1 log b̃ + IR (rps ) − π, (34)

with
00
Cps A00ps
 
2
b̃ ≡ rps − . (35)
Cps Aps
In terms of the ABG model we consider, their expressions are
v
2 )3 k̃ 5/2
u
u (11q 2 − 3rps 1
ã1 = t
5/2
,
k̃2 − k̃3 k̃1
v
2 )3 k̃ 5/2
u
u (11q 2 − 3rps 1
ã2 = −π + IR (rps ) + t
5/2
k̃2 − k̃3 k̃1
" #
5/2
2k̃1 k̃3 − 2k̃2
× log ,
(11q 2 − 3rps 2 )2 (k̃ 3/2 − 2mr 2 )k̃ 2
1 ps 1
(36)

with

k̃1 = q 2 + rps
2
,
k̃2 = m(3355q 6 rps
4
+ 466q 4 rps
6
+ 51q 2 rps
8
),
k̃3 = (121q 6 + 825q 4 rps
2
− 99q 2 rps
4 6
+ 9rps ). (37)

9
 FIG. 5: Comparison of light deflection for Regular Bardeen and Bardeen with ABG source

The calculated ã1 and ã2 are shown in Fig. 4. The ã1 slowly increases until q = qcrit and
then decreases linearly. The ã2 , on the other hand, decreases as q goes up until q = qcrit ,
then it starts increasing. The deflection angles are depicted in Fig. 5. It is shown that the
critical impact parameters for the NLED models are smaller than for the pure Bardeen.
This critical value increases with increasing charge.

V. LENSING

The most straightforward effect of light deflection due to gravitational field is the notion
of “gravitational lensing”. The lensing mechanism can be inferred from Fig. 6. The straight
segment SO is the path the light would have taken had it not been deflected due to the lens
(BH) at L. The angle β denotes the angular position of the source S from the observer O if
there were no lensing. What the O observes is the “image” of S located at I whose angular
position is given by θ. The deflection angle is given by α. From simple geometry the reation
between β and θ can be expressed as [11, 31]

DLS
tan β = tan θ − [tan θ + tan(α − θ)] , (38)
DOL

known as the lens equation.

In the strong field limit (r0 → rps ) β and θ are small, α can exceed 2π and light can loop
around the black hole several (n) times before escaping out to the observer. In this sense,

10
FIG. 6: Gravitational lensing diagram. S, L, and O are the source, the lens, and the observer,
respectively.

α = 2nπ + ∆αn . We can then expand tan(α − θ) ∼ ∆αn − θ [12]. The lens equation thus
becomes
DLS
β =θ− ∆αn . (39)
DOL
We also have the relation
b = DOL θ. (40)

Substituting it into (1) and inverting it results in [39]

bc  ã2 −α 
θ(α) ' 1 + e ã1 . (41)
DOL

From Fig. 6, the innermost image is given by

bc
θ∞ = . (42)
DOL

Expanding around α yields

θn = θn0 − γn ∆αn , (43)

11
with
bc
θn0 = (1 + en ) , (44)
DOL
bc
γn = en , (45)
ã2 DOL
ã2 −2nπ
en = e ã1
. (46)

We can eliminate ∆αn using the Eq. (39). This results in the equation for the n-th shadow
position [12, 13, 39]
DLS
θn = θn0 + γn (β − θn0 ), (47)
DOS
where the second term on the right-hand side is small compared to the first one. For the
Einstein ring case, β = 0 and
 
DLS
θnE = 1− γn θn0 . (48)
DOS
The observables we wish to calculate are the image separation and the magnification.
The separation s is the difference between the outermost and innermost images,
ã2 −2π
s = θ1 − θ∞ = θ∞ e ã1
. (49)

The magnification µ is the inverse of the corresponding Jacobian determinant for the critical
curve [4, 12]. The nth image magnification is defined to be
1 1
µn = = β ∂β 
 , (50)
| det Jθn0 | 0 ∂θ θ 0
θn n

from which the (relativistic) flux ratio is expressed as

µ1 2π
r= P
∞ = e ã1 . (51)
µn
n=2

In this paper we calculate the strong lensing from the Sgr A* black hole modeled as the
Bardeen with ABG source. We use data from GRAVITY collaboration where the black
hole mass and its distance from the Earth (observer) are m = 4.154 × 106 M and DOL =
8.178 kpc, respectively [33]. These values are consistent with the EHT results [2]. In Table I
we show the observables. Here the value the magnification is converted to magnitudes
rm = 2.5 log10 r [39]. From the Table it can be seen that the observable values for the
Bardeen does not differ much from that of RN. However, the observables for the ABG are

12
 Model Q/m θ∞ (µ as) s(µ as) rm

Schwarzschild - 26.0592 0.0327 6.8184

Bardeen 0 26.0592 0.0327 6.8184

0.1 26.0156 0.0332351 6.79937
0.2 25.8833 0.0349143 6.74083
0.3 25.6569 0.0381989 6.63828
0.4 25.3266 0.044135 6.48266
0.5 24.8751 0.0552564 6.25695
0.6 24.2718 0.0788401 5.92697
0.7 23.4566 0.144124 5.41046

RN 0 26.0592 0.0327 6.8184

0.1 26.0157 0.0330446 6.81081
0.2 25.8841 0.0340718 6.7875
0.3 25.6612 0.0359467 6.74699
0.4 25.3412 0.0389696 6.68646
0.5 24.9146 0.043696 6.60104
0.6 24.3668 0.0511167 6.48246
0.7 23.6747 0.0628463 6.31574

ABG 0 15.0453 1.01295 3.93662

0.1 15.0593 1.015 3.93252
0.2 15.1029 1.02079 3.92061
0.3 15.1806 1.02911 3.90248
0.4 15.3007 1.03751 3.88228
0.5 15.4768 1.04185 3.87016
0.6 15.7286 1.03655 3.8886
0.7 16.0813 1.01629 3.9788

TABLE I: Observables for the Sgr A* Schwarzschild, Bardeen, RN, and ABG. The θ and its
corresponding separation are expressed in µ arc-second (as) unit.

13
 16.4

16.2

16.0

15.8

θ∞
15.6

15.4

15.2

15.0
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
q

26.0

25.5

25.0

24.5
θ∞

24.0

23.5

23.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

q

FIG. 7: θ∞ as function of q for: [top] The ABG model and, [down] the original Bardeen.

significantly different from both Bardeen and RN; i.e., the ABG’s are smaller. This shows
that the NLED effect is quite significant here.
From Table I it can be inferred that the ABG has 1.5× smaller values of θ∞ compared to
Bardeen. This means that photon can orbit ABG with smaller radius. While the separation
s for the ABG is surprisingly 30× larger, its magnification rm is smaller than for Bardeen.
The NLED thus strengthens the gravitational field by decreasing the innermost distance
while at the same time increasing its corresponding separation with the outermost image.
Interestingly, the observables in the ABG behave in such opposite ways with the the ones in
the Bardeen. In Figs. 7 it is shown that while the θ∞ in Bardeen decreases monotonically,
in the ABG case it increases. From Figs. 8 the separation in the Bardeen model increases
monotonically, while in the ABG there exists some maximum value s = smax before which
it initially increases and after which it starts decreasing. Similarly, in Figs. 9 we see that

14
 1.04

1.03

1.02

s 1.01

1.00

0.99
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6
q

0.15
s

0.10

0.05

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

q

FIG. 8: s as function of q for: [top] the ABG model, [down] the Bardeen model.

the rm decreases unboundedly for the Bardeen as q increases, whereas it decreases to its
minimum value before increasing monotonically for the ABG.

VI. SHADOW WITH ACCRETION DISK

The radius of the black hole shadow is defined as the dark region due to the inability of
the photon from the background light source to escape the gravitational potential around
the black hole. The size of the shadow corresponds to the critical impact parameter of the
photon orbit [34–36]. The idea that the Sgr A* shadow can be observed was suggested
in [3, 37, 40].
The shadow radius Rsh is represented by the critical impact parameter, i.e., the impact

15
 4.00

3.95

rm

3.90

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

q/m

6.5

6.0
rm

5.5

5.0

0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6

Q/m

FIG. 9: rm as function of q for: [top] the ABG model, [down] the Bardeen model.

parameter evaluated at the photon sphere radius rps

s
h(rps )
Rsh = bc = rps . (52)
f (rps )
For Bardeen with ABG source we will have
v
2 −r 2 ) −1
u 
u 1 − 2(6q c
u
(q 2 +rc2 )
RshABG = rc u
t  2
 . (53)
1 − (r22mr c
+q 2 )3/2 c

Due to the effect of NLED source, the emitted photon from the accretion disk will be
affected by the effective geometry of the spacetime. The intensity of the observed emission
from the accretion disk can be obtained by integrating the specific emissivity j(νe ) along
photon path γ [32], Z
Iobs = g 3 j(νe )dlprop , (54)
γ

16
where dlprop is the infinitesimal proper length, and g, also known as the redshift factor
g ≡ νobs /νe , can be obtained from
kα uαobs
g= . (55)
kβ uβe
We use the model from Bambi [32] defined as

δ(νe − ν∗ )
j(νe ) ∝ , (56)
r2

with k µ = (1, 0, 0, 0) the 4-velocity of the photon, uµobs the 4-velocity of the observer, and uµe
the 4-velocity of the accreting gas emitting the radiation. For the gas in free fall in a static
and spherically symmetric spacetime,

uµobs = (1, 0, 0, 0),

1
ute = ,
f (r)
s
g(r)
ure = − [1 − f (r)],
f (r)
uθe = 0,
uφe = 0. (57)

The redshift factor g, after taking into account the effective metric, is

kα uαo
g =
kβ uβe
1
= q . (58)
1 kr g(r)
f (r)
− kt f (r)
− [1 − f (r)]

From kµ k µ = 0 we obtain the relation between k µ as

s  
kr 1 b2
= ±f (r) g(r) − . (59)
kt f (r) h(r)r2

We put all the ingredients together into the Eq. (54) to obtain the intensity of the accretion
disk emission. For this purpose we modify the EinsteinPy [38] python library to accomodate
the metric functions and the null effective geometry. Then, we can compare the result to
the known charged solutions: the Reissner-Nordstrom and the original Bardeen; they are
shown in Fig. 10. For the ABG black hole, the shadow radius seems to be smaller compared
to the other two.

17
FIG. 10: Comparison of shadow of black holes with accretion disk. The lower panels describe the
corresponding intensity variation along the x-axis.

VII. CONCLUSION

VIII. CONCLUSION

In this work, by assuming that our galaxy’s supermassive Sgr A* is a nonsingular

magnetically-charged black hole, we study both its strong lensing as well as its shadow
image in the thin accretion disk approach. Our approach is different either from [24, 25]
in that we regard the nonsingularity coming from the NLED charge, or from [29] where we
used simpler Ayon-Beato-Garcia NLED model.
The NLED reduces photon sphere radius with increasing q until it reaches q = qcrit , after

18
which it starts to increase monotonically. The NLED reduces the radius of the photon orbit,
and also increases the gravitational field by pulling the innermost distance closer but at
the same time stretching its separation distance from the outermost image. Our observable
quantities behave differently from the ordinary Bardeen [24, 25] in terms of the innermost
image (Figs. 7), the separation between innermost and outermost images (Figs. 8), and the
magnification (Figs. 9). Interestingly, the NLED type that we particularly choose to model
Bardeen in this paper gives distinct observable results compared to other types. While
the model [29] predicts that the angular separation s decreases while the magnification rm
increases with increasing q, our results show the opposite. From Table I we can observe that
as the charge increases, the angular separation does increase while the magnification does
decrease. Lastly, our analysis with thin accretion disk shows that the nonsingular black hole
with ABG metric gives the smallest shadow radius when compared to the RN and ordinary
Bardeen.

Acknowledgments

We thank Reyhan Lambaga and Imam Huda for the fruitful discussions on the preliminary
stage of this work.

Data Availability Statement

Data sharing is not applicable to this article as no data sets were generated or analyzed
during the current study.

[1] Akiyama, K. & Others First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the
Supermassive Black Hole. Astrophys. J. Lett.. 875 pp. L1 (2019)
[2] Akiyama, K. First Sagittarius A* Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. The Shadow of the
Supermassive Black Hole in the Center of the Milky Way. The Astrophysical Journal Letters.
pp. 21 (2022)
[3] Falcke, H., Melia, F. & Agol, E. Viewing the shadow of the black hole at the galactic center.
Astrophys. J. Lett.. 528 pp. L13 (2000)

19
 [4] Schneider, P., Ehlers, J. & Falco, E. Gravitational Lenses. Gravitational Lenses. (1992)
[5] Perlick, V. Gravitational lensing from a spacetime perspective. Living Rev. Rel.. 7 pp. 9 (2004)
[6] Darwin, C. The gravity field of a particle. Proceedings Of The Royal Society Of London. Series
A. Mathematical And Physical Sciences. 249
[7] Bozza, V. Gravitational Lensing by Black Holes. Gen. Rel. Grav.. 42 pp. 2269-2300 (2010)
[8] Luminet, J. Image of a spherical black hole with thin accretion disk. Astron. Astrophys.. 75
pp. 228-235 (1979)
[9] Chandrasekhar, S. The mathematical theory of black holes. (1985)
[10] Frittelli, S., Kling, T. & Newman, E. Space-time perspective of Schwarzschild lensing. Phys.
Rev. D. 61 pp. 064021 (2000)
[11] Virbhadra, K. & Ellis, G. Schwarzschild black hole lensing. Phys. Rev. D. 62 pp. 084003
(2000)
[12] Bozza, V., Capozziello, S., Iovane, G. & Scarpetta, G. Strong Field Limit of Black Hole
Gravitational Lensing. General Relativity And Gravitation. 33, 1535-1548 (2001,9)
[13] Tsukamoto, N. Strong deflection limit analysis and gravitational lensing of an Ellis wormhole.
Phys. Rev. D. 94, 124001 (2016)
[14] Tsukamoto, N. Deflection angle in the strong deflection limit in a general asymptotically flat,
static, spherically symmetric spacetime. Phys. Rev. D. 95, 064035 (2017)
[15] Bozza, V. Gravitational Lensing in the Strong Field Limit. Phys. Rev. D. 66, 103001 (2002,11)
[16] Eiroa, E., Romero, G. & Torres, D. Reissner-Nordstrom black hole lensing. Phys. Rev. D. 66
pp. 024010 (2002)
[17] Bozza, V. Quasiequatorial gravitational lensing by spinning black holes in the strong field
limit. Phys. Rev. D. 67 pp. 103006 (2003)
[18] Vazquez, S. & Esteban, E. Strong field gravitational lensing by a Kerr black hole. Nuovo Cim.
B. 119 pp. 489-519 (2004)
[19] Bozza, V., De Luca, F. & Scarpetta, G. Kerr black hole lensing for generic observers in the
strong deflection limit. Phys. Rev. D. 74 pp. 063001 (2006)
[20] Oppenheimer, J. & Snyder, H. On Continued gravitational contraction. Phys. Rev.. 56 pp.
455-459 (1939)
[21] Penrose, R. Gravitational collapse and space-time singularities. Phys. Rev. Lett.. 14 pp. 57-59
(1965)

20
[22] Bardeen, J. Non-Singular General-Relativistic Gravitational Collapse. Proc. Int. Conf. GR5,
Tbilisi. 174 (1968)
[23] Ansoldi, S. Spherical black holes with regular center: A Review of existing models including a
recent realization with Gaussian sources. Conference On Black Holes And Naked Singularities.
(2008,2)
[24] Eiroa, E. & Sendra, C. Gravitational lensing by a regular black hole. Class. Quant. Grav.. 28
pp. 085008 (2011)
[25] Wei, S., Liu, Y. & Fu, C. Null Geodesics and Gravitational Lensing in a Nonsingular Space-
time. Adv. High Energy Phys.. 2015 pp. 454217 (2015)
[26] Ayon-Beato, E. & Garcia, A. Regular black hole in general relativity coupled to nonlinear
electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. Lett.. 80 pp. 5056-5059 (1998)
[27] Ayón-Beato, E. & Garcı́a, A. The Bardeen Model as a Nonlinear Magnetic Monopole. Physics
Letters B. 493, 149-152 (2000,11)
[28] Novello, M., De Lorenci, V., Salim, J. & Klippert, R. Geometrical aspects of light propagation
in nonlinear electrodynamics. Phys. Rev. D. 61 pp. 045001 (2000)
[29] Ghaffarnejad, H., Amirmojahedi, M. & Niad, H. Gravitational Lensing of Charged Ayon-
Beato-Garcia Black Holes and Nonlinear Effects of Maxwell Fields. Advances In High Energy
Physics. 2018 pp. 1-18 (2018)
[30] Weinberg, S. Gravitation and Cosmology: Principles and Applications of the General Theory
of Relativity. (John Wiley,1972)
[31] Bozza, V. A Comparison of approximate gravitational lens equations and a proposal for an
improved new one. Phys. Rev. D. 78 pp. 103005 (2008)
[32] Bambi, C. Can the supermassive objects at the centers of galaxies be traversable wormholes?
The first test of strong gravity for mm/sub-mm VLBI facilities. Physical Review D. 87, 107501
(2013,5), http://arxiv.org/abs/1304.5691, arXiv: 1304.5691
[33] Abuter, R., Amorim, A., Bauboeck, M., Berger, J., Bonnet, H., Brandner, W., Clenet, Y.,
Foresto, V., De Zeeuw, P., Dexter, J., Duvert, G., Eckart, A., Eisenhauer, F., Schreiber, N.,
Garcia, P., Gao, F., Gendron, E., Genzel, R., Gerhard, O., Gillessen, S., Habibi, M., Haubois,
X., Henning, T., Hippler, S., Horrobin, M., Jimenez-Rosales, A., Jocou, L., Kervella, P.,
Lacour, S., Lapeyrere, V., Bouquin, J., Lena, P., Ott, T., Paumard, T., Perraut, K., Perrin,
G., Pfuhl, O., Rabien, S., Coira, G., Rousset, G., Scheithauer, S., Sternberg, A., Straub,

21
 O., Straubmeier, C., Sturm, E., Tacconi, L., Vincent, F., Von Fellenberg, S., Waisberg, I.,
Widmann, F., Wieprecht, E., Wiezorrek, E., Woillez, J. & Yazici, S. A Geometric Distance
Measurement to the Galactic Center Black Hole with 0.3
[34] Stuchlı́k, Z. & Schee, J. Shadow of the regular Bardeen black holes and comparison of
the motion of photons and neutrinos. The European Physical Journal C. 79, 44 (2019,1),
http://link.springer.com/10.1140/epjc/s10052-019-6543-8
[35] Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. & Tsupko, O. Gravitational Lensing in presence of Plasma:
Strong Lens Systems, Black Hole Lensing and Shadow. Universe. 3, 57 (2017,7),
http://arxiv.org/abs/1905.06615, arXiv: 1905.06615
[36] Lu, H. & Lyu, H. On the Size of a Black Hole: The Schwarzschild is the Biggest. Physical
Review D. 101, 044059 (2020,2), http://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02019, arXiv:1911.02019 [gr-qc,
physics:hep-th]
[37] Melia, F. & Falcke, H. The supermassive black hole at the galactic center. Ann. Rev. Astron.
Astrophys.. 39 pp. 309-352 (2001)
[38] EinsteinPy Development Team EinsteinPy: Python library for General Relativity. (2021),
https:/einsteinpy.org/
[39] Bozza, V. Gravitational Lensing in the Strong Field Limit. Phys. Rev. D. 66, 103001 (2002,11)
[40] Kruglov, S. The Shadow of M87* Black Hole within Rational Nonlinear Electrodynamics.
Mod. Phys. Lett. A. 35, 2050291 (2020,11)

22