Paper detail

Probing the space-time geometry around black hole candidates with the resonance models for high-frequency QPOs and comparison with the continuum-fitting method

Astrophysical black hole candidates are thought to be the Kerr black hole predicted by General Relativity. In order to confirm the Kerr-nature of these objects, we need to probe the geometry of the space-time around them and see if the observations are consistent with the predictions of the Kerr metric. That can be achieved, for instance, by studying the properties of the electromagnetic radiation emitted by the gas in the accretion disk. The high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations observed in the X-ray flux of some stellar-mass black hole candidates might do the job. As the frequencies of these oscillations depend only very weakly on the observed X-ray flux, it is thought they are mainly determined by the metric of the space-time. In this paper, I consider the resonance models proposed by Abramowicz and Kluzniak and I extend previous results to the case of non-Kerr space-times. The emerging picture is more complicated than the one around a Kerr black hole and there is a larger number of possible combinations between different modes. I then compare the bounds inferred from the twin peak high-frequency quasi-periodic oscillations observed in three micro-quasars (GRO J1655-40, XTE J1550-564, and GRS 1915+105) with the measurements from the continuum-fitting method of the same objects. For Kerr black holes, the two approaches do not provide consistent results. In a non-Kerr geometry, this conflict may be solved if the observed quasi-periodic oscillations are produced by the resonance $ν_θ: ν_r = 3:1$, where $ν_θ$ and $ν_r$ are the two epicyclic frequencies. It is at least worth mentioning that the deformation from the Kerr solution required by observations would be consistent with the one suggested in another recent work discussing the possibility that steady jets are powered by the spin of these compact objects.

preprint2012arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access1 author2 topics

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this map preview

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.