Paper detail

Testing Rotating Regular Metrics as Candidates for Astrophysical Black Holes

The Event Horizon Telescope, a global submillimeter wavelength very long baseline interferometry array, produced the first image of supermassive black hole M87* showing a ring of diameter $θ_d= 42\pm 3\,μ$as, inferred a black hole mass of $M=(6.5 \pm 0.7) \times 10^9 M_\odot $ and allowed us to investigate the nature of strong-field gravity. The observed image is consistent with the shadow of a Kerr black hole, which according to the Kerr hypothesis describes the background spacetimes of all astrophysical black holes. The hypothesis, a strong-field prediction of general relativity, may be violated in the modified theories of gravity that admit non-Kerr black holes. Here, we use the black hole shadow to investigate the constraints when rotating regular black holes (non-Kerr) can be considered as astrophysical black hole candidates, paying attention to three leading regular black hole models with additional parameters $g$ related to nonlinear electrodynamics charge. Our interesting results based on the systematic bias analysis are that rotating regular black holes shadows may or may not capture Kerr black hole shadows, depending on the values of the parameter $g$. Indeed, the shadows of Bardeen black holes ($g\lesssim 0.26 M$), Hayward black holes ($g\lesssim 0.65 M$), and non-singular black holes ($g\lesssim 0.25 M$) are indistinguishable from Kerr black hole shadows within the current observational uncertainties, and thereby they can be strong viable candidates for the astrophysical black holes. Whereas Bardeen black holes ( $g\leq 0.30182M$), Hayward black holes ($g\leq 0.73627M$), and non-singular black holes ($g\leq 0.30461M$), within the $1σ$ region for $θ_d= 39\, μ$as, are consistent with the observed angular diameter of M87*.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

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 graph slice

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.