4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

Advection-dorninated accretion and the black hole event horizon

Journal

NEW ASTRONOMY REVIEWS
Volume 51, Issue 10-12, Pages 733-751

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCI LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.newar.2008.03.002

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

As the luminosity of an accreting black hole drops to a few percent of Eddington, the spectrum switches from the familiar soft state to a hard state that is well-described by a distended and tenuous advection-dominated accretion flow (ADAF). An ADAF is a poor radiator, and the ion temperature can approach 10(12) K near the center, although the electrons are cooler, with their temperature typically capped at similar to 10(9-11) K. The foundational papers predicted that the large thermal energy in an ADAF would drive strong winds and jets, as later observed and also confirmed in computer simulations. Of chief interest, however, is the accreting gas that races inward. It carries the bulk of the accretion energy as stored thermal energy, which vanishes without a trace as the gas passes through the hole's event horizon. One thus expects black holes in the ADAF regime to be unusually faint. Indeed, this is confirmed by a comparison of accreting stellar-mass black holes and neutron stars, which reside in very similar transient X-ray binary systems. The black holes are on average observed to be fainter by a factor of similar to 100-1000. The natural explanation is that a neutron star must radiate the advected thermal energy from its surface, whereas a black hole can hide the energy behind its event horizon. The case for an event horizon in Sagittarius A*, which is immune to caveats on jet outflows and is furthermore independent of the ADAF model, is especially compelling. These two lilies of evidence for event horizons are impervious to counterarguments that invoke strong gravity or exotic stars. (C) 2008 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available