4.4 Article

EHT Constraint on the Ultralight Scalar Hair of the M87 Supermassive Black Hole

期刊

UNIVERSE
卷 5, 期 12, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/universe5120220

关键词

ultralight particles; black hole shadow; event horizon telescope

资金

  1. FCT-IDPASC Portugal Ph.D. program [PD/BD/114071/2015]
  2. Fundacao para a Ciencia e a Tecnologia (FCT) [UID/MAT/04106/2019]
  3. CENTRA (FCT) [UID/FIS/00099/2013]
  4. national funds (OE), through FCT
  5. European Union [StronGrHEP-690904, FunFiCO-777740]
  6. COST Action [CA16104]
  7. [PTDC/FIS-OUT/28407/2017]
  8. Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia [PTDC/FIS-OUT/28407/2017, UID/FIS/00099/2013] Funding Source: FCT

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hypothetical ultralight bosonic fields will spontaneously form macroscopic bosonic halos around Kerr black holes, via superradiance, transferring part of the mass and angular momentum of the black hole into the halo. Such a process, however, is only efficient if resonant-when the Compton wavelength of the field approximately matches the gravitational scale of the black hole. For a complex-valued field, the process can form a stationary, bosonic field black hole equilibrium state-a black hole with synchronised hair. For sufficiently massive black holes, such as the one at the centre of the M87 supergiant elliptic galaxy, the hairy black hole can be robust against its own superradiant instabilities, within a Hubble time. Studying the shadows of such scalar hairy black holes, we constrain the amount of hair which is compatible with the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) observations of the M87 supermassive black hole, assuming the hair is a condensate of ultralight scalar particles of mass mu similar to 10-20 eV, as to be dynamically viable. We show the EHT observations set a weak constraint, in the sense that typical hairy black holes that could develop their hair dynamically, are compatible with the observations, when taking into account the EHT error bars and the black hole mass/distance uncertainty.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据