4.7 Article

Observational signatures of near-extremal Kerr-like black holes in a modified gravity theory at the Event Horizon Telescope

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 98, 期 8, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.084063

关键词

-

资金

  1. NSFC [11775022, 11375026]
  2. Government of Canada through the Department of Innovation, Science and Economic Development
  3. Province of Ontario through the Ministry of Research, Innovation and Science
  4. project Towards a deeper understanding of black holes with nonrelativistic holography of the Independent Research Fund Denmark [DFF-6108-00340]
  5. Theoretical Particle Physics and Cosmology section at the Niels Bohr Institute
  6. China Scholarship Council

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We study the shadows cast by near-extremal Kerr-modified gravity (MOG) black holes for different values of the parameter in modified gravity. In particular, we consider an isotropic emitter orbiting near such black holes and analytically compute the positions, fluxes and redshift factors of their images. The size of the shadow decreases when the modified parameter is increased. For each shadow, the images of the emitter appear on a special part of the shadow which has a rich structure. The primary image and secondary images are similar to those produced for the near-extremal (high-spin) Kerr black hole, but the near-extremal Kerr-MOG black hole can have a spin ((J) over cap /M-alpha(2) ) which is finitely lower than 1. When the modified parameter is varied, the typical positions of the corresponding images do not change, nor does the typical redshift factor associated with the primary image. However, another typical redshift factor associated with the secondary image increases when the modified parameter is increased. We also find that the fluxes increase in that case. These images appear periodically with periods greater than that of Kerr. This provides an alternative signature away from the Kerr case which may be tested by the Event Horizon Telescope.

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

4.7
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