Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                

Does the gravitomagnetic monopole exist? A clue from a black hole x-ray binary

Chandrachur Chakraborty and Sudip Bhattacharyya
Phys. Rev. D 98, 043021 – Published 28 August 2018
PDFHTMLExport Citation
Abstract
Authors
Article Text
  • INTRODUCTION
  • MATERIALS AND METHODS
  • FUNDAMENTAL FREQUENCIES IN KERR-TAUB-NUT…
  • EXPLORING THE POSSIBILITY OF A NONZERO…
  • OTHER PROBABLE SOLUTIONS WITH A NONZERO…
  • CONCLUSION AND DISCUSSION
  • ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
  • APPENDICES
    • References

    Abstract

    The gravitomagnetic monopole is the proposed gravitational analogue of Dirac’s magnetic monopole. However, an observational evidence of this aspect of fundamental physics was elusive. Here, we employ a technique involving three primary X-ray observational methods used to measure a black hole spin to search for the gravitomagnetic monopole. These independent methods give significantly different spin values for an accreting black hole. We demonstrate that the inclusion of one extra parameter due to the gravitomagnetic monopole not only makes the spin and other parameter values inferred from the three methods consistent with each other but also makes the inferred black hole mass consistent with an independently measured value. We argue that this first indication of the gravitomagnetic monopole, within our paradigm, is not a result of fine tuning.

    • Figure
    • Figure
    • Figure
    • Received 21 August 2017
    • Revised 24 May 2018

    DOI:https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.98.043021

    © 2018 American Physical Society

    Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

    1. Research Areas
    General relativityX ray astronomy
    1. Physical Systems
    Accretion disk & black-hole plasmaClassical black holes
    Gravitation, Cosmology & Astrophysics

    Authors & Affiliations

    Chandrachur Chakraborty*

    • Kavli Insttute for Astronomy and Astrophysics, Peking University, Beijing 100871, China

    Sudip Bhattacharyya†

    • Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics, Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, Mumbai 400005, India

    • *chandra@pku.edu.cn
    • †sudip@tifr.res.in

    Article Text (Subscription Required)

    Click to Expand

    References (Subscription Required)

    Click to Expand
    Issue

    Vol. 98, Iss. 4 — 15 August 2018

    Reuse & Permissions
    Access Options
    Author publication services for translation and copyediting assistance advertisement

    Authorization Required

    Log In
    Other Options
    ×

    Images

    • Figure 1
      Figure 1

      NUT parameter (n/M) versus the spin parameter (a/M) space, which is divided into a black hole region and a naked singularity region (see text) by the black dashed line. The n/M versus a/M constraints for GRO J1655–40 are given by (1) the green dotted curve (using only the RPM timing method), (2) the red dotted curve (using the RPM timing and line spectrum methods), and (3) the blue solid curve (using the RPM timing and continuum spectrum methods). A zoomed-in version of the latter two is shown in the inset for clarity. This figure shows that there is a range of n/M and a/M values for GRO J1655–40 allowed by all three methods.

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 2
      Figure 2

      LT precession frequency (dotted line), periastron precession frequency (dashed line), and orbital frequency (dot-dashed line) as a function of the distance (r) around a KTN collapsed object as predicted by the RPM. The lines are drawn for M=6.83  M⊙, a=2.12M, and n=1.86M. The observed QPO frequencies (red, black, and green points in the plot) are from Table 1 of Motta et al. [21]. This plot may be compared with Fig. 5 of Motta et al. [21] (see Sec. 5).

      Reuse & Permissions
    • Figure 3
      Figure 3

      NUT parameter (n/M) versus the spin parameter (a/M) space, which is divided into a black hole region and a naked singularity region by the black dashed line. The n/M versus a/M constraints for GRO J1655–40 are given by (1) the green dotted curve (using only the RPM timing method), (2) the red dotted curve (using the RPM timing and line spectrum methods), and (3) the blue solid curve (using the RPM timing and continuum spectrum methods). A zoomed-in version of the latter two is shown in the inset for clarity. This figure (for the second set of the parameter values; see Sec. 5) shows that there is no range of n/M and a/M values for GRO J1655–40 allowed by all three methods, unlike Fig. 1.

      Reuse & Permissions
    ×

    Sign up to receive regular email alerts from Physical Review D

    Log In

    Cancel
    ×

    Search

    Article Lookup

    Paste a citation or DOI
    Enter a citation
    ×