AG-2024.09-165·gr-qc·cross-listed: astro-ph.GAhep-th
Testing EGB gravity coupled to bumblebee field and black hole parameter estimation with EHT observations
Authors
- Misba Afrin
- Sushant G. Ghosh
- Anzhong Wang
Abstract
A general covariant Einstein-Gauss-Bonnet Gravity in Four-Dimensional (4D EGB) spacetime is shown to bypass Lovelock's theorem and is free from Ostrogradsky instability. Meanwhile, the bumblebee theory is a vector-tensor theory. It extends the Einstein--Maxwell theory that allows for the spontaneous symmetry breaking that leads to the field acquiring a vacuum expectation value, introducing Lorentz violation into the system. We investigate rotating black holes in the 4D EGB-bumblebee gravity model where Lorentz symmetry is spontaneously broken -- Kerr EGB bumblebee (KEGBB) black holes. The latest observations from the Event Horizon Telescope (EHT) of the supermassive black holes (SMBHs) M87* and Sgr A* have sparked intensified interest in the study of black hole shadows, which present a novel avenue for investigating SMBHs within the strong-field regime. Motivated by this, we model SMBHs M87* and Sgr A* as KEGBB black holes, and using the EHT observation result, for given $l$, to find earlier upper limits on the $α$ and $a$ are altered. The KEGBB and Kerr black holes are indiscernible in some parameter space, and one cannot rule out the possibility that the former may serve as strong candidates for astrophysical black holes. Employing our newly developed parameter estimation technique, we use two EHT observables -- namely, the angular diameter of the shadow, $d_{sh}$, and the axial ratio, $\mathcal{D}_A$ -- to estimate parameters of M87* and Sgr A* taking into account observational errors associated with the EHT results.
Submitted
10 September 20241 year ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2409.06218
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.