Eur. Phys. J.

C (2016) 76:534
DOI 10.1140/epjc/s10052-016-4387-z

Regular Article - Theoretical Physics

Blandford–Znajek mechanism in black holes in alternative

theories of gravity
Guancheng Pei1, Sourabh Nampalliwar1, Cosimo Bambi1,2,a , Matthew J. Middleton3
1 Center for Field Theory and Particle Physics and Department of Physics, Fudan University, Shanghai 200433, China
2 Theoretical Astrophysics, Eberhard-Karls Universität Tübingen, 72076 Tübingen, Germany
3 Institute of Astronomy, University of Cambridge, Madingley Road, Cambridge CB3 0HA, UK

Received: 16 June 2016 / Accepted: 19 September 2016 / Published online: 29 September 2016
© The Author(s) 2016. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com

Abstract According to the Blandford–Znajek mechanism, consensus on such a correlation, mainly because it is diffi-
black hole jets are powered by the rotational energy of the cult to estimate the jet power, the uncertainty is large, and
compact object. In this work, we consider the possibility currently there are just a few measurements. In Refs. [4,5],
that the metric around black holes may not be described the authors consider both steady and transient jets and spin
by the Kerr solution and we study how this changes the measurements from the iron line and the continuum-fitting
Blandford–Znajek model. If the Blandford–Znajek mecha- methods; see Ref. [6] for a review. Their plots do not show
nism is responsible for the formation of jets, the estimate of any correlation between jet power and black hole spin. The
the jet power in combination with another measurement can authors of Ref. [7] find instead a correlation between the esti-
test the nature of black hole candidates and constrain possi- mate of the power of transient jets and the black hole spin
ble deviations from the Kerr solution. However, this approach measurements (from the continuum-fitting method) in only
might become competitive with respect to other techniques those sources which meet the selection criterion of reaching
only when it will be possible to have measurements much their Eddington limit. The issue will presumably be solved
more precise than those available today. when more data will be available [8,9].
Since the rotational energy of a black hole depends on
the metric of the spacetime, the BZ mechanism can poten-
1 Introduction tially test the nature of black hole candidates [10,11]. Here
we want to explore whether this technique can compete with
Accretion disks around black holes are an ubiquitous feature other approaches discussed in the literature to test the Kerr
in the Universe. Relativistic jets and outflows are a common paradigm [12–21], or what level of precision in the measure-
phenomenon associated with such accreting objects. These ments is required for this technique to be applicable. In the
jets may carry a large fraction of the accreting energy. In present work, we start with the BZ mechanism as our model
the case of black hole binaries, we observe two kinds of for the formation of transient jets in black hole binaries and
jets [1]. Steady jets commonly appear when the source is in we study this model in other spacetimes. We also compare the
the hard state, over a wide range of accretion luminosities. jet power with the spin measurements from the continuum-
Transient jets show up when the source switches from the fitting method to investigate whether current observations
hard to the soft state at high accretion rates, but there is also can tell us something about the metric near black hole candi-
some evidence of transient jets when the source moves from dates. We find that current measurements are not yet precise
the soft to the hard state at low accretion rates before returning enough to test the Kerr metric although, as we discuss, future
to quiescence [2]. The mechanism for the formation of jets improvements may address this.
is currently unknown. An appealing model is the Blandford–
Znajek (BZ) mechanism [3], in which jets are powered by
the rotational energy of the compact object. 2 Blandford–Znajek mechanism in the Kerr metric
Possibilities of a correlation between jet power and black
hole spin have been explored in the literature but there is no In the original BZ model, we have a Kerr black hole sur-
rounded by a stationary, axisymmetric, force-free, magne-
a e-mail: [email protected] tised plasma [3,22,23]. In the force-free approximation, the

123
534 Page 2 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534

energy-momentum tensor is that of the electromagnetic field where = r 2 − 2Mr + a 2 . At the event horizon = 0 and
(that is, matter is ignored), Eq. (7) becomes
2
1 Ttr = 2 B r ωrH (ω − H ) sin2 θ, (8)
T μν = Tem
μν
= F μρ Fρν − g μν F σ τ Fσ τ , (1)
4 √
where rH = M + M 2 − a 2 is the radial coordinate of the
where Fμν = ∂μ Aν − ∂ν Aμ is the Faraday tensor and Aμ is event horizon and H = a/(2MrH ) is the angular velocity
the vector potential. The equations of motion are of the event horizon.
μν The evaluation of Eq. (5) requires a solution to Eq. (2) in
∇μ Tem = 0. (2)
order to find B r and ω. Unfortunately, this is non-trivial. The
Assuming the force-free condition, if Aμ is independent standard approach (see, e.g., [23,24]) is thus to find an exact
of the t and φ coordinates, the Faraday tensor is [22] solution of Eq. (2) for the Schwarzschild spacetime and then
⎛ ⎞ consider an expansion in a or H to find the rotating solution
0 −ωB θ ωB r 0 perturbatively.
√ ⎜ ωB θ 0 Bφ −B θ ⎟
Fμν = −g ⎜ ⎝ −ωB r −B φ 0
⎟, (3) We follow the expansion in H as performed by [24]. At
Br ⎠ the leading order in H , the BZ formula for the jet power can
0 Bθ −B r 0 be written as
where κ
PBZ = 2 2 + O( 4H ), (9)
16π B H
∂θ At ∂r At
ω=− =− (4) where κ is a numerical constant which depends on the mag-
∂θ A φ ∂r Aφ
netic field configuration (for instance, κ = 0.053 for a split
is the rotational frequency of the electromagnetic field, g is monopole geometry and 0.044 for a parabolic geometry) and
the determinant of the metric of the spacetime gμν , B i = F̃ it B is the magnetic flux threading the black hole horizon
is the magnetic field and F̃ μν is the dual of the Faraday tensor.  π
√
The total energy flux from the black hole is B = 2π |B r | −g dθ. (10)
0
 π
√ Including higher order terms, Eq. (9) becomes
PBZ = −2π dθ −g Ttr , (5)
0 κ
PBZ = 2 2H f ( 2H ) (11)
where Ttr is the radial component of the Poynting vector and 16π
the integral is evaluated at some surface r = const. Eq. (5) for some function
is independent of the choice of radial coordinate at which
the integration is performed and of the shape of the magnetic f( H)
2
= 1 + c1 2
H + c2 4
H + · · ·, (12)
field. where {ci } are certain numerical coefficients. Note that
Equation (5) is usually calculated in Kerr–Schild coordi- Eq. (9) is an expansion in H ; an expression based on an
nates, which are regular at the event horizon. With this choice, expansion in a performs worse. Moreover, the expression in
the line element of the Kerr metric reads Eq. (9) works quite well even when a∗ is quite close to 1 [24].
2Mr 2Mr Therefore, for the rest of the paper, we only consider PBZ up
ds 2 = − 1 − dt 2 + 1 + dr 2 + dθ 2 to 2H , neglecting terms O( 4H ).
2Ma 2 r sin2 θ
+ r 2 + a2 + sin2 θ dφ 2
3 Blandford–Znajek mechanism in the Johannsen
4Mr 4Mar sin2 θ metric
+ dt dr − dt dφ
2Mr We now consider the BZ mechanism in the Johannsen met-
− 2a 1 + sin2 θ dr dφ, (6)
ric [25] as a prototype of jets in alternative theories of grav-
ity. While there are many non-Kerr metrics, we adopt the
where = r 2 +a 2 cos2 θ and a = J/M is the specific angu- Johannsen one because: (i) it is an analytic metric without
lar momentum. In the following, we will also use the spin restrictions on the value of the spin parameter a∗ (analytic
parameter a∗ = a/M, which is dimensionless. The radial black hole solutions in alternative theories of gravity are typi-
component of the Poynting vector is cally known in the slow-rotation approximation), (ii) its black
a  2 holes have a regular exterior (no closed time-like curves or
sin θ + B r B φ ω sin2 θ,
2
Ttr = 2 B r ωr ω −
2Mr naked singularities), and (iii) the angular velocity of the event
(7) horizon is well defined.

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534 Page 3 of 12 534

In Boyer–Lindquist coordinates, the line element of the case. As α22 increases, H and PBZ increase. For α22 < 0,
Johannsen metric reads we have the opposite case, and we also see that PBZ is not
− a 2 A22 sin2 θ ˜ a monotonic function of the spin a∗ . For α22 = −2, the jet
ds 2 = −  2 dt 2 power goes to zero for a∗ ≈ 0.9.
r2 + a2 A1 − a2 A 2 sin2 θ The behaviour of PBZ can easily be understood in terms
 
2a r2 + a2 ˜ sin2 θ
A1 A2 − of the size of the ergoregion, which is the exterior region
−  2 dt dφ in which gtt > 0 and static observers (i.e. time-like and
r 2 + a 2 A1 − a 2 A2 sin2 θ
  null-like geodesics) are not allowed. The outer boundary of
r 2 + a 2 A21 − a 2 sin2 θ ˜ sin2 θ
2
the ergoregion is called the static limit and is defined by the
+  2 dφ 2 largest root of gtt = 0, namely
r 2 + a 2 A1 − a 2 A2 sin2 θ
2
˜ M2
+ dr 2 + ˜ dθ 2 , (13) − a 2 1 + α22 sin2 θ = 0. (21)
A5 r2
The bottom panel in Fig. 1 shows the plane (r sin θ, r cos θ )
where ˜ = + f and A1 , A2 , A5 and f are some functions
of the spacetime in units M = 1. We set a∗ = 0.9 and we plot-
that are introduced to describe possible deviations from the
ted the static limit of the Johannsen black holes with α22 = 0,
Kerr solution. The Kerr metric is recovered for A1 = A2 =
±1 and ±2. The event horizon is defined by = 0 and is
A5 = 1 and f = 0. In their simplest forms, these functions
shown by the grey line. For a∗ = 0.9, the radius of the event
are
horizon is rH = 1.4359 M. For α22 > 0 (< 0), the ergoregion
3
M expands (contracts) with respect to the Kerr case (red solid
A1 = 1 + α13 , (14)
r line) and thus the jet power increases (decreases). Rotating
M 2 Johannsen black holes have no ergoregion when the largest
A2 = 1 + α22 , (15) root of Eq. (21) is smaller than the larger root of the equation
r
2
= 0, namely when there is no static limit outside of the
M event horizon. For a∗ = 0.9 and α22 = −2, the radius of the
A5 = 1 + α52 , (16)
r static limit in the equatorial plane is rsl = 1.4368 M, and
M3 therefore the ergoregion is small but exists. The ergoregion
f = 3 , (17)
r completely disappears if a∗ ≥ 0.914. Without ergoregion,
where α13 , α22 , α52 and 3 are the “deformation parameters”. it is impossible to extract the rotational energy of the black
The position of the event horizon is given by hole. Our result is consistent, and complementary, with pre-
vious studies, in which it was shown that the existence of the
= r 2 − 2Mr + a 2 = 0, (18) ergoregion is the key-ingredient to make the BZ mechanism
work [26–28]. Here we see that the BZ mechanism cannot
and therefore it is the same as the Kerr metric for the same
work if the ergoregion does not exist, even if the black hole
M and a. The angular frequency of the event horizon is
is rotating. As we detect jets from black hole binary systems,
gtφ a A2 A2 invoking the extraction of energy from the BZ mechanism
H = − = = H .
Kerr
(19)
gφφ r =rH 2MrH A1 A1 automatically excludes such extreme deformation values.
If the non-vanishing deformation parameter is α13 and the
The simplest non-Kerr model in the Johannsen metric is
others are set to zero, we do not know the value of the mag-
one in which the only non-vanishing deformation parameter
netic field, but we can still say that PBZ must be proportional
is α22 , while the others are set to zero, i.e. α13 = α52 =
to the square of the angular velocity of the event horizon,
3 = 0. In this case, non-rotating black holes are described
neglecting terms O( 4H ), namely
by the Schwarzschild solution, independently of the value
of α22 . The solution of the non-rotating field is thus known. PBZ = k13 2
H + O( H)
4
(22)
Equation (9) then becomes  −2
M3 a2
2 = k13 1 + α13 + O( H ),
4
(23)
M2 rH3 4M 2 rH2
PBZ = Kerr
PBZ 1 + α22 + O( H ),
4
(20)
r2
where k13 = k13 (α13 ) is an unknown parameter. In order
where Kerr
PBZ is exactly the Kerr expression for the jet to determine k13 , we should find the magnetic field in the
power [25]. non-rotating limit for any non-vanishing α13 .
The top left panel in Fig. 1 shows PBZ as a function of The deformation parameters α52 and 3 do not enter the
a∗ for five different values of α22 assuming α13 = α52 = expression of H . If they do not vanish, they may only alter
3 = 0. The red solid line for α22 = 0 is the standard Kerr the constant of proportionality between PBZ and 2H . In such

123
534 Page 4 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534

Fig. 1 Top panels jet power (left panel) and Novikov–Thorne radiative are the Boyer–Lindquist coordinates and the axes are in units M = 1;
efficiency η = 1 − E ISCO (right panel) as a function of the spin param- each line describes the outer boundary of the ergoregion, i.e. the static
eter a∗ for Johannsen black holes with α22 = 0, ±1 and ±2. Bottom limit given by Eq. (21), and the grey solid line is for the event horizon.
panel shape of the ergoregion of Johannsen black holes with a∗ = 0.9 The other deformation parameters are always assumed to vanish
and α22 = 0, ±1, and ±2 in the plane (r sin θ, r cos θ), where r and θ

a case, the expression of the jet power reads, respectively, for in this regard). Presently, we can only test formulas like
non-vanishing α52 and 3 , Eq. (22).
In this section, we consider six black hole binaries
a2 for which we have both an estimate of the power of
PBZ = k52 + O( H ),
4
(24)
4M 2 rH2 their transient jets and a measurement of the black hole
a2 spin via the continuum-fitting method. We have the four
PBZ = k3 + O( H ).
4
(25) objects discussed in Ref. [7]: GRS1915+105, GROJ1655-40,
4M 2 rH2
XTEJ1550-564 and A0620-00. The fifth source is H1743-
As in Eq. (22), k52 = k52 (α52 ) and k3 = k3 (3 ) should 322, which is discussed in Ref. [8]. The sixth source is GRS
be calculated from the magnetic field solution in the non- 1124-683: the estimate of the jet power is reported in Ref. [8],
rotating spacetime. while the spin has been measured via the continuum-fitting
method only very recently in [29]. There would be a seventh
source, the microquasar in M31, but there is only an upper
4 Comparison with observations bound for the value of the spin and this is not useful for our
purpose [30].
Since jet power does depend on the metric of the space- For the estimate of the jet power, we follow the approach of
time near the horizon, it is natural to ask whether there are Ref. [7], which is determined from the monochromatic flux
some observational features in jet power related to the nature density at 5 GHz, corrected for the distance to the source,
of black holes. Unfortunately, jet power also depends on de-boosted for two assumed values of the bulk Lorentz fac-
the magnetic field strength which is not easy to unambigu- tor  = 2 and 5 [8] and divided by the black hole mass to
ously estimate (although polarimetric measures may assist remove any dependence. The values of the emitted flux den-

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534 Page 5 of 12 534

Table 1 Parameters of transient black hole binaries

BH Binary a∗ η M(M ) D(kpc) i◦ (Sν,0 )max,5GHz (Jy) References
+0.009
A0620-00 0.12 ± 0.19 0.061−0.007 6.61 ± 0.25 1.06 ± 0.12 51.0 ± 0.9 0.203 [36–38]
+0.017
H1743-322 0.2 ± 0.3 0.065−0.011 8.0 8.5 ± 0.8 75.0 ± 3.0 0.0346 [8]
+0.017
XTE J1550-564 0.34 ± 024 0.072−0.011 9.10 ± 0.61 4.38 ± 0.5 74.7 ± 3.8 0.265 [37,39,40]
+0.16 +0.025 +2.1 +0.69
GRS 1124-683 0.63−0.19 0.095−0.017 11.0−1.4 4.95−0.65 50.5 ± 6.5 0.45 [8,29]
+0.018
GRO J1655-40 0.7 ± 0.1 0.104−0.013 6.30 ± 0.27 3.2 ± 0.5 70.2 ± 1.9 2.42 [37,40–43]
+1.7 +2.0
GRS 1915+105 0.975, a∗ > 0.95 0.224, η > 0.190 12.4−1.9 8.6−1.6 60.0 ± 5.0 0.912 [37,44–47]

−1
Table 2 Jet power proxy values in units of kpc2 GHz Jy M works as follows. We take the spin measurement obtained
BH binaries  = 2, Pjet  = 5, Pjet
within the Kerr metric, we evaluate η via Eq. (26), we find
the spin parameter for which the Johannsen black hole under
A0620-00 0.13 1.6 consideration has the same value of η. η as a function of a∗
H1743-322 7.0 140 for different values of α22 is reported in the top right panel
XTE J1550-564 11 180 in Fig. 1.
GRS 1124-683 3.9 390 Let us note that η depends on gtt , gtφ and gφφ (see e.g.
GRO J1655-40 70 1600 Appendix B in Ref. [35]). The spin measurements via the
GRS 1915+105 42 660 continuum-fitting methods are thus altered by α13 , α22 and 3 .
In the following, we will not consider α52 any more, because
it affects neither the angular frequency at the event horizon
(at least if not in some extreme cases with the location of rH ,
sity, Sν,0 , are reported in Ref. [8], listed here in Table 1 and
when A5 vanishes before ) nor the ISCO radius and thus
the jet powers (as derived in [30]) are provided in Table 2 for
the spin measurement from the continuum-fitting technique.
convenience.
With this approach, we have reevaluated the nature of a
The measurement of the spin is a more subtle point,
putative correlation between jet power and spin in these six
because it depends on the choice of the spacetime [31]. In
black hole binaries assuming the Johannsen metric, with one
the literature, they are reported assuming the Kerr metric.
non-vanishing deformation parameter at a time. We have fit-
The correct approach would be to repeat the data analysis
ted the results with the formula
of these 6 sources for the Johannsen metric. A simpler way
would be to proceed as in Refs. [32,33] and perform a sim- PBZ = k H,
2
(27)
plified analysis assuming that the actual data are equal to
the theoretical spectrum of a Kerr black hole with the spin where we let k be a free parameter, to be determined by
equal to the value measured by the continuum-fitting method. minimizing the error function S defined below. Equation (27)
Such a simplified approach is possible because the shape of thus has two free parameters, namely k and the non-vanishing
the spectrum is eventually very simple, just a multi-color deformation parameter under investigation.
blackbody spectrum without specific features. However, the The fit has been done by evaluating the function
 
calculations require still quite a long time.  Pjet, j − PBZ, j (i, k) 2
Here, we adopt an even more simple approach. It relies S(i, k) =
σ P,
2
j
on the fact that the continuum-fitting method eventually j
measures something close to the radiative efficiency of the  2
H, j − H, j (i, k)
th

Novikov–Thorne model, i.e. + , (28)
j
σ2H,j
η = 1 − E ISCO , (26)
where i = α13 , α22 , or 3 and k is the constant of proportion-
where E ISCO is the specific energy of a test-particle at the ality in Eq. (27). Pjet, j is the observational value, PBZ, j (i, k)
radius of the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO). Such an is the theoretical prediction. The same distinction is for H, j
approximation works better when the ISCO radius is larger and th H, j (i, k). σ P, j and σ H , j are, respectively, the uncer-
and the inclination angle of the disk smaller, namely when tainties on the estimate of the jet power and of the spin.
relativistic effects are weaker, but it is not too bad even in j = 1, . . . , 6 is the index for the source.
the other cases (see e.g. the discussion in [32]) and it has Our results are shown in Figs. 2 and 3, respectively for
been repeatedly used in the past [10,11,34]. The rescaling the case  = 2 and  = 5. In both figures, the left panels

123
534 Page 6 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534

Fig. 2 Left panels S function of the six black hole binaries minimised (bottom panel). Right panels Fitting plot of the six black hole binaries
over k as a function of the deformation parameters assuming that all jets for the deformation parameters that minimise the S function: α13 = −2
are produced with  = 2: α13 (top panel), α22 (middle panel) and 3 (top panel), α22 = 1 (middle panel) and 3 = −1 (bottom panel)

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534 Page 7 of 12 534

Fig. 3 As in Fig. 2 but for  = 5. Here the deformation parameters that minimise the S function are: α13 = −0.99 (top panel), α22 = 2 (middle
panel) and 3 = −0.5 (bottom panel)

123
534 Page 8 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534

show S(i) minimised over k as a function of the deformation For the second additional source, we assume that the mea-
parameter: α13 (top panel), α22 (middle panel) and 3 (bot- surements of spin and jet power are
tom panel). The right panels show the data for the parameter
a∗ = 0.30 ± 0.03, (31)
where S achieves the minimum value. S is roughly the same 
as χ 2 , so Smin + S, where Smin is the minimum of S and 30 ± 3, =2
Pjet = . (32)
S = 2.30 and 4.61 correspond, respectively, to the 68 and 660 ± 66, =5
90 % confidence level for two degrees of freedom (we have k
and the deformation parameter). From the plots in Figs. 2 and Both the spin parameter a∗ and the jet power Pjet are mea-
3 we cannot put any meaningful constraint on the deforma- sured with a precision of 10 %. The new error functions are
tion parameters. This is not surprising since the uncertainties shown in the right panels in Fig. 4 ( = 2) and Fig. 5 ( = 5).
on the measurements are too large. Having in mind S = 2.30 and 4.61 for the 68 and 90 %
We investigated the possibility of constraining deviations confidence levels respectively, we find that much better con-
from the Kerr metric using the data presently available. We straints can be put on the deformation parameters. In the case
found that large uncertainties preclude such a possibility at of α13 and 3 , the addition of two fictitious sources (whose
present. We now take up the question of figuring out the measurements are chosen such that they are sitting on the line
level of accuracy needed to improve the constraints using for the best fit for the Kerr metric) moves the minimum of S to
this approach. We consider the impact on S of two hypo- the Kerr solution. This is what we should have expected. For
thetical sources, measured such that the uncertainties on jet α22 , we do not see a similar behaviour. We do not attribute
power and spin value (obtained using the Kerr metric assump- any particular physical meaning. It is possible that our choice
tion) are smaller for the hypothetical sources than for the real of the values for the additional sources is not perfect, or that
sources already considered. Note that we need at least two there is an intrinsic incompatibility among the existing mea-
such sources since S has two degrees of freedom. surements.
As the first additional source,1 we have considered the Last, we note that we have considered several simplifica-
following measurements of spin and jet power: tions in our analysis. They can be acceptable for an explo-
rative work like our study, but they have to be removed in a
a∗ = 0.90 ± 0.01, (29) more detailed analysis aiming at providing strong constraints

120 ± 12, =2 on possible deviations for the Kerr metric. In the BZ scenario,
Pjet = . (30) the jet power depends on both the angular velocity of the
2700 ± 270, =5
event horizon and the magnetic field strength. Following the
This would be a black hole with a moderately high spin argument in Ref. [7], we have not directly taken the magnetic
parameter. The spin measurement has an uncertainty a∗ = field strength into account, assuming that the power is pro-
0.01, to be compared with a∗ ≈ 0.05 of today. Such a portional to the black hole mass. The power extracted from
level of precision is possible, but it would require much bet- every black hole has been evaluated from the radio emission,
ter measurements of the black hole mass, black hole distance neglecting the jet radiative efficiency. This is equivalent to
and inclination angle of the disk with respect to our line of the assumption that the radio emission power is the same
sight. This will be possible with better optical observations fixed fraction of the total power for all the sources. There
and more robust models to use in the fits of the curve luminos- are large uncertainties on the magnetic field strengths and on
ity of the companion star. The estimate of the jet power has the radiative efficiencies, but there have been some progress
an uncertainty of 10 %, to be compared with an uncertainty recently (see, e.g., Ref. [48]).
of 50 % assumed (uncertainties on jet power are difficult to
estimate) in the previous cases. With the six real sources and
one additional fictitious source with the measurements in 5 Summary and conclusions
Eq. (29), the plots in the left panels in Figs. 2 and 3 become,
respectively, the plots in the left panels in Figs. 4 and 5. There In the BZ model, black hole jets are powered by the rota-
is not a significant improvement, and it could not be other- tional energy of the compact object. In the present paper,
wise, because there are two parameters to fit, the deformation we have studied how the BZ model may change in the case
parameter and k. of black holes in alternative theories of gravity. As a proto-
type, we have considered the Johannsen metric, but a similar
1 These hypothetical measurements, as well as those in Eqs. (31) and analysis could be repeated for other non-Kerr black holes.
(32), are chosen (quite arbitrarily) such that they are sitting on the line Depending on the non-vanishing deformation parameter in
for the best fit for the Kerr metric. These hypothetical measurements are
only used to get an idea of the necessary precision in the measurement
the Johannsen metric, the jet power may or may not be dif-
of the spin and the jet power to constrain the deformation parameters, ferent with respect to that of a Kerr black hole with the same
while the values of the parameters in the best fits are not important. mass and spin. We have also found that some rotating black

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534 Page 9 of 12 534

Fig. 4 Left panels S function of the six black hole binaries and one tion of the six black hole binaries and two fictitious sources minimised
fictitious source minimised over k as a function of the deformation over k as a function of the deformation parameters assuming that all
parameters assuming that all jets are produced with  = 2 : α13 (top jets are produced with  = 2 : α13 (top panel), α22 (middle panel) and
panel), α22 (middle panel) and 3 (bottom panel). Right panels S func- 3 (bottom panel)

123
534 Page 10 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534

Fig. 5 As in Fig. 4 but for  = 5

123
Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534 Page 11 of 12 534

holes may not generate any jet because, despite the non- 7. R. Narayan, J.E. McClintock, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 419,
vanishing spin angular momentum, they have no ergoregion. L69 (2012). arXiv:1112.0569 [astro-ph.HE]
8. J.F. Steiner, J.E. McClintock, R. Narayan, Astrophys. J. 762, 104
If the BZ mechanism is responsible for the formation of (2013). arXiv:1211.5379 [astro-ph.HE]
transient jets in black hole binaries, as suggested in Ref. [7], 9. J.E. McClintock, R. Narayan, J.F. Steiner, Sp. Sci. Rev. 183, 295
the measurement of the jet power may be used to probe the (2014). arXiv:1303.1583 [astro-ph.HE]
geometry of the spacetime and test the nature of the black 10. C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 85, 043002 (2012). arXiv:1201.1638 [gr-
qc]
hole. If the estimate of the jet power is combined with inde- 11. C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 86, 123013 (2012). arXiv:1204.6395 [gr-
pendent measurements of the black hole spins, it is poten- qc]
tially possible to constrain the deformation parameters. We 12. C. Bambi. arXiv:1509.03884 [gr-qc]
have explored such a possibility by considering the present 13. C. Bambi, J. Jiang, J.F. Steiner, Class. Quantum Gravity 33, 064001
(2016). arXiv:1511.07587 [gr-qc]
measurements of the jet powers and of the spins via the
14. T. Johannsen, Class. Quantum Gravity 33, 113001 (2016).
continuum-fitting method for the six sources for which both arXiv:1512.03818 [astro-ph.GA]
measurements are available. Current data cannot yet place 15. K. Yagi, L.C. Stein, Class. Quantum Gravity 33, 054001 (2016).
any interesting constraints and such an approach cannot cur- arXiv:1602.02413 [gr-qc]
16. C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 87, 023007 (2013). arXiv:1211.2513 [gr-
rently compete with other techniques that test the Kerr met- qc]
ric with electromagnetic radiation. The point is that current 17. C. Bambi, JCAP 1308, 055 (2013). arXiv:1305.5409 [gr-qc]
uncertainties in the estimate of the jet power are very large. 18. Z. Li, C. Bambi, JCAP 1401, 041 (2014). arXiv:1309.1606 [gr-qc]
However, in the presence of much more precise measure- 19. J. Jiang, C. Bambi, J.F. Steiner, JCAP 1505, 025 (2015).
arXiv:1406.5677 [gr-qc]
ments, which might be possible in the future, this approach 20. C. Bambi, D. Malafarina, Phys. Rev. D 88, 064022 (2013).
might be useful at least to constrain those kind of deforma- arXiv:1307.2106 [gr-qc]
tions from the Kerr geometry that more significantly affect 21. J. Jiang, C. Bambi, J.F. Steiner. arXiv:1601.00838 [gr-qc]
the angular momentum of the event horizon and might not 22. J.C. McKinney, C.F. Gammie, Astrophys. J. 611, 977 (2004).
arXiv:astro-ph/0404512
significantly affect the properties of the radiation emitted 23. K. Tanabe, S. Nagataki, Phys. Rev. D 78, 024004 (2008).
from the accretion disk. arXiv:0802.0908 [astro-ph]
24. A. Tchekhovskoy, R. Narayan, J.C. McKinney, Astrophys. J. 711,
Acknowledgments CB, SN and GP were supported by the NSFC 50 (2010). arXiv:0911.2228 [astro-ph.HE]
(Grants 11305038 and U1531117) and the Thousand Young Talents 25. T. Johannsen, Phys. Rev. D 88, 044002 (2013). arXiv:1501.02809
Program. CB also acknowledges support from the Alexander von Hum- [gr-qc]
boldt Foundation. MJM appreciates support from an Ernest Rutherford 26. S.S. Komissarov, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 350, 407 (2004).
STFC fellowship. arXiv:astro-ph/0402403
27. M. Ruiz, C. Palenzuela, F. Galeazzi, C. Bona, Mon. Not. Roy.
Open Access This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Astron. Soc. 423, 1300 (2012). arXiv:1203.4125 [gr-qc]
Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecomm 28. K. Toma, F. Takahara, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 442, 2855
ons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, (2014). arXiv:1405.7437 [astro-ph.HE]
and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit 29. Z. Chen, L. Gou, J.E. McClintock, J.F. Steiner, J.Wu, W. Xu, J.
to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Orosz, Y. Xiang. arXiv:1601.00615 [astro-ph.HE]
Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. 30. M. Middleton, J. Miller-Jones, R. Fender, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron.
Funded by SCOAP3 . Soc. 439, 1740 (2014). arXiv:1401.1829 [astro-ph.HE]
31. C. Bambi, Astrophys. J. 761, 174 (2012). arXiv:1210.5679 [gr-qc]
32. L. Kong, Z. Li, C. Bambi, Astrophys. J. 797, 78 (2014).
References arXiv:1405.1508 [gr-qc]
33. C. Bambi, Phys. Rev. D 90, 047503 (2014). arXiv:1408.0690 [gr-
1. R.P. Fender, T.M. Belloni, E. Gallo, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. qc]
355, 1105 (2004). arXiv:astro-ph/0409360 34. C. Bambi, JCAP 1209, 014 (2012). arXiv:1205.6348 [gr-qc]
2. T.M. Belloni, S.E. Motta, Transient black hole binaries, in Astro- 35. C. Bambi, E. Barausse, Astrophys. J. 731, 121 (2011).
physics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Lat- arXiv:1012.2007 [gr-qc]
est Developments, ed. by C. Bambi (Springer, Berlin, 2016). 36. L. Gou, J.E. McClintock, J. Liu, R. Narayan, J.F. Steiner, R.A.
arXiv:1603.07872 [astro-ph.HE] Remillard, J.A. Orosz, S.W. Davis, Astrophys. J. 701, 1076 (2009).
3. R.D. Blandford, R.L. Znajek, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 179, arXiv:0901.0920 [astro-ph.HE]
433 (1977) 37. F. Ozel, D. Psaltis, R. Narayan, J.E. McClintock, Astrophys. J. 725,
4. R. Fender, E. Gallo, D. Russell, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 406, 1918 (2010). arXiv:1006.2834 [astro-ph.GA]
1425 (2010). arXiv:1003.5516 [astro-ph.HE] 38. E. Kuulkers, R.P. Fender, R.E. Spencer, R.J. Davis, I.
5. D.M. Russell, E. Gallo, R.P. Fender, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. Morison, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 306, 919 (1999).
431, 405 (2013). arXiv:1301.6771 [astro-ph.HE] arXiv:astro-ph/9902360
6. M. Middleton, Black hole spin: theory and observation, in Astro- 39. J.F. Steiner et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 416, 941 (2011).
physics of Black Holes: From Fundamental Aspects to Lat- arXiv:1010.1013 [astro-ph.HE]
est Developments, ed. by C. Bambi (Springer, Berlin, 2016). 40. D.C. Hannikainen et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 397, 569
arXiv:1507.06153 [astro-ph.HE] (2009). arXiv:0904.4849 [astro-ph.HE]

123
534 Page 12 of 12 Eur. Phys. J. C (2016) 76:534

41. R. Shafee, J.E. McClintock, R. Narayan, S.W. Davis, 46. R.P. Fender, S.T. Garrington, D.J. McKay, T.W.B. Muxlow, G.G.
L.X. Li, R.A. Remillard, Astrophys. J. 636, L113 (2006). Pooley, R.E. Spencer, A.M. Stirling, E.B. Waltman, Mon. Not. Roy.
arXiv:astro-ph/0508302 Astron. Soc. 304, 865 (1999). arXiv:astro-ph/9812150
42. S.W. Davis, C. Done, O.M. Blaes, Astrophys. J. 647, 525 (2006). 47. M.J. Reid, J.E. McClintock, J.F. Steiner, D. Steeghs, R.A. Remil-
arXiv:astro-ph/0602245 lard, V. Dhawan, R. Narayan, ApJ. 796, 2 (2014). arXiv:1409.2453
43. R.M. Hjellming, M.P. Rupen, Nature 375, 464 (1995) [astro-ph.GA]
44. J.E. McClintock, R. Shafee, R. Narayan, R.A. Remil- 48. M. Kino, F. Takahara, K. Hada, K. Akiyama, H. Nagai, B.W. Sohn,
lard, S.W. Davis, L.X. Li, Astrophys. J. 652, 518 (2006). Astrophys. J. 803, 30 (2015). arXiv:1502.03900 [astro-ph.HE]
arXiv:astro-ph/0606076
45. L.F. Rodriguez, E. Gerard, I.F. Mirabel, Y. Gomez, A. Velazquez,
Astrophys. J. Suppl. 101, 173 (1995)

123