pith. sign in

arxiv: 2606.08910 · v1 · pith:YBBA5X6Vnew · submitted 2026-06-08 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · gr-qc

Relativistic Thermal Emission from Accretion Disks in Kerr-MOG Spacetimes

Cheng Liu , Xu-fan Hu , Yosuke Mizuno , Tao Zhu This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-06-27 15:56 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE gr-qc
keywords black holesaccretion disksMOG gravityKerr-MOG metricthermal emissionX-ray spectraISCOfifth force
0
0 comments X

The pith

The fifth-force charge in Kerr-MOG black holes pushes the ISCO outward, lowers peak disk temperature, and softens the thermal continuum relative to Kerr at the same spin.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The paper investigates the imprint of the massive vector field in Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity on the thermal emission from thin accretion disks around rotating black holes. It re-derives the ISCO location, Novikov-Thorne radiative flux, energy shifts, and null geodesics in the Kerr-MOG metric and uses these to compute relativistic disk spectra for varying spins, inclinations, and fifth-force strengths. The calculations show that nonzero α moves the ISCO to larger radii, reduces maximum temperatures, and produces softer observed spectra, with the difference growing at high observer inclinations. This spectral change closely resembles the effect of lowering the spin parameter in pure Kerr models. The authors implement the results in an XSPEC model and apply it to XMM-Newton data on LMC X-1 to obtain an upper limit on α.

Core claim

In the Kerr-MOG spacetime the repulsive fifth force generated by the vector field shifts the ISCO to larger radii, which lowers the maximum effective temperature of the Novikov-Thorne disk and softens the observed thermal spectrum; the deviation from Kerr is larger at high inclinations and is degenerate with a reduction in spin parameter.

What carries the argument

The Kerr-MOG metric with deformation parameter α, together with the re-derived ISCO radius, Novikov-Thorne flux, and relativistic transfer functions that incorporate the fifth-force effects.

If this is right

  • Kerr-MOG spectra can be fit by lower-spin Kerr models, so independent spin measurements are required to separate the vector-field contribution.
  • All computed quantities recover the standard Kerr black-hole predictions exactly when α vanishes.
  • The dedicated XSPEC model kmspec allows direct fitting of observed thermal continua for constraints on α.
  • Application to the 69.6 ks XMM-Newton observation of LMC X-1 yields α < 0.044 at 90 percent .

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the softening is confirmed in multiple sources, some apparently low-spin black holes could instead have higher spin together with small but nonzero α.
  • The same metric modifications would be expected to affect iron-line profiles and other disk reflection features, offering an independent test.
  • Extending the calculation to non-thin disks or including magnetic fields would show whether the fifth-force imprint survives in more realistic flow models.

Load-bearing premise

The Novikov-Thorne thin-disk model remains valid in the Kerr-MOG geometry without changes to disk structure or emissivity beyond the re-derived geodesics and flux.

What would settle it

A high-precision spectrum of a black hole candidate whose spin is independently measured by iron-line reflection that shows a harder continuum than expected for that spin under Kerr would falsify the softening prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2606.08910 by Cheng Liu, Tao Zhu, Xu-fan Hu, Yosuke Mizuno.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: presents the ISCO radius across the full (α, a∗) parameter space. At α = 0, the standard Kerr black hole values are recovered, ranging from rISCO = 6 rg for a Schwarzschild black hole (a∗ = 0) down to rISCO ≃ 1.24 rg at a∗ = 0.998. Activating the fifth force pushes the ISCO outward monotonically at every spin: the contours of constant rISCO run approximately diag￾onally from high spin/low α to low spin/hig… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Circular-orbit specific energy Ecirc(r) for α = 0, 0.5, 0.9, 1.3 at a∗ = 0.9. Filled circles mark the ISCO (energy minimum). Increasing α shifts the ISCO out￾ward and reduces the binding energy at the marginally stable orbit. Here F(r) is a dimensionless function that encodes the radial profile of the flux. The physical radiative flux per unit proper area is M˙ F(r)/(4πM2 ). The local effective temperature… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Novikov–Thorne radiative efficiency η = 1 − Ecirc(rISCO) in the Kerr-MOG spacetime. (a) η as a function of spin a∗ for α = 0, 0.5, 1.0, 1.5. The solid black curve is the standard Kerr black hole result. Increasing α progressively suppresses the efficiency, especially at high spin. (b) η as a function of α at fixed spins a∗ = 0, 0.5, 0.9, 0.998. The efficiency decreases monotonically with α, with the steepe… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Gravitational redshift factor in the face-on limit (i = 0), g|i=0 = p −gtt − 2ΩKgtφ − Ω2 Kgφφ, as a function of emitter radius for α = 0, 0.5, 0.9, 1.3 at a∗ = 0.5 (left) and a∗ = 0.998 (right). This quantity is the purely gravitational component of the full redshift factor g defined in the text; the Doppler contribution from the photon trajectory (1 + ΩKξ sin i in the denominator) vanishes for a face-on d… view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Radial temperature profiles kT(r) of vanishing-ISCO-stress (Novikov–Thorne) thin disks for α = 0, 0.5, 0.9, 1.3. Left: a∗ = 0.5; right: a∗ = 0.998. Increasing α shifts the ISCO outward and lowers the peak temperature. System parameters: M = 10 M⊙, M˙ = 0.1 M˙ Edd. to vary independently. This enhanced predictive rigid￾ity of the MOG model is both an advantage, in that it uses fewer free parameters, and a li… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Thermal continuum spectra ELE computed by kmspec for a 10 M⊙ black hole. Dashed blue: α = 0 (Kerr limit); solid red: α = 0.5 (Kerr-MOG). Each panel corresponds to a different observer inclination. Curves from bottom to top (at peak) correspond to different black hole spin a∗ = 0, 0.5, 0.9, 0.95, 0.998. servations of a geometrically thin accretion disk in Kerr￾MOG spacetime with the Resolve micro-calorimete… view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Simulated XRISM/Resolve spectra comparing α = 0 (magenta) and α = 0.5 (blue), both at a∗ = 0.998 and i = 30◦ , each fitted with a pure Kerr black hole model. Upper panel: data (crosses) and best-fit model (histograms). Middle panel: ∆χ residuals for the α = 0 spectrum, show￾ing no systematic structure. Lower panel: ∆χ residuals for the α = 0.5 spectrum, revealing the characteristic fifth– force signature. … view at source ↗
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png] view at source ↗
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Background-subtracted XMM-Newton/EPIC-pn count-rate spectrum of LMC X-1 (ObsID 0743060101, 69.6 ks exposure) in the 0.5–10 keV band. The spectrum shows the characteristic thermal-dominant soft-state morphology, with the disk emission peaking at ∼ 1 keV. 6. CONSTRAINTS ON α FROM SPECTRAL FITTING 6.1. XMM-Newton Observation of LMC X-1 Building on the simulation-level detectability analysis above, we now fit … view at source ↗
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: ∆χ 2 profile for α obtained from steppar applied to the XMM-Newton EPIC-pn spectrum of LMC X-1. The left panel shows the region near the minimum with the 90% and 99% confidence level thresholds. The right panel shows the full grid range α ∈ [0, 0.5]. The steep rise demonstrates that even modest fifth-force couplings are strongly disfavored by the data. steps, re-optimizing all remaining parameters at each… view at source ↗
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Corner plot of the marginalized posterior distributions for all seven free parameters of the TBabs*(kmspec+powerlaw) fit to the real XMM-Newton/EPIC-pn spectrum of LMC X-1, constructed from the Gaussian fit covariance matrix. The vertical dashed lines mark the 16th, 50th, and 84th percentiles. The α posterior is sharply peaked near zero, confirming the ∆χ 2 constraints of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fi… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

In Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity (STVG, also known as MOG), a massive vector field $\phi_\mu$ generates a repulsive fifth force that endows rotating black holes with a gravitational charge $Q \propto \sqrt{\alpha}\,M$, modifying the near-horizon geometry through a single deformation parameter $\alpha$. We investigate how this vector-field coupling imprints itself on the thermal continuum emission of geometrically thin, optically thick accretion disks in the Kerr-MOG black hole. By re-deriving the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO), the Novikov-Thorne radiative flux, the relativistic energy shift, and the null geodesic structure for the Kerr-MOG spacetime, we compute fully relativistic disk spectra across a broad range of spins, inclinations, and fifth-force strengths using a dedicated \textsc{xspec} spectral model (\texttt{kmspec}). We find that the fifth-force charge pushes the ISCO outward, lowers the peak disk temperature, and systematically softens the thermal continuum relative to its Kerr black hole counterpart at the same spin, with the deviation amplified at high observer inclinations. The resulting spectral modification closely mimics a reduction of spin in the pure Kerr black hole framework, indicating that independent spin measurements from, e.g., iron-line reflection spectroscopy are indispensable for disentangling the vector-field contribution. All results recover the standard Kerr black hole predictions when $\alpha = 0$, and the model is validated against independent analytic and numerical benchmarks to machine precision. Application to a 69.6~ks \textit{XMM-Newton} observation of LMC~X-1 yields $\alpha < 0.044$ at 90\% confidence, consistent with the Kerr metric and general relativity.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript examines thermal continuum spectra from thin accretion disks around Kerr-MOG black holes in Scalar-Tensor-Vector Gravity. The authors re-derive the ISCO location, Novikov-Thorne flux, relativistic energy shifts, and null geodesics in the modified metric, implement these in a new XSPEC model (kmspec), and report that nonzero fifth-force parameter α shifts the ISCO outward, lowers peak temperature, and softens the spectrum relative to Kerr at fixed spin (with larger deviations at high inclination). The effect mimics a lower Kerr spin; application to a 69.6 ks XMM-Newton observation of LMC X-1 yields α < 0.044 (90% CL). All quantities recover the Kerr limit at α = 0 and are validated to machine precision.

Significance. If the central derivations hold, the work supplies a concrete, observationally testable signature of the MOG vector-field charge on disk emission and demonstrates the necessity of independent spin constraints (e.g., iron-line reflection) to break the degeneracy. Explicit credit is due for the machine-precision validation against analytic and numerical benchmarks and for the clean recovery of the α = 0 limit.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract (and associated derivations)] Abstract and the re-derivation sections: the ISCO and Novikov-Thorne flux are obtained under the assumption of geodesic motion in the Kerr-MOG metric. In the complete STVG theory, test particles carrying gravitational charge Q ∝ √α M experience an additional non-geodesic Lorentz-type force from the vector field φ_μ. The manuscript must demonstrate that this term either vanishes for equatorial circular orbits or produces only higher-order corrections; otherwise the reported outward ISCO shift and the resulting spectral softening rest on an incomplete equation of motion.
  2. [Observational application section] Application to LMC X-1 data: the reported α < 0.044 limit is obtained by fitting the new model while treating spin as a free parameter. Because the spectral softening is degenerate with a reduction in Kerr spin, the constraint on α is only robust once the spin is independently fixed (e.g., by reflection spectroscopy). The manuscript should quantify how the α upper bound changes when spin is held at the reflection value rather than left free.
minor comments (1)
  1. The abstract states that results are validated 'to machine precision'; a short appendix or subsection listing the specific analytic limits, numerical codes, and tolerance thresholds used for each re-derived quantity would improve reproducibility.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the careful and constructive review of our manuscript. We address each major comment below and describe the revisions that will be incorporated to strengthen the presentation and robustness of the results.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract (and associated derivations)] Abstract and the re-derivation sections: the ISCO and Novikov-Thorne flux are obtained under the assumption of geodesic motion in the Kerr-MOG metric. In the complete STVG theory, test particles carrying gravitational charge Q ∝ √α M experience an additional non-geodesic Lorentz-type force from the vector field φ_μ. The manuscript must demonstrate that this term either vanishes for equatorial circular orbits or produces only higher-order corrections; otherwise the reported outward ISCO shift and the resulting spectral softening rest on an incomplete equation of motion.

    Authors: We acknowledge the importance of this point regarding the full STVG equations of motion. Our derivations follow the standard treatment in the Kerr-MOG literature, in which the vector-field effects are fully incorporated into the effective metric and test-particle motion is taken to be geodesic. To address the referee’s concern explicitly, we will add a short derivation in Section 2 showing that the radial component of the Lorentz-type force vanishes identically for equatorial circular orbits (u^r = 0, u^θ = 0) due to the symmetries of the vector field and the equatorial plane. This confirms that the ISCO location and Novikov-Thorne flux remain unchanged at the order considered. The revised manuscript will include this calculation and the associated equation-of-motion components. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Observational application section] Application to LMC X-1 data: the reported α < 0.044 limit is obtained by fitting the new model while treating spin as a free parameter. Because the spectral softening is degenerate with a reduction in Kerr spin, the constraint on α is only robust once the spin is independently fixed (e.g., by reflection spectroscopy). The manuscript should quantify how the α upper bound changes when spin is held at the reflection value rather than left free.

    Authors: We agree that the degeneracy between α and spin is central and is already highlighted in the manuscript. To make the constraint more robust, we will add a new subsection (or appendix) that repeats the LMC X-1 fit with the black-hole spin fixed to the independent reflection-spectroscopy value reported in the literature. The resulting 90 % upper limit on α under this fixed-spin assumption will be reported together with the original free-spin result, thereby quantifying the effect of the degeneracy as requested. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No circularity: derivations follow from metric re-computation

full rationale

The paper re-derives ISCO location, Novikov-Thorne flux, energy shifts and null geodesics directly from the Kerr-MOG line element and effective potential, recovering the Kerr case at α=0 and validating against independent benchmarks to machine precision. The reported spectral softening is an output of these metric-derived quantities, not a fit or self-citation that forces the result by construction. The α<0.044 bound is obtained by fitting the new model to XMM-Newton data and is therefore an independent constraint rather than an input. No load-bearing step reduces to a self-definition, renamed known result, or author-only uniqueness theorem.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the STVG/MOG metric with parameter α, the validity of the thin-disk Novikov-Thorne approximation, and standard geodesic integration; α itself is the theory parameter being bounded rather than a free fit inside the derivation.

free parameters (1)
  • α
    Deformation parameter of the Kerr-MOG metric; fitted to data in the final application but treated as input for the spectral calculations.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption The Kerr-MOG line element correctly encodes the fifth-force effects of the massive vector field
    Invoked when re-deriving ISCO, flux, and null geodesics for the modified spacetime.
  • domain assumption Geometrically thin, optically thick disk with Novikov-Thorne radiative efficiency applies
    Basis for the flux and temperature calculations across the parameter space.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.1-grok · 5851 in / 1542 out tokens · 19683 ms · 2026-06-27T15:56:55.345044+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

65 extracted references · 63 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Afrin, M., Vagnozzi, S., & Ghosh, S. G. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acb334

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/acb334 2023

  2. [2]

    2019, Astrophys

    Akiyama, K., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 875, L1, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ab0ec7 2019

  3. [3]

    2022, Astrophys

    Akiyama, K., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J. Lett., 930, L17, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac6756

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac6756 2022

  4. [4]

    2013, JCAP, 08, 055, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/055

    Bambi, C. 2013, JCAP, 08, 055, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/055

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/08/055 2013

  5. [5]

    2017, Rev

    Bambi, C. 2017, Rev. Mod. Phys., 89, 025001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.89.025001

    work page doi:10.1103/revmodphys.89.025001 2017

  6. [6]

    A., & Nampalliwar, S

    Bambi, C., Cardenas-Avendano, A., Dauser, T., Garcia, J. A., & Nampalliwar, S. 2017, Astrophys. J., 842, 76, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa74c0

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa74c0 2017

  7. [7]

    M., Press, W

    Bardeen, J. M., Press, W. H., & Teukolsky, S. A. 1972, Astrophys. J., 178, 347, doi: 10.1086/151796

    work page doi:10.1086/151796 1972

  8. [8]

    2005, Phys

    Bertone, G., Hooper, D., & Silk, J. 2005, Phys. Rept., 405, 279, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physrep.2004.08.031 2005

  9. [9]

    2007 , pages =

    Brownstein, J. R., & Moffat, J. W. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 382, 29, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12275.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12275.x 2007

  10. [10]

    2009, Phys

    Deng, X.-M., Xie, Y., & Huang, T.-Y. 2009, Phys. Rev. D, 79, 044014, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.79.044014

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.79.044014 2009

  11. [11]

    , keywords =

    Done, C., Davis, S. W., Jin, C., Blaes, O., & Ward, M. 2012, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 420, 1848, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20017.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.20017.x 2012

  12. [12]

    E., Liu, J., & Narayan, R

    Gou, L., McClintock, J. E., Liu, J., & Narayan, R. 2009, Astrophys. J., 701, 1076, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/701/2/1076

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/701/2/1076 2009

  13. [13]

    A., Moffat, J

    Green, M. A., Moffat, J. W., & Toth, V. T. 2018, Phys. Lett. B, 780, 300, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2018.03.015 2018

  14. [14]

    2015, Phys

    Hussain, S., & Jamil, M. 2015, Phys. Rev. D, 92, 043008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.92.043008

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.92.043008 2015

  15. [15]

    2008, Schol

    Iorio, L. 2008, Schol. Res. Exch., 2008, 238385, doi: 10.3814/2008/238385

    work page doi:10.3814/2008/238385 2008

  16. [16]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 16

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, Astron. Astrophys., 365, L1, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000036

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361:20000036 2001

  17. [17]

    K., et al

    Jiang, H.-X., Liu, C., Dihingia, I. K., et al. 2023, arXiv e-prints, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.2312.04288

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.2312.04288 2023

  18. [18]

    2011, Phys

    Johannsen, T., & Psaltis, D. 2011, Phys. Rev. D, 83, 124015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.83.124015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.83.124015 2011

  19. [19]

    2022, Mon

    Kocherlakota, P., & Rezzolla, L. 2022, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 513, 1229, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac891

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac891 2022

  20. [20]

    2021, Phys

    Kocherlakota, P., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 103, 104047, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.104047

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.103.104047 2021

  21. [21]

    2016, Phys

    Konoplya, R., Rezzolla, L., & Zhidenko, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. D, 93, 064015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.93.064015

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.93.064015 2016

  22. [22]

    2022, Phys

    Kuang, X.-M., Tang, Z.-Y., Wang, B., & Wang, A. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 064012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.106.064012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.106.064012 2022

  23. [23]

    2017, Eur

    Lee, H.-C., & Han, Y.-J. 2017, Eur. Phys. J. C, 77, 655, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5152-7

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-5152-7 2017

  24. [24]

    Manfredi, L., Mureika, J., & Moffat, J. 2017, J. Phys. Conf. Ser., 942, 012014, doi: 10.1088/1742-6596/942/1/012014

    work page doi:10.1088/1742-6596/942/1/012014 2017

  25. [25]

    E., Narayan, R., & Steiner, J

    McClintock, J. E., Narayan, R., & Steiner, J. F. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 295, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-0003-9

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0003-9 2014

  26. [26]

    E., Shafee, R., Narayan, R., et al

    McClintock, J. E., Shafee, R., Narayan, R., et al. 2006, Astrophys. J., 652, 518, doi: 10.1086/508457

    work page doi:10.1086/508457 2006

  27. [27]

    M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., Wardle, M., et al

    Michail, J. M., Yusef-Zadeh, F., Wardle, M., et al. 2024, Astrophys. J., 971, 52, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5332

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad5332 2024

  28. [28]

    M., et al

    Miller, J. M., et al. 2025, Astrophys. J. Lett., 995, L14, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ae2123

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae2123 2025

  29. [29]

    Miller-Jones, J. C. A., Bahramian, A., Orosz, J. A., et al. 2021, Science, 371, 1046, doi: 10.1126/science.abb3363

    work page doi:10.1126/science.abb3363 2021

  30. [30]

    M., et al

    Mizuno, Y., Younsi, Z., Fromm, C. M., et al. 2018, Nature Astron., 2, 585, doi: 10.1038/s41550-018-0449-5

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-018-0449-5 2018

  31. [31]

    Moffat, J. W. 2006, JCAP, 03, 004, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2006/03/004

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2006/03/004 2006

  32. [32]

    Moffat, J. W. 2014, https://arxiv.org/abs/1410.2464

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2014

  33. [33]

    Moffat, J. W. 2015, Eur. Phys. J. C, 75, 130, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3352-6

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-015-3352-6 2015

  34. [34]

    Moffat, J. W. 2016, Phys. Lett. B, 763, 427, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.082

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.10.082 2016

  35. [35]

    W., & Rahvar, S

    Moffat, J. W., & Rahvar, S. 2013, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 436, 1439, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stt1670

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stt1670 2013

  36. [36]

    2024, Mon

    Mummery, A., Ingram, A., Davis, S., & Fabian, A. 2024, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc., 531, 3245, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae1160

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae1160 2024

  37. [37]

    R., Moffat, J

    Mureika, J. R., Moffat, J. W., & Faizal, M. 2016, Phys. Lett. B, 757, 528, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.041

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2016.04.041 2016

  38. [38]

    D., & Thorne, K

    Novikov, I. D., & Thorne, K. S. 1973, in Black Holes, ed. C. DeWitt & B. S. DeWitt (New York: Gordon and Breach), 343–450

    1973

  39. [39]

    A., Steeghs, D., McClintock, J

    Orosz, J. A., Steeghs, D., McClintock, J. E., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J., 697, 573, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/697/1/573 ¨Ozel, F., Psaltis, D., & Younsi, Z. 2022, Astrophys. J., 941, 88, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac9fcb

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/697/1/573 2009

  40. [40]

    N., & Thorne, K

    Page, D. N., & Thorne, K. S. 1974, Astrophys. J., 191, 499, doi: 10.1086/152990 P´ erez, D., Lopez Armengol, F. G., & Romero, G. E. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 95, 104047, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.95.104047

    work page doi:10.1086/152990 1974

  41. [41]

    2023, Mon

    Podgorny, J., et al. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 526, 5964, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stad3103

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stad3103 2023

  42. [42]

    2020, Phys

    Psaltis, D., Medeiros, L., Christian, P., et al. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 125, 141104, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.125.141104 16

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.125.141104 2020

  43. [43]

    2022, Astrophys

    Qin, X., Chen, S., Zhang, Z., & Jing, J. 2022, Astrophys. J., 938, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac8f49 2022

  44. [44]

    Reynolds, C. S. 2014, Space Sci. Rev., 183, 277, doi: 10.1007/s11214-013-0006-6

    work page doi:10.1007/s11214-013-0006-6 2014

  45. [45]

    2017, Eur

    Sharif, M., & Shahzadi, M. 2017, Eur. Phys. J. C, 77, 363, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4898-2

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-017-4898-2 2017

  46. [46]

    2018, Phys

    Sheoran, P., Herrera-Aguilar, A., & Nucamendi, U. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 124049, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.124049

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.124049 2018

  47. [47]

    F., McClintock, J

    Steiner, J. F., McClintock, J. E., Remillard, R. A., et al. 2010, Astrophys. J. Lett., 718, L117, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/L117

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/718/2/l117 2010

  48. [48]

    , keywords =

    Steiner, J. F., Reis, R. C., Fabian, A. C., et al. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 427, 2552, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22128.x Str¨ uder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, Astron. Astrophys., 365, L18, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361:20000066

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.22128.x 2012

  49. [49]

    2020, Proc

    Tashiro, M., Maejima, H., Toda, K., Kelley, R., et al. 2020, Proc. SPIE, 11444, 114441E, doi: 10.1117/12.2565812

    work page doi:10.1117/12.2565812 2020

  50. [50]

    B., Ayzenberg, D., et al

    Tripathi, A., Abdikamalov, A. B., Ayzenberg, D., et al. 2022, JCAP, 01, 019, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/019

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2022/01/019 2022

  51. [51]

    B., et al

    Tripathi, A., Zhang, Y., Abdikamalov, A. B., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 913, 79, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abf6cd

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abf6cd 2021

  52. [52]

    B., et al

    Tripathi, A., Zhou, M., Abdikamalov, A. B., et al. 2020, Astrophys. J., 897, 84, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ab9600

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab9600 2020

  53. [53]

    K., Mizuno, Y., & Rezzolla, L

    Uniyal, A., Dihingia, I. K., Mizuno, Y., & Rezzolla, L. 2025, Nature Astron., 1, 8, doi: 10.1038/s41550-025-02695-4

    work page doi:10.1038/s41550-025-02695-4 2025

  54. [54]

    2023, Class

    Vagnozzi, S., Roy, R., Tsai, Y.-D., et al. 2023, Class. Quant. Grav., 40, 165007, doi: 10.1088/1361-6382/acd97b

    work page doi:10.1088/1361-6382/acd97b 2023

  55. [55]

    2019, JCAP, 03, 046, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/046

    Wang, H.-M., Xu, Y.-M., & Wei, S.-W. 2019, JCAP, 03, 046, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/046

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2019/03/046 2019

  56. [56]

    2018, Phys

    Wei, S.-W., & Liu, Y.-X. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 98, 024042, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.98.024042 XRISM Science Team. 2022, arXiv e-prints. https://arxiv.org/abs/2202.05399

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.98.024042 2018

  57. [57]

    2013, Astrophys

    Yang, X., & Wang, J. 2013, Astrophys. J. Suppl., 207, 6, doi: 10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/6

    work page doi:10.1088/0067-0049/207/1/6 2013

  58. [58]

    2023, Astrophys

    Younsi, Z., Psaltis, D., & ¨Ozel, F. 2023, Astrophys. J., 942, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aca58a

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aca58a 2023

  59. [59]

    B., et al

    Yu, Z., Jiang, Q., Abdikamalov, A. B., et al. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 084035, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.084035

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.084035 2021

  60. [60]

    N., Cui, W., & Chen, W

    Zhang, S. N., Cui, W., & Chen, W. 1997, Astrophys. J. Lett., 482, L155, doi: 10.1086/310705

    work page doi:10.1086/310705 1997

  61. [61]

    2024, JCAP, 09, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/027

    Zhang, Z., Chen, S., & Jing, J. 2024, JCAP, 09, 027, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/027

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/09/027 2024

  62. [62]

    B., et al

    Zhang, Z., Liu, H., Abdikamalov, A. B., et al. 2022, Astrophys. J., 924, 72, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/ac350e

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac350e 2022

  63. [63]

    2021, Astrophys

    Zhao, X., Gou, L., Dong, Y., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J., 908, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abbcd6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abbcd6 2021

  64. [64]

    2025, Eur

    Zheng, H.-B., Wu, M.-Q., Li, G.-P., & Jiang, Q.-Q. 2025, Eur. Phys. J. C, 85, 46, doi: 10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13791-0

    work page doi:10.1140/epjc/s10052-025-13791-0 2025

  65. [65]

    B., Ayzenberg, D., et al

    Zhou, M., Abdikamalov, A. B., Ayzenberg, D., et al. 2019, Phys. Rev. D, 99, 104031, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.99.104031

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.99.104031 2019