How to tell an accreting boson star from a black hole

Hector Olivares,1 Ziri Younsi,1, 2 Christian M. Fromm,1, 3 Mariafelicia De Laurentis,1, 4, 5

Oliver Porth,1 Yosuke Mizuno,1 Heino Falcke,6 Michael Kramer,3, 7 and Luciano Rezzolla1, 8
1
Institut für Theoretische Physik, Max-von-Laue-Straße 1, D-60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
2
Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Dorking, Surrey RH5 6NT, UK
3
Max-Planck-Institut für Radioastronomie, Auf dem Hügel 69, D-53121 Bonn, Germany
4
Dipartimento di Fisica “E. Pancini”, Universitá di Napoli “Federico II”, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Napoli, Italy
5
INFN Sez. di Napoli, Via Cinthia, I-80126, Napoli, Italy
6
Department of Astrophysics/IMAPP, Radboud University Nijmegen P.O. Box 9010, 6500 GL Nijmegen, The Netherlands
7
Jodrell Bank Centre for Astrophysics, University of Manchester, M13 9PL, UK
8
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies, Ruth-Moufang-Strasse 1, 60438 Frankfurt, Germany
(Dated: September 25, 2018)
Radio-astronomical observations of the supermassive black-hole candidate in the galactic center will soon
arXiv:1809.08682v1 [gr-qc] 23 Sep 2018

offer the possibility to study gravity in its strongest regimes and to test different models for these compact
objects. Studies based on semi-analytic models and strong-field images of stationary plasma configurations
around boson stars have stressed the difficulty to distinguish them from black holes. We here report on the first
general-relativistic magnetohydrodynamic simulations of accretion onto a nonrotating boson star and employ
general-relativistic radiative-transfer calculations to revisit the appearance of an accreting boson star. We find
that the absence of an event horizon in a boson star leads to important differences in the dynamics of the
accretion and results in both the formation of a small torus in the interior of the boson star and in the absence
of an evacuated high-magnetization funnel in the polar regions. Synthetic reconstructed images considering
realistic astronomical observing conditions show that differences in the appearance of the two compact object are
large enough to be detectable. These results, which also apply to other horizonless compact objects, strengthen
confidence in the ability to determine the presence of an event horizon via radio observations and highlight the
importance of self-consistent multidimensional simulations to study the compact object at the galactic center.

PACS numbers: 04.50.Kd 04.40.Dg, 95.30.Sf, 97.10.Gz

Introduction. Observations of the galactic center have con- by general relativity which fulfill the constraints of: (1) being
firmed the existence of a supermassive compact object at the able to grow to millions of solar masses, (2) being extremely
radio source Sgr A*. Stellar motions have constrained its mass compact and (3) lacking a hard surface [9]. Some examples
to ≈ 4×106 M [1, 2] and its density to ≈ 6×1015 M pc−3
[2], favoring the hypothesis of a single massive object. More-
over, its low luminosity combined with its estimated accre-
tion rate indicates the absence of an emitting hard surface [3].
All of these features are consistent with a supermassive black
hole (SMBH) as those believed to exist at the centers of most
galaxies.
International efforts from the Event Horizon Telescope
Collaboration (EHTC) [4] and BlackHoleCam [5] aim to
use very-long-baseline interferometry (VLBI) techniques in
a joint effort to image the galactic center, achieving, for the
first time, a resolution comparable to the size of the event
horizon. The outcome of such observations is expected to be
a “crescent” or ring-like feature, consisting of a dark region
(the shadow of the black hole) obscuring the lensed image of
a bright accretion disk [6]. The shape of this shadow can be
exploited either to determine the properties of the black hole
or to perform tests of general relativity [7], a possibility as-
sessed by Mizuno et al. [8] in a realistic scenario for the 2017
EHTC campaign and for near-future observations.
However, because all of the expectations above rely on the
assumption that Sgr A* is a black hole, it is natural to won-
der whether this conjecture could blind us to other plausible
alternatives, thus missing out on new insights in fundamental
physics. In fact, black holes are not the only objects allowed
include: geons [10], oscillatons [11], Q-balls [12] and com-
pact configurations of self-interacting dark matter [13].
Boson stars, compact objects formed from scalar fields, are
a very interesting case due to the ubiquity of the latter in cos-
mology [14, 15], string theory [16] and extensions to gen-
eral relativity such as scalar-tensor theories [17]. Several au-
thors have explored the possibility that supermassive boson
stars could exist at the centers of galaxies or act as black-
hole mimickers [see, e.g., 18–21]. Consequently, a num-
ber of studies have explored the signatures of such objects,
which include the dynamics of accreted particles [20], the
gravitational redshift [19] and lensing [22] of radiation emit-
ted within the boson star, and the stellar orbits around them
[23]. Guzmán [24, 25] studied spectra of alpha–discs [26]
around boson stars, reporting the lack of a clear signature dis-
tinguishing them from black holes. Motivated by the forth-
coming observations of the EHTC, Vincent et al. [18] reached
similar conclusions by comparing strong-field images of sta-
tionary tori around black holes and boson stars. However, the
robustness of these considerations is limited by the fact that
such configurations do not allow matter to freely explore the
interior of the boson star, as would happen in a realistic accre-
tion scenario.
Subsequently, Meliani et al. [27] simulated non-magnetized
accretion onto boson stars and black holes, finding a signifi-

cantly different behaviour caused by the absence of an event
horizon, specifically, a polar outflow produced by the colli-
sion of matter infalling on the equatorial plane. However,
this study did not include a systematic investigation of the
discernability of the emission from the two compact objects
via ray-traced images. Moreover, considering the ubiquity of
magnetic fields in astrophysical compact objects and their im-
portance for accretion processes as a means for angular mo-
mentum transport and jet production, it is essential to extend
the study to produce ray-traced images of fully dynamical ac-
cretion in the presence of magnetic fields.
We here revisit this question and challenge the notion
that accreting boson stars and black holes cannot be dis-
tinguished. To this end, we extend the work of Vincent
et al. [18] on strong-field images of stationary tori around
boson stars, by performing the first general-relativistic ideal-
magnetohydrodynamic (GRMHD) simulations of the accre-
tion flow onto a nonrotating boson star. Using these sim-
ulations, we perform general-relativistic radiative-transfer
(GRRT) calculations and produce synthetic images account-
ing for realistic EHTC observations. We compare the dy-
namics of the accretion flow with those in the case of a Kerr
black hole, and contrast the images obtained in each case. As
we will highlight in what follows, when considering magne-
tized accretion and realistic observational corrections of the
ray-traced images, we can conclude that it is possible to dis-
criminate between an accreting black hole and a boson star.
Physical scenario. We simulate numerically and in three di-
mensions (3D) the accretion from a magnetized torus onto a
Kerr black hole with total angular momentum J and a non-
rotating boson star with the same mass M . While the Kerr
black hole has a dimensionless spin parameter a := J/M 2 =
0.9375 (we use units with G = c = 1), the boson star is cho-
sen to be nonrotating. There are two reasons for this choice.
Firstly, astrophysical boson stars cannot be rapid rotators, be-
coming dynamically unstable for a & 0.4 [28]. Secondly, the
absence of a surface or a capture cross section permits sta-
ble circular orbits down to the center of the boson star [25].
Therefore, the ray-traced image of a rapidly-rotating black
hole, for which the innermost stable circular orbit (ISCO) is
near to the event horizon, is closer to that of a boson star in
terms of intrinsic source size and represents a worst-case sce-
nario for distinguishing between the two objects.
The boson star spacetime is a solution of the Einstein-
Klein-Gordon system in spherical symmetry for the poten-
tial of a mini boson star [29]. The method for computing
these configurations is presented in a number of works [see,
e.g., 29–31]. More specifically, the boson star considered
here has an oscillation frequency ω M ≈ 1.06 and a scalar
particle mass of m ≈ 0.34 (MPl /M )MPl , where MPl is the
2
was assumed to follow the equation of state of an ideal fluid
with an adiabatic index γ̂ = 4/3 [34]. The simulations were
performed on a logarithmically spaced radial grid in spher-
ical polar coordinates, with three refinement levels, to give
an effective resolution of {Nr , Nθ , Nφ } ' {512, 128, 128},
and with the outer boundary placed at 1000 M . The accretion
torus was perturbed to trigger the magneto-rotational instabil-
ity (MRI), causing turbulent transport of angular momentum
and driving the accretion [35]. Since the mass of the accretion
disk is negligible compared to that of the compact object (test-
fluid approximation), the spacetime can be considered fixed.
Except for gravitation, the scalar field has no interaction with
the fluid or the electromagnetic fields.
Numerical results. After the initial growth and saturation of
the MRI at t ' 1000 M , the accretion flow for both objects
becomes quasi-stationary for t & 5000 M . This is illustrated
in Fig. 1, which reports in arbitrary units the evolution of the
mass-accretion rate Ṁ (panel a) and of the accreted magnetic
flux φ̇B threading the outer horizon in the case of the black
hole, or a spherical surface at coordinate r = 2M in the case
of the boson star (panel b). Comparing the behaviour of these
two quantities it is possible to appreciate that while the black
hole has always a positive Ṁ , the boson star can also record
negative values. This is allowed at all radii due to the absence
of an event horizon.
As we will discuss below, this outflow is due to oscillations
of a stalled-accretion torus produced close to the steep cen-
trifugal barrier that develops inside the boson star. A magnifi-
cation of Ṁ during the quasi-stationary stage of the accretion
is shown in the inset of Fig. 1, highlighting the quasi-periodic
inflows and outflows of matter in the simulations involving
a boson star. When comparing the typical frequency associ-
ated with the quasi-periodic oscillations in Ṁ , we have found
them to be very close to the value of the epicyclic frequency
at the location of the rest-mass density maximum. This is un-
surprising since matter accumulates at this location and small
perturbations there will induce large excursions, both positive
and negative, in the accretion rate.
Figure 1 shows a snapshot at t = 9500 M and on the merid-
ional plane, of rest-mass density ρ (panels c and d) and plasma
magnetization σ := b2 /ρ (panels e and f), where b is the mag-
nitude of the magnetic field in the fluid frame. In each panel
we contrast the behavior of these quantities in the case of the
Kerr black hole (panels c and e) with that of a boson star (pan-
els d and f). As expected, differences in the dynamics of ac-
cretion onto the two objects arise mainly from the presence
or absence of an event horizon within which matter can dis-
appear, and which causally disconnects its interior from its
exterior. In contrast to a black hole, matter in the interior of a
boson star continues to influence its exterior. As a result, an
Planck mass. For the mass of Sgr A* (M ' 4.02 × 106 M evacuated funnel in the polar regions – such as the one pro-
[1]), this corresponds to m ≈ 10−17 eV/c2 , which is within duced by the black hole – is absent in the case of the boson
the range allowed by astronomical observations [32]. star, where this region is instead filled with material slowly
To simulate the accretion flow we used BHAC [33], which flowing out from the hotter and denser interior.
solves the equations of GRMHD in arbitrary stationary space- As anticipated above, a peculiar feature of the accretion
times using state-of-the art numerical methods. The plasma onto the boson star is the formation of a smaller torus, which
 3

log10 ρ log10 σ
−6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1 −6 −5 −4 −3 −2 −1 0 1

1.6 50
1.4 a 0.3 Kerr BH c d Boson star Kerr BH e f Boson star
1.2 0.2 40 t = 9500 M t = 9500 M
0.1
1.0
0.0 30
0.8
−0.1
Ṁ

0.6 −0.2
0.4 8950 9000 9050 20
0.2
0.0 10
−0.2

z [M ]
0
1.0 b Boson star
−10
Kerr BH, a = 0.9375 4 4 4 4
0.8
−20 2 2 2 2
0.6
φ̇

0 0 0 0
0.4 −30
−2 −2 −2 −2
0.2 −40
−4 −4 −4 −4
0.0 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 0 2 4 6 8 −8 −6 −4 −2 0 0 2 4 6 8
−50
0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50 −50 −40 −30 −20 −10 0 10 20 30 40 50
t [M ] x [M ] x [M ]

FIG. 1. Panels (a) and (b): Evolution of the mass-accretion rate (a) and the magnetic flux (b) through the outer horizon for the black hole and
through a spherical shell at r = 2 M for the boson star. Note that the quasi-stationary state is reached after t ' 5000 M and that the accretion
rate can also be negative for the boson star. Panels (c-f): Logarithmic density in the fluid frame (c and d) and logarithmic plasma magnetization
σ = b2 /ρ (e and f) at t = 9500 M , for the Kerr black hole (c and e) and the boson star (d and f). The black hole horizon is marked by a white
line and its excised interior is shown in solid black.

is most clearly visible in the right inset of panel (d) of Fig. 1. sionless quantities evolved numerically to produce physical
This small torus, which effectively represents a stalled por-
tion of the accretion flow, is produced by a steep centrifu-
gal barrier and by the suppression of the MRI. In fact, as
a result of the reduced curvature in the boson-star interior,
the radial distribution of angular momentum in the accretion
disc reverses at small radii, violating the MRI stability cri-
terion [31, 35]. Since all regular axially symmetric, asymp-
totically flat spacetimes need to be flat at their centers, we
expect the same phenomenology for all horizonless, surface-
less accreting objects non-interacting with the plasma and the
electromagnetic field. Without the principal mechanism for
angular momentum transport, the plasma cannot penetrate the
centrifugal barrier except by diffusion (see also Torres [36]).
Unable to access the core of the boson star, a portion of the
infalling matter escapes as a slowly moving wind, i.e., with
Lorentz factors W . 1.05, which propagates in the polar di-
rections. As a comparison, the polar outflow in the Kerr simu-
lation can reach W . 2.25. Note that this slow wind from the
boson star is fundamentally different from the mass ejection
discussed in [27], which is caused by the pressure increase at
the stellar center due to matter accreted radially without mag-
netic fields or angular momentum. For such shocked matter
with no centrifugal support, the polar regions represent the
only direction where escape is possible.
Ray-traced and synthetic images. We next discuss how to use
the results of the GRMHD simulations to produce ray-traced
and synthetic images at the EHTC observing frequency of
230 GHz, assuming a population of thermal electrons which
emit synchrotron radiation and are also self-absorbed. Sev-
eral parameters need to be fixed when converting the dimen-
images. We fix the mass M = 4.02 × 106 M and the dis-
tance from the observer to 7.86 kpc [1]. This sets the length
and time scalings of the radiative-transfer calculations (see,
e.g., [8, 37]) and yields the appropriate flux scaling. Fi-
nally, the ion-to-electron temperature ratio Ti /Te [38], the ob-
server inclination angle θobs , and the compact object mass-
accretion rate Ṁ are chosen such that, at a resolution of
1024 × 1024 pixels, the total integrated flux of the image re-
produces Sgr A*’s observed flux of ' 3.4 Jy at 230 GHz [39].
In this way, using the radiative-transfer code BHOSS [40], we
produce images at several observing angles, and present here
those at θobs = 60◦ , consistent with observational constraints
[41].
For both compact objects, we consider the interval t/M ∈
[8900, 10000], which for Sgr A* corresponds to an observing
time of ∼ 6 h. At these times, both of the GRMHD simula-
tions are well within the quasi-stationary state (cf. Fig. 1). The
leftmost panels of Fig. 2 show the median of the ray-traced
images and can be used to draw some general considerations
regarding the features that make the two objects distinguish-
able. First, the boson star exhibits a smaller source size as a
result of the emission from the small torus in its interior and
thus at radii comparable or smaller than the black-hole hori-
zon. Second, the boson star yields a more symmetric image
due to the absence of frame-dragging, which significantly re-
duces Doppler boosting and consequently the sharp contrast
in emission between fluid approaching and receding from the
observer. Finally, although less likely to be noticed by obser-
vations, the boson-star image lacks a sharp transition between
the middle dark region and its bright surroundings, which is a
 4

S/Smax
0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1

GRRT GRRT (convolved) EHT 2017 (6h, reconst., scatter)

Kerr a∗ = 0.937 Kerr a∗ = 0.937 Kerr a∗ = 0.937
Relative Declination [µas]

50

−50
DSSIM=0.126
Smax =0.12 mJy Smax =1.55 mJy Smax =1.22 mJy

Boson star Boson star Boson star

Relative Declination [µas]

50

−50
DSSIM=0.060
Smax =0.22 mJy Smax =2.42 mJy Smax =1.84 mJy
−50 0 50 −50 0 50 −50 0 50
Relative R.A. [µas] Relative R.A. [µas] Relative R.A. [µas]

FIG. 2. Ray-traced and synthetic images at 230 GHz of the Kerr black hole (top row) and the boson star (bottom row). From left to right, first
column: median of the ray-traced images in the interval t/M ∈ [8900, 10000], second column: ray-traced images convolved with 50% (red
shaded ellipse) of the EHTC beam (gray shaded ellipse), third column: reconstructed images including interstellar scattering, convolved with
50% (red shaded ellipse) of the EHTC beam (gray shaded ellipse) and indicating the value of the DSSIM metric.

fundamental property of a black-hole shadow and the narrow
photon ring. In fact, due to the absence of a photon-capture
cross section, the central dark region in the boson star case is
simply a lensed image of the central low-density region.
From these ray-traced images, we finally generate synthetic
radio images using the EHTIm software package [42]. We se-
lect as an observing array the configuration of the EHTC 2017
observing campaign, consisting of eight radio telescopes in
the US, Europe, South America and the South Pole. To mimic
realistic radio images, we follow closely the 2017 observing
schedule, using an integration time of 12 s, an on-source scan
length of 7−10 min calibration and pointing gaps between the
on-source scans and a bandwidth of 4 GHz. Within these con-
straints we perform the synthetic observations of the galactic
centre on April 8th 2017 from 08:30 to 14:30 UT. The visi-
bilities are computed by Fourier-transforming the GRRT im-
ages and sampling them with projected baselines of the array
[42]. During this calculation, we include thermal noise and
10% gain variations as well as interstellar scattering by a re-
fracting screen [43]. We reconstruct the final images using a
maximum entropy method (MEM), provided with EHTIm. In
addition to the calculation of the synthetic images, we con-
volve the GRRT images with 50% of the EHTC beam (second
column in Fig. 2). These images can be used to examine the
influence of the sparse sampling of the Fourier space and in-
terstellar scattering on the reconstructed images (third column
in Fig. 2).
A visual inspection of the reconstructed images (third col-
umn in Fig. 2) shows a clear difference between the two com-
pact objects, both in size and structure, with the black-hole
image exhibiting a “crescent” structure. A more quantitative
statement can be made by computing the image-comparison
metrics, such as the structural dissimilarity index (DSSIM)
[44]. The DSSIM is computed between the convolved GRRT

images and the reconstructed ones and, to guarantee that we
compare similar structures within both images, we perform
an image alignment prior to its calculation. Comparing the
convolved Kerr image with the reconstructed image leads to
a DSSIM of 0.13 and in the case of the Boson star we obtain
a DSSIM of 0.06. The inter-model comparison, i.e., Kerr–
Boson star and Boson star–Kerr, reveals DSSIMs of 0.20 and
0.12, respectively. Given these values, we conclude that both
models are distinguishable by current EHTC observations. An
additional tool to discriminate between the two objects can
come from the variability of the emission. Given the qual-
itative differences in the accretion rate, we expect different
spectral-energy properties and different closure-phase vari-
abilities for the two objects, especially for large antenna trian-
gles, which probe the innermost regions currently accessible
by the EHTC.
Conclusions. We combined the first 3D GRMHD simula-
tions of accretion onto a boson star with GRRT calculations,
with the goal of determining whether, under realistic observ-
ing conditions such as those of the EHTC, an accreting boson
star can be distinguished from a Kerr black hole. By compar-
ing the images produced for the two compact objects using
very similar setups, we found important differences, both in
the plasma dynamics and in the GRRT images, which per-
mit to distinguish the two objects. For the boson star case,
the dynamical differences include the formation of a small
torus in its interior and the absence of an evacuated high-
magnetization funnel in the polar regions, while its images
show a smaller source size and a more symmetric emission
structure, in contrast to the characteristic crescent of Kerr-
black-hole accretion. While these results have been obtained
for a nonrotating boson star, we believe they also apply qual-
itatively in the case of rotation as well as for other surface-
less and horizonless compact objects. Finally, we note that
ongoing pulsar searches around Sgr A* [45], when success-
ful, could provide additional important information to the ex-
periment outlined here. A suitable pulsar orbiting a rotating
boson star, would enable a precise determination of its spin
and possibly even its quadrupole moment, providing valuable
input for interpretation of the image and complementary tests
[7, 46, 47]. Details on this will be part of future work. Overall,
our results and the ability to distinguish between these com-
pact objects underline the potential of EHTC observations to
extend our understanding of gravity in its strongest regimes
and to potentially probe the existence of self-gravitating scalar
fields in astrophysical scenarios.
Acknowledgements. We thank Jordy Davelaar, Thomas
Bronzwaer, David Kling, Jonas Köhler, Elias Most, Alejandro
Cruz-Osorio, Arne Grenzebach, Hung-Yi Pu, Norbert Wex
and Lijing Shao for useful input. Support comes from the
ERC Synergy Grant “BlackHoleCam - Imaging the Event
Horizon of Black Holes” (Grant 610058), the COST Ac-
tion CA16214 “PHAROS”, the LOEWE-Program in HIC for
FAIR, the European Union’s Horizon 2020 Research and In-
novation Programme (Grant 671698) (call FETHPC-1-2014,
project ExaHyPE). HO is supported in part by a CONACYT-
5
DAAD scholarship. ZY is supported by a Leverhulme Trust
Early Career Fellowship and an Alexander von Humboldt Fel-
lowship. The simulations were performed on the SuperMUC
cluster at the LRZ in Garching, and on the LOEWE and Iboga
clusters in Frankfurt. This research has made use of NASA’s
Astrophysics Data System.
[1] A. Boehle, A. M. Ghez, R. Schödel, L. Meyer, S. Yelda,
S. Albers, G. D. Martinez, E. E. Becklin, T. Do, J. R. Lu,
K. Matthews, M. R. Morris, B. Sitarski, and G. Witzel, As-
trophys. J. 830, 17 (2016), arXiv:1607.05726
[2] A. M. Ghez, S. Salim, N. N. Weinberg, J. R. Lu, T. Do,
J. K. Dunn, K. Matthews, M. R. Morris, S. Yelda, E. E.
Becklin, T. Kremenek, M. Milosavljevic, and J. Naiman, As-
trophys. J. 689, 1044 (2008), arXiv:0808.2870 S. Gillessen,
F. Eisenhauer, T. K. Fritz, H. Bartko, K. Dodds-Eden, O. Pfuhl,
T. Ott, and R. Genzel, Astrophys. J. Lett. 707, L114 (2009),
arXiv:0910.3069 [astro-ph.GA] S. Chatzopoulos, T. K. Fritz,
O. Gerhard, S. Gillessen, C. Wegg, R. Genzel, and O. Pfuhl,
Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 447, 948 (2015), arXiv:1403.5266
[3] D. P. Marrone, J. M. Moran, J.-H. Zhao, and R. Rao, Astro-
phys. J.l 654, L57 (2007), astro-ph/0611791 A. E. Broderick,
A. Loeb, and R. Narayan, The Astrophysical Journal 701, 1357
(2009)
[4] S. S. Doeleman, J. Weintroub, A. E. E. Rogers, R. Plam-
beck, R. Freund, R. P. J. Tilanus, P. Friberg, L. M. Ziurys,
J. M. Moran, B. Corey, K. H. Young, D. L. Smythe, M. Ti-
tus, D. P. Marrone, R. J. Cappallo, and et al., Nature 455,
78 (2008), arXiv:0809.2442 K. Akiyama, R.-S. Lu, V. L. Fish,
S. S. Doeleman, A. E. Broderick, J. Dexter, K. Hada, M. Kino,
H. Nagai, M. Honma, M. D. Johnson, J. C. Algaba, K. Asada,
C. Brinkerink, R. Blundell, and et al., Astrophys. J. 807,
150 (2015), arXiv:1505.03545 [astro-ph.HE] V. L. Fish, M. D.
Johnson, S. S. Doeleman, A. E. Broderick, D. Psaltis, R.-S. Lu,
K. Akiyama, W. Alef, J. C. Algaba, K. Asada, C. Beaudoin,
A. Bertarini, L. Blackburn, R. Blundell, G. C. Bower, and et al.,
Astrophys. J. 820, 90 (2016), arXiv:1602.05527
[5] C. Goddi, H. Falcke, M. Kramer, L. Rezzolla, C. Brinkerink,
T. Bronzwaer, J. R. J. Davelaar, R. Deane, M. de Laurentis,
G. Desvignes, R. P. Eatough, F. Eisenhauer, R. Fraga-Encinas,
C. M. Fromm, S. Gillessen, and et al., International Journal of
Modern Physics D 26, 1730001-239 (2017), arXiv:1606.08879
[astro-ph.HE]
[6] C. T. Cunningham and J. M. Bardeen, Astrophys. J. 183, 237
(1973)H. Falcke, F. Melia, and E. Agol, Astrophys. J. Lett. 528,
L13 (2000), astro-ph/9912263 A. Grenzebach, The Shadow of
Black Holes (Springer International Publishing, 2016)
[7] A. A. Abdujabbarov, L. Rezzolla, and B. J. Ahmedov, Mon.
Not. R. Astron. Soc. 454, 2423 (2015), arXiv:1503.09054 [gr-
qc] Z. Younsi, A. Zhidenko, L. Rezzolla, R. Konoplya, and
Y. Mizuno, Phys. Rev. D 94, 084025 (2016), arXiv:1607.05767
[gr-qc] D. Psaltis, N. Wex, and M. Kramer, Astrophys. J.
818, 121 (2016), arXiv:1510.00394 [astro-ph.HE] D. Psaltis,
F. Özel, C.-K. Chan, and D. P. Marrone, Astophys. J. 814, 115
(2015), arXiv:1411.1454 [astro-ph.HE]
[8] Y. Mizuno, Z. Younsi, C. M. Fromm, O. Porth, M. De Lau-
rentis, H. Olivares, H. Falcke, M. Kramer, and L. Rez-
zolla, Nature Astronomy (2018), 10.1038/s41550-018-0449-5,
arXiv:1804.05812
[9] Having a hard surface, gravastars [48] fulfill only the first two

of these constraints and have been shown to be distinguishable
from black holes [49].
[10] J. A. Wheeler, Phys. Rev. 97, 511 (1955)D. S. Brill and J. Har-
tle, Phys. Rev. 135, B271 (1964)P. R. Anderson and D. R. Brill,
Phys. Rev. D 56, 4824 (1997)
[11] E. Seidel and W.-M. Suen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 66, 1659
(1991)L. A. Ureña-López, Classical and Quantum Gravity 19,
2617 (2002)
[12] B. Kleihaus, J. Kunz, and M. List, Phys. Rev. D72, 064002
(2005), arXiv:gr-qc/0505143 [gr-qc]
[13] C. J. Saxton, Z. Younsi, and K. Wu, Monthly Notices of the
Royal Astronomical Society 461, 4295 (2016)
[14] A. Linde, Physics Letters B 108, 389 (1982)A. Albrecht and
P. J. Steinhardt, Physical Review Letters 48, 1220 (1982)
[15] J. Preskill, M. B. Wise, and F. Wilczek, Physics Letters B 120,
127 (1983)T. Matos and F. S. Guzman, Class. Quant. Grav. 17,
L9 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9810028 [gr-qc] L. Hui, J. P. Ostriker,
S. Tremaine, and E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 95, 043541 (2017)
[16] A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, and
J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D 81, 123530 (2010)
[17] Y. Fujii and K. ichi Maeda, Classical and Quantum Gravity 20,
4503 (2003)
[18] F. H. Vincent, Z. Meliani, P. Grandclement, E. Gourgoul-
hon, and O. Straub, Class. Quant. Grav. 33, 105015 (2016),
arXiv:1510.04170 [gr-qc]
[19] F. E. Schunck and A. R. Liddle, Phys. Lett. B404, 25 (1997),
arXiv:gr-qc/9704029 [gr-qc]
[20] F. E. Schunck and D. F. Torres, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D9, 601
(2000), arXiv:gr-qc/9911038 [gr-qc]
[21] D. F. Torres, S. Capozziello, and G. Lambiase, Phys. Rev.
D 62, 104012 (2000), arXiv:astro-ph/0004064 [astro-ph] F. E.
Schunck and E. W. Mielke, General Relativity and Gravitation
31, 787 (1999)S. Capozziello, G. Lambiase, and D. F. Torres,
Class. Quant. Grav. 17, 3171 (2000), arXiv:gr-qc/0006086 [gr-
qc] F. S. Guzmán, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 24,
241
[22] M. P. Dabrowski and F. E. Schunck, Astrophys. J. 535, 316
(2000), arXiv:astro-ph/9807039 [astro-ph] K. S. Virbhadra,
D. Narasimha, and S. M. Chitre, Astron. Astrophys. 337, 1
(1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9801174 [astro-ph] K. S. Virbhadra and
G. F. R. Ellis, Phys. Rev. D62, 084003 (2000), arXiv:astro-
ph/9904193 [astro-ph]
[23] M. Grould, Z. Meliani, F. H. Vincent, P. Grandclément, and
E. Gourgoulhon, Classical and Quantum Gravity 34, 215007
(2017)
[24] F. S. Guzmán, Phys. Rev. D 73, 021501 (2006)
[25] F. S. Guzmán, Journal of Physics: Conference Series 314,
012085 (2011)
[26] N. I. Shakura and R. A. Sunyaev, Astron. Astrophys. 24, 337
(1973)
[27] Z. Meliani, P. Grandclément, F. Casse, F. H. Vincent, O. Straub,
and F. Dauvergne, Classical and Quantum Gravity 33, 155010
(2016)
6
[28] V. Cardoso, P. Pani, M. Cadoni, and M. Cavaglià, Phys. Rev. D
77, 124044 (2008)
[29] D. J. Kaup, Phys. Rev. 172, 1331 (1968)
[30] R. Ruffini and S. Bonazzola, Phys. Rev. 187, 1767 (1969)S. L.
Liebling and C. Palenzuela, Living Rev. Relativity 15 (2012),
10.12942/lrr-2012-6, arXiv:1202.5809 [gr-qc]
[31] H. Olivares and et al., (2019), in preparation
[32] P. Amaro-Seoane, J. Barranco, A. Bernal, and L. Rezzolla,
JCAP 11, 002 (2010), arXiv:1009.0019 [astro-ph.CO]
[33] O. Porth, H. Olivares, Y. Mizuno, Z. Younsi, L. Rezzolla,
M. Moscibrodzka, H. Falcke, and M. Kramer, Computational
Astrophysics and Cosmology 4, 1 (2017), arXiv:1611.09720
[gr-qc] H. Olivares Sánchez, O. Porth, and Y. Mizuno, J. Phys.
Conf. Ser. 1031, 012008 (2018)
[34] L. Rezzolla and O. Zanotti, Relativistic Hydrodynamics (Ox-
ford University Press, Oxford, UK, 2013)
[35] S. A. Balbus and J. F. Hawley, Astrophys. J. 376, 214 (1991)
[36] D. F. Torres, Nuclear Physics B 626, 377 (2002)
[37] Z. Younsi, K. Wu, and S. V. Fuerst, Astron. Astrophys. 545,
A13 (2012), arXiv:1207.4234 [astro-ph.HE]
[38] M. Mościbrodzka, C. F. Gammie, J. C. Dolence, H. Sh-
iokawa, and P. K. Leung, Astrophys. J. 706, 497 (2009),
arXiv:0909.5431 [astro-ph.HE]
[39] D. P. Marrone, J. M. Moran, J.-H. Zhao, and R. Rao, Astrophys.
J. 640, 308 (2006), astro-ph/0511653
[40] Z. Younsi and et al., (2019), in preparation
[41] D. Psaltis, R. Narayan, V. L. Fish, A. E. Broderick,
A. Loeb, and S. S. Doeleman, Astrophys. J. 798, 15 (2015),
arXiv:1409.5447 [astro-ph.HE]
[42] A. A. Chael, M. D. Johnson, R. Narayan, S. S. Doeleman,
J. F. C. Wardle, and K. L. Bouman, Astrophys. J. 829, 11
(2016), arXiv:1605.06156 [astro-ph.IM]
[43] M. D. Johnson and C. R. Gwinn, Astrophys. J. 805, 180 (2015),
arXiv:1502.05722 [astro-ph.IM]
[44] Z. Wang, A. C. Bovik, H. R. Sheikh, and E. P. Simoncelli,
IEEE Transactions on Image Processing 13, 600 (2004)
[45] M. Kramer, D. C. Backer, J. M. Cordes, T. J. W. Lazio,
B. W. Stappers, and S. Johnston, Proceedings, IAU Sympo-
sium on From Planets to Dark Energy: The Modern Radio
Universe (MRU 2007): Manchester, England, October 1-6,
2007, New Astron. Rev. 48, 993 (2004), [PoSMRU,020(2007)],
arXiv:astro-ph/0409379 [astro-ph]
[46] N. Wex and S. Kopeikin, Astrophys. J. 514, 388 (1999),
arXiv:astro-ph/9811052 [astro-ph]
[47] K. Liu, N. Wex, M. Kramer, J. M. Cordes, and T. J. W. Lazio,
Astrophys. J. 747, 1 (2012), arXiv:1112.2151 [astro-ph.HE]
[48] P. O. Mazur and E. Mottola, Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. 101,
9545 (2004), arXiv:gr-qc/0407075 C. Cattoen, T. Faber, and
M. Visser, Class. Quantum Grav. 22, 4189 (2005), arXiv:gr-
qc/0505137
[49] C. B. M. H. Chirenti and L. Rezzolla, Phys. Rev. D 78, 084011
(2008), arXiv:0808.4080 [gr-qc] C. Chirenti and L. Rezzolla,
Phys. Rev. D 94, 084016 (2016), arXiv:1602.08759 [gr-qc]