Electromagnetic Extraction of Energy From Kerr (Extracción Electromagnética de Energía de Kerr Agujeros Negros)
Electromagnetic Extraction of Energy From Kerr (Extracción Electromagnética de Energía de Kerr Agujeros Negros)
Electromagnetic Extraction of Energy From Kerr (Extracción Electromagnética de Energía de Kerr Agujeros Negros)
433B
1 Introduction
One of the central problems of extragalactic astronomy concerns the nature of the 'prime
mover' that is powering active galactic nuclei (including quasars). In discussions of this
question, two analogies have been drawn with the Crab Nebula, which is clearly powered by
a central pulsar - a spinning magnetized neutron star that is steadily liberating its rotational
energy through relativistic particle and electromagnetic energy fluxes. Firstly it has been
proposed that such a nucleus might contain a cluster of 106- 8 pulsars, the currently active
ones forming several overlapping Crab Nebulae (e.g. Rees 1971). Alternatively, the central
energy source might be a single magnetized star of mass 106- 8 M 0 that acts like a giant
a 2
tlV--cBh (2.2)
M2
(2.3)
with we the electron gyro frequency. We expect that the field lines will have curvature
- M- 1 and so the peak energy of the radiated photons will be
E-"(
3 (hc)
M (2.4)
The photon mean free path to pair creation in a direction making an angle ~ to the magnetic
field is
hwcesin (
')]
;
(2.5)
dn
dx'Y
l e2
41TEoc 3 'Y
4
(c '1)
M CE
2 2
) r
137 M · (2.6)
An approximate criterion for breakdown is that each electron produces one pair within
the gap. Combining equations (2.3)--(2.6) we obtain
using sin~~ h/M. The logarithm has a value ~ 10-100 for parameters of interest and for
present purposes it is sufficient to set it as 30. Breakdown will occur as long ash ;S;M, i.e. for
a -314(M)-112
B'220 ( -) - T;
M) Max [10- 14(;
(.MG ?, )
-312
, 10- 11 (;)
-112]
(2.8)
M M0
where the second inequality follows from the requirements €? 2mec 2 , n-y> 1. If this
inequality is satisfied by a large factor, the conductivity along the field lines is effectively
infinite.
In deriving inequality (2 .8) it has been assumed that gamma rays are only produced by
the curvature process. In fact the radiation of transverse gyrational energy, Doppler-shifted
by the longitudinal motion, inverse Compton scattering, and for very small holes free-free
emission could be alternative sources of hard photons. The efficiency of these processes
cannot be estimated so easily, but if they are important, field strengths significantly lower
than that given by equation (2.8) may be adequate to ensure breakdown of the vacuum.
In fact in the principal application of this mechanism to a massive black hole in a galactic
nucleus (Section 8) inverse Compton scattering of the ambient radiation field may prevent
the electrons from achieving sufficiently high energies, 'Y2 mec 2/hwG, for subsequent pair
creation in the magnetic field. However, within this environment there is a much more
efficient breakdown mechanism. A relativistic electron can inverse Compton scatter a
photon from the ambient radiation field as a )'-ray which can then pair create with the
assistance of a second background photon. If the ambient radiation energy density is€ with
characteristic frequency, w, then the vacuum will break down provided that
This requires that the component of electric field parallel to the magnetic field be suffici-
ently strong to maintain an electron at this energy against radiative losses. Hence necessary
conditions for breakdown by this method are
€ 210 8 (M)-10
-
M0
1
(
----)
w
15 rad/s.
Jm-3 (2.9)
where we have ignored contributions to the radiation energy density from frequencies below
the maximum for which these inequalities are satisfied.
B- (Ma)~-5x10
£ 14(MQ)(Ma)('MAf )-IT.
(M--Q)~10 _ M-a )-
13 ( II
2
(
112
-M ) .' and 1M)10- (a )-I
1- ~ 12 - (2.10)
M0 \M0 .M
If this inequality is satisfied, the hole will rapidly discharge. Condition (2.10) effectively
rules out the possibility of a hole with gravitationally significant spin and charge.
This breakdown mechanism may also operate for a non-rotating, charged Reissner-
Nordstrom hole. However, a necessary condition for a cascade to develop is that each
charged particle produces at least one sufficiently hard photon. As the acceleration in a
radial electric field is purely linear, a more careful calculation must be performed to deter-
mine when this requirement is satisfied. An approximate calculation leaves the question
unresolved.
Gibbons (1974) has analysed pair creation occurring near the horizon of a Reissner-
Nordstrom hole and its spontaneous loss of charge. He assumes that the 'Schwinger process'
operates, which is efficient whenever the electric potential difference across a Compton
wavelength exceeds the rest mass of an electron (in eV). The present process in which the
Compton wavelength is effectively replaced by Mh will generally set in at much lower
electromagnetic field strengths, at least when the hole is rotating. It is for this reason that
the upper limit (2 .10) is much lower than that implied by Gibbons' analysis. However, both
these conditions allow the charge on the hole to exceed that value for which the electric
force on individual charged particles is much greater than the gravitational force and so in
the absence of any other electromagnetic effects selective accretion of charges of opposite
sign to the hole will occur, further reducing Q.
* This expression is more appropriate in the present context than the usual MHD condition (FµvUv = 0),
because the plasma will not necessarily possess a well-defined fluid velocity, Uv. It follows directly from
the requirement that inertial and collisional terms be insignificant for each individual particle species.
1:ormally similar results can be derived using MHD (e.g. Damour 1975). It can be shown that a necessary
and sufficient condition for the individual particle speeds to be less than c is that F µvFµv > 0. This is true
for the examples presented below in Sections 6 and 7, as a direct calculation confirms.
where L=r 2 +a 2 cos2 0, 6=r 2 --2Mr+a 2 '=(r-r+)(r-r_) and A={r 2 +a 2 ) 2 -6a 2 sin 2 0.
r+(=M+y'M 2 --a 2 ) is the radius of the event horizon. We assume the field and vector
where
g = - det (gcxf3)
= 2::2
sin 2 0
in Boyer-Lindquist coordinates. (In fact most of this section can be generalized to any
alternative stationary, axisymmetric metric.) Equation {3 .3b) becomes
µEo
Pl>=wJ 0 +-B _ (3.7)
gl/2 ¢
o Jll.= F'!-v
€-1
,v = g-112(g112,.µagv/3(A
o {3,a_ A a,/3)) ,v
where Br= (b./'i) sin 0B<I>and the ga/3 can be obtained from equation (3.2). Substituting
equations (3.6) into (3.9b) and (3.9c),
µA</>,0= Br,0 and µA¢,r = Br,r.
This shows that Br is a fourth quantity that is a function of A</>only, and that
µ =dBr/dA<I>. (3.10)
Equation (3.6) shows that current does not cross the poloidal field surfaces. The outward
current between surfaces A</>and A</>
+dA<I>(counting both hemispheres), as measured by an
observer at infinity, is
(3 .11)
(3.12)
where the subscript e labels the field line touching the event horizon at 0 = rr/2. This must
be balanced by an equal current flowing radially inwards in the disc which supports the
discontinuity in the toroidal magnetic field across the disc.
Suppose we know Br(A<I>) and w(A<I>)and require a function A<l>(r,0) that will give us a
self-consistent solution of the force-free and Maxwell equations. Equations (3 .6) and (3.10)
ensure that (3.9b) and (3.9c) are satisfied. Equation (3.4) enables us to determineA 0 using
(3.13)
Equations (3 .6), (3 .7) and (3 .13) imply that the force-free equations are satisfied. J 0 and
J<I>are given in terms of A</>by equations (3.9a), (3.9d) and (3.13); the only constraint they
must satisfy is equation (3.7). Thus by substituting (3.9a), (3.9d) and (3.13) into (3.7) we
obtain the fundamental differential equation for the potential A</>
(3.14)
"LBrB'r sin 0
--. - = w 2a +2w{3 + 'Y +- (Aw - 2Mar)(6(A¢,r)2 + (A¢ 0)2) w'
6 sm 0 L6 '
where the prime denotes differentiation with respect to A¢ and
(A ) (A
+ 6 - 1 -L-sin 0 A¢, e
)
For any stationary axisymmetric system we can define conserved flux vectors for energy and
angular momentum about the axis of symmetry (cf Damour 1975). Let Tµv be the total
energy-momentum tensor, and ~µ a Killing vector. Then from
, =O
Tl!-: (4.1)
~µ;v + ~v;µ = 0
it follows that
( t Tµv _
<;,µ );v-0. (4.2)
where r2tt=a/(r}+a 2 ) is the angular velocity of the hole (e.g. Misner et al. 1973). Hence
er 2 0 implies
0$ W $ r2tt, (4.6)
which with equation ( 4.4) gives
er$[2H.;f!r_ (4.7)
Inequality ( 4. 7) could have been derived using the classical limit of the Second Law of
Black Hole Thermodynamics: the irreducible mass of the hole cannot decrease (e.g. Misner
et al. 1973). Here it remains constant only when w = nH. We can define the efficiency of
the energy extraction process to be
e = Actual energy extracted/Maximum extractable energy (4.8)
when unit angular momentum is removed. The numerator is w, by equation (4.4). (If w
varies from field line to field line we can either consider e to be the efficiency of a given
field line or integrate to obtain a mean e, as is done in Section 7 .) Let J = aM be the angular
momentum of the hole. The irreducible mass of the hole Mir is given by
Afir=·½v'ITir.;
so that
ltf 2 = lvf.2
If + J /4M-
2 2
If• (4.9)
€ = 1 can be approached by making w increase towards nH, but perfect efficiency is never
achieved because when
w=nH, cr=!fr=Br=O*.
Integrating equations (4.3) and (4.4), we find that the total rate of energy extraction
from the hole (measured at infinity) is
f2 7T dq; r'IT
d0 err, sin 0 = - 47T€o IAedA(/JBr(A¢) w(A¢). (4.11)
Jo Jo Ap
- 4rr€o fAe
Ap
Br(A¢) dA¢. (4.12)
Some physical insight into this process can be obtained by means of the following
mechanical analogy. Consider a solid disc of thermally conducting material rotating with
angular velocity nH> 0 and surrounded by a large annular ring of thermally insulating
material with angular velocity w. Let there be a frictional couple exerted by the disc on the
ring proportional to their relative velocity, C = K(nH - w ). Then unless w = nH, heat will
be generated which will raise the internal energy of the disc. Furthermore, the frictional
couple will increase the rotational energy of the ring at a rate Kw(nH - w) and decrease the
rotational energy of the disc at a rate KnH(nH - w ). The surplus energy (which is of course
positive) is the rate of heat production K(nH - w )2. The efficiency of mechanical energy
transfer to the ring - consistent with the definition ( 4.8) - is clearly w/nH as long as
0 ,::;w ,::;DH. When w > nH, the disc gains energy and angular momentum at the expense
of the ring just as the hole's mass and angular momentum would be increased by the
magnetic stresses if we did not impose a radiation condition at infinity. When w < 0, both
the ring and the disc lose rotational energy, but there is a transfer of angular momentum
from the disc to the ring and correspondingly for the case of the hole.
What then acts as an effective frictional force between the hole and the magnetic field?
* It is interesting that a black hole magnetosphere possesses two light surfaces (defined to be the loci
where the speed of a particle moving purely toroidally with angular velocity d(/J/dt= w, satisfying (4.6),
equals c). The outer light surface corresponds to the conventional pulsar light cylinder and physical
particles must travel radially outwards beyond it. Within the inner light surface, whose existence can be
attributed to the dragging of inertial frames and gravitational redshift, particles must travel radially
inwards. (The inner surface is by definition the boundary of the ergosphere when w = 0.) Both
surfaces are given by
.:i(l -aw sin2 0) 2 = [w(r+a 2 )-a] 2 sin2 0
(Znajek 1977). The spark gaps discussed in Section 2 must therefore lie between these two surfaces.
and
These scalars are identical to their Boyer-Lindquist namesakes outside the horizon and are
well behaved inside.
A particle of rest-mass m and charge e has a generalized 4-momentum pµ = muµ- eAµ.
The energy p 0 and angular momentum -pr/> are constants of the particle's motion. (See
e.g. Carter 1973 .) These constants can be trivially split into mechanical and electromagnetic
components proportional to m and e respectively.
When the field is force-free, the particles travel on surfaces of constant A 0 and Ar/>.Inside
the event horizon these surfaces must cross the equatorial plane at finite r (see Fig. 1). This
implies that they must become spacelike and so the particles have to leave them, thus
violating the force-free assumption and altering the electromagnetic contributions to the
constants of motion. The mechanical contributions to those constants must undergo
opposite changes. What is likely to happen is that the particles will be rapidly accelerated
just before the field lines become null, with the emission of a large number of photons, but
whatever the details, the energy and angular momentum must end up in 'mechanical' form
travelling towards the singularity. We assume that at X, A O and Ar/>take their axial values
outside the event horizon. (This is done for simplicity and because it is actually true in the
limiting case of a Schwarzschild hole when Xis the singularity.) Whatever A 0 and Ar/>really
are at X, it can be shown, by inserting an extra closed circuit, that the result obtained below
is unaltered. As the total current to X is zero, the total electromagnetic component of the
energy and angular momentum flow is also zero. We calculate the rate of transfer of
electromagnetic into mechanical energy within the event horizon, using as our time deriva-
tive xµ(a/axµ), which corresponds to time as measured at infinity. As the 0 = 0 axis is a line
of constant A 0 , the potential difference between a surface of constant Ar/>in the force-free
magnetosphere and X is - using equation (3 .13)
Using equations (3 .10), (3.11) and (3 .12) the rate of increase of mechanical energy inside
Figure 1. Schematic cross-section of black hole and magnetosphere, using r and 8 coordinates in
normal way. (Due to axial and time symmetry the diagram is independent of the azimuthal and time
coordinates that are being held constant; these can be the Kerr coordinates v and rf>,or for r >r+ the
Boyer-Lindquist coordinates t and qi.) The poloidal field has been chosen so that nff B > 0. H is the
event horizon r = r+. The poloidal field surfaces (i.e. surfaces of constant Aqi) are shown as solid lines, with
the polar and equatorial surfaces Aqi =Ap and Aqi = Ae specifically labelled. A current I is flowing from
the magnetosphere into the hole, and back out of the hole into the disc D lying in the 8 = rr/2 plane
(denoted by heavy stippling). Particles can only cross the event horizon one way, into the hole. In the
magnetosphere there are spark gaps like SG creating pairs of positrons e+ and electrons e-. Positrons are
flowing into the hole along surfaces Aqi = const. at a faster rate than electrons, and there is a higher
density of electrons (as the space charge has to be negative). Projections of typical particle velocities are
shown by arrows. Particles can remain on the hypersurfaces of constant Aqi only as long as the normals to
these surfaces are space-like. The locus where these surfaces become null is L. Between the disc and the
hole there is a transition region T in which the matter is falling from the disc to the hole. This is shown by
lighter stippling.
The first term is exactly cancelled by the work done on matter in the hole by the disc
current. Thus the hole is losing energy electromagnetically at the rate
a
w(r, 0) = - 2 W(r, 0). (5.1)
M
From equation (3.15)
3
Br(r, 0) = Ma2 Y(r, 0) +O ( M
a) . (5.2)
Changing the sign of a does not alter the shape of the field lines and so we put
2 4
Aqi(r, 0) = X(r, 0) + -a 2 x(r, 0) +0 ( - a ) (5.3)
M M,
LX=O, (5.4)
1 a( 2M)
a 1 a 1 a
L = sin 0 a, l - 7 ar + r2 o0 sin 0 o0.
Lx = S(r, 0) (5.5)
where the source function is given in terms of the known potential X(r, 0) and the functions
W(r,0), Y(r, 0) by
2M 3 4M 3 sin 0
3 yy'
+ -W' sin 2 0 [ W - -2M ] [ 2
r (X )2+ · (X·0 )2 ] (5.6)
M2 r ,r (l - 2M/r) [M2(l - 2M/r)] .
The prime denotes differentiation with respect to X. In deriving equation (5 .6) use was made
of (5.4). For 0 4:; 1, A</l= const. + 0(0 2 ) and Y = 0(0 2 ). Hence S = 0(0). If the toroidal disc
current in the perturbed situation is different from the unperturbed current that generates
X, an appropriate term a:o(cos0) should be added tO S.
Discussion of the solution of equation (5.5) is deferred to the Appendix. Here it is
sufficient to note that the solution exists if, and only if, the integral
i1rf""
0 2M
IS(r, 0)
---drd0
r
I
converges. This requires that S be o[l/(1 - 2M/r)] at the horizon r = 2M. This in turn im-
poses the condition
Y(2M, 0) = (W - ¼) sin ex' 0 (5.7)
which can be seen to be identical to the boundary condition (3 .15) expanded to O(a/M2 ).
Equation (5. 7) effectively fixes Was a function of Y, but Y itself must be determined as a
function of X before the source function can be completely specified. We cannot guarantee
that the solution of equation ( 5 .6) with any particular choice of Y will correspond to a solu-
tion of the full non-linear equations. In the two examples that we present below, we are in
possession of exact analytic solutions of the non-linear flat space equations. We believe it to
be likely (but cannot prove) that whenever there exists a suitable flat space solution there
also exists a Kerr metric solution approaching it at large distances. (The existence and
uniqueness problem seems to be qualitatively unchanged from that in flat space (Scharlemann
& Wagoner 1973) by the introduction of general relativity.) If we assume that this is true,
then we can specify a second relation between Wand Y, thus determining the efficiency,€,
and the source function, S. This second relation effectively fixes the current flowing through
the hole for a given potential difference. Alternative electromagnetic conditions at infinity
would yield an alternative relation.
This is admittedly a somewhat artificial application as none of the field lines, defined by
(6.1) actually cross the disc and furthermore the current given by equation (6.2) must
extend right up to the horizon at r = 2M despite the fact that stable circular orbits only exist
up to r = 6M. However, there is no objection in principle to maintaining this current distribu-
tion, e.g. by using non-gravitational forces.
We now let the hole rotate slowly. The boundary condition at the horizon, (5.7), gives
one equation relating Y and W
Y = C(W - ¼) sin 2 0. (6.3)
The exact solution for a rotating radial field in a flat spacetime has been given by Michel
(1973) and it is to this that we choose to match our complete solution in the far field, well
beyond the gravitational influence of the hole. A trivial generalization of Michel's solution to
include the possibility that the angular velocity be variable gives a second equation
Y= - CWsin 2 0, (6.4)
where we have used the boundary condition Y ➔ Oas 0 ➔ O. As 0, Wand Y are constant along
the unperturbed field lines, we can equate (6.3) and (6.4) to obtain
W= 1/s
Y= -1/sCsin 2 0. (6.5)
This means that the electromagnetic angular velocity w is constant and equal to half the
hole angular velocity nH(to O(a/M)). The value of w is effectively determined by the shape
of the poloidal field lines rather than the geometry of spacetime in the vicinity of the hole.
The efficiency of electromagnetic energy extraction, as defined by (4.10) is then 50 per cent.
If we substitute (6.1) and (6.5) into the source function, we obtain
S(r, 0) = - CM
?" ( 1 + 2M)
-; sin 0 cos 0. (6.6)
Only the 1 = 1 term of the summation in the Greens function {A2) contributes to the solution
of equation (4.5), i.e. the equation is separable in rand 0. Straightforward but lengthy calcu-
lation yields the following expression for the perturbation x(r, 0).
X ( ~ :r
4 - 2 ( :) - ( + (: - 3)ln (1- 2 (:) ) ] sin 2 0 cos 0
I(x) =i= dt In
X t
(-t-);
t- 1
X;;. l. (6.7)
We have chosen that solution of the differential equation which is finite at the horizon
[x(2M, 0) = C(1T2/ 12 - 49 /72) sin2 0 cos 0] and falls off faster than X(r, 0) as r ➔ 00 :
7 Paraboloidalmagneticfield
which varies monotonically over the horizon from W(0) = 0.125 to W('TT/2)= 0.0663.
+
'-.
+--
B~®J0
~Bf'i + Ep
+
Jp/; 60,J00 "-A:,Jp
+ +
+
........
+ +
+
Figure 2. Electromagnetic structure of force-free magnetosphere with (a) radial and (b) paraboloidal
magnetic fields. !!tt •B is taken to be positive. Space charge, currents and non-zero field components
shown are as seen by a static observer outside the ergosphere E. Physical observers travelling round the
hole at constant r and 0 and angular velocity drp/dt will see the electric field reverse direction on the sur-
face d<JJ/dt= w. Inside this surface they see a Poynting flux of energy going towards the hole. (For a
system of observers with time-like worldlines d<JJ/dt->nH on the event horizon and d<JJ/dt->0 at infinity.
Hence when O< w < S"!tt, i.e. when the hole is losing energy electromagnetically, this surface always
exists.) The discs are assumed to be Keplerian; the electromagnetic structure of the magnetosphere of the
transition region, T, in (b) cannot be determined without additional assumptions. Outside this region
Blandford's (1976) Newtonian solution applies. Note the difference in the shape of the light surface, L, in
the two cases. For a paraboloidal field the energy appears to be focussed along the rotation axis.
f d'T-·S
f d'T.· (S/4 W)
where the integrals are over all field lines crossing the horizon. A straightforward calculation
using (4.11) gives € = 38 per cent, somewhat less than the efficiency for the radial field ..
Further electromagnetic properties of this approximate solution can be calculated following
Blandford (197 6) - see also Fig. 2(b ).
Unfortunately, this second example is also rather artificial because there is no natural way
to match the black hole solution at 08 = rr/2 to an equatorial disc solution. Unless there is a
current sheet in the magnetosphere, W must be continuous. At large radii, Wis presumably
determined by the angular velocity of the disc which increases to ~ ( 6,J6Mr 1 at r ~ 6M. For
6M?:,r2 2M, there would have to be a transition region within which the angular velocity
changes smoothly to 0.27 !18 . This could in principle be achieved using non-gravitational
(especially electromagnetic) forces, although it would involve dynamical considerations
totally absent from the present treatment. In particular any fluid velocity would have to
have a substantial radial component at the horizon, because the angular velocity of a purely
circular orbit must approach !18 there. As most of the gravitational energy of the infalling
material is actually liberated within this transition region we cannot obtain a reliable
estimate of the efficiency of electromagnetic energy extraction from the disc. However,
there is no reason to suppose that given a similar field geometry to that just described, the
efficiency of removal of the hole's rotational energy should be seriously different from
38 per cent and that the total efficiency for the disc cannot exceed that associated with the
last stable circular orbit (6-42 per cent as a increases from Oto M - Bardeen (1970)).
(
Ltt 112 M) M -1
B~02 . --)
1038 W (- a (--)
10 9 M0 T
using equation (4.11 ). For a hole of mass in the range 10 8-10 10 M0 supplying Ltt <:10 38 W of
electromagnetic power to a galactic nucleus, the field strength must exceed 0.01 T and from
(2.8) we see that this is certainly adequate for breakdown.
If, alternatively, the torque in the disc is viscous then the gravitational energy of the
accreting material in the disc will be mainly radiated away. (In the transition region most of
this energy will probably be swallowed by the hole.) Energy liberated in this way is unlikely
to be transformable into the non-thermal emission characteristic of active nuclei and we
must rely on the electromagnetic power from the hole. If a fraction 0.1 ,t:1 of the rest mass
of the accreting material is radiated from the disc, then the rate of mass accretion is
restricted to the Salpeter (1964) limit:
M
~ <:4.5 X 10 7 f-1 yr
M
assuming electron scattering.
In conclusion, we have discussed a mechanism for extracting rotational energy from a
Kerr hole. The presence of the three principle ingredients: angular momentum, a magnetic
Acknowledgments
We thank J. P. Arons, G. W. Gibbons, S. W. Hawking, D. Lynden-Bell and M. J. Rees for
References
Abramowitz, M. & Stegun, I. A., 1964. Handbook of mathematical functions, Dover, New York.
Arons, J.P., Kulsrud, R. M. & Ostriker, J.P., 1975. Astrophys. J., 198,687.
Bardeen, J.M., 1970. Nature, 226, 64.
Bardeen, J.M., Carter, B. & Hawking, S. W., 1973. Comm. Math. Phys., 31, 161.
Biimovatyi-Kogan, G. S. & Ruzmaikin, A. A., 1976. Astrophys. Space Sci., 42, 401.
Blandford, R. D., 1976. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 176,465.
Blandford, R. D. & McKee, C. F., 1976. Phys. Fluids, 19, 1130.
Burbidge, G. R., Jones, T. W. & O'Dell, S. L., 1974. Astrophys. J., 193, 43.
Carter, B., 1973. Black holes, eds C. DeWitt & B. DeWitt, Gordon & Breach, New York.
Christodolou, D., 1970. Phys. Rev. Lett., 25, 1596.
Cocke, W. J. & Pacholczyk, A.G., 1975. Astrophys. J., 195,279.
Cohen, M. H., Moffett, A. T., Romney, J. D., Schilizzi, R. T., Kellermann, K. I., Shaffer, D. B., Pauliny-
Toth, I. I. K., Preuss, E., Witzel, A., Purcell, G. H., Rinehart, R. & Seielstad, G. A., 1976.
Astrophys. J. Lett., 206, LL
Damour, T., 1975.Ann. N.Y. Acad. Sci., 262,113.
Epstein, E. E., Fogarty, W. G., Hackney, K. R., Hackney, R. L., Leacock, R. J., Pomphrey, R. B., Scott,
R. L., Smith, A.G., Hawkins, R. W., Roeder, R. C., Gary, B. L., Tritton, K. P., Penston, M. V.,
Bertund, Ch., Veron, M. P., Wlerick, G., Bernard, A., Bigay, J. H., Merlin, P., Durand, A., Sause, G.,
Becklin, E. E., Neugebauer, G. & Wynn-Williams, G. G., 1972. Astrophys. J. Lett., 178, L51.
Erber, T., 1966. Rev. mod. Phys., 38,626.
Fabian, A. C., Maccagni, D., Rees, M. J. & Stoeger, W.R., 1976. Nature, 260,683.
Ferraro, V. C. A., 1937. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 97,458.
Fomalont, E. B. & Miley, G. K., 1975. Nature, 257, 99.
Gibbons, G. W., 1974. Comm. Math. Phys., 44,245.
Goldreich, P. & Julian, W. H., 1969.Astrophys. J., 157,869.
Hawking, S. W., 1974. Nature, 248, 30.
Hawking, S. W., 1976. Phys. Rev. D, 13, 191.
Hawking, S. W. & Ellis, G. F. R., 1973. The large scale structure of spacetime, Cambridge University Press.
Hoyle, F., Burbidge, G. R. & Sargent, W. L. W., 1966.Nature, 209,751.
Kellermann, K. I., 1974.Astrophys. J. Lett., 194, L135.
King, A. R., Lasota, J.P. & Kundt, W., 1975. Phys. Rev. D, 12, 3037.
Kingman, J. F. C. & Taylor, S. J., 1966. An introduction to measure and probability theory, Cambridge
University Press.
Lovelace, R. V., 1976. Nature, 262,649.
Lynden-Bell, D., 1969. Nature, 223, 690.
Lynden-Bell, D. & Rees, M. J., 1971. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 152,461.
Martin, P. G., Angel, J. R. P. & Maza, J., 1976. Astrophys. J. Lett., 209, L21.
Mestel, L., Wright, G. A. E. & Westfold, K. C., 1976. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 175,257.
Michel, F. C., 1973.Astrophys. J. Lett., 180, L133.
Misner, C. W., Thorne, K. S. & Wheeler, J. A., 1973. Gravitation, W. H. Freeman & Co., San Francisco.
Morrison, P., 1969. Astrophys. J. Lett., 157, L73.
Novikov, I. D. & Thorne, K. S., 1973. Black holes, eds C. DeWitt & B. DeWitt, Gordon & Breach, New
York.
Okamoto, I., 1974. Mon. Not. R. astr. Soc., 167,457.
Penrose, R., 1969. Nuovo. Cim., 1,252.
Petterson, J. A., 1974. Phys. Rev. D, 10, 3166.
Petterson, J. A., 1975. Phys. Rev. D, 12, 2218.
Pringle, J.E., Rees, M. J. & Pacholczyk, A.G., 1973. Astr. Astrophys., 29, 179.
Appendix
P}2•
O) being a Jacobi polynomial, and
Vz(r)= U,(r) J r
oo r' dr'
(2M- r')[U,(r')]2. (A4)
From (Al) we can write down the solution to Lx = S that falls to zero as r ➔ 00 and is non-
singular at the event horizon:
2 1 1
]Rt(r,ro)l=IRko,r)I< ' (!__) , (r,s;r0 ),
r0 - 2M r 0 21 + 2
and we then have sufficient information about R 1 to be able to use the dominated con-
vergence theorem (e.g. Kingman & Taylor 1966) to prove that if S(r,0) is continuous in
f in
00
2M
dr
O
d0--
IS(r, 0) I
r
converges. In the two cases treated in Sections 6 and 7, convergence at the horizon is
ensured by the boundary condition (3.15).