sign in sign up
<<
Home , Fuzzball (string theory)

Distinguishing fuzzballs from black holes through their multipolar structure

Massimo Bianchi1, Dario Consoli2, Alfredo Grillo1, Jos`eFrancisco Morales1, Paolo Pani3, Guilherme Raposo3 1 Dipartimento di Fisica, Universit`adi Roma “Tor Vergata” & Sezione INFN Roma2, Via della ricerca scientifica 1, 00133, Roma, Italy 2 Mathematical Physics Group, University of Vienna, Boltzmanngasse 5 1090 Vienna, Austria and 3 Dipartimento di Fisica, “Sapienza” Universit`adi Roma & Sezione INFN Roma1, Piazzale Aldo Moro 5, 00185, Roma, Italy

Within General Relativity, the unique stationary solution of an isolated is the Kerr , which has a peculiar multipolar structure depending only on its and spin. We develop a general method to extract the multipole moments of arbitrary stationary and apply it to a large family of horizonless microstate geometries. The latter can break the axial and equatorial symmetry of the and have a much richer multipolar structure, which provides a portal to constrain fuzzball models phenomenologically. We find numerical evidence that all multipole moments are typically larger (in absolute value) than those of a Kerr black hole with the same mass and spin. Current measurements of the quadrupole moment of black-hole candidates could place only mild constraints on fuzzballs, while future gravitational-wave detections of extreme mass-ratio inspirals with the space mission LISA will improve these bounds by orders of .

Introduction. Owing to the black-hole (BH) uniqueness serving as a genuine strong- test of Einstein’s grav- and no-hair theorems [1, 2] (see also Refs. [3–5]), within ity [10–16], along with other proposed observational tests General Relativity (GR) any stationary BH in isolation of fuzzballs (see, e.g., Refs. [17, 18]). In this context is also axisymmetric and its multipole moments1 satisfy it is intriguing that current gravitational-wave (GW) an elegant relation [6], observations (especially the recent GW190814 [19] and GW190521 [20, 21]) do not exclude the existence of ex- BH BH `+1 ` M` + iS` = M (iχ) , (1) otic compact objects other than BHs and neutron . In GR, BHs have curvature singularities that are con- where M (S ) are the Geroch-Hansen mass (current) ` ` jectured to be always covered by event horizons [22–24]. multipole moments [6, 7], the suffix “BH” refers to the At the quantum level, BHs behave as thermodynamical BH metric, M = M is the mass, χ ≡ J /M2 the di- 0 systems with the area of the and its surface mensionless spin, and J = S the 1 gravity playing the role of the entropy and temperature, (we use natural units throughout). Equation (1) implies respectively [25, 26]. In fact a BH can evaporate emitting that all Kerr moments with ` ≥ 2 can be written only [27]. This gives rise to a number of in terms of the mass M and angular momentum J of paradoxes that can be addressed in a consistent quantum the spacetime. Introducing the dimensionless quantities `+1 `+1 theory of gravity such as theory [28]. M` ≡ M`/M and S` ≡ S`/M , the nonvanishing moments are For special classes of extremal (charged BPS) BHs [29– 31] one can precisely count the microstates that account BH n 2n BH n 2n+1 M2n = (−1) χ , S2n+1 = (−1) χ (2) for the BH entropy. In some cases, one can even iden- tify smooth horizonless geometries with the same mass, for n = 0, 1, 2, .... The fact that M` = 0 (S` = 0) when ` charges, and angular momentum as the corresponding is odd (even) is a consequence of the equatorial symmetry BH. These geometries represent some of the microstates of the Kerr metric. Likewise, the fact that all multipoles in the low-energy (super)gravity description. The exis- with ` ≥ 2 are proportional to (powers of) the spin – as tence of a nontrivial structure at the putative horizon well as their specific spin dependence – is a peculiarity arXiv:2007.01743v3 [hep-th] 28 Oct 2020 scale is the essence of the fuzzball proposal [32–35]. In of the Kerr metric, that is lost for other compact-object the latter, many properties of BHs in GR emerge from an solutions in GR [8, 9] and also for BH solutions in other averaging procedure over a large number of microstates, gravitational theories. or as a ‘collective behavior’ of fuzzballs [36–40]. So far Testing whether these properties hold for an astrophys- it has been hard to find a statistically significant frac- ical dark object provides an opportunity to perform mul- tion of microstate geometries both for five-dimensional tiple null-hypothesis tests of the Kerr metric – for ex- (3-charge) and for four-dimensional (4-charge) BPS BHs. ample by measuring independently three multipole mo- Yet, several classes of solutions based on a multicenter ments such as the mass, spin, and mass quadrupole M2 – ansatz [41–46] have been found and their origin uncovered [47–49]. Although in viable astrophysical scenarios BHs are ex- 1 For a generic spacetime the multipole moments of order ` are pected to be neutral, charged BPS BHs are a useful toy rank-` tensors, which reduce to scalar quantities, M` and S`, in model to explore the properties of their microstates. Ex- the axisymmetric case. See below for the general definition. tending the fuzzball proposal to neutral, non-BPS, BHs 2

3 in four dimensions and finding predictions that can be ob- reduce to the scalars M` ≡ M`0 and S` ≡ S`0. The servationally tested so as to distinguish this from other same holds for more general axisymmetric metrics. proposals and from the standard BH picture in GR [16] Here we consider fuzzball solutions of gravity in four remain an open challenge. dimensions minimally coupled to four Maxwell fields and In this letter and in a companion paper [50], we investi- three complex scalars. A general class of extremal solu- gate the differences in the multipolar structure between tions of the Einstein-Maxwell system is described by a BHs and fuzzballs. As we shall argue, already at the metric of the form [53–55] level of the quadrupole moments the nonaxisymmetric 3 geometry of generic microstates in the four-dimensional 2 X ds2 = −e2U (dt + w) + e−2U dx2, (7) fuzzball model leads to a much richer phenomenology and i to potentially detectable deviations from GR. i=1 Setup. Our method is based on Thorne’s seminal work with on the multipole moments of a stationary isolated ob- 3 1 X ject [51]. The idea is to choose a suitable coordinate e−4U = L L L V − K1 K2 K3 M + KI KJ L L 1 2 3 2 I J system – so called asymptotically Cartesian mass cen- I>J tered (ACMC) – whereby the mass and current multipole 3 3 MV X 1 1 X moments can be directly extracted from a multipolar ex- − KI L − M 2V 2 − (KI L )2 , 2 I 4 4 I pansion of the metric components. In an ACMC system, I=1 I=1 the metric of a stationary asymptotically flat object can 1 ∗ dw = V dM − MdV + KI dL − L dKI  , (8) be written as [50] 3 2 I I 2 2 2 where ∗ is the Hodge dual in 3-dimensional flat space, ds = −(1 − c00)dt + c0i dt dxi + (1 + c00) dxi + ... (3) 3 I {V,LI ,K ,M} are eight harmonic functions associated with xi = {x, y, z}, and c00 and c0i admitting a spherical- with the four electric and four magnetic charges, and harmonic expansion2 of the form [51] I,J = 1, 2, 3. Fuzzball solutions are obtained by distributing the ∞ ` r X X 1 4π charges of the eight harmonic functions among N centers c = 2 (M Y + `0 < `) (4) 00 r1+` 2` + 1 `m `m in such a way that the geometry near each center lifts to `=0 m=−` a regular five-dimensional geometry. More explicitly, we ∞ ` s take X X 1 4π(` + 1) c = 2 S Y B + `0 < ` 0i r1+` `(2` + 1) `m i,`m N N `=1 m=−` X va X ma V = v0 + ,M = m0 + ra ra B a=1 a=1 in terms of the scalar (Ylm) and axial vector (Yi,`m) spher- N I N ical harmonics. The expansion coefficients M and S X k X `I,a `m `m KI = kI + a ,L = ` + (9) are the mass and current multipole moments of the space- 0 r I I,0 r a=1 a a=1 a time, respectively. They can be conveniently packed into a single complex harmonic function with ra = |x − xa| the distance from the a-th center. Results. Comparing the metric (7) with the definition ∞ ` r X X 1 4π of an ACMC metric (3), one can extract the multipole H = (M + iS ) Y . (5) r1+` 2` + 1 `m `m `m moments of the fuzzball solution (details are given in `=0 m=−` Ref. [50]). The fuzzball multipole moments are encoded in the multipole harmonic function In the case of the Kerr metric, H is simply given by N " 3 # 1 X X M H = V + iM + (L − i KI ) . (10) HKerr = q (6) 4 I 2 2 J 2 a=1 I=1 x1 + x2 + x3 − i M This complex harmonic function is a generalization of with two centers at positions z = ±J /M along the z- the Kerr case [Eq. (6)], the latter can be interpreted as axis. The harmonic expansion of Eq. (6) does not contain a two-center solution, with the Schwarzschild case cor- m 6= 0 terms, so that for each ` the moment tensors responding to a single center. The above expression is

2 R E 3 It can be shown that the radial (Yi,`m) and electric (Yi,`m) vector The normalization of Thorne’s multipoles can be chosen in order spherical harmonics only appear in subleading terms and do not to correspond to the Geroch-Hansen ones [6, 7] used in Eq. (1) affect the multipole moments [51]. in the axisymmetric case [52]. 3

Solution (κ1, κ2, κ3, κ4) S10 M20 M21 M22 S20 S21 S22 A (1,0,k,k) 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 27k4 √ L L2 3 3L2 3L2 B (1,0,1,k) 2 0 √ 0 − √ 0 √k k √ 2 √2k3 √2k3 √ 4 3 L 144 L2 72 2L2 72 6 L2 164L2 48 2L2 2 6L2 C (3,0,k,2k) 112 k3 114 k4 114 k4 114 k4 − 114k5 − 114k3 113k3 Kerr-Newman χ −χ2 0 0 0 0 0

TABLE I. The first dimensionless multipole moments of some representative 3-center microstate geometries in the k2  L. m ∗ Moments with m < 0 follow from M`,−m = (−1) M`,m. instead valid for generic N-center solutions, regardless of written in the form [45] the presence of electromagnetic and scalar fields. 3   Expanding the harmonic function H yields the multi- X 1 1 1 V = 1 + M = κ1 κ2 κ3 κ4 − (15) pole moments r r r a=1 a 1 2 κ κ  κ κ  N ! 3 2 3 2 1 L1 = 1 + κ4 − L2 = 1 + κ1κ4 − X X a r1 r2 r2 r1 M`m = va + `I,a R`m, ` ≥ 0 4 2 a=1 I κ κ κ κ (κ + κ )  (11) L = 1 + κ 2 3 + 2 3 + 2 3 N ! 3 1 r1 r2 r3 1 X X I a S`m = ma − ka R`m, ` ≥ 1   4 κ2 κ3 κ2 + κ3 a=1 I K1 = κ1 − − + r1 r2 r3   with M00 = M and κ3 κ2 κ2 + κ3 1 1 K2 = + − K3 = κ4 − r1 r2 r3 r2 r1 r 4π Ra = |x |` Y ∗ (θ , φ ) . (12) with κ some arbitrary integers. `m a 2` + 1 `m a a α Regular solutions describe microstates of a (nonrotat- As in the case of axisymmetric geometries, we define di- ing) BPS BH with mass mensionless moments 1 M = (Q1 + Q2 + Q3 + P0) (16) M`m S`m 4 M`m = , S`m = . (13) M`+1 M`+1 and charges

We center the coordinate system in the center-of-mass Q1 = κ4(κ3 − κ2) ,Q2 = κ1κ4(κ3 − κ2) , and orient the z-axis along the angular momentum, so Q = κ (κ2 + 4κ κ + κ2) ,P = 3 . (17) that 3 1 2 2 3 3 0 Besides the integer parameters κα, the solution de- N ! 1 X X pends on some continuous parameters, namely, the dis- va + `I,a xa = 0 4 tances between the centers rab=|xa−xb|. These are con- a=1 I , (14) strained by the so-called ‘bubble equations’ [53], ensur- N ! 1 X X ing regularity of the five-dimensional lift and absence of m − kI x = J e 4 a a a z closed time-like curves. In the 3-center case one has a=1 I 2κ κ (κ −κ )2r r = 1 4 2 3 23 with ez the unit vector along z. With this choice M1m = 12 2 2 κ1κ4(2κ +5κ2κ3+2κ )+[κ2+κ4−κ1κ3(1−κ2κ4)]r23 0, S = 0, and S = J . 2 3 1,±1 10 κ κ (2κ +κ )(κ +2κ )r Equations (11) are one of our main results, as they r = 1 4 2 3 2 3 23 (18) 13 κ κ (2κ2+5κ κ +2κ2)−(κ −1)(κ +κ )r allow us to compute the multipole moments of any mul- 1 4 2 2 3 3 1 2 3 23 ticenter microstate geometry. In fact, our method can be which allow one to express r12 and r13 in terms of straightforwardly applied to any metric in ACMC form. r23 = L, the surviving continuous parameter (‘modu- In the following we will focus on some specific cases. lus’) labeling the microstate. Asymptotically the solu- Examples. The simplest horizonless geometries arise tion coincides with the Kerr-Newman metric [56], whose from three-center solutions. We consider fuzzballs that multipolar structure is the same [57] as in the Kerr case asymptote to BHs carrying three electric (QI ) and one [see Eq. (1)]. magnetic (P0) charge, obtained from orthogonal , A summary of the first multipole moments for some so we require that KI and M vanish at order 1/r. Up to representative cases is shown in Table I. The general ex- a reordering of the centers, the general solution can be pressions for the multipole moments are cumbersome so 4 we present them in the limit of large mass (κα  1), 25 which is also the most interesting one from a phenomeno- logical point of view, since it corresponds to objects with 20 mass arbitrarily larger than the Planck mass. We con- sider three representative arrangements of the three cen- 15 ters: 10 2 • A: Equilateral triangle.(κ1, κ2, κ3, κ4) = (1, 0, k, k). Trℳ2  Trℳ 2  These microstate geometries fall into the class of 2 Kerr 5 2 TrS3  S 2 “scaling solutions” characterized by zero angular Tr 3 Kerr momentum, J = 0, equal charges Q~ = (k2, k2, k2), 0 and mass M = 3 (1 + k2). Thanks to Z symmetry 4 3 0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 around z, the nontrivial mass multipole moments ν read p FIG. 1. Ratios between the quadratic invariants for the 2p+3n (2p + 6n)!(2p)! M2p+3n,3n = M(−L) (19) first multipole moments of a fuzzball (solution C) and a 22p+3n(p + 3n)!n! Kerr BH with the same angular momentum, as a function 2 of ν = L/(12k ) with k = 1. The vertical√ solid line corre- where L = r12 = r23 = r31. Thus, at variance sponds to the upper bound νmax = 1 − 1/ 2. The horizontal with the Kerr case, the mass quadrupole moments dotted black line refers to the fuzzball and Kerr moments are not spin induced: they can be nonzero even if being identical. The fuzzball moments are larger than the the spin J vanishes. Furthermore, for ` ≥ 3 they corresponding Kerr ones, which is a typical property [50]. also have m 6= 0 components of the mass moments. The large k limit of all quadrupole moments are display some ratios between multipole moments of mi- displayed in Table I. crostate geometries of type C and those of a Kerr BH.

• B: Isosceles triangle.(κ1, κ2, κ3, κ4) = (1, 0, 1, k). We focus on the quadratic invariants These microstate geometries possess non vanish- ` ` (k−1)kL ing angular momentum, J = , charges 2 X 2 2 X 2 2[k(L+2)−L] trM` = |M`m| , trS` = |S`m| . (20) 2+k ~ m=−` m=−` Q = (k, k, 1), and mass M = 2 . In this case L = r = r > r . For k → ∞ and L  1 23 31 12 We have explored numerically a large region of the whole (see Table I), the multiple moments coincide with (κ ,L) parameter space and found that quadratic invari- those of the Kerr metric modulo the factors (−1)n α ants for the microstate geometries are typically bigger in Eq. (2). In particular, while the Kerr metric than those of Kerr BHs for any ` [50]. It would be in- is oblate (M < 0), these solutions are prolate 2 teresting to find a general proof of this property, which (M > 0). However, for finite values of k the solu- 2 is analogous to the fact that the Lyapunov exponent of tion also displays quadrupole moments that break unstable null geodesics near the sphere is maxi- axial symmetry, e.g. M and S . 22 21 mum for the BH solution [40]. In other words, both for

• C: Scalene triangle.(κ1, κ2, κ3, κ4) = (3, 0, k, 2k). the multipole moments and for the Lyapunov exponent, These microstate geometries possess a non van- the BH solution appears to be an extremum point in the ishing angular momentum J which is a compli- space of the solutions. cated function of k and L, with L = r23 < r12 < Phenomenological implications. The above exam- 2 2 2 r31, charges Q~ = (2k , 6k , 3k ), and mass M = ples are representatives of some general features of this 2 √ 3+11k . For large k one finds J ∼ 3kL . Triangle large family of solutions. In particular, the ` ≥ 2 multi- 4 4 pole moments of fuzzball geometries are not necessarily inequalities require ν ≡ L < 1− √1 . The multi- 12k2 2 spin induced as in the Kerr case, they can break axial and pole moments for large k are displayed in Table I. In equatorial symmetries, and are larger than in the Kerr this case both the axisymmetry and the equatorial case. The peculiar multipolar structure and the striking symmetry of the Kerr metric are broken, as shown deviation from the Kerr multipoles provides a portal to by the fact that the multipole moments M and `m constrain fuzzball models with current and future obser- S are generically nonzero. `m vations, with both electromagnetic and GW probes [16]. It is interesting to observe that the mass and current By analyzing the flow near the supermassive multipole moments of these microstate geometries are BH in M87, the Event Horizon Telescope placed a mild typically larger than those of a Kerr-Newman BH with bound on its dimensionless (axisymmetric) quadrupole BH same mass and angular momentum. A representative moment, |M2 − M2 | . 4 [58]. Furthermore, in a co- example of this property is shown in Fig. 1, where we alescence the quadrupole moment of the binary compo- 5 nents affect the GW signal through a next-to-next to metry in regions where the microstate geometries can leading post-Newtonian correction [59, 60]. Constraints significantly deviate from the BH metric. on parametrized post-Newtonian deviations using the Acknowledgments. D.C. was supported by FWF events from the first LIGO-Virgo Catalog [61, 62] can be Austrian Science Fund via the SAP P30531-N27. BH mapped into a constraint |M2 −M2 | . 1, in particular P.P. acknowledges financial support provided under using the events GW151226 and GW170608 [63]. Com- the European Union’s H2020 ERC, Starting Grant paring with deviations found in the microstate solutions, agreement no. DarkGRA–757480, and under the current bounds are not particularly stringent. MIUR PRIN and FARE programmes (GW-NEXT, While current GW constraints will become slightly CUP: B84I20000100001), and support from the Amaldi more stringent in the next years as the sensitivity of Research Center funded by the MIUR program “Dipar- the ground-based detectors improve [64], much tighter timento di Eccellenza” (CUP: B81I18001170001). bounds will come from extreme mass-ratio inspirals (EM- RIs), one of the main targets of the future space mission LISA [65]. Although EMRI data analysis is challeng- ing [66–69] the potential reward is unique: a detection of [1] B. Carter, “Axisymmetric black hole has only two these systems can be used to measure the (m = 0, mass) degrees of freedom,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 26 (Feb, 1971) quadrupole moment M2 of the central supermassive ob- 331–333. http: 4 ject with an accuracy of one part in 10 [66, 70], offering //link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevLett.26.331. unprecedented tests of exotic compact objects [9, 71, 72]. [2] S. Hawking and G. Ellis, The Large Scale Structure of While our results suggest that very strong constraints Space-Time. Cambridge Monographs on Mathematical on fuzzball geometries can be set with EMRIs, a pre- Physics. Cambridge University Press, 2, 2011. [3] M. Heusler, “Stationary black holes: Uniqueness and cise analysis requires a class of neutral, nonextremal so- beyond,” Living Rev. Relativity 1 no. 6, (1998) . lutions, which would further imply the absence of extra http://www.livingreviews.org/lrr-1998-6. emission channels (e.g. dipolar radiation). For astro- [4] P. T. Chrusciel, J. L. Costa, and M. Heusler, physically viable objects, we expect that the multipolar “Stationary Black Holes: Uniqueness and Beyond,” structure is the only discriminant with respect to the Living Rev.Rel. 15 (2012) 7, arXiv:1205.6112 [gr-qc]. Kerr BH case, which can be explored with the methods [5] D. Robinson, Four decades of black holes uniqueness presented here. theorems. Cambridge University Press, 2009. [6] R. Hansen, “Multipole moments of stationary In addition to having a different quadrupole moment, space-times,” J.Math.Phys. 15 (1974) 46–52. microstate geometries are much less symmetric than the [7] R. P. Geroch, “Multipole moments. II. Curved space,” Kerr metric, which implies the existence of multipole J.Math.Phys. 11 (1970) 2580–2588. moments that are identically zero in the Kerr case (see [8] P. Pani, “I-Love-Q relations for and the also Refs. [9, 73]). Investigating how multipole moments approach to the black-hole limit,” Phys. Rev. D 92 no. 12, (2015) 124030, arXiv:1506.06050 [gr-qc]. that break equatorial symmetry or axisymmetry (e.g., [Erratum: Phys.Rev.D 95, 049902 (2017)]. S2m and M2m with m 6= 0) affect the GW waveform [9] G. Raposo, P. Pani, and R. Emparan, “Exotic compact and their phenomenological consequences is an impor- objects with soft hair,” Phys. Rev. D 99 no. 10, (2019) tant topic that is left for a follow-up work. 104050, arXiv:1812.07615 [gr-qc]. Finally, a broad statistical analysis shows that certain [10] D. Psaltis, “Probes and Tests of Strong-Field Gravity invariant combinations of the ` ≥ 2 multipole moments of with Observations in the Electromagnetic Spectrum,” arXiv:0806.1531 [astro-ph]. three-center microstate geometries are larger than those [11] J. R. Gair, M. Vallisneri, S. L. Larson, and J. G. Baker, of the corresponding Kerr BH in a wide region of the “Testing General Relativity with Low-Frequency, four-dimensional parameter space, and are always larger Space-Based Gravitational-Wave Detectors,” Living than their corresponding value in the L → 0 limit [50]. If Rev.Rel. 16 (2013) 7, arXiv:1212.5575 [gr-qc]. confirmed, this result would imply that any future mea- [12] N. Yunes and X. Siemens, “Gravitational-Wave Tests of surement of the invariant combinations of the multipole General Relativity with Ground-Based Detectors and moments smaller than the BH ones can potentially rule Timing-Arrays,” Living Rev.Rel. 16 (2013) 9, arXiv:1304.3473 [gr-qc]. out this family of solutions to be typical microstates of [13] E. Berti et al., “Testing General Relativity with Present the corresponding BH, with important consequences for and Future Astrophysical Observations,” Class. Quant. the fuzzball scenario. Grav. 32 (2015) 243001, arXiv:1501.07274 [gr-qc]. Note added. While this work was in preparation, a [14] V. Cardoso and L. Gualtieri, “Testing the black hole related work by Iosif Bena and Daniel R. Mayerson ap- no-hair hypothesis,” Class. Quant. Grav. 33 no. 17, (2016) 174001, arXiv:1607.03133 [gr-qc]. peared [74] (see also the more recent companion [75]). [15] L. Barack et al., “Black holes, gravitational waves and The idea and aims of that paper are similar to ours. fundamental physics: a roadmap,” Class. Quant. Grav. Ref. [74] focuses on axisymmetric geometries in the BH 36 no. 14, (2019) 143001, arXiv:1806.05195 [gr-qc]. limit, whereas our results are valid beyond axial sym- [16] V. Cardoso and P. Pani, “Testing the nature of dark 6

compact objects: a status report,” Living Rev. Rel. 22 A Summary and conjectures,” arXiv:0810.4525 no. 1, (2019) 4, arXiv:1904.05363 [gr-qc]. [hep-th]. [17] T. Hertog and J. Hartle, “Observational Implications of [36] M. Bianchi, D. Consoli, and J. Morales, “Probing Fuzzball Formation,” Gen. Rel. Grav. 52 no. 7, (2020) Fuzzballs with Particles, Waves and Strings,” JHEP 06 67, arXiv:1704.02123 [hep-th]. (2018) 157, arXiv:1711.10287 [hep-th]. [18] B. Guo, S. Hampton, and S. D. Mathur, “Can we [37] M. Bianchi, D. Consoli, A. Grillo, and J. F. Morales, observe fuzzballs or firewalls?,” JHEP 07 (2018) 162, “The dark side of fuzzball geometries,” JHEP 05 (2019) arXiv:1711.01617 [hep-th]. 126, arXiv:1811.02397 [hep-th]. [19] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, R. Abbott [38] I. Bena, E. J. Martinec, R. Walker, and N. P. Warner, et al., “GW190814: Gravitational Waves from the “Early Scrambling and Capped BTZ Geometries,” Coalescence of a 23 Black Hole with a 2.6 JHEP 04 (2019) 126, arXiv:1812.05110 [hep-th]. Solar Mass Compact Object,” Astrophys. J. 896 no. 2, [39] I. Bena, P. Heidmann, R. Monten, and N. P. Warner, (2020) L44, arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE]. “Thermal Decay without Information Loss in [20] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, R. Abbott Horizonless Microstate Geometries,” SciPost Phys. 7 et al., “GW190521: A Merger with a no. 5, (2019) 063, arXiv:1905.05194 [hep-th]. Total Mass of 150 M ,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 125 (2020) [40] M. Bianchi, A. Grillo, and J. F. Morales, “Chaos at the 101102, arXiv:2009.01075 [gr-qc]. rim of black hole and fuzzball shadows,” JHEP 05 [21] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, R. Abbott (2020) 078, arXiv:2002.05574 [hep-th]. et al., “Properties and astrophysical implications of the [41] I. Bena, S. Giusto, R. Russo, M. Shigemori, and N. P. 150 Msun binary black hole merger GW190521,” Warner, “Habemus Superstratum! A constructive proof Astrophys. J. Lett. 900 (2020) L13, arXiv:2009.01190 of the existence of superstrata,” JHEP 05 (2015) 110, [astro-ph.HE]. arXiv:1503.01463 [hep-th]. [22] R. Penrose, “: The role of general [42] I. Bena, E. Martinec, D. Turton, and N. P. Warner, relativity,” Riv. Nuovo Cim. 1 (1969) 252–276. [Gen. “Momentum Fractionation on Superstrata,” JHEP 05 Rel. Grav.34,1141(2002)]. (2016) 064, arXiv:1601.05805 [hep-th]. [23] R. M. Wald, “Gravitational collapse and cosmic [43] I. Bena, S. Giusto, E. J. Martinec, R. Russo, censorship,” in Black Holes, Gravitational Radiation M. Shigemori, D. Turton, and N. P. Warner, “Smooth and the Universe: Essays in Honor of C.V. horizonless geometries deep inside the black-hole Vishveshwara, pp. 69–85. 1997. arXiv:gr-qc/9710068 regime,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 117 no. 20, (2016) 201601, [gr-qc]. arXiv:1607.03908 [hep-th]. [24] R. Penrose, “Singularities of Spacetime (in Theoretical [44] I. Bena, S. Giusto, E. J. Martinec, R. Russo, Principles in Astrophysics and Relativity),” in Chicago M. Shigemori, D. Turton, and N. P. Warner, University Press, Chicago, 1978 217 P. 1978. “Asymptotically-flat solutions deep inside [25] J. D. Bekenstein, “Black holes and entropy,” Physical the black-hole regime,” JHEP 02 (2018) 014, Review D 7 no. 8, (1973) 2333. arXiv:1711.10474 [hep-th]. [26] S. W. Hawking, “Black Holes and Thermodynamics,” [45] M. Bianchi, J. F. Morales, L. Pieri, and N. Zinnato, Phys. Rev. D13 (1976) 191–197. “More on microstate geometries of 4d black holes,” [27] S. Hawking, “Particle Creation by Black Holes,” JHEP 05 (2017) 147, arXiv:1701.05520 [hep-th]. Commun. Math. Phys. 43 (1975) 199–220. [Erratum: [46] I. Bena, D. Turton, R. Walker, and N. P. Warner, Commun.Math.Phys. 46, 206 (1976)]. “Integrability and Black-Hole Microstate Geometries,” [28] S. D. Mathur, “The Information paradox: A JHEP 11 (2017) 021, arXiv:1709.01107 [hep-th]. Pedagogical introduction,” Class. Quant. Grav. 26 [47] S. Giusto, J. F. Morales, and R. Russo, “D1D5 (2009) 224001, arXiv:0909.1038 [hep-th]. microstate geometries from string amplitudes,” JHEP [29] A. Strominger and C. Vafa, “Microscopic origin of the 03 (2010) 130, arXiv:0912.2270 [hep-th]. Bekenstein-Hawking entropy,” Phys. Lett. B 379 (1996) [48] S. Giusto, R. Russo, and D. Turton, “New D1-D5-P 99–104, arXiv:hep-th/9601029. geometries from string amplitudes,” JHEP 11 (2011) [30] G. T. Horowitz, J. M. Maldacena, and A. Strominger, 062, arXiv:1108.6331 [hep-th]. “Nonextremal black hole microstates and U duality,” [49] M. Bianchi, J. F. Morales, and L. Pieri, “Stringy origin Phys. Lett. B 383 (1996) 151–159, of 4d black hole microstates,” JHEP 06 (2016) 003, arXiv:hep-th/9603109. arXiv:1603.05169 [hep-th]. [31] J. M. Maldacena, A. Strominger, and E. Witten, “Black [50] M. Bianchi, D. Consoli, A. Grillo, J. F. Morales, hole entropy in M theory,” JHEP 12 (1997) 002, P. Pani, and G. Raposo, “The multipolar structure of arXiv:hep-th/9711053. fuzzballs,” arXiv:2008.01445 [hep-th]. [32] O. Lunin and S. D. Mathur, “AdS / CFT duality and [51] K. Thorne, “Multipole Expansions of Gravitational the black hole information paradox,” Nucl. Phys. B 623 Radiation,” Rev.Mod.Phys. 52 (1980) 299–339. (2002) 342–394, arXiv:hep-th/0109154. [52] Y. Gursel, “Multipole moments for stationary systems: [33] O. Lunin and S. D. Mathur, “Statistical interpretation The equivalence of the geroch-hansen formulation and of Bekenstein entropy for systems with a stretched the thorne formulation,” General Relativity and horizon,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 88 (2002) 211303, Gravitation 15 no. 8, (1983) 737–754. arXiv:hep-th/0202072. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF01031881. [34] S. D. Mathur, “The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: [53] I. Bena and N. P. Warner, “Black holes, black rings and An Elementary review,” Fortsch. Phys. 53 (2005) their microstates,” Lect. Notes Phys. 755 (2008) 1–92, 793–827, arXiv:hep-th/0502050. arXiv:hep-th/0701216. [35] S. D. Mathur, “Fuzzballs and the information paradox: [54] G. Gibbons and N. Warner, “Global structure of 7

five-dimensional fuzzballs,” Class. Quant. Grav. 31 [65] LISA Collaboration, P. Amaro-Seoane et al., “Laser (2014) 025016, arXiv:1305.0957 [hep-th]. Interferometer Space Antenna,” arXiv:1702.00786 [55] B. Bates and F. Denef, “Exact solutions for [astro-ph.IM]. supersymmetric stationary black hole composites,” [66] S. Babak, J. Gair, A. Sesana, E. Barausse, C. F. JHEP 11 (2011) 127, arXiv:hep-th/0304094. Sopuerta, C. P. L. Berry, E. Berti, P. Amaro-Seoane, [56] E. T. Newman, R. Couch, K. Chinnapared, A. Exton, A. Petiteau, and A. Klein, “Science with the A. Prakash, and R. Torrence, “Metric of a Rotating, space-based interferometer LISA. V: Extreme Charged Mass,” J. Math. Phys. 6 (1965) 918–919. mass-ratio inspirals,” Phys. Rev. D95 no. 10, (2017) [57] T. P. Sotiriou and T. A. Apostolatos, “Corrected 103012, arXiv:1703.09722 [gr-qc]. multipole moments of axisymmetric electrovacuum [67] A. J. Chua, S. Hee, W. J. Handley, E. Higson, C. J. spacetimes,” Class. Quant. Grav. 21 (2004) 5727–5733, Moore, J. R. Gair, M. P. Hobson, and A. N. Lasenby, arXiv:gr-qc/0407064. “Towards a framework for testing general relativity [58] Event Horizon Telescope Collaboration, K. Akiyama with extreme-mass-ratio-inspiral observations,” Mon. et al., “First M87 Event Horizon Telescope Results. I. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 478 no. 1, (2018) 28–40, The Shadow of the ,” arXiv:1803.10210 [gr-qc]. Astrophys. J. 875 no. 1, (2019) L1. [68] A. J. K. Chua, N. Korsakova, C. J. Moore, J. R. Gair, [59] L. Blanchet, “Gravitational radiation from and S. Babak, “Gaussian processes for the interpolation post-Newtonian sources and inspiralling compact and marginalization of waveform error in binaries,” Living Rev. Rel. 9 (2006) 4. extreme-mass-ratio-inspiral parameter estimation,” [60] N. V. Krishnendu, K. G. Arun, and C. K. Mishra, Phys. Rev. D101 no. 4, (2020) 044027, “Testing the binary black hole nature of a compact arXiv:1912.11543 [astro-ph.IM]. binary coalescence,” Phys. Rev. Lett. 119 no. 9, (2017) [69] LISA Data Challenge Working Group. LISA Data 091101, arXiv:1701.06318 [gr-qc]. Challenges, 2019. https://lisa-ldc.lal.in2p3.fr. [61] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, B. Abbott [70] L. Barack and C. Cutler, “Using LISA EMRI sources to et al., “GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient test off-Kerr deviations in the geometry of massive Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers Observed by LIGO black holes,” Phys. Rev. D75 (2007) 042003, and Virgo during the First and Second Observing arXiv:gr-qc/0612029 [gr-qc]. Runs,” Phys. Rev. X 9 no. 3, (2019) 031040, [71] K. Glampedakis and S. Babak, “Mapping spacetimes arXiv:1811.12907 [astro-ph.HE]. with LISA: Inspiral of a test-body in a ‘quasi-Kerr’ [62] LIGO Scientific, Virgo Collaboration, B. Abbott field,” Class. Quant. Grav. 23 (2006) 4167–4188, et al., “Tests of General Relativity with the Binary arXiv:gr-qc/0510057. Black Hole Signals from the LIGO-Virgo Catalog [72] K. Destounis, A. G. Suvorov, and K. D. Kokkotas, GWTC-1,” Phys. Rev. D 100 no. 10, (2019) 104036, “Testing spacetime symmetry through gravitational arXiv:1903.04467 [gr-qc]. waves from extreme-mass-ratio inspirals,” [63] F. Di Pasqua, A. Maselli, and P. Pani, “Testing the arXiv:2009.00028 [gr-qc]. Kerr hypothesis: electromagnetic versus [73] F. D. Ryan, “Gravitational waves from the inspiral of a gravitational-wave constraints of the quadrupole compact object into a massive, axisymmetric body with moment (in preparation),”. arbitrary multipole moments,” Phys. Rev. D52 (1995) [64] N. V. Krishnendu, C. K. Mishra, and K. G. Arun, 5707–5718. “Spin-induced deformations and tests of binary black [74] I. Bena and D. R. Mayerson, “A New Window into hole nature using third-generation detectors,” Phys. Black Holes,” arXiv:2006.10750 [hep-th]. Rev. D99 no. 6, (2019) 064008, arXiv:1811.00317 [75] I. Bena and D. R. Mayerson, “Black Holes Lessons from [gr-qc]. Multipole Ratios,” arXiv:2007.09152 [hep-th].