Converting neutron stars into strange stars

  • Published on
    02-Sep-2016

  • View
    214

  • Download
    2

Embed Size (px)

Transcript

  • Nuclear Physics B (Proc. SuPPL) 24B (1991) 103-109North-Holland

    CONVERTING NEUTRON STARS INTO STRANGE STARS

    Angela OLIN:I'()

    When a neutron and a stable strangelet meet theneutron is readily absorbed, while a proton can coexistwith a strangelet due to the Coulomb barrier betweenthem.' , ' Therefore, if a stable strangelet (a strangeletwith baryon number greater than or equal to some mini-mum baryon number for strange matter stability, ."!.,;n )makes its way to the neutron rich regions of a neutronstar, it will gro -,,v by absorbing neutrori , and, eventually,convert most of the neutron star into a strange star .',3-e

    The conversion of a neutron star into a strange staris quite a spectacular event : one stable strangelet canseed the conversion process that would liberate about10 6'ergs in binding energy (for a strange matter boundby 1OMeV) .

    The only region of a neutron star that could sur-vive this conversion is the outer crust, since densitiesthere are below the density where neutrons drip out ofnuclei. The Coulomb barrier between strange matterand the ions in the outer crust forms a gap of a fewhundred fermis, which is sufficient to support the entireouter crust of the neutron star above the strange matterinterior.

    In what follows, I first review the possible seedingmechanisms of strange matter in neutron stars and dis-cuss the implications of an abundance of strangelets inthe interstellar medium . Then, I will discuss the prop-agation o the conversion front and the possible observ-ables of such a remarkable event .

    1 . SEEDING MECHANISMSA variety of different seeding mechanisms have been

    0020-5632/91/$03 .50 1991 - Elsevier Science Publishers B.V .

    All rights reserved .

    Department of Astronomy and Astrophysics and Enrico Fermi Institute, University of Chicago, Chicago, IL 60637,U.S.A .

    If strange rnattcr is formed in the interior of a neutron star, it will convert the entire neutron star into a strangestar . We review the proposed mechanisms for strange matter seeding and the possible strange matter contaminationof neutron star progenitors . We discuss the conversion process that follows seeding and the recent calculations of theconversion timescale.

    suggested so far3-8 They can be divided into two maincategories: primary mechanisms, in which the seed isformed inside the neutron star ;T and secondary mech-anisms, in which the seed comes from the interstellarmedium7-s Obviously, there can only be secondary pro-cesses ., if there were some primary ones before.

    1 .1. Primary ProcessesThe formation of a strangelet is much more ilkeiy

    in a neutron star than in ordinary nuclei . The centralprevrcs i it ac tV~ Iut ;:lYi i 'i11e SIYiILC:CYIL fur iL Phasetransition from neutron matter to two-flavor quark mat-ter to occur. Two-:favor quark matter can then easilydecay into the lower energy strange matter via weakinteractions .' .' . (Unlike the case for nuclei, here theformation of many strange quarks does not need to besimultaneous .) The possible existence of quark matterin the inner core of neutron stars has been widely stud-ied, but no firm conclusion can be reached at present?

    Another possible way of forming a seed of strangematter is via an. agglomeration of A particles' At veryhigh densities (p > 1 .6 x 10 1sgm/cm3 ), the neutronchemical potential becomes greater than the A mass andA's start to appears Strangelets can then form directlyby the overlap of A,nin A's . The probability of AminA's overlapping is roughly P(Arni,,) ti (nA1'A_;^ )AAU .,

    where nA is the number density of A's and VA_i. is thevolume of a strangelet with A = Ami,, . The enact valueof Ami,, (and, therefore, of VA_ ;,.) is very uncertain, butit is expected to be of the order of 100 or larger. Then,P(A,i,,) jumps from negligible (- 10-100 ) to - 1, whennAVA-;a varies from 0.1 to 1 . The outcome of this pro-

  • 104

    cess is hal :d to determine due to the the strong depen-dence on two uncertain parameters : the density of A'sreached inside neutron stars and the value of A,;,,.

    Hadronic condensates with strangeness can also bepresent in neutron stars at high enough densities . Kaoncondensates' and dibaryon condensates" may occur inneutron stars for certain ranges of parameters . Bothtypes of condensate would facilitate the formation ofstrange matter seeds .

    Strange matter seeds may also be formed throughthe burning of neutrons into strangelets a Neutron starsare born hot, so neutrons can be heated into higherenergy states such as low baryon number strangelets,which can then form higher baryon number (lower en-ergy) strangelets . The process is analogous to chemicalburning through an activation barrier . In ref. 4, weestimated the rate at which strangelets are made perunit volume. Again. we find that the rate varies from"extremely large" to "vanishingly small," with a smallvariatim: of the temperature and of the mass of the lowbaryon wimber strangelets (for example, a factor of twoin the parameters changes the rate from ti 1045/cm39to - 10-196/cuss) .

    Finally, a more contrived way to form strangelets isvia neutrino sparking Here, an ultra-high energy neu-trino (E ti 1014MeV), the secondary from an ultra-high energy cosmic ray, penetrates a neutron star andscatters inelastically off a quark, depositing most of itsenergy in a small volume . This forms a hot quark-gluonplasma, with a pairs . If strangeness separation is effi-cient and cooling is fast enough, strangelets could beformed . This process shares some of the difficultiesof forming stable strangelets (low entropy states) inheavy ion collisions (high entropy environments) . Onthe other hand, it could possibly be tested by futurequark-gluon plasma experiments.

    1 .2 Secondary ProcessesIf any of the above primary seeding processes (or

    some other we have not envisioned yet) can convertsome neutron stars into strange stars, it is likely thatmil young neutron -stars are strange stars, Tius state-ment is based on recent estimates, by Friedman andCaldwell,' of the abundance of strangelets in the inter-

    A . Olinto/ Converting neutron stars into strange stars

    stellar medium due to the coalescence of binary systemsof two strange stars or of a strange star and a black hole.

    If strange stars exist, they will naturally be foundin binary systems . Some fraction, f, of strange starswill be in binaries with other strange stars or withblack holes . These systems will eventually coalesc,- vi-olently and in the process, some fraction of the lowerdensity strange star will be ejected into the interstel-lar medium. (Neutron star-strange star binary systemswill most likely end in the disruption of the neutronstar not the strange star, since strange stars are ex-pected to be more dense than neutron stars.)a Beforethe final coalescence, the more dense companion willtidally strip some mass from the lower density strangestar . Typical sizes for strange matter lumps that arestripped can be estimated by balancing the tidal pull ofthe companion star against the surface tension of thestrange star. For a 1Mo companion at 30km separa-tion, the typical stripped strang,--: matter lump is around104s in baryon number. Lumps this large will not con-taminate the interstellar medium effectively. If theyescape the binary system, they will most likely escapethe galaxy all together. If they stay bound to the bi-nary system, these lumps will orbit the system and willcollide with each other from time to time . The colli-siou of these strange matter satellites will break themdown into smaller lumps . Of these smaller lumps, thosewith A < 10e remain in their parent galaxy confined bythe galactic magnetic field, and will become part of theinterstellar medium . 8

    Neutron star coalescence studies give estimates ofaround 0.1 - 0.01Mo of ejected material per coales-cence . The coalescence rate for nentron stars todayin our galaxy is estimated to be around 10-4/yr . Wecan assume that roughly the same rate Lhould applyto strange stars .' If we further assume that this ratehas not changed significantly for a billion years, than alower limit on the number density of trangelets in ourgalaxy after a billion years is :

    n, (A < 108 ) > f10

    10e r

    0.01MQ

    1_

    yr

    y fe l0enp 1013LYs

    - ffe10`/LY3 ,

    (1)

  • where fs is the fraction of the 0.01Mo ejected in stran-gelets with A < 108 per coalescence and the factor frelates to the fraction of strange star-strange star andstrange star-black hole binaries .

    The strangelets in the interstellar medium can, inprinciple, seed previously formed neutron star,' butthe probability for this event will depend on a finetuning of f and fs, given that the volume of a neu-tron star is around 10-3sLY3 . These strangelets will bemuch more effective in seeding young neutron stars bycontaminating their progenitor stars which are formedfrom a region with a volume ^= LY3 in the interstel-lar medium. (Friedman and Caldwells expect f and fsnot far from unity.) If there have been strange starsin binary systems for the last billion years, the progen-itors of recent supernovae (formed around ten millionyears ago) will have been contaminated from birth bystrangelets in the interstellar medium . Young neutronstars (like the Crab and Vela) would have been formedwith strangelet seeds already in them and would havebecome strange stars .

    Friedman and Caldwell used this argument togetherwith the notion that strange stars cannot exhibit glitchphenomena (present in young pulsars like Crab andVela) to rule out the existence of strange matter . Thisstrong conclusion could bring this conference to an earlyend, were it not for some loopholes .

    First, strange matter car. be the ground state ofhadronic matter, but may never be formed in neutronstars (if none of the primary processes occur) . In thiscase, strange matter has no astrophysical implicationsbut could possibly be studied the laboratory . Second,the notion that strange stars cannot glitch is based ona very simplified and approximate model for stars com-posed of strange matter and should not be taken asfinal . Third, the event responsible for the creation ofsmaller lumps, i .e ., the collision of large baryon numbersatellites, might lead to fs < 1. The smaller strangematter nuggets might all evaporate into neutrons, forexample .

    Two aspects of the two-component starquake modelfor pulsar glitches challenge the strange star scenario . 12(There have been models proposed where the glitch

    A . Olinto/ Converting neutron stars into strange stars 105

    event originatcJ in the magnetosphere, in which casestrange stars are on equal footing with neutron stars.)The first is the need for a crust 100 times more massive(i .e ., the outer plus the inner crusts of neutron stars)than the thin outer c_ust of strange stars, in order toaccount for the observed spin-down rate. The secondin-gredient of the phenomenological two-component glitchmodel that challenges a strange star pulsar model is theneed for a neutral superfluid to explain the post-glitchrelaxation behaviour.

    In principle, the answers to the questions of the sta-bility of strange matter and the structure of high den-sity matter (as well as the understanding of nucleons)lie probably in QCD . Unfortunately, we are not ableto extract this information at present, and need to relyon simplified models that describe different aspects ofthe strong interactions . Our picture of strange stars isbased on the bag model, a simplified approach to thecomplexity of a strange quark matter system . The lackof internal structure in strange stars may be physicallycorrect or may be due to our oversimplification.

    Strange stars may have a more complex intern:dstructure than the simple outer crust-core separation .Within quark matter, different correlations may ariseat different densities . For example, in a model basedon constituent quarks, Donoghue and Sateesh13 showedthat diquark states may be favored at densities justabove the quark-hadron phase transition ; in a bag mo-del with massless quarks, diquark states may condenseat higher densities, in analogy to dibaryon states inneutron stars. 11 (Benvenuto et al."' suggested a strangepulsar model making use of another hypothetical state,that of quark-alphas.)

    The need for a neutral superfluid also challenges thepossibility of a strange matter interior for pulsars . Aneutral superfluid in quark matter seems less likely thansome additisnal structure . One possibility is that of aneutral pion-like condensate of quark-antiquark pairs,but this haai not been seriously explored yet .

    Pulsar glitch constraints on strange stars are a veryserious challenge to the strange matter hypothesis . Gi-ven the present state of affairs, howevf!r, a firm conclu-sion on this issue at awaits observational confirmations

  • of pulsar glitch models and tests of neutron star equa-tions of state, and theoretical or experimental insightsinto the existence and possible composition of strangequark matter . The lack of a strange star pulsar glitchmodel may be due to physics or due to lack of imagina-tion.

    Finally, the collision of two strange matter satellitesorbiting a coalescing binary system might have a differ-ent outcome than a production peak of strangelets withA =A;..8Amin strangelets may befragile in high tem-perature and high entropy environments.ls ,le,l'

    2 . THE CONVERSION PROCESSIf we assume that seeding of strange matter has oc-

    curred inside a neutron star we can study the conse-quent conversion of the rest of the star . The first at-tempt to study the conversion timescale (ref. 3) wasconceptually reasonable, but the quantitative resultswere off by several orders of magnitude . A more com-plete treatment of the conversion process was given inref. 6, with subsequent studies done in refs . 18, 19, and20. 1'11 review this approach and the more recent studiesand conclude by discussing the observable consequencesof this conversion process.

    In general, for simplicity, the strong coupling con-stant and the strange quark mass are neglected, andwith them the small fraction of electrons present . Inthis case, charge neutrality gives the following relationbetween the baryon cumber density, n, and the num-ber density of each quark nq (q = u, d, e) : n = n andnd +n, = 2n . In equilibrium, Ad = it. and the threenumber densities are equal, n = nd = n, . Out of equi-librium, there is only one flee parameter. (In this pic-ture, p is constant, so we can set uu _ is = 300MeV.)Another simplifying assumption used is that neutronstar matter is composed only of neutrons .

    The conversion pre^ess of neutron matter to strangematter is simplerwhen viewed from the rest frame oftheconversionfront . The volume over which strange matterequilibrates was shown's to be much smaller than thatof the total strange-matter region, so that the problemcan be treated one-dimensionally. In thi i frame thefront can be set at z = 0, neutron matter is at x < 0,

    A . Olinto/Converting neutron stars into strange stars

    strange matter at x > 0, and, asymptotically (z -+oo), strange matter is in equilibrium....

Recommended

View more >