arxiv: v2 [astro-ph.he] 6 Aug 2018

Transcription

1 Preprint 8 August 2018 Compiled using MNRAS LATEX style file v3.0 A note on the ambipolar diffusion in superfluid neutron stars E. M. Kantor, M. E. Gusakov Ioffe Physial-Tehnial Institute of the Russian Aademy of Sienes, Polytekhniheskaya 26, St.-Petersburg, Russia arxiv: v2 [astro-ph.he] 6 Aug 2018 Aepted 2017 xxxx. Reeived 2017 xxxx; in original form 2017 xxxx 1 INTRODUCTION ABSTRACT We address the problem of magneti field dissipation in the neutron star ores, fousing on the role of neutron superfluidity. Contrary to the results in the literature, we show that in the finite-temperature superfluid matter omposed of neutrons, protons, and eletrons, magneti field dissipates exlusively due to Ohmi losses and non-equilibrium beta-proesses, and only an admixture of muons restores (to some extent) the role of partile relative motion for the field dissipation. The reason for this disrepany is disussed. Key words: stars: neutron stars: interiors stars: magneti field Sinethepioneeringworks onthemagneti fielddissipation intheneutronstar (NS)ores bybaym et al. (1969);Haensel et al. (1990); Goldreih & Reisenegger (1992) a signifiant progress has been made(e.g., Shalybkov & Urpin 1995; Urpin & Shalybkov 1995;Thompson & Dunan1996;Urpin & Shalybkov1999;Hoyos et al.2008,2010;glampedakis et al.2011;beloborodov & Li 2016; Passamonti et al. 2017; Castillo et al. 2017), but many questions have still remained unanswered. One of these questions regards the effets of nuleon superfluidity and superondutivity. How do they affet the magneti field evolution? In this short note we partly address this question by analyzing the effets of neutron superfluidity. As we argue, this analysis is more aurate (and simple), than the previous treatments (Glampedakis et al. 2011; Passamonti et al. 2017), whih are only valid at stellar temperatures T muh smaller than the neutron ritial temperature T n, and it leads us to interesting onlusions. In essene, we show that the neutron superfluidity drastially modifies the fluid dynamis, imposing an additional (in omparison to the nonsuperfluid matter) onstraint on the veloities of different partile speies. As a result, ambipolar diffusion beomes ompletely irrelevant for the magneti field evolution in the superfluid neutron-proton-eletron (npe) matter, one the stellar temperature T falls (even slightly) below T n. Then only Ohmi deay and dissipation due to non-equilibrium beta-proesses remain ative. An admixture of muons (µ) introdues additional degree of freedom so that dissipation due to partile relative motion an again play a role. 2 MAGNETIC FIELD ENERGY DISSIPATION 2.1 Our assumptions and superfluid equation We follow the general strategy outlined in Goldreih & Reisenegger (1992). For simpliity, we onsider a Newtonian nonrotating NS with the superfluid ore omposed of relativisti finite-temperature npe (or npeµ) matter, where neutrons are superfluid, and protons are normal (nonsuperonduting). In the absene of magneti field B the star is in full thermodynami and hydrostati equilibrium, the veloities of all partile speies vanish. We assume that the magneti field is the only mehanism that drives the star out of diffusive and beta-equilibrium. Sine the evolution ours on a very long timesale (Goldreih & Reisenegger 1992), it proeeds through a set of quasistationary states, whih means that the time derivatives in the Euler equations (Eqs. 3, 4 8 and 22 24, see below), as well as in the ontinuity equations, an be negleted. Next, the magneti field is onsidered as a small perturbation, hene the indued partile veloities are also small and the terms kantor@mail.ioffe.ru 2017 The Authors

2 2 E. M. Kantor, M. E. Gusakov depending on square of these veloities in the dynami equations an be omitted. For simpliity, we also ignore all surfae integrals whih ould appear in the formulas; they an be easily written out if neessary. The magneti energy dissipates when the system evolves towards equilibrium. The rate of the magneti energy hange, Ė B = an be presented as (e.g., Goldreih & Reisenegger 1992) Ė B = B 4π ḂBd, (1) E jd, (2) where E is the eletri field; j is the harge urrent density and is the system volume. Beause neutrons are assumed to be in the superfluid state, there is an additional degree of freedom in the system the neutron superfluid veloity sn, whih is related to the wave funtion phase Φ n of the neutron Cooper-pair ondensate by the ondition sn = Φ n/(2m n). Generally, this veloity differs from the veloity of normal neutron omponent, u n (i.e., the veloity of neutron thermal Bogoliubov exitations). At T < T n both normal and superfluid omponents ontribute to the neutron urrent density, j n = n sn sn + (n n n sn)u n, where n n is the neutron number density and n sn is the number density orresponding to superfluid neutron omponent. In the absene of rotation (no Feynman-Onsager vorties) sn obeys the standard superfluid equation, whih is valid at arbitrary T < T n (e.g., Putterman 1974; Khalatnikov 1989; Gusakov & Andersson 2006; note that the quadratially small veloity-dependent terms in this equation, as well as the bulk visosity terms, are already negleted), sn m n + µ n = 0, (3) t where m n is the neutron bare mass and µ n is the redshifted relativisti neutron hemial potential. The latter is given by µ n = µ ne φ/2, where µ n is the neutron hemial potential, is the speed of light, and φ is the gravitational potential. In a Newtonian star (φ 2 ) µ n an be represented as µ n µ n +µ n φ/ 2. Equation (3) an be further simplified by negleting inertia term whih, as we have already disussed above, is small for a quasistationary evolving NS. Then it redues to µ n = 0 µ n +µ n φ/ 2 = 0 (for a Newtonian star). (4) Equation (4), whih is valid at arbitrary T < T n, deserves a omment. In the NS literature it is ustomary to use a different form of this equation (see, e.g., equation 3 in Glampedakis et al and equation 1 in Passamonti et al. 2017) with a frition fore density F fr in its right-hand side, µ n = F fr n n. (5) The fore density F fr desribes frition of neutrons with eletrons and protons, and is usually hosen to be equal to (see, e.g., equations 3, 18, and 40 in Glampedakis et al and equations 1, 20, and 21 in Passamonti et al. 2017), 1 F fr = J en(u e v n)+j np(u p v n), (6) where u e and u p are the eletron and proton veloities, respetively; v n j n/n n is the veloity of neutron liquid as a whole (note that, generally, v n sn u n); and the frition oeffiients J en and J np are defined in Se Generally, the neutron equation in the form (5) ontradits Eq. (4). Both equations oinide only in the limit T T n, when J en and J np are suppressed by the neutron superfluidity (e.g., Glampedakis et al. 2011), so that F fr in Eq. (5) an be negleted. So, whih equation is orret? On theone hand, Eq. (4) is obtained from the neutronsuperfluid equation (3), whih has a standard form (e.g., Putterman 1974). 2 Note that, this equation remains unhanged even for mixtures of nonrotating superfluid and normal liquids, as is learly demonstrated, e.g., in the monograph by Khalatnikov (1989), who analyzed dissipative hydrodynami equations for solutions of superfluid helium-ii and normal 3 He taking into aount the diffusion effets (see Chapter 24 and, in partiular, equations and in that referene). On the other hand, Eq. (5) is (as far as we are aware) presented without detailed derivation and, as we believe, is the result of unjustified appliation of zero-temperature superfluid hydrodynamis to the ase of finite temperatures. Thus, we onlude, that equation (5) is inaurate at T T n and should be disregarded. 1 The expression (6) is written for our simplified problem, i.e., assuming that protons and eletrons are normal (nonsuperonduting). 2 Note that any substantial modifiation of this equation is forbidden by the basi priniples of the theory of superfluidity. For example, introdution of a frition fore in its right-hand side, m n sn t + µ n = F fr n n, violates the potentiality ondition for superfluid veloity, sn = 0, whih must be satisfied in a nonrotating star (e.g., Khalatnikov 1989).

3 A note on the ambipolar diffusion in superfluid neutron stars npe-matter The equations of motion for eletrons and nonsuperonduting protons take the form (Iakovlev & Shalybkov 1991) e(e + 1 e(e + 1 µe Jep u e B) µ e φ (u 2 e u p) Jen (u e u n) = 0, (7) n e n e µp Jep u p B) µ p φ (u 2 p u e) Jnp (u p u n) = 0, (8) n p n p where e is the proton eletri harge; µ e and µ p are the eletron and proton relativisti hemial potentials, respetively. Further, n i is the number density of partile speies i = p, e and J ik = J ki is the symmetri oeffiient related to the effetive relaxation time τ ik for sattering of partiles i on partiles k by the formula: τ ik = n iµ i/( 2 J ik ) (see Iakovlev & Shalybkov 1991). In Eqs. (7) and (8) thermo-diffusion terms are negleted. Equations (4) (8) should be supplemented by the total fore balane equation, whih, for the problem in question, takes the standard form (the same for superfluid and nonsuperfluid liquids), j B = P + (P +ǫ) φ = 2 i=n,p,e ( n i µ i +n i µ i 2 φ ), (9) where P and ǫ are the pressure and energy density, and j = en pu p en eu e. Let us now ompose the following ombination, [n e (7) +n p (8) n n (4)] (9). Taking into aount the quasineutrality ondition, n e = n p, we get J en(u e u n)+j np(u p u n) = 0. (10) This equation imposes an additional (in omparison to the non-superfluid matter) onstraint on the veloities u i. For example, if we neglet ollisions between neutrons and eletrons (J en = 0), we obtain u p = u n. Now, summing up n e (7)+n p (8)+n e (4), we arrive at j B µ e = n p µ e n p φ = e φ/ 2 np ( µ 2 e e φ/2 ), (11) where µ e µ n µ p µ e. In the Newtonian limit n p( µ e/ 2 ) φ n p µ e, and we have j B = n p µ e. (12) This is a Grad-Shafranov type equation for the magneti field, as in the ase of magneti equilibria in barotropi fluids. Note that the Lorentz fore density j B/ depends on the gradient of only one salar funtion (in ontrast to the non-superfluid matter, where it depends on the gradients of two salar funtions, see Glampedakis & Lasky 2016). This means that only very speifi magneti field onfigurations an restore hydrostati equilibrium when neutrons are superfluid (Glampedakis & Lasky 2016). Thus, one NS temperature drops below the neutron ritial temperature T n at a given point, the magneti field has to rearrange itself to meet the new hydrostati equilibrium ondition (12). This rearrangement may result in magnetar ativity and effetive dissipation of the magneti field energy on a typial timesale of NS ooling. 3 To find the dissipation rate ĖB (2), we express E from Eq. (8) for protons, E = u p B + µ p e + µp φ 2 e + Jep(u p u e )+J np (u p u n ) en p. (13) The seond and third terms in Eq. (13) are potential 4 and thus do not ontribute to the magneti field dissipation (to see this, integrate Eq. 2 by parts and use the ontinuity equation, j = 0). Thus, [ Ė B = u p B ] Jep(u p u e )+J np (u p u n ) + jd. (14) en p The first term here an be rewritten as Substituting now (12) into (15) ( up B ( j B ) jd = ( j B and integrating by parts, one finds (the integral over the distant surfae is omitted) ( up B ) u pd. (15) ) u pd = (n p µ e) u pd, (16) ) jd = (n pu p) µ ed. (17) 3 As results of Glampedakis & Lasky (2016) indiate, the same onlusion also applies if protons are superonduting. 4 In the approximation of a Newtonian star (φ/ 2 1), employed in this paper, these terms an be presented as µ p/e+µ p φ/( 2 e) = e φ/2 (µ p e φ/2 /e) (µ p e φ/2 /e) and hene are indeed potential. It is interesting to note that fully relativisti alulation would not hange this result.

4 4 E. M. Kantor, M. E. Gusakov The divergene term here an be expressed with the help of the ontinuity equation for protons, (n pu p) = Γ, where the soure Γ aounts for the non-equilibrium beta-proesses. When µ e k BT, Γ an be approximated as Γ λ e µ e (λ e is the density and temperature-dependent oeffiient and k B is the Boltzmann onstant), so that (17) redues to ( ) up B jd = λ e µ 2 ed. (18) Returning now to Eq. (14), it an be represented as [ Ė B = E jd = λe µ 2 e J en(u e u n) 2 J ep(u e u p) 2 J np(u n u p) 2] d + (u e u n)[j en(u e u n)+j np(u p u n)] d, (19) or, in view of Eq. (10), [ Ė B = E jd = λe µ 2 e J en(u e u n) 2 J ep(u e u p) 2 J np(u n u p) 2] d. (20) Clearly, magneti field dissipates due to partile mutual transformations and relative motion (diffusion). In priniple, the same expression an also be derived for non-superfluid npe matter (Gusakov et al., in preparation), but now the veloities are related by the onstraint (10). Using this onstraint, Eq. (20) an be rewritten as ] Ė B = [ λ e µ 2e j2 d, (21) where σ 0 = e 2 n 2 e/(j ep + JenJpn J en+j pn ) is the eletrial ondutivity in the absene of a magneti field. We ome to an important onlusion that in superfluid npe matter there is no magneti field dissipation due to ambipolar diffusion: Magneti field dissipates exlusively due to Ohmi deay and non-equilibrium partile transformations. The former is extremely ineffiient in neutron stars 5, while the latter strongly depends on the rate of non-equilibrium beta-proesses in NS matter. A typial dissipation timesale assoiated with these proesses an be estimated as t reations B 2 /(4πλ eδµ 2 e) 4πn 2 p/(λ eb 2 ). In the ase of modified Ura (mura) proesses this estimate gives 6 t reations T 6 8 B 2 14 yrs, too muh to affet the magneti field evolution. In turn, for the diret Ura (dura) proess we get t reations T 4 8 B 2 14 yrs, i.e., dura an be effetive dissipation agent for suffiiently strong magneti fields. It should be emphasized that the fat that magneti field does not dissipate through the ambipolar diffusion in the NS region where neutrons are superfluid, was learly realised long ago by Urpin & Shalybkov(1995, 1999). However, these authors only onsidered the ase of vanishing temperature (T = 0), when all neutrons ondense in Cooper pairs and simply annot satter off the protons. In ontrast, here we argue that ambipolar diffusion is not important for any temperature, even slightly smaller than the ritial temperature T n (when almost all neutrons are unpaired). Note that, this onlusion is in ontrast to the generally held view (e.g., Glampedakis et al. 2011; Passamonti et al. 2017) about the possible important role of ambipolar diffusion at temperatures T omparable to T n, whih is based on the analysis of equations, stritly valid only at T T n (see Se. 2.1 for details). σ npeµ-matter An admixture of muons introdues an additional degree of freedom into the system. The dynami equations for superfluid npeµ mixture onsist of superfluid (neutron) Eq. (4) together with the three equations on the harged omponents, e(e + 1 e(e + 1 e(e + 1 µe Jep u e B) µ e φ (u 2 e u p) Jen (u e u n) Jeµ (u e u µ) = 0, (22) n e n e n e µµ Jµp u µ B) µ µ φ (u 2 µ u p) Jµn (u µ u n) Jeµ (u µ u e) = 0, (23) n µ n µ n µ µp Jep u p B) µ p φ (u 2 p u e) Jnp (u p u n) Jµp (u p u µ) = 0. (24) n p n p n p In Eqs. (22) (24) u µ and µ µ are the muon veloity and relativisti hemial potential, respetively. In analogy with Eq. (12) one an derive the fore balane equation for superfluid npeµ matter, j B = n e µ e n µ µ µ, (25) and find that the Lorentz fore density is determined by the gradients of two salars, µ e and µ µ, where µ µ µ n µ p µ µ. Therefore, omparing to superfluid npe-matter, there is more freedom to hoose possible magneti field onfigurations. 5 A typial timesale is t Ohmi = 4πL 2 σ 0 / T 5/3 8 yrs, where L is the lengthsale of the magneti field variation (we take L 10 6 m) and T 8 is the temperature of the NS ore, normalized to 10 8 K (Shternin 2008). 6 The oeffiient λ e is estimated using the formulas given in the review by Yakovlev et al. (2001).

5 A note on the ambipolar diffusion in superfluid neutron stars 5 Proeeding in a similar way as in the ase of npe matter, one an show that the magneti field dissipation rate is given by 7 Ė B = λ e µ 2 e λ µ µ 2 µ 1 J ik (u i u k ) 2 d, (26) 2 i,k,i k while the veloities u i are related by (ompare this result with the onstraint 10) J µn(u µ u n)+j en(u e u n)+j np(u p u n) = 0. (27) In Eq. (26) the indies i,k run over n,p,e,µ; λ µ has the same meaning as λ e, but is defined for Ura-reations involving muons. Generally, as follows from Eqs. (26) and (27), the magneti field dissipation in npeµ matter is not assoiated exlusively with theohmideayandnon-equilibriumbeta-proesses. Evenifwe neglet theleptoninterations with neutrons(j en = J µn = 0), and find that u p = u n from Eq. (27) (i.e., normal neutrons move with protons), the relative motion between eletrons and muons will still enter the dissipation rate. The effet of suh motion on the magneti field dissipation an be relatively small, espeially at large densities (when muons more and more resemble eletrons). But this should be heked by diret alulation whih is beyond the sope of the present short note. Conluding, the presene of muons (or other, more exoti, partile speies) ompliates the things and may, in priniple, affet the magneti field evolution in superfluid NSs. 3 CONCLUSIONS In this note we onsidered a simplified illustrative problem of the magneti field evolution in a NS, whose ore is omposed of superfluid neutrons, nonsuperonduting protons and eletrons with possible admixture of muons. A star is assumed to be nonrotating, i.e., it does not have neutron vorties in its interiors. Perturbation of the system by the magneti field is assumed to be small and the NS evolution is supposed to be quasistationary standard assumptions (e.g., Goldreih & Reisenegger 1992), that allow us to neglet time derivatives and veloity-dependent nonlinear terms in the Euler-type and partile ontinuity equations. Bearing in mind simplifiations desribed above, we arrived at the following onlusions: 1. Ambipolar diffusion is irrelevant for the magneti field dissipation in superfluid npe matter at temperatures T even slightly smaller than T n. Magneti field in this ase dissipates only beause of Ohmi losses (ineffiient mehanism in the neutron star ores) and non-equilibrium Ura proesses (an be effiient if the diret Ura proess is open). This result is in ontrast to the results of Glampedakis et al. (2011) and Passamonti et al. (2017) who, as we argue in Se. 2.1, used a superfluid dynami equation for neutrons, whih is orret only in the limit T T n. 2. Sine only very speifi magneti field onfigurations an support hydrostati equilibrium in superfluid npe matter (see setion 2 and the work by Glampedakis & Lasky 2016), magneti field should feel expansion of the superfluid region upon NS ooling and reorganize itself aordingly on a ooling timesale. This may result in an inreased magneti ativity, e.g., in magnetars. 3. An admixture of muons will restore, to some extent, the role of ambipolar diffusion for the magneti field evolution, although the magneti energy dissipation rate (26) will differ from that in non-superfluid matter beause of (i) suppression of np, ne, and nµ ollisions by neutron superfluidity (e.g., Yakovlev & Shalybkov 1991) and (ii) an additional onstraint (27) relating normal partile veloities u i (i = n, p, e, µ). In partiular, if we neglet the lepton-neutron ollisions, there will be no relative motion between normal neutrons and protons, u n = u p. 4 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This study was supported by the Russian Siene Foundation (grant number ). REFERENCES Baym G., Pethik C., Pines D., 1969, Nature, 224, 674 Beloborodov A. M., Li X., 2016, ApJ, 833, 261 Castillo F., Reisenegger A., aldivia J. A., 2017, MNRAS, 471, 507 Glampedakis K., Jones D. I., Samuelsson L., 2011, MNRAS, 413, 2021 Glampedakis K., Lasky P. D., 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2542 Goldreih P., Reisenegger A., 1992, ApJ, 395, 250 Gusakov M. E., Andersson N., 2006, Mon. Not. R. Astron. So., 372, 1776 Haensel P., Urpin. A., Iakovlev D. G., 1990, A&A, 229, 133 Hoyos J., Reisenegger A., aldivia J. A., 2008, A&A, 487, 789 Hoyos J. H., Reisenegger A., aldivia J. A., 2010, MNRAS, 408, The same expression is also valid for non-superfluid npeµ matter, but then it is not onstrained by Eq. (27).

6 6 E. M. Kantor, M. E. Gusakov Iakovlev D. G., Shalybkov D. A., 1991, Ap&SS, 176, 171 Khalatnikov I. M., 1989, An Introdution to the Theory of Superfluidity. Addison-Wesley, New York Passamonti A., Akgün T., Pons J. A., Miralles J. A., 2017, MNRAS, 465, 3416 Putterman S., 1974, Superfluid hydrodynamis, North-Holland series in low temperature physis. North-Holland Pub. Co. Shalybkov D. A., Urpin. A., 1995, MNRAS, 273, 643 Shternin P. S., 2008, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretial Physis, 107, 212 Thompson C., Dunan R. C., 1996, ApJ, 473, 322 Urpin., Shalybkov D., 1999, MNRAS, 304, 451 Urpin. A., Shalybkov D. A., 1995, Astronomy Reports, 39, 332 Yakovlev D. G., Kaminker A. D., Gnedin O. Y., Haensel P., 2001, Phys. Rep., 354, 1 Yakovlev D. G., Shalybkov D. A., 1991, Ap&SS, 176, 191