1: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
2: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
3: %% %%
4: %% %%
5: %% electronic submission for Physical Review D (rapid communications) %%
6: %% ---------------------------------------- %%
7: %% %%
8: %% Corresponding author: Marcelo Salgado %%
9: %% Present address: Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares, UNAM %%
10: %% Ciudad Universtaria %%
11: %% A.P. 70-543 %%
12: %% 04510 Mexico D.F. %%
13: %% %%
14: %% %%
15: %% fax: +(5255) 56.22.46.93 %%
16: %% telephone number: +(5255) 56.22.46.90 (91,92) %%
17: %% electronic address: marcelo@nuclecu.unam.mx %%
18: %% %%
19: %% Comments: this file requires six figures: dens_pand.ps, %%
20: %% wec_pand.ps,dens_diaz.ps,wec_diaz.ps,dens_hkp.ps %%
21: %% wec_hkp.ps %%
22: %% %%
23: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
24: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
25: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% LaTex File:
26: %\documentstyle[11pt,aasms4]{article}
27: %\documentstyle[aas2pp4]{article}
28: %\documentstyle[11pt,aaspp4]{article}
29: %\documentclass[12pt,preprint]{aastex}
30: %\documentclass[12pt,aaspp4]{aastex}
31: \documentclass[showpacs,preprintnumbers,amsmath,amssymb]{revtex4}
32: \usepackage{graphicx,epsfig}% Include figure files
33:
34: \def\Journal#1#2#3#4{{#1} {\bf #2}, #3 (#4)}
35: \def\AP{{Ann. Phys.}}
36: \def\APF{{Ann. Phys.} Fr.}
37: \def\CPC{{Comp. Phys. Com.}}
38: \def\NIM{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods}
39: \def\NIMA{{\em Nucl. Instrum. Methods} A}
40: \def\NPB{{\em Nucl. Phys.} B}
41: \def\PLA{{Phys. Lett.} A}
42: \def\PLB{{Phys. Lett.} B}
43: \def\PRL{Phys. Rev. Lett.}
44: \def\PREV{Phys. Rev.}
45: \def\PRD{{Phys. Rev.} D}
46: \def\PR{{Phys. Rep.}}
47: \def\APJ{{Astrophys. J.}}
48: \def\AA{{Astron. Astrophys.}}
49: \def\NAT{{Nature}}
50: \def\NPA{{Nucl. Phys.} A}
51: \def\SCI{{Science}}
52: \def\CQG{{Class. Quant. Grav.}}
53: \def\JMP{{J. Math. Phys.}}
54: \def\RMF{{Rev. Mex. F\'\i s.}}
55: \def\JCP{{Comput. Phys}}
56: \def\IJMPD{{Int. Jour. Mod. Phys.}D}
57: \def\CMP{{Commun. Math. Phys.}}
58: \def\JPA{{J. Phys.} A}
59: \def\JMP{{J. Math. Phys.}}
60: \def\bb{\bigskip \goodbreak}
61: \def\be{\begin{equation}}
62: \def\ee{\end{equation}}
63: \def\bea{\begin{eqnarray}}
64: \def\eea{\end{eqnarray}}
65: \def\bm{\boldmath}
66:
67: \begin{document}
68:
69: \title{The violation of the weak energy condition, Is it
70: generic of spontaneous scalarization ?}
71:
72: \date{\today}
73:
74: \author{Marcelo Salgado}\email{marcelo@nuclecu.unam.mx}
75: \author{Daniel Sudarsky}\email{sudarsky@nuclecu.unam.mx}
76: \affiliation{Instituto de Ciencias Nucleares \\
77: Universidad Nacional Aut\'onoma de M\'exico\\
78: Apdo. Postal 70--543 M\'exico 04510 D.F., M\'exico}
79:
80: \author{Ulises Nucamendi} \email{ulises@fis.cinvestav.mx}
81: \affiliation{Instituto de
82: F\'{\i}sica y Matem\'{a}ticas, Universidad Michoacana de San
83: Nicol\'{a}s de Hidalgo,\\
84: Edif. C-3, Ciudad Universitaria, Morelia, Michoac\'{a}n, C.P.
85: 58040, M\'{e}xico}
86:
87: %e-mail:marcelo@nuclecu.unam.mx
88:
89: %e-mail: sudarsky@nuclecu.unam.mx
90:
91: %e-mail:ulises@fis.cinvestav.mx
92:
93: \begin{abstract}
94: It was recently shown by Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} that the
95: phenomenon of spontaneous scalarization (SC)
96: in compact objects (polytropes) was accompanied also by a
97: {\it spontaneous violation of the weak energy condition} (WEC).
98: Notably, by the encounter of negative-energy densities at several star places as measured by
99: a static observer. Here we argue that the negativeness of such densities
100: is not generic of scalar tensor theories
101: of gravity (STT). We support this conclusion by numerical results within
102: a class of STT and by using three realistic models of dense matter.
103: However, we show that the ``angular parts'' of the additional conditions
104: for the WEC to hold $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{i\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,i} \geq 0$ tend to
105: be ``slightly violated'' at the outskirts of the star.
106: \end{abstract}
107:
108: %\pacs{}
109: \pacs{04.50.+h, 04.25.Dm, 97.60.Jd}
110: \maketitle
111: %{\it subject headings: gravitation, relativity, stars: neutron}
112:
113: %\newpage
114: \section{Introduction}
115:
116: Scalar-tensor theories of gravity (STT) are one of the simplest
117: alternatives to
118: Einstein's general relativity (GR) \cite{damour0}.
119: A particular example of these, is the
120: Brans-Dicke theory. The general feature of STT is the introduction of
121: a new fundamental scalar field which couples to gravity in a non-minimal
122: fashion (NMC). Nonetheless, the NMC is such that it preserves the
123: Equivalence Principle, because the scalar-field couples to
124: the ordinary matter only through the spacetime metric.
125:
126: The NMC in STT unlike simple Einstein-Higgs systems, gives rise to
127: field equations that can differ substantially from the usual
128: Einstein's equations. Therefore, when applied to the astrophysical and
129: cosmological settings these theories can produce severe deviations from the
130: general relativity predictions. The fact that STT introduce in general only
131: a few new parameters make them in principle easily testable.
132: Perhaps the most notable probes in this direction are those connected
133: with the binary pulsar, the primordial nucleosynthesis,
134: the Cosmic Microwave Background, and the
135: luminosity distance with Type-II Supernova.
136: The success of GR lies in the fact that
137: with suitable matter models,
138: the theory is compatible with the available information in the above systems. Modifications
139: of the gravitational sector in the way of STT lead thus to a
140: serious change in the geometry-matter relation that can upset the
141: compatibility of the theory with the observations.
142: The stringent bounds on STT
143: make difficult to accommodate these theories to all the observations
144: while at the same time predicting new observable phenomena. One
145: of the potentially observable new phenomenon is precisely the
146: phenomenon of spontaneous scalarization (SC) arising in compact objects.
147: As it was first shown by Damour \& Esposito-Far\`ese \cite{damour1}, STT can
148: induce non-perturbative effects in neutron stars (NS) which, roughly speaking,
149: consists in a phase-transition that endows a compact star
150: with a new global quantity, the {\it scalar charge}. This ``charge'' is the
151: analogous of the {\it magnetization} in ferromagnets at low
152: temperatures and the central-energy density
153: (or equivalently the baryon mass) of the object plays in turn the role of the
154: temperature in spontaneous magnetization.
155: Damour \& Esposito-Far\`ese \cite{damour1,damour2}
156: also shown that the consequences of SC
157: can be dramatic even if the boundary-conditions (asymptotic conditions)
158: for the scalar-field are chosen so as to satisfy the solar-system
159: bounds. In particular, they showed that the binary-pulsar dynamics
160: is very sensitive to the new phenomenon, and therefore, that STT can be
161: further constrained even if they successfully pass the local and the
162: cosmological tests.
163:
164: In this paper we will not be concerned with the confrontation
165: of STT with the experiments, but rather with a result obtained by
166: Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} who presented evidence that the
167: the phenomenon of
168: SC in NS is linked to a violation of the weak energy condition (WEC).
169: Notably, Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} found that the
170: effective energy density of STT as measured by a static observer and
171: defined as $\rho_{\rm eff}:=n^a n^b G_{ab}/(8\pi)$
172: (where $G_{ab}$ is the Einstein tensor and $n^a$ a time-like vector parallel to the
173: static Killing vector $\xi^a_t$) is negative and suggested that
174: such a finding might be independent of the class of STT used (although depending
175: of the chosen value of the NMC constant of the theory).
176: A negative $\rho_{\rm eff}$ is a sufficient condition for the violation of the WEC.
177: The authors argue that the violation of the WEC in NS might led to
178: their instability
179: (even for masses quite below to their corresponding
180: Landau-Tolman-Volkoff-Oppenheimer limit), a very undesirable
181: feature that would presumably rule out the STT as an alternative
182: for a viable spacetime theory.
183:
184: While it is true that the effective energy density
185: $\rho_{\rm eff}$ of STT as defined above is not automatically positive
186: definite due to the presence of second order derivatives of the scalar field,
187: the main goal of this paper is to show that there are classes of STT that do not violate the
188: condition
189: $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$ for the problem at hand. As we shall argue in Sec. III,
190: the violation of the
191: condition $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$ as found by Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} is linked to
192: the use of a parametrization {\it \`a la} Brans-Dicke
193: which prejudices the choice of the
194: specific theory which can potentially violate such condition. In our case, we use
195: a parametrization of the STT where the effective gravitational constant can be
196: chosen to be positive-definite. In such a case, as it is shown in Sec. III,
197: the theories parametrized in both ways may be
198: very different (the transformation that would be necessary
199: to change from one parametrizaction to the other
200: might not be well defined).
201:
202: Altough the class of STT analyzed by us
203: satisfy the
204: condition $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$ for the NS of interest,
205: they are prone to
206: violate ``slightly'' the angular parts of the additional conditions
207: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{i\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,i} \geq 0$ for the WEC to hold.
208: Since this violation is
209: rather weak and occurs when
210: the energy-density and pressure of the star fluid is very low (near the star surface),
211: we argue that the stability of the neutron star is not in jeopardy, and therefore that
212: a large class of STT cannot be considered as unviable spacetime theories only by this fact.
213:
214:
215: \section{The model}
216: The general action for a STT with a single scalar field is given by
217: \be
218: \label{jordan}
219: S = \int \left\{ \frac{1}{16\pi} F(\phi) R
220: -\left( \frac{1}{2}(\nabla \phi)^2 + V(\phi) \right) \right\} \sqrt{-g} d^4x
221: + S_{\rm matt}\,\,\,.
222: \end{equation}
223: where the matter sector will be represented by a perfect fluid.
224:
225: The field equations obtained from the above action are
226: \bea
227: G_{ab} &=& 8\pi T_{ab}^{\rm eff}\,\,\,\,, \\
228: \label{effTmunu}
229: T_{ab}^{\rm eff} &=& G_{\rm eff}\left( T_{ab}^F + T_{ab}^{\phi} + T_{ab}^{\rm matt}\right)\,\,\,\,, \\
230: T_{ab}^F &= & \frac{1}{8\pi}\left[\nabla_a\left(\partial_\phi
231: F\nabla_b\phi\right) - g_{ab}\nabla_c \left(\partial_\phi
232: F\nabla^c \phi\right)\right] \,\,\,\,, \\
233: T_{ab}^{{\rm \phi}} &= & (\nabla_a \phi)(\nabla_b \phi) - g_{ab}
234: \left[ \frac{1}{2}(\nabla \phi)^2 + V(\phi)\right ] \,\,\,\,, \\
235: T_{ab}^{\rm matt} &=& (\rho+ p)u_a u_b + g_{ab}p \,\,\,,
236: \eea
237:
238: \be
239: \label{KG}
240: {\Box \phi} =
241: \frac{ F\partial_\phi V- 2(\partial_\phi F) V +
242: \frac{1}{2}(\partial_\phi F)\left[ T_{\rm matt} -
243: \left( 1 + \frac{3\partial^2_{\phi\phi} F}{8\pi}
244: \right)(\nabla \phi)^2 \right] }{ F +
245: \frac{ 3(\partial_\phi F)^2}{16\pi} }\,\,\,\,.
246: \end{equation}
247: where $T_{\rm matt}$ stands for the trace of $T^{ab}_{\rm matt}$,
248: $G_{ab}=R_{ab} -\frac{1}{2}g_{ab}R$, and
249: $G_{\rm eff} = \frac{1}{F}$.
250:
251: It is to be emphasized that the action (\ref{jordan}) corresponds to
252: STT in the physical (Jordan) frame, as opposed to the one written in
253: terms of an unphysical (conformally transformed) metric (the Einstein
254: frame). Hereafter we consider $V(\phi)\equiv 0$.
255:
256: In a previous work \cite{us} (hereafter SSN), we analyzed the SC phenomenon in detail
257: for the class of STT given by $F(\phi)= 1 + 16\pi \xi \phi^2$
258: (here $\xi$ stands for the NMC constant)
259: and for spherically symmetric (static) neutron stars. In that analysis,
260: we exhibited the SC phenomenon for the cases $\xi=2,6$ and employed three
261: representative realistic equations of state (EOS) for the nuclear matter:
262: the model of Pandharipande \cite{pand} (hereafter PandN; representative of a ``soft'' EOS),
263: the model II of D\'\i az-Alonso \cite{diaz} (hereafter DiazII;
264: representative of a ``medium'' EOS), and the model ``0.17''
265: of Haensel et {\it al.} \cite{hkp} (hereafter HKP; representative of a
266: ``stiff'' EOS). Our conclusion in SSN was that the SC is a phenomenon that ensues independently of
267: the details of the EOS, but that strongly depends on the compactness of the
268: star (high central energy-density). Moreover, we provided a heuristic analysis
269: that clarifies why NS configurations with SC are energetically preferred
270: over those with a trivial scalar field, despite the unintuitive
271: expectation coming from the fact that the effective gravitational constant
272: $G_{\rm eff}=1/F$ decreases as the scalar field departs from the trivial
273: configuration, which
274: in turn leads to a reduction of the
275: absolute value of the star's negative binding energy.
276:
277: In order to analyze the SC phenomenon we computed hundreds of NS configurations.
278: Now, to inquire about the status of the WEC, we take representative data of our
279: catalogue and recompute the energy-density profiles $\rho_{\rm eff}(r)$
280: as well as the other two relevant quantities $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r}$ and
281: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$ (where the spherical symmetry
282: implies $T^{\phi\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\phi}= T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$).
283: The WEC will be violated if any of the three above quantities is negative.
284:
285: For the static and spherically symmetric
286: metric $g_{ab}={\rm diag}(-N^2,A^2,r^2,r^2\sin^2\theta)$,
287: the effective energy-density
288: $\rho_{\rm eff}:= n^a n^b T_{ab}^{\rm eff}$ and the quantities
289: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r}$ and
290: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$,
291: respectively [where $T_{ab}^{\rm eff}$ is given by Eq. (\ref{effTmunu}),
292: and $n^a$ stands for the timelike unit vector associated with a
293: static observer] we have
294: \bea
295: \rho_{\rm eff} &=&
296: \frac{G_{\rm eff}}{1+ 192\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}}
297: \left[-\frac{4\xi\phi
298: (\partial_{r}\phi)(\partial_{r}\tilde N)}{\tilde N A^2}
299: \left(1+ 192\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}\right)
300: +\frac{1}{2A^2}(\partial_{r}\phi)^2 \left(1+8\xi+
301: 64\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
302: \label{Eeff}
303: & & \left.
304: + \rho+ 64\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}\left(2\rho+ 3p \right)
305: \right] \,\,\,\,, \\
306: \rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r} &=&
307: \frac{G_{\rm eff}}{1+ 192\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}}
308: \left[-\frac{8\xi\phi \partial_{r}\phi}{A^2}
309: \left(\frac{1}{r} + \frac{\partial_{r}\tilde N}{\tilde N}\right)
310: \left(1+ 192\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}\right) \right. \nonumber \\
311: && \left.
312: +\frac{1}{A^2}(\partial_{r}\phi)^2 \left(1+4\xi+
313: 128\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}\right)
314: + \rho+ p + 128\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}\left(\rho+ 3p \right)
315: \right] \,\,\,\,,
316: \label{WEC2} \\
317: \rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta} &=&
318: G_{\rm eff}\left[\frac{4\xi\phi \partial_{r}\phi}{A^2}
319: \left(\frac{1}{r} - \frac{\partial_{r}\tilde N}{\tilde N}\right)
320: + \rho + p \right] \,\,\,\,.
321: \label{WEC3}
322: \eea
323: which explicitly shows the usual contributions of the
324: the perfect-fluid ($\rho$ and $p$) plus
325: those arising due to the NMC. Here $\tilde N=N/N_0$ is the
326: renormalized lapse with respect to its value at $r=0$.
327: Clearly when $\phi(r)\equiv 0$ ,
328: one simply recovers $\rho_{\rm eff}= \rho$, and
329: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r}= \rho + p
330: = \rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$.
331:
332: We have integrated the system of equations with adequate
333: regularity and boundary conditions
334: (leading to asymptotically flat spacetimes) and
335: with $\phi(r\rightarrow\infty)\sim Q_s/r$ where $Q_s$ is the scalar ``charge.''
336: For a fixed $\xi$, all the NS models are parametrized by the
337: central energy-density of the fluid $\rho_0$. Therefore a
338: critical value $\rho_0^{\rm crit}$ (or equivalently $M_{\rm bar}^{\rm crit}$)
339: characterizes the onset of SC.
340: Figures \ref{f:1}$-$\ref{f:3} depict $\rho_{\rm eff}$ (left panels) and
341: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r}$ (right panels; solid curves) and
342: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$ (right panels; dashed curves).
343: The lower mass ($M_{\rm bar}^{\rm crit}$) curves of Figs. \ref{f:1}$-$\ref{f:3}
344: indicate the
345: critical configurations towards SC while the rest of the curves correspond to NS endowed
346: with a ``scalar charge'' $Q_s$.
347:
348: The important point to note is that none of the curves of Figs.
349: \ref{f:1}$-$\ref{f:3}
350: show a violation of the condition $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$. From the figures
351: we appreciate that the condition
352: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r} \geq 0$ is also satisfied.
353: However, the quantity
354: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$ start becoming ``slightly''
355: negative near the surface of the star.
356:
357: As we have stressed above, $\rho_{\rm eff}$ has not an a priori definite sign,
358: and in fact, the term linear in $\partial_{r}\phi$
359: could be negative within the NS. Moreover, one can define
360: an energy-density that is useful to understand the appearance of the phenomenon
361: of SC, and is the one given as follows \cite{us},
362: \be
363: \rho^\xi =
364: \frac{ G_{\rm eff}}{1+ 192\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}}
365: \left[ \rho+ 64\pi\xi^2\phi^2 G_{\rm eff}\left(2\rho+ 3p \right)
366: \right] - \rho\,\,\,\,.
367: \label{densroxi}
368: \end{equation}
369: which heuristically encompasses the contribution of the NMC
370: to the energy-density of the perfect fluid.
371: Note, however,
372: that $\rho_{\rm eff}= \rho + \rho^\xi + ...$ with $\rho + \rho^\xi>0$.
373: Therefore $\rho_{\rm eff} > 0$, since typically
374: $|-\phi(\partial_r\phi)(\partial_r\tilde N)/(\tilde N A^2)|\ll \rho$
375: within the NS.
376: In our heuristic analysis (SSN) which was also confirmed by the numerical solutions,
377: we showed that the negative contribution $\rho^\xi$ more than compensates
378: the decrease in the absolute value of the binding energy due to the reduction of
379: $G_{\rm eff}$,
380: resulting in an overall lower total energy [the ADM-energy
381: that is obtained from the integration of Eq. (\ref{Eeff})]
382: as compared with the energy of the configuration with the same baryon-mass
383: but with a null
384: scalar field (a configuration in pure GR).
385:
386: \section{Discussion}
387: In order to give an insight for the non-negativeness of the effective energy-density
388: let us consider eq. (\ref{effTmunu}) without specifying $F(\phi)$
389: and compute $\rho_{\rm eff}=n^a n^b T_{ab}^{\rm eff}$:
390: \be
391: \label{Eff}
392: \rho_{\rm eff}= \frac{1}{F}\left[ \frac{\partial_\phi F}{8\pi}n^a n^b \nabla_a\nabla_b\phi
393: + \frac{ \frac{(\nabla\phi)^2}{2}\left(1 + \frac{(\partial_{\phi} F)^2}{16\pi F}
394: + \frac{\partial^2_{\phi\phi} F}{4\pi}\right)+ \rho +
395: \frac{(\partial_\phi F)^2}{16\pi F}\left(2\rho + 3p\right)}
396: {1 + \frac{3(\partial_\phi F)^2}{16\pi F}}\right] \,\,\,.
397: \end{equation}
398: This reduces to Eq. (\ref{Eeff}) for $F(\phi)= 1 + 16\pi \xi \phi^2$ and for
399: the static and spherically symmetric case.
400:
401: For usual nuclear matter ($\rho>0$ and $p>0$) and for $F>0$,
402: $\partial^2_{\phi\phi} F> 0$, only the first
403: term is not positive semi-definite. Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} have
404: found a negative $\rho_{\rm eff}$ at various star positions, notably
405: at the center of the star ($r=0$).
406: So let us first focus on $\rho_{\rm eff}$
407: at $r=0$. By regularity at the origin, $\partial_r\phi|_{r=0}=0$, therefore
408: \be\label{Eff0}
409: \rho_{\rm eff}^0 = \frac{1}{F_0}\left[
410: \frac{\rho_0 +
411: \frac{(\partial_\phi F)^2_0}{16\pi F_0}\left(2\rho_0 + 3p_0\right)}
412: {1 + \frac{3(\partial_\phi F)^2_0}{16\pi F_0}}\right] \,\,\,.
413: \end{equation}
414: We can now investigate in which situations $\rho_{\rm eff}^0$ can be negative
415: \footnote{It is important to note that $\phi(r)={\rm const.}\neq 0$ cannot solve the Klein-Gordon
416: Eq. (\ref{KG}) within a neutron star. Therefore this excludes the
417: possibility of a neutron star configuration with a
418: non-zero but homogeneous scalar-field.
419: As a consequence, once a $\phi_0\neq0$ ensues at
420: the center of the star
421: (this depends on the value of the central energy-density) the only possibility
422: is an inhomogeneous scalar-field which interpolates between $\phi_0$ and
423: the asymptotic value. This is another way to view the onset of the spontaneous
424: scalarization.}.
425:
426: a) STT with $F(\phi)>0$ (in particular $F_0>0$). Clearly for this case,
427: $\rho_{\rm eff}^0>0$ (since we consider only $\rho_0>0$ and $p_0>0$).
428: This includes the class of STT
429: we analyzed numerically $F(\phi)= 1 + 16\pi \xi \phi^2\,,\,\xi> 0$, for which we
430: did not encounter negative effective central energy-densities [cf.
431: Figs. \ref{f:1}$-$\ref{f:3} (left-panels)].
432:
433: b) STT with $F(\phi)<0$ for some $\phi$
434: (in particular $F_0<0$).
435: Clearly $F_0<0$ is a necessary condition for $\rho_{\rm eff}^0 <0$.
436: One can then obtain $\rho_{\rm eff}^0<0$ if in addition the following inequalities
437: hold $\rho_0 +
438: \frac{(\partial_\phi F)^2_0}{16\pi F_0}\left(2\rho_0 + 3p_0\right) >0$
439: and $1 + \frac{3(\partial_\phi F)^2_0}{16\pi F_0} > 0$. From this, we have the following
440: two possibilities: 1) If $\rho_0 - 3p_0 \geq 0$ then the two inequalities hold provided
441: $16\pi|F_0|> 3(\partial_\phi F)^2_0$;
442: 2) If $3p_0 -\rho_0 \geq 0$ then the two inequalities hold provided
443: $16\pi |F_0|> C(\partial_\phi F)^2_0$ where $C= 2+ 3p_0/\rho_0$.
444:
445: According to `b)', it is in principle
446: possible to obtain $\rho_{\rm eff}^0<0$ for $F_0<0$. However,
447: this case is completely pathological: on one hand at the center of the star
448: $F_0$ is negative (which in turn implies a negative effective gravitational
449: constant $G^0_{\rm eff}=1/F_0<0$). On the other hand, asymptotically
450: $F=G^{-1}_{\rm eff}\sim 1>0$ (i.e. $G_{\rm eff}$ approaches the Newtonian
451: value) in order to pass successfully the solar-system
452: bounds. Therefore $F(r)=F(\phi(r))$ must interpolate between the negative and the
453: positive value, implying that at some spherical shell
454: (inside or outside the star) $F=0$ and thus $G_{\rm eff}\rightarrow \infty$, where the equations
455: become singular.
456:
457: In order to avoid this kind of pathologies within a
458: neutron star model one should consider
459: only the cases $F(\phi)>0$ which lead us to the conclusion that any physically viable
460: STT will not produce a negative central effective-energy density
461: \footnote{Clearly this conclusion could dramatically change with the
462: inclusion of a potential $V(\phi)$.}.
463:
464: Now, although we have just proven rigorously that $F_0>0$ implies $\rho_{\rm eff}^0>0$,
465: we still have to proof the same for $\rho_{\rm eff}(r)$ given by Eq. (\ref{Eff}).
466: Although this could be a difficult task, the
467: empirical numerical evidence shows that if $\rho_{\rm eff}^0>0$
468: and for a class of STT (e.g. a class of STT with $F>0$ and $\partial^2_{\phi\phi} F> 0$) then
469: $\rho_{\rm eff}(r)\geq0$ for the same class due to the fact that
470: $|(\partial_\phi F)n^a n^b \nabla_a\nabla_b\phi| <<\rho$ within a NS.
471:
472: The above heuristic analysis which is supported by our numerical results leads us to
473: the following conjecture:
474:
475: {\bf Conjecture:} {\it Consider a STT with $F(\phi)>0$
476: and $\partial^2_{\phi\phi} F> 0$ (in particular $F_0>0$
477: at the center of a neutron star which
478: implies $\rho_{\rm eff}^0>0$),
479: such that asymptotically $F\sim 1$
480: and with $V(\phi)\equiv 0$, then
481: $\rho_{\rm eff}(r)\geq 0$ for all the static NS configurations, including all those
482: endowed with $Q_s$
483: (where the equality holds only outside the star and for a trivial scalar field)}
484: \footnote{A class of STT that can jeopardize this conjecture
485: is with $F(\phi)= \chi e^{\xi \phi^2}$ ($\chi,\xi>0$), since
486: $\rho_{\nabla\nabla}:= (\partial_\phi F)n^a n^b \nabla_a\nabla_b\phi\sim -
487: \xi e^{\xi \phi^2} \phi (\partial_{r}\phi)(\partial_{r}\tilde N)/(\tilde N A^2)
488: $. So for $\xi$ large enough and with $\phi (\partial_{r}\phi)
489: (\partial_{r}\tilde N)> 0$ in some region within the star,
490: it is possible to imagine a scenario
491: with $\rho_{\nabla\nabla}<0$ and $|\rho_{\nabla\nabla}|>\rho$ so that
492: $\rho_{\rm eff}$ has regions with negative values. In this case the neutron
493: star would probably be unstable or even such class of STT with
494: large $\xi$ would be ruled out by cosmological arguments (such as
495: primordial nucleosynthesis, galaxy formation, CMB, etc.). Needless to
496: say one requires further numerical studies to explore
497: a concrete realization of this possibility.}.
498:
499: Now, in order to give some insight about the violation of the WEC found by
500: Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT}, let us consider their Eq. (5) (where
501: $\rho_{\rm eff}$ is denoted by $\mu$) and
502: focus on the central energy density
503: (where the regularity conditions
504: and the spherical symmetry implies that the gradient contributions become null):
505: \be\label{mu}
506: \mu_0= \frac{1}{\Phi_0}\left[\rho_0 + \frac{(3p_0-\rho_0)}{2\omega_0(\Phi_0) +3}\right]\,\,\,.
507: \end{equation}
508: This expression is in fact equivalent to our Eq. (\ref{Eff0}),
509: which we showed to be positive definite for $F_0>0$ and for usual neutron
510: matter ($\rho_0>0$ and $p_0>0$). The translation
511: from the Brans-Dicke parametrization used in Eq. (\ref{mu}) to ours is provided by
512: \be\label{BDeqs}
513: \Phi = F(\phi) \,\,\,,\,\,\,
514: \omega(\Phi)= \frac{8\pi F}{(\partial_\phi F)^2}\,\,\,.
515: \end{equation}
516: On the other hand $\mu_0$ might not look as having
517: a definite sign. We have explicitly
518: \be\label{mu0}
519: \mu_0= \frac{1}{\Phi_0}\left[\rho_0(1-\sigma_0) + 3\sigma_0p_0\right]\,\,\,.
520: \end{equation}
521: where $\sigma(\Phi)= 1/(3+2\omega)$. Then, clearly due to the Brans-Dicke parametrization
522: one could consider situations where $\sigma_0>1$ or $\sigma_0<0$,
523: which depending on the values of $\rho_0$ and $p_0$ can lead
524: to $\mu_0<0$. However, we note
525: that the condition $F(\phi)>0$ (in particular $F_0>0$) leading to
526: $\rho_{\rm eff}^0>0$ (or equivalently $\mu_0>0$),
527: implies $\Phi>0$ and also $0\leq \sigma< 1/3$: In fact,
528: from $\sigma(\Phi)= 1/(3+2\omega)$ and Eqs. (\ref{BDeqs}) one obtains,
529: $\sigma(\Phi)= \frac{(\partial_\phi F)^2}{3(\partial_\phi F)^2 + 16\pi F}$
530: (thus $F(\phi)>0$ implies $0\leq \sigma< 1/3$). Moreover, since $\Phi= F(\phi)$
531: (assuming $F(\phi)\neq {\rm const.}$) the inverse mapping is
532: $\phi= \int\sqrt{\frac{1-3\sigma(\Phi)}{16\pi\Phi \sigma(\Phi)}}\,d\Phi$. Therefore the
533: conditions $\Phi>0$ and $0<\sigma< 1/3$ are required for this mapping
534: $\Phi\rightarrow \phi$ to be well defined (the separate case $\sigma \equiv 0$ corresponds to
535: $F(\phi)={\rm const.}$ from which one simply recovers GR).
536:
537: Hence, the restrictions on
538: $\sigma$
539: bounds in turn the choice of the Brans-Dicke function $\omega(\Phi)$.
540: Any choice of $\omega(\Phi)$ leading to a violation of the condition
541: $0\leq \sigma < 1/3$ with $\Phi>0$ will imply a lost of the connection
542: with the original theory. It is in this sense that the use of the Brans-Dicke parametrization
543: prejudices the kind of STT (those STT which allows values for $\sigma$ to be outside the bounds $0\leq \sigma < 1/3$) that
544: can lead to violations of the positiveness of $\rho_{\rm eff}$.
545:
546: One could then use the
547: SC phenomenon in NS to classify the STT in two types: Type-I) STT with $\sigma(\Phi)$ such
548: that $0\leq \sigma< 1/3$ and $\Phi>0$ (which in particular are valid at the star's center
549: and therefore that coincide with the case ``a)'' analyzed above). Type-II)
550: STT with $\sigma(\Phi)$ (in particular $\sigma_0$)
551: not necessarily
552: limited in the range $[0,1/3)$ and with $\Phi_0>0$.
553: The first kind of STT
554: can be put in correspondence with the original parametrization
555: ($F(\phi)>0$) and these theories lead to $0< \rho_{\rm eff}^0\equiv \mu_0>0$,
556: regardless of the EOS for nuclear matter (assuming $\rho$ and $p$ non-negative).
557: The type-II is a STT which cannot be put in correspondence
558: with the original parametrization (in terms of $\phi$) since the
559: transformation as shown above is not well defined.
560: The type-II theories can lead to situations where
561: $\mu_0<0$ but are not even related to the theories
562: which in the original parametrization give rise to
563: $\rho_{\rm eff}^0 <0$ (case ``b)'' above) which require $F_0<0$.
564: For instance,
565: it is possible to have $\mu_0<0$ with $\Phi_0>0$
566: with a suitable $\sigma_0$, as in the following situations:
567: A) $\rho_0/(\rho_0-3p_0)<\sigma_0$ with
568: $3p_0 < \rho_0$; B) $\sigma_0<0$ with
569: $\rho_0/(3p_0-\rho_0)<|\sigma_0|$ and $\rho_0<3p_0$.
570: Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} considered two classes of STT. The first one with
571: $\sigma= 2\kappa {\rm ln}\Phi$ and $\kappa\geq 3$. This example can belong to Type-IIA
572: (and produce $\mu_0<0$) if for instance $\sigma_0 \approx 2$, $p_0<\rho_0/6$ and
573: $1<\Phi_0\lesssim 1.4$.
574: These conditions could be met in neutron stars with a low baryon mass
575: like some of the ones computed by Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT}.
576:
577: The second class of STT used by those authors is one with
578: $\sigma=\lambda(\Phi-1)$ and $\lambda \geq 5.35$.
579: This class is of Type-IIA or Type-IIB
580: for $\Phi_0> 1$ or
581: $0<\Phi_0 <1$, respectively. As mentioned above, the condition $3p_0 < \rho_0$
582: in Type-IIA is met usually in
583: NS with a low baryon mass. Since for this second class of STT, $\mu_0<0$ was found by
584: Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} in
585: low baryon mass configurations, presumably $\Phi_0> 1$ there.
586:
587: We have thus given a heuristic explanation for a negative $\mu_0$
588: in both of their classes of STT.
589:
590: Of course, STT of Type-II can lead to
591: positive $\mu_0$'s
592: without implying that the WEC will not be violated somewhere within the star (see figures of Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT}). On the other hand, the fact that STT's of Type-I lead
593: to positive definite
594: $\mu_0$ does not imply that the WEC is not violated either. However, our numerical
595: analysis shows that this type of STT (theories with
596: $\mu_0>0$) indeed satisfy the condition $\mu(r)\geq 0$
597: (where the equality holds only outside the star and for a trivial scalar field)
598: and this is the motivation for our conjecture above.
599: Along the same line of reasoning one could further conjecture (conjecture 2) that
600: {\it given
601: a fixed EOS, if a STT of Type-II violates the condition $\mu(r)\geq 0$ somewhere within a star
602: (not necessarily at the center)
603: then the STT will violate the WEC at the center for some
604: other $\rho_0$ (defined as $\rho_0^-$)}.
605: That is, the second conjecture states that $\mu_0=f(\rho_0)$ has always a negative
606: branch ($f(\rho_0^-)<0$) in the Type-II theories.
607: The first conjecture on the other hand roughly states
608: that a STT (with the given assumptions) that
609: does not violate $\mu_0>0$ (Type-I with $\mu_0(\rho_0)>0$)
610: will not violate it elsewhere within the NS (i.e., $\mu(r)\geq 0$ within
611: the star).
612:
613: We can now turn the attention to the condition $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$ which
614: the numerical analysis shows to be negative near the star surface. From eq. (\ref{WEC3}) we appreciate that
615: beyond the compact support of the nuclear fluid,
616: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}\sim
617: G_{\rm eff}\left[\frac{4\xi\phi \partial_{r}\phi}{A^2}
618: \left(\frac{1}{r} - \frac{\partial_{r}\tilde N}{\tilde N}\right) \right]$. If we roughly approximate
619: $A^{-1}\approx N\approx (1-2M/r)^{1/2}$ for $r\geq R$ (where $R$ and $M$ stand for the star radius and total mass)
620: then, the factor $\left(\frac{1}{r}-\frac{\partial_{r}\tilde N}{\tilde N}\right)
621: \approx 1/r\left[(1 - 3M/r)/(1 - 2M/r)\right]$ which is positive even for the maximum mass configurations.
622: Therefore $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}\sim
623: G_{\rm eff}\frac{4\xi\phi \partial_{r}\phi(1 - 3M/r)}{r}$.
624: Since the SC configurations have $\partial_{r}\phi<0$ near and beyond $R$
625: [$\phi(r)\sim Q_s/r$ asymptotically, with $Q_s>0$],
626: then $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$
627: is negative (for $\xi >0$) near and beyond the star surface. Note from Eq. (\ref{WEC2}), that
628: the term $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r}$ [unlike
629: $\rho_{\rm eff} +
630: T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$; cf. Eq. (\ref{WEC3})] does not
631: become negative because of the sign
632: difference in the term with $\xi\phi \partial_{r}\phi$,
633: and the remaining terms involving the scalar field
634: are positive definite (for $\xi >0$).
635:
636: In summary, there exists classes of STT that
637: give rise to the phenomenon of spontaneous scalarization with and without a violation of the
638: condition $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$. Examples of STT like the ones we analyzed numerically does
639: not violate that
640: condition. However they do violate the WEC ``slightly''
641: because $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$
642: starts becoming ``slightly'' negative from the star surface.
643: On the other hand, there are STT like the ones analyzed by
644: Whinnett \& Torres \cite{WT} which
645: do violate the condition $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$ which straightforwardly leads to a violation of the WEC. In our case it is unclear whether the small violation of the WEC by the STT considered
646: here will necessarily lead to the instability of the NS.
647: In Ref. \cite{us}, we have shown that the energetically preferred NS configurations
648: (with a fixed total baryon mass) are those with lower ADM mass which correspond to scalarized NS as opposed to the corresponding
649: NS in pure GR. The curves of the ADM as a
650: function of the central energy-density $\rho_0$ suggest that configurations with ADM mass smaller than the maximum mass models
651: (corresponding to $\rho_0^{\rm max}$)
652: are stable with respect to radial linear perturbations \cite{us}.
653: Moreover, numerical non-linear analysis strongly suggest that ordinary NS
654: (with weak or zero scalar charge) can
655: decay to their corresponding more stable strong
656: scalarized configurations \cite{novak2} and furthermore that among these scalarized NS
657: only the configurations with
658: $\rho_0>\rho_0^{\rm max}$ are unstable
659: and can collapse into a Schwarszschild black hole like ordinary NS, by radiating away all the scalar-field
660: \cite{novak1}.
661:
662: If found that only the scalarized NS which
663: violate the WEC through the violation of $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$ within the star
664: are unstable, then the STT
665: allowing such violations would be ruled out. On the other hand, it is well possible that small violations of the
666: WEC through the term $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$ in the outskirts of the NS
667: while respecting $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$ within the star might not lead to instabilities and therefore
668: that the employed STT is a viable candidate for a spacetime theory.
669:
670: \section{Conclusion}
671: Our main conclusion is that the large
672: violations of the WEC deep inside the neutron stars as an additional feature to
673: the phenomenon of spontaneous scalarization is not generic of all
674: the classes of scalar tensor theories of gravity
675: as the work of Torres \& Whinnett work might be thought to suggest.
676: We have argued that there are classes of STT (at least a subset with $F(\phi)>0$
677: and $\partial^2_{\phi\phi} F> 0$) where $\rho_{\rm eff} \geq 0$ and where the
678: violations of the WEC in neutron stars occur only near and beyond the
679: surface of the star via the angular parts of $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{i\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,i}$. Strong
680: numerical evidence supports this conclusion.
681:
682:
683: \medskip
684: \section*{Acknowledgments}
685: \medskip
686:
687: M.S. and D.S. were partially supported by
688: DGAPA-UNAM grants {\tt IN112401}, {\tt IN122002} and
689: {\tt IN108103}. U.N. acknowledges partial support from
690: SNI, and grants 4.8 CIC-UMSNH, PROMEP PTC-61, CONACYT 42949-F.
691:
692: \begin{thebibliography}{}
693:
694: \bibitem{WT}
695: A.W. Whinnett, and D.F. Torres, 2004, to appear in
696: The Astrophysical Journal Letters (2004)
697: (astro-ph/0401521)
698:
699: \bibitem{damour0}
700: T. Damour, and G. Esposito-Far\`ese, \Journal{\CQG}{9}{2093}{1992}
701:
702: \bibitem{damour1}
703: T. Damour, and G. Esposito-Far\`ese, \Journal{\PRL}{70}{2220}{1993};
704: T. Damour, and G. Esposito-Far\`ese, \Journal{\PRD}{54}{1474}{1996}
705:
706: \bibitem{damour2}
707: T. Damour, and G. Esposito-Far\`ese,
708: \Journal{\CQG}{58}{042001}{1998}
709:
710: \bibitem{us}
711: M. Salgado, D. Sudarsky, and U. Nucamendi, \Journal{\PRD}{58}{124003}{1998}
712: (referred to as SSN in the text)
713:
714: \bibitem{pand}
715: V. R. Pandharipande, 1971, Nucl. Phys. A, 174, 641
716: \Journal{\NPA}{174}{641}{1971}
717:
718: \bibitem{diaz}
719: J. D\'\i az-Alonso, \Journal{\PRD}{31}{1315}{1985}
720:
721: \bibitem{hkp}
722: P. Haensel, M. Kutschera M., and M. Pr\'ozy\'nski,
723: \Journal{\AA}{102}{299}{1981}
724:
725: \bibitem{novak2}
726: J. Novak, \Journal{\PRD}{57}{4789}{1998}
727:
728: \bibitem{novak1}
729: J. Novak, \Journal{\PRD}{58}{064019}{1998}
730:
731: \end{thebibliography}
732:
733: \newpage
734:
735: \begin{figure}
736: \centerline{
737: \epsfig{figure=fig1.ps,width=7cm,angle=-90}
738: \epsfig{figure=fig2.ps,width=7cm,angle=-90}
739: }
740: \caption{}
741: Neutron star models constructed with the EOS PandN within the scalar-tensor theory
742: $F(\phi)= 1 + 16\pi \xi \phi^2$, with $\xi=6$. {\it Left panel:}
743: effective energy-densities $\rho_{\rm eff}$. {\it Right panel:}
744: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{r\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,r}$ (solid lines) and
745: $\rho_{\rm eff} + T^{\theta\,({\rm eff})}_{\,\,\,\theta}$ (dashed lines).
746: In both panels the curves are labeled
747: by the corresponding baryon-mass
748: (in solar mass units). The lowest baryon-mass configuration
749: mark the onset of spontaneous-scalarization. The figure also shows
750: the maximum mass models.
751: Here $\rho_{\rm nuc}= 1.66\times 10^{17} {\rm kg\, m^{-3}}$. \label{f:1}
752: \end{figure}
753:
754: \begin{figure}
755: \centerline{
756: \epsfig{figure=fig3.ps,width=7cm,angle=-90}
757: \epsfig{figure=fig4.ps,width=7cm,angle=-90}
758: }
759: \caption{}
760: Same as fig. \ref{f:1} for the EOS DiazII. \label{f:2}
761: \end{figure}
762:
763: \begin{figure}
764: \centerline{
765: \epsfig{figure=fig5.ps,width=7cm,angle=-90}
766: \epsfig{figure=fig6.ps,width=7cm,angle=-90}
767: }
768: \caption{}
769: Same as fig. \ref{f:1} for the EOS HKP. \label{f:3}
770: \end{figure}
771:
772:
773:
774: \end{document}
775:
776:
777:
778:
779:
780:
781:
782:
783: