1: %-------------------------DECLARATIONS-----------------------                

2: 

3: \documentstyle[floats,prd,aps,epsfig]{revtex}

4: \newcommand{\bce}{\begin{center}} \newcommand{\ece}{\end{center}}

5: \newcommand{\beq}{\begin{equation}} \newcommand{\eeq}{\end{equation}}

6: \newcommand{\beqy}{\begin{eqnarray}}

7: \newcommand{\eeqy}{\end{eqnarray}}

8: 

9: \input epsf

10: \advance\voffset by 0.5in

11: \setlength{\oddsidemargin}{0in}

12: \setlength{\textwidth}{6.3in}

13: 

14: \newcommand{\lsim}

15: {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle<}{\sim}$}}}

16: \newcommand{\gsim}

17: {\mathrel{\raisebox{-.6ex}{$\stackrel{\textstyle>}{\sim}$}}}

18: \newcommand{\slsh}{\mbox{ \hspace{-1.1 em} $/$}}

19: \newcommand{\slst}{\mbox{ \hspace{-1.5 em} $/$}}

20: \newcommand{\ome}{\omega_B}

21: 

22: 

23: %------------------------END OF DECLARATIONS------------

24: 

25: %------------------------TITLE AND ABSTRACT-------

26: 

27: %------------------

28: \advance\voffset by -0.5in

29: \begin{document}

30: \title{Surface structure of quark stars with magnetic fields}

31: \author{Prashanth Jaikumar\footnote{jaikumar@phy.anl.gov} 

32: %and Rachid Ouyed$^2$

33: }

34: 

35: \address{Physics Division, Argonne National Laboratory, 

36: Argonne IL 60439, USA.\\

37:          %$^2$Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Calgary,

38: % Calgary, AB T2N 1N4 Canada\\

39: }

40: 

41: \maketitle

42: \begin{abstract}

43: We investigate the impact of magnetic fields on the electron

44: distribution in the electrosphere of quark stars. For moderately

45: strong magnetic fields $B\sim 10^{13}$G, quantization effects are

46: generally weak due to the large number density of electrons at

47: surface, but can nevertheless affect the spectral features of

48: quark stars. We outline the main observational characteristics of

49: quark stars as determined by their surface emission, and briefly

50: discuss their formation in explosive events termed Quark-Novae, which

51: may be connected to the $r$-process.  \\

52: \bigskip

53: 

54: \noindent PACS: 26.60.+c, 24.85.+p, 97.60.Jd

55: 

56: \end{abstract}

57: %------------------------------END OF TITLE AND ABSTRACT------------

58: 

59: %-----------------------------BEGIN INTRODUCTION-------------------

60: 

61: \section{Introduction}

62:         \label{sec_intro}

63: There is renewed interest in the theory and observation of strange

64: quark stars, which are believed to contain, or be entirely composed

65: of, deconfined quark matter~\cite{JSB}. An observational confirmation

66: of their existence would be conclusive evidence of quark deconfinement

67: at large baryon densities, an expected feature of Quantum

68: Chromodynamics (QCD). Furthermore, discovery of a stable bare quark star

69: affirms the Bodmer-Terazawa-Witten conjecture~\cite{BTW}, viz., that

70: at high enough density, strange quark matter, composed of up, down and

71: strange quarks, is absolutely stable with respect to nuclear

72: matter. This intriguing hypothesis is over three decades old, and bare

73: quark stars are but one possible realization put forward in the

74: intervening years. Broadly speaking, the field of quark star research

75: follows two intertwined paths: (1) efforts to describe the global

76: (mass and radius) and surface structure of such stars from

77: microscopics and (2) determination of observational features that

78: distinguish them from their close cousins, neutron stars. It is

79: possible that a few of the approximately 1500 neutron stars detected

80: thus far are really quark stars~\cite{Xu1}.

81: 

82: \vskip 0.2cm

83:  

84: A positive identification of a quark star would likely require a

85: complement of consistent signals. For example, physical properties

86: such as maximum mass, radius, minimum spin-periods and neutrino/photon

87: cooling rates (and hence temperature) all depend on the (unique)

88: equation of state for dense quark matter. As the latter is uncertain,

89: there is a range of allowed values for the above quantities that makes

90: a distinction based on current observational data difficult. We

91: emphasize that a bare strange star is self-bound~\cite{BTW,Chin79}

92: while a neutron star requires gravitational forces for its

93: binding. This implies a very different equation of state for the two

94: classes of stars; however, in the range of masses

95: ($1.35<M/M_{\odot}<2.4$) observed to date, the calculated radii are

96: similar ($R\sim 10$ to 15 km). Perturbative corrections to the quark

97: matter equation of state and color superconductivity effects further

98: complicate the issue~\cite{ARB}.~\footnote{We will not elaborate here

99: on the possibility of having superconducting phases of quarks. We

100: refer the interested reader to Refs.~\cite{ABR,IS,Ferrer,Blaschke,ALP}

101: for a consideration of these phases, and the consequences of their

102: existence inside compact stars in the present context.}

103: 

104: \vskip 0.2cm 

105: 

106: It was first pointed out by Alcock et al.~\cite{AFO} that the bare

107: quark star surface would be characterized by an abrupt termination of

108: the quark density (density gradient $\sim 10^{26}$g/cm$^4$) and a less

109: rapid fall-off of a charge neutralizing skin of electrons termed the

110: electrosphere (density gradient $\sim 10^{18}$g/cm$^4$). The latter

111: extends up to 1000 Fermis above the bare quark star surface. The

112: electric field which binds these electrons to the surface is large

113: enough to pull electron-positron pairs out of the QED vacuum,

114: prompting copious pair-emission which is directed outward by the

115: radiation output by the star~\cite{AMU}. This mechanism of emission

116: from the bare surface of a strange quark star, due to both photons and

117: $e^+e^-$ pairs, can produce luminosities well above the Eddington

118: limit ($\sim 10^{38}~{\rm erg~sec}^{-1}$) up to a decade after the

119: quark star's birth~\cite{Page02}. The spectrum of emitted photons is

120: significantly harder than that from a normal cooling neutron star ($30

121: <E/{\rm keV} < 500$ instead of $0.1 < E/{\rm keV} <2.5$). After the

122: star has cooled to temperatures less than $T< 6\times 10^8$K, other

123: microscopic processes of photon emission can dominate the luminosity

124: of the star and yield a non-thermal spectrum~\cite{JPPG}. This

125: distinctive spectrum and temperature evolution, if observed, would

126: constitute an unmistakable signature of a strange quark star, but

127: would require a fortuitous detection before the star cools below the

128: observational threshold of present-generation space-based laboratories

129: such as INTEGRAL~\cite{Int}.

130: 

131: \vskip 0.2cm

132: 

133: Quark stars may be much more elusive if they have a suspended crust

134: of normal matter up to the neutron drip density, that is separated from

135: the quark surface by a microscopic gap but supported by the large

136: electric fields at surface~\cite{AFO,Madsen}. Alternatively, quark stars

137: may admit a mixed phase crust several meters in thickness and

138: extending up to its surface, if surface and Coulomb costs (determined

139: at the microscopic level by the current quark mass of the strange

140: quark) is small enough~\cite{JRS,ARRS}. This would obviate the need for

141: large electric fields at surface, smoothen the density gradient at

142: surface, and render the previously proffered signals

143: inapplicable. These uncertainties are not expected to be resolved

144: quickly since they involve quantifying the parameters of QCD to better

145: than 5\% in a distinctly non-perturbative regime. (NB. The density that

146: characterizes quark matter in these objects corresponds to a quark

147: chemical potential $\mu_q\sim 500$ MeV which does not greatly exceed

148: $\Lambda_{\rm QCD}\sim 200$ MeV.)

149: 

150: \vskip 0.2cm

151: 

152: However, we can certainly aim to quantitatively improve our current

153: understanding of the surface structure under the working assumption

154: that the star has a bare quark surface with an electrosphere, since

155: electromagnetic effects dominate over QCD effects. A clear and

156: necessary improvement is the introduction of surface magnetic fields.

157: Neutron stars are born with intense magnetic fields of order $10^{12}$

158: Gauss or higher, which may decay by over 5 orders of magnitude in the

159: star's lifetime. If a neutron star undergoes a phase conversion to a

160: bare quark star, the surface magnetic fields are expected to remain

161: intact in geometry, unless interior magnetic fields are expelled by a

162: superconducting state that displays the Meissner effect, in which case

163: rapid magnetic reconnections occur, diminishing the field at surface

164: to almost zero~\cite{OYD1}. In this work, we will superimpose a static

165: magnetic field $B$ on the electrosphere of a quark star, and calculate

166: the profile for the electrosphere as a first step toward

167: characterizing the spectrum of a magnetized quark star. We expect

168: considerable differences from the $B=0$ case since magnetized

169: atmospheres of neutron stars are already known to be very different

170: from non-magnetized ones~\cite{Pons}. Further, the inclusion of

171: magnetic fields is a step toward a more realistic treatment of the

172: quark star spectrum.

173: 

174: \vskip 0.2cm

175: 

176: In the next section, we reintroduce the established picture of the

177: electrosphere for the purpose of a self-contained presentation, and

178: mention the modifications due to the strong magnetic field. In section

179: III, we quantify the electrostatic potential and electron number

180: density in the magnetized electrosphere, and state qualitative impacts

181: on the electrospheric photon emission. We conclude in section IV with

182: a general discussion on the formation of Quark stars, with particular

183: attention to the attractive Quark-Nova scenario which may be connected to

184: $r$-process nucleosynthesis.

185: 

186: %-----------------------END OF INTRODUCTION--------------------%

187: %-----------------------BEGIN SECTION II-----------------------%

188: 

189: \section{Degenerate electron gas in a strong magnetic field}

190:          \label{sec:Belectrosphere}

191: Recently, a few authors~\cite{UCH} pointed out that the deficit of

192: (massive) strange quarks due to surface effects on the star can lead

193: to a thin charged skin a few Fermis thick, which can lead to a jump in

194: the electric field at surface. The local charge neutrality condition

195: is $2/3n_u-1/3n_d-1/3n_s-n_e=0$, with the appropriate low temperature

196: ($T\ll \mu_i$) expressions in the bulk:

197: 

198: \beq

199: n_i=\frac{p_{F,i}^3}{\pi^2}=\frac{(\mu_i^2-m_i^2)^{3/2}}{\pi^2};\quad m_e\ll m_{u,d}\ll m_s<\mu_q ~\forall q\quad .

200: \eeq

201: 

202: Imposing the conditions of $\beta$-equilibrium and baryon number

203: conservation shows that $\mu_e\simeq m_s^2/4\mu$ to better than

204: 1\%. At surface, $s$-quarks are depleted due to surface tension

205: effects by an amount~\cite{mad}

206: 

207: \beq

208: \delta n_s = -\frac{3}{4\pi}p_{F,s}^2\psi(\lambda_s); ~\psi(\lambda_s) = \left[\frac{1}{2}+\frac{\lambda_s}{\pi}-\frac{(1+\lambda_s^2)}{\pi}{\rm arctan(\lambda_s^{-1})}\right]; ~\lambda_s = \frac{m_s}{p_{F,s}}\,,

209: \eeq   

210: 

211: leading to a charged layer at the surface of a bare quark star

212: characterized by a surface charge density $\sigma = -(1/3)e\delta n_s$

213: and a discontinuous normal electric field with $\Delta E =

214: 4\pi\sigma$. For ``cold'' electrospheres, corresponding to the

215: temperature bound $T< 5\times 10^{11}$K, the electric field is

216: directed inward just underneath the surface and outward just above

217: it. The electrostatic potential and the electron number density are

218: substantially increased cf. the case when surface effects are

219: ignored (NB. The corresponding surface depletion of light quarks is

220: negligible.)~\cite{UCH}.

221: 

222: \vskip 0.2cm 

223: 

224: The large electric field leads to the Schwinger instability of the QED

225: vacuum~\cite{Schwinger}, resulting in electron-positron pair-emission,

226: which can be an additional source of photons in the electrosphere,

227: which normally radiates photons via 2$\rightarrow$ 3 QED processes. A

228: model cooling calculation of bare strange stars with electrospheric

229: effects and the inclusion of color superconductivity (which can alter

230: the specific heat and thermal conductivity of quark matter) has also

231: been performed~\cite{Page02}. The conclusion is that bare strange

232: stars will display Super-Eddington photon luminosities at surface

233: temperatures $T>10^{9}$K, with a spectrum that is hard enough to

234: distinguish it from thermally radiating neutron stars.  At lower

235: temperatures $6\times 10^8$K$<T<10^9$K, the bulk of the luminosity

236: comes from electron-positron pairs which subsequently imprint a wide

237: annihilation line on the non-thermal spectrum. Thermal emission is

238: much suppressed owing to plasma frequency effects of quark matter and

239: the electrosphere~\cite{CH}. Further cooling to temperatures $T<10^8$K

240: results in a non-thermal spectrum dominated by bremsstrahlung photons

241: from electron-electron collisions in the electrosphere~\cite{JPPG}.

242: 

243: \vskip 0.2cm

244: 

245: As mentioned in the introduction, a magnetic field is expected to

246: exist at surface, altering the electrosphere profile and its emission

247: properties. The electron motion perpendicular to the

248: magnetic field is quantized into Landau orbitals enumerated by the

249: quantum number $n_L=0,1,2..$ . For a relativistic fermion of charge

250: $q$ and mass $m$, such as the quarks and electrons in our case, the energy

251: in a $\hat{z}$-directed magnetic field $B$ is given by

252: 

253: 

254: \beq

255: \label{benergy}

256: \epsilon_{n} = \sqrt{m^2c^4+c^2p_z^2+2mc^2\hbar\omega_Bn}\equiv mc^2E;\quad 2n = 2(n_L+\frac{1}{2}+\sigma);\quad \omega_B=\frac{qB}{mc}\,,

257: \eeq

258: 

259: where $\sigma=\pm 1/2$ is the spin-degeneracy of the fermion. The

260: $n=0$ state is non-degenerate while $n>0$ states are doubly

261: degenerate. We express the magnetic field strength in convenient units

262: '$b$' such that

263: 

264: \beq

265: b\equiv \frac{\omega_B}{mc^2} = \frac{B}{4.414\times 10^{13}~{\rm G}}\quad{\rm for ~electrons}

266: \eeq

267: 

268: 

269: and take $B=4.414\times 10^{13}$G (corresponding to $b=1$) as an upper

270: limit on the surface magnetic field of quark stars. Although higher

271: fields may exist in magnetars and AXPs (anomalous X-ray pulsars),

272: their interior magnetic fields would likely be large enough to inhibit

273: the formation of quark matter~\cite{SC1}. For a given magnetic field,

274: both temperature and matter density determine the filling fraction of

275: the Landau levels, and hence the degree of quantization. From

276: Eqn.(\ref{benergy}), the highest Landau level occupied by a fermion

277: with energy $\epsilon_{n}$ is

278: 

279: \beq n_{L,{\rm max}}: n_{{\rm max}}={\rm Int}(\nu);\quad \nu

280: =\frac{E^2-1}{2b}\quad .  \eeq

281: 

282: Since the quarks are highly relativistic, $E\gg 1$ and many Landau

283: levels are occupied for the light quarks, and even more for the

284: strange quark, so that quantization effects may be ignored.  Further,

285: when the temperature $T\gg T_B$ where $T_B=\hbar\omega_B/k_B$ ($k_B$

286: is the Boltzmann constant), thermal effects smear out adjacent Landau

287: levels, and the magnetic field is effectively non-quantizing,

288: irrespective of the degeneracy. This effect is more important for

289: quarks, which have a larger mass, and hence smaller cyclotron

290: frequency, than electrons. We thus expect no modifications to the

291: quark distribution due to magnetic fields of typical magnitudes

292: considered in this work. 

293: 

294: \vskip 0.2cm

295: 

296: For electrons, quantization effects become important as we move

297: outward from the electrosphere, and more electrons reside in the lower

298: Landau levels. The number density of electrons in a magnetic field is

299: given by

300: 

301: \beq

302: \label{negen}

303: n_e=\frac{m_e\ome}{h^2}\int_{-\infty}^{\infty}dp_z\sum_{n,\sigma}f(\epsilon_n);\quad f(\epsilon_n)=\frac{1}{1+{\rm e}^{(\epsilon_n-\mu_e)/T}}\quad .

304: \eeq

305: 

306: For a cold degenerate electron gas which satisfies $T\ll\mu_e$, we may

307: approximate

308: 

309: \beq

310: \label{ne}

311: n_e(\mu_{e0})=\Theta(\mu_{e0}-1)\frac{2m_e^2\ome c}{h^2}\left[\sqrt{\mu_{e0}^2-1}+2\sum_{n=1}^{n_{\rm max}}\sqrt{\mu_{e0}^2-1-2bn}\right]; \quad \mu_{e0}=\frac{\mu_e(T=0)}{m_ec^2}\quad .

312: \eeq

313: 

314: From Eqn.(\ref{ne}), the density at which the second Landau level

315: becomes populated is

316: 

317: \beq

318: n_e^{\ast}=\frac{(m_e\ome)^{3/2}}{\hbar^2\pi^2\sqrt{2}}=1.24\times 10^{30}b^{3/2} ~{\rm cm}^{-3}\quad .

319: \eeq 

320: 

321: This is already less than the typical electron density at surface in

322: the $B=0$ case, where $n_e\sim 10^{-4}-10^{-3}/{\rm

323: fm}^{3}$~\cite{Usov}. Therefore, several Landau levels will be

324: occupied, and the $B$-field is non-quantizing. In fact, for $\nu\gg 1$

325: and $T\ll\mu_e$, it follows from Eqn.(\ref{ne}) that~\cite{Shapiro}

326: 

327: \beq

328: n_e=\frac{2m_e^2\ome c}{h^2}\sqrt{\mu_{e0}^2-1}\left[\frac{2\sqrt{\mu_{e0}^2-1}}{3b}-3\right]\approx \frac{(\mu_e^2-m_e^2)^{3/2}}{3\pi^2}\quad ,

329: \eeq

330: 

331: which is the usual expression relating the number density and chemical

332: potential for a relativistic degenerate Fermi gas in the $B=0$

333: case. For the range of temperatures and densities considered in this

334: work, $T\ll T_B=\hbar\omega_B/k_B$ holds, so that temperature effects

335: on electron occupation numbers is negligible. The situation is summarized

336: in Fig. 1, which shows how the number density of electrons, as

337: obtained from Eqn.(\ref{negen}) behaves as a function of electron

338: chemical potential, temperature and magnetic field. The truncation of

339: the curves at $\nu=0$ for finite $T$ represent the fact that for lower

340: (negative) chemical potentials, and hence densities, all electrons

341: reside in the $n=0$ state. We note that only for temperatures $T\geq

342: T_B$ does the number density deviate significantly from the $T=0$

343: curve (NB. This is due to the smearing of the Landau levels by

344: temperature fluctuations.). We therefore continue to use the zero

345: temperature approximation to the electron density in the rest of the

346: paper.

347: \vskip 0.5cm

348: 

349: 

350: \begin{figure}[!ht]

351: \bce

352: \epsfig{file=ne.eps,width=13.0cm,height=7.0cm}

353: \ece

354: %

355: \caption{The number density of electrons (scaled to $n_e^{\ast}$) from Eqn.~(\ref{negen}) as a function of the filling factor $\nu$ for various temperatures. The solid curves are for non-zero magnetic field, and display a loss of the Landau level structure with increasing temperature.}

356: %

357: \label{figps1}

358: \end{figure} 

359: 

360:   

361: 

362: 

363: %-----------------------END OF SECTION II---------------------------%occurs in the

364: 

365: %-----------------------BEGIN SECTION III---------------------------%

366: \section{Electrosphere profile with a magnetic field}

367:          \label{sec:brem}

368: We would now like to obtain the electron density profile as a function

369: of distance in the electrosphere. This will be modified from previous

370: results~\cite{AFO,CH} which were in the absence of a magnetic

371: field. The baryon density at the surface of a strange star, where the

372: quark pressure vanishes, is expected to be in the range $(2-5)\rho_0$,

373: corresponding to quark chemical potentials in the range 300-400

374: MeV. At such densities, the strange quark current mass is not

375: ignorable, with $m_s\sim150$ MeV. Local charge neutrality then implies

376: an electron chemical potential at surface $\mu_e\approx 15-20$

377: MeV. This picture of a homogeneous surface as opposed to a crusty one

378: with quark nuggets is justified by the large value of the surface

379: tension given our parameter values~\cite{Berger}. The surface

380: depletion of strange quarks at the surface results in a positively

381: charged layer, which is two orders of magnitude thinner than the

382: electrosphere. For cold electrospheres, this charged layer results in

383: oppositely directed electric fields at the star's surface as well as

384: an enhanced electron number density $n_e\gg n_{\ast}$.

385: 

386: \vskip 0.2cm

387: 

388: For a general magnetic field with poloidal and toroidal components at

389: the surface, the electron distribution can, in principle, be obtained

390: using the formalism of magnetic field density functional theory or by

391: Green function techniques, both of which are complicated tasks.  As a

392: first study, we adopt a simple picture of a constant magnetic field

393: directed normally to the surface and ignore Coulomb interactions and

394: exchange effects, which are justified approximations given the extreme

395: degeneracy being explored in the problem. We employ the

396: self-consistent Thomas-Fermi approximation and present a numerical

397: solution of the Poisson equation

398: 

399: \beq

400: \label{eqntfermi}

401: \nabla^2\phi(\vec{r},\vec{B})=-\rho(\vec{r},\vec{B})=en_e(\vec{r},\vec{B})\,.

402: \eeq

403: 

404: In the plane parallel approximation $\vec{B}=B\hat{z},~\hat{r}=\hat{z}$, 

405: and equilibrium requires $\mu_e(n_e(z))-e\phi(z)=0$. For arbitrary magnetic

406: fields, the equilibrium constraint involves magnetic forces $F_{\rm mag}=

407: \vec{j}\times\vec{B}\neq 0$ where $\vec{j}$ is the electron current density.

408: With our approximations, the problem is an electrostatic one, and

409: the electrostatic potential outside ($z>0$) the star solves

410: 

411: \beqy 

412: \label{eqntfermi2}

413: \nabla^2\eta_+&=&\frac{2\alpha

414: bm_e^2}{\pi}\Theta(\eta_+-1)\left[\sqrt{\eta_+^2-1}+2\sum_{n=1}^{N}\sqrt{\eta_+^2-1-2bn}\right];\quad

415: N={\rm Int}\left(\frac{\eta_+^2-1}{2b}\right)\quad ,\\ 

416: \eta_+&=&\frac{e\phi_+}{m_ec^2}; \quad\phi_+=\phi(z>0) \quad .

417: \eeqy

418: 

419: In the limit $N\gg 1$, when the electrons populate several levels, we recover

420: the expression for the non-magnetic case

421: 

422: \beq

423: \nabla^2\phi_+=\frac{4\alpha}{3\pi}e^2\phi_+^3\quad ,

424: \eeq

425: 

426: while for $N=0$, we obtain 

427: 

428: \beq

429: \nabla^2\phi_+=\frac{em\omega_Bp_F}{2\pi^2}\quad ,

430: \eeq

431: 

432: the expression which has been derived previously for the

433: non-relativistic case~\cite{Fushiki} but applies equally well to the

434: relativistic case as long as only the 0$^{\rm th}$ level is

435: populated. It is interesting to note that the above equation leads to

436: an exponentially decaying electron profile at large distances from the

437: surface, contrary to the $1/z$ fall-off in the non-magnetic case. As

438: $\eta_+\rightarrow 1$, we expect interactions and exchange effects to be

439: important, but since this is only a minute region of the

440: electrosphere, we do not correct for it.

441: 

442: Eq.~(\ref{eqntfermi2}) can be solved numerically once the boundary

443: conditions are determined. Clearly, $\eta_+\rightarrow 1$ as

444: $z\rightarrow\infty$ (this corresponds to vanishing electron number

445: density and is numerically implemented by the shooting method to

446: obtain the correct asymptote at sufficiently large $z$. This method is

447: also practically applicable to the case of suspended crusts above a

448: quark star; see Ref.~\cite{Madsen}.). The second boundary condition is

449: determined at the surface $z=0$, where

450: $\phi=\phi_0\Rightarrow\eta=\eta_0$ and $\eta_0$ must be

451: determined by the discontinuity in the electric field

452: $\nabla\phi_+-\nabla\phi_-=4\pi\sigma$ with $\phi_-=\phi(z<0)$. The

453: electrostatic potential $\phi_-$ inside the star is almost identical

454: to the non-magnetic case since the electron density deep inside the

455: star, given by $\tilde{\mu_e}=m_s^2/4\mu_q\sim 10~{\rm MeV}\gg

456: m_ec^2=0.5~{\rm MeV}$ so that for $b\leq 10.0$ fields, quantization

457: effects are negligible.  In this case, $\phi_-\rightarrow \phi_q$ as

458: $z\rightarrow -\infty$ where the relation between $\phi_0$ and $\phi_q$

459: is given by

460: 

461: \beq

462: 4\pi\sigma=e\left(\frac{2\alpha}{3\pi}\right)\left[\phi_0^2+(\phi_q-\phi_0)\left\{(\phi_0+\phi_q)^2+2\phi_q^2\right\}\right]^{1/2}\quad ,

463: \eeq

464: 

465: wherein the prefactor corrects an error in equation (30) of

466: Ref.~\cite{UCH}.  For our choice of $\tilde{\mu_e}=11.25$ MeV

467: (corresponding to $m_s=150$ MeV and $\mu_q=500$ MeV),

468: $\phi_q=37.4$ MeV, $\phi_0=578$ MeV and hence $\eta_0=341$ MeV. The

469: boundary conditions having been specified, the results for the

470: electrostatic potential $\phi_+,\phi_-$ as obtained from

471: Eq.(\ref{eqntfermi}) are illustrated in Fig.~\ref{figps2}, and

472: compared to the corresponding expressions for the non-magnetized

473: electrosphere with the same boundary conditions.

474: 

475: \vskip 0.5cm

476: 

477: 

478: \begin{figure}[!ht]

479: \bce

480: \leavevmode

481: \epsfig{file=phi.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6.0cm}

482: \epsfig{file=tfermi.eps,width=7.5cm,height=6.0cm}

483: \ece

484: %

485: \caption{Left panel: The electrostatic energy (scaled to $m_ec^2$) at

486: the edge of the star, from Eqn.~(\ref{eqntfermi}) for the unmagnetized

487: ($b=0$) and magnetized ($b=1.0$) cases. Right panel: The corresponding

488: electron number density (scaled to $n_e^{\ast}$) at the surface.}

489: %

490: \label{figps2}

491: \end{figure} 

492: 

493:   

494: We observe that while the electrostatic potential inside the star is

495: unaffected by magnetic field strengths of $b\sim{\cal O}(1)$, that

496: outside the star is increased in comparison to the unmagnetized

497: case. A similar finding for the number density reflects the fact that

498: the electrons become localized in configuration space, their wave

499: functions compressed into the Larmor radius, so that the Pauli

500: repulsion is decreased and electrons can be squeezed together in

501: greater numbers than in the unmagnetized case. This effect is most

502: pronounced when the quantization effects are large, as can be seen by

503: the wiggles that demarcate the filling of the Landau levels (right

504: panel of Fig.~\ref{figps2}). In both figures above, the curves meet at

505: the surface ($z=0$) where they satisfy the same boundary condition. At

506: distances far from the surface, the curves cross each other since the

507: total number density is the same in both cases. The number density

508: falls off exponentially for the magnetized case while it falls off as

509: $1/z$ for the unmagnetized case.

510: 

511: \vskip 0.2cm

512: 

513: In the absence of a thin ($10^{-5}$M$_{\odot}$) crustal layer of

514: accreted matter above the strange star, the spectral properties of a

515: strange star are linked to radiative transport in the

516: electrosphere. This is because radiation from the stellar interior is

517: cutoff by the high plasma frequency ($\omega_p\sim$ 20 MeV) of dense

518: quark matter, and Landau-Pomeranchuk-Migdal (LPM) suppression of

519: bremsstrahlung photons from quark-quark collisions~\cite{CH}. For an

520: unmagnetized electrosphere, the emission at high luminosities is

521: dominated by $e^+e^-$ pair emission so long as the temperature is high

522: enough. At lower luminosities, the emission is dominated by photon

523: bremsstrahlung from electron-electron collisions in the

524: electrosphere. The spectrum is non-thermal due to the finite plasma

525: frequency of the degenerate electron gas and large mean free path for

526: photons in the electrosphere.

527: 

528: \vskip 0.2cm

529: 

530: The effect of the intense magnetic field on electrospheric emission is

531: currently being investigated and will be reported elsewhere; here, we

532: only state some qualitative effects. The plasma frequency plays a

533: vital role in the emission properties of the electrosphere, since

534: lower frequency photons are rapidly damped by the complexion of the

535: refractive index

536: 

537: \beq n_r^2=1-\frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2};\quad

538: \omega_p^2\simeq\frac{e^2}{3\pi^2}\mu_e^2\quad . 

539: \eeq

540: 

541: This collective effect of the plasma is important at high electron

542: density (inner regions of the electrosphere) where the Debye length is

543: smaller than the mean free path. Note that despite the large electron

544: density, the large degeneracy limits the available scattering states

545: of electrons, leading to a large mean free path for photons. In the

546: presence of a magnetic field, when quantization effects become

547: important, collective effects are determined by the Larmor radius

548: rather than the Debye length, and the reflectivity for normal

549: incidence becomes~\cite{Van}

550: 

551: \beq

552: R=\frac{1}{2}\left[\left|\frac{n_{r,1}-1}{n_{r,1}+1}\right|^2+\left|\frac{n_{r,2}-1}{n_{r,2}+1}\right|^2\right];\quad

553: n_{r\{1,2\}}^2=1-{\frac{\omega_p^2}{\omega^2}}\frac{\omega}{(\omega\pm\omega_B)}\quad.

554: \eeq

555: 

556: When $\omega_p\ll\omega\ll\omega_B$, the reflectivity is considerably

557: diminished from the unmagnetized case, and the electron plasma will

558: radiate more strongly. Further, the dielectric tensor will modify the

559: Poisson equation, resulting in the breakdown of the plane parallel

560: approximation employed here. Thus, our estimate of the profile is

561: simplistic and must be made self-consistent. The intense magnetic

562: field will also lead to polarization effects. Taking into account the

563: thermal conductivity of the electrons in a strong magnetic field, a

564: non-uniform surface temperature distribution is expected. The

565: inclusion of toroidal components of the magnetic field can smoothen

566: out some of these non-uniformities, and has been linked to the largely

567: uniform blackbody spectrum of some isolated neutron

568: stars~\cite{GKP1}. It would be interesting to see if the

569: electrospheric surface of the strange star displays similar spectral

570: features. In particular, the possibility of having bound positronium

571: in the magnetized electrosphere should be investigated.

572: 

573: %-----------------------END OF SECTION III-----------------------------%

574: %-----------------------BEGIN SECTION IV-------------------------------%

575: 

576: \section{Strange stars and Astrophysics: The Quark-Nova and the $r$-process}

577:          \label{sec:quarks}

578: Strange quark stars have been linked to some of the most energetic and

579: violent phenomena in astrophysics, such as Gamma-ray bursts

580: (GRBs)~\cite{PCH}, type I X-ray superbursts~\cite{Cumming} and

581: Soft-gamma repeaters (SGRs)~\cite{Usov2} in what is being perceived as

582: a new paradigm in astrophysics - the connection of high-energy

583: astrophysics with exotic forms of dense matter. The energy released in

584: the phase conversion of a hadronic star to a quark star is typically

585: about $10^{53}$ ergs, similar in magnitude to the energy of observed

586: gamma-ray bursts, and accretion and flash heating on a strange star

587: surface is a viable model for SGR flares and superbursts. Further, the

588: emission spectra of the long bursts can also be explained by invoking

589: the presence of strange quark matter and its subsequent transition to

590: a color-superconducting state~\cite{ORV}. All of these scenarios are

591: predicated upon the existence of absolutely stable three-flavor quark

592: matter at high density.

593: 

594: \vskip 0.2cm

595: 

596: Here, we discuss the formation of a quark star in a Quark-Nova, a

597: scenario in which nuclear matter at high density in the core of a

598: neutron star undergoes a phase transition to two flavor (up and down)

599: quark matter, which then undergoes equilibrating weak reactions to

600: form three flavor quark matter. The advantage is that this does not

601: require the improbable simultaneous and spontaneous conversion to

602: strange matter (via weak interactions) of several neutrons within a

603: small volume. In addition, the Coulomb barrier-free absorption of

604: neutrons can enlarge the quark phase, so that the whole neutron star

605: is essentially converted to strange quark matter, thus forming a quark

606: star. The dynamics of this process is only beginning to be

607: explored~\cite{Drago}, and it is likely that some mass ejection from

608: the surface of a neutron star can take place, aided by

609: neutrinos~\cite{JRK} but powered mostly by pre-compression shock waves

610: from the rapidly advancing quark conversion front~\cite{JOOM}.

611: 

612: \vskip 0.2cm

613: 

614: There are various ways in which this conversion can be triggered. A

615: rapidly rotating neutron star is slowed down principally by magnetic

616: braking (and additionally by energy loss through gravitational waves),

617: thereby reducing the centrifugal forces and increasing central

618: pressures. The timescales and dynamics of this spin-down have been

619: discussed in~\cite{Staff}. The probability of triggering a first order

620: transition by forming a tiny lump of two flavor quark matter (quantum

621: nucleation) is exponentially sensitive to the central

622: pressure~\cite{Bombaci}. This makes the transition much more likely as

623: the star spins down. Material accumulated from a fallback disk around

624: a cooling neutron star or accretion from a companion star, for

625: example, in a low-mass X-ray binary system can also force the

626: conversion. Even the Bondi accretion rate of $10^{21}$ g/sec from the

627: interstellar medium can lead to a mass increase of up to 0.1$M_{\odot}$

628: within a million years which can be sufficient to compress the star

629: beyond the minimum density for the phase transition. Other

630: possibilities include the clustering of $\Lambda$-baryons at high

631: density and seeding by energetic cosmic neutrinos or

632: strangelets~\cite{AFO}. Deconfinement of quarks can also occur as

633: early as the protoneutron star stage following a core-collapse

634: supernova explosion if the central density is large enough. However,

635: in this case, neutrino trapping in the hot and dense interior can push

636: the transition density higher, delaying the collapse to the point

637: where a black hole might be formed instead~\cite{Prakash}.

638: 

639: \vskip 0.2cm

640: 

641: The amount of mass ejected and the dynamics of the Quark-nova make it

642: a potential candidate for $r$-process nucleosynthesis. The

643: decompressing neutron matter at the surface of the neutron star which

644: is undergoing the phase conversion to a quark star will expand rapidly

645: and chunks of neutron matter will fall apart, allowing beta-decays to

646: heat the material to close to $r$-process like temperatures of $T\sim

647: 0.1$ MeV. Following the expansion of this dense ejecta (including

648: $\beta$-decays) down to neutron drip density using network

649: calculations of Meyer~\cite{Meyer}, we find that the matter ends up

650: distributed over a wide range of elements from $Z\sim 40-70$. At this

651: stage, the full $r$-process reaction network can be coupled to obtain

652: the final abundance distribution, as well as the evolution of

653: temperature, entropy and electron fraction. The most important

654: parameter that governs the evolution of the above physical quantities

655: is the expansion timescale of the ejecta, which is the time taken to

656: evolve from a density of $\rho\simeq 10^{14}$g/cc to $\rho\simeq

657: 10^{11}$g/cc. Assuming that the ejecta is on an escape trajectory and

658: expands as a multiple of the free-fall timescale in a spherically

659: symmetric, non-interacting manner, we obtain a timescale on the order

660: of 0.01-1 milliseconds. Fig.~\ref{figps3} shows the $r$-abundance of

661: the elements (labeled ``network'') from a Quark-Nova compared to the

662: normalized solar $r$-abundance pattern. The overabundance for elements

663: with mass number $A>230$ is due to the omission of alpha-decays in the

664: network. It is also notable that not all neutrons are consumed in this

665: scenario, and that several light elements are produced with

666: significant abundance. It is likely that Quark-Novae may be an

667: additional contributor to the $r$-process material in the universe,

668: presenting another link between dense quark matter and astrophysics. A

669: detailed analysis of $r$-process nucleosynthesis from Quark-Novae,

670: including contrasts to standard or primary astrophysical sites such as

671: Type II supernovae and neutron star mergers, and comparisons to trends

672: of heavy-element abundance ratios in metal-poor stars will be

673: presented in a forthcoming article~\cite{JOOM}.

674: 

675: \vskip 0.2cm

676: \begin{figure}[ht!]

677: \centerline{\includegraphics[width=0.7\textwidth,angle=0]{rp.eps}}

678: \caption{Abundance pattern of $r$-process elements from a Quark-Nova: The

679: initial electron fraction $Y_e=0.03$, entropy per nucleon $S/k_B=1$ ,

680: temperature $T_9=1.0$ and expansion timescale $\tau=1.0$

681: millisecond. The scaled comparison to solar abundance is also shown.}

682: \label{figps3}

683: \end{figure}

684: \vskip 0.2cm

685: 

686: While several observable characteristics of strange stars have been

687: conjectured in the literature~\cite{Glenny,Weber}, such as period-clustering,

688: anomalies in braking index, global properties (mass and radius), and

689: small spin-periods, spectral differences between quark stars and

690: neutron stars have only been touched upon. If strange stars are made

691: in Quark-Novae, and are linked to $r$-processing of the heavy

692: elements, one can expect a most direct evidence of a quark star to

693: come from $\gamma$-decays of unstable nuclei produced in the

694: $r$-process. We expect the Quark-Nova ejecta to achieve $\gamma$-ray

695: transparency sooner than supernova ejecta since Quark star progenitors

696: (i.e., neutron stars) lack extended atmospheres, so that $r$-process

697: only gamma emitters with lifetimes of the order of years (such as

698: $^{137}$Cs, $^{144}$Ce, $^{155}$Eu and $^{194}$Os) can be used as tags

699: for the Quark-Nova.

700: 

701: \vskip 0.2cm

702: 

703: In conclusion, this is an exciting time for quark star

704: research. Recent developments in the theory of high density quark

705: matter have provided novel ways of explaining the most energetic

706: astrophysical events, and spurred re-examinations of old paradigms of

707: strange stars. With increasing data now coming from myriad sources

708: (egs. neutron stars that push theoretical limits on spin periods

709: and radius; GRB spectra that link to quark stars as inner engines;

710: abundance trends of heavy elements in ultra metal-poor stars that

711: point to multiple sources of the $r$-process), it appears that quarks

712: may play an important role in uncovering the secrets of many

713: astrophysical puzzles.

714: 

715: %-------------------------END TEXT----------------------------%

716: \section*{Acknowledgments}

717: %

718: I thank the organizers of the IXth workshop on high-energy physics and

719: phenomenology (WHEPP-9) at the Institute of Physics, Bhubaneswar,

720: India, for hosting an exciting meeting in a most hospitable setting. I

721: acknowledge useful interactions with Kaya Mori, Rachid Ouyed, Kaori

722: Otsuki, Brad Meyer, Mandar Bhagwat and Stewart Wright, and the

723: hospitality of the Canadian Institute for Theoretical Astrophysics

724: (CITA), where discussions pertinent to this work were held. P.J. is

725: supported by the Department of Energy, Office of Nuclear Physics,

726: contract no. W-31-109-ENG-38. \rm

727: %-----------------------THE REFERENCES------------------------------------

728: \begin{flushleft}

729: 

730: \begin{thebibliography}{99}

731: 

732: \bibitem{JSB}

733:  J. Schaffner-Bielich, J. Phys. {\bf G31}, S561 (2005).

734: 

735: \bibitem{BTW} A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. {\bf D4}, 1601 (1971);

736: H. Terazawa, {\it INS-Report-338}, University of Tokyo (1979);\\

737: E. Witten, Phys. Rev. {\bf D30}, 272 (1984).

738: 

739: \bibitem{Xu1} R. Xu, in Proceedings of The 2005 Lake Hanas

740: International Pulsar Symposium, {\it astro-ph/0512519}.

741: 

742: \bibitem{Chin79}

743: S. Chin and A. K. Kerman, Phys. Rev. Lett {\bf 43}, 1292 (1979).

744: 

745: \bibitem{ARB} M. Alford, M. Braby, M. Paris and S. Reddy,

746: Astrophys. J. {\bf 629}, 969 (2005).

747: 

748: \bibitem{ABR} M. Alford, J. A. Bowers and K. Rajagopal,

749: J. Phys. {\bf G27}, 541 (2001).

750: 

751: \bibitem{IS}

752: I. A. Shovkovy, M. Hanauske and M. Huang, {\it hep-ph/0310286}.

753: 

754: \bibitem{Ferrer}

755: E. J. Ferrer, V. de la Incera and C. Manuel, {\it hep-ph/0601179}.

756: 

757: \bibitem{Blaschke}

758: D. M. Sedrakian and D. Blaschke, Astrofiz. {\bf 45}, 203 (2002).

759: 

760: \bibitem{ALP} A. Drago, A. Lavagno and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. {\bf

761: D69}, 057505 (2005).

762: 

763: \bibitem{AFO}

764: C. Alcock, E. Farhi and A. V. Olinto, Astrophys. J. {\bf 310}, 

765: 261 (1986).

766: 

767: \bibitem{AMU} A. G. Aksenov, M. Milgrom and V. V. Usov,

768: Astrophys. J. {\bf 609}, 363 (2004).

769: 

770: \bibitem{Page02}

771: D. Page and V. V. Usov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 89}, 131101 (2002).

772: 

773: \bibitem{JPPG}

774: P. Jaikumar, C. Gale, D. Page and M. Prakash, Phys. Rev. 

775: {\bf D70}, 023004 (2004). 

776: 

777: \bibitem{Int}

778: J. Knodlseder, astro-ph/0207527.

779: 

780: \bibitem{Madsen}

781: M. Stejner and J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. {\bf D72}, 123005 (2005).

782: 

783: \bibitem{JRS} P. Jaikumar, S. Reddy and A. Steiner,

784: Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 96}, 041101 (2006).

785: 

786: \bibitem{ARRS}

787: M. Alford, K. Rajagopal, S. Reddy and A. Steiner, {\it hep-ph/0604134}.

788: 

789: \bibitem{OYD1}

790: R. Ouyed, B. Niebergal, W. Dobbler and D. Leahy, {\it astro-ph/0510691}.

791: 

792: \bibitem{Pons} J. F. P\'{e}rez-Azor\'{i}n, J. A. Miralles and

793: J. A. Pons, {\it astro-ph/0510684}.

794: 

795: \bibitem{UCH} V. V. Usov, K. S. Cheng and T. Harko, Astrophys. J. {\bf

796: 620}, 915 (2005).

797: 

798: \bibitem{mad}

799: J. Madsen, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 172003 (2001).

800: 

801: \bibitem{Schwinger}

802: J. Schwinger, Phys. Rev. {\bf 82}, 664 (1951).

803: 

804: \bibitem{CH}

805: K. S. Cheng and T. S. Harko, Astrophys. J. {\bf 622}, 1033 (2005).

806: 

807: \bibitem{SC1}

808: S. Ghosh and S. Chakrabarty, Pramana {\bf 60}, 901 (2002).

809: 

810: \bibitem{Usov}

811: V. V. Usov, Astrophys.J. {\bf 550}, L179 (2001).

812: 

813: \bibitem{Shapiro} A. M. Abrahams and S. L. Shapiro, Astrophys. J. {\bf

814: 374}, 652 (1991).

815: 

816: \bibitem{Berger}

817: M. S. Berger and R. L. Jaffe, Phys. Rev. {\bf C35}, 213 (1987).

818: 

819: \bibitem{Fushiki} I. Fushiki, E. H. Gudmundsson and C. J. Pethick,

820: Astrophys. J. {\bf 342}, 958 (1989).

821: 

822: \bibitem{Van} M. van Adelsberg, D. Lai, A. Y. Potekhin and P. Arras,

823: Astrophys. J. {\bf 628}, 902 (2005).

824: 

825: \bibitem{GKP1} U. Geppert, M. K\"{u}ker and D. Page, Astron. \&

826: Astrophys. {\bf 426}, 267G (2004); see also {\it astro-ph/0512530}.

827: 

828: \bibitem{PCH}

829: B. Paczynski and P. Haensel, MNRAS {\bf 362}, L4 (2005).

830: 

831: \bibitem{Cumming}

832: D. Page and A. Cumming, Astrophys.J. {\bf 635}, L157 (2005).

833: 

834: \bibitem{Usov2}

835: V. V. Usov, Phys. Rev. Lett. {\bf 87}, 021101 (2001).

836: 

837: \bibitem{ORV}

838: R. Ouyed, R. Rapp and C.Vogt, Astrophys. J. {\bf 632}, 1001 (2005).

839: 

840: \bibitem{Drago}

841: A. Drago, A. Lavagno and I. Parenti; astro-ph/0512652

842: 

843: \bibitem{JRK}

844: P. Jaikumar, R. Ouyed and P. Ker\"anen, Astrophys. J. {\bf 618}, 485 (2004). 

845: 

846: \bibitem{JOOM}

847: P. Jaikumar, R. Ouyed, K. Otsuki and B. S. Meyer, {\it in preparation}.

848: 

849: \bibitem{Staff}

850: J. E. Staff, R. Ouyed and P. Jaikumar, {\it astro-ph/0603743}.

851:  

852: \bibitem{Bombaci} 

853: I. Bombaci, I. Parenti, and I. Vidana, Astrophys. J {\bf 614}, 314 (2004).

854: 

855: \bibitem{Prakash} 

856: M. Prakash, I. Bombaci, M. Prakash, P. J. Ellis, J. M. Lattimer and R. Knorren, Phys. Rep. {\bf 280}, 1 (1997).

857: 

858: \bibitem{Meyer} 

859: B. S. Meyer, Astrophys. J.  {\bf 343}, 254 (1989).

860: 

861: \bibitem{Glenny}

862: N. K. Glendenning, {\it Compact Stars}, 2$^{\rm nd}$ ed. (Springer-Verlag, New York).

863: 

864: \bibitem{Weber}

865: F. Weber, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. {\bf 54}, 193 (2005).

866: 

867: \end{thebibliography}

868: \end{flushleft}

869: \end{document}

870: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%% THE END %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

871: %%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

872: 9 pages, 3 figures. Contribution to the proceedings of the IXth Workshop on High Energy Physics Phenomenology (WHEPP-9), Bhubaneswar, India, 3-14 Jan. 2006

873:  

874: