[HN Gopher] A Sun-like star orbiting a boson star ___________________________________________________________________ A Sun-like star orbiting a boson star Author : bookofjoe Score : 61 points Date : 2023-05-30 19:15 UTC (3 hours ago) (HTM) web link (arxiv.org) (TXT) w3m dump (arxiv.org) | retbull wrote: | The original paper that is referred to in this is | https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833 | pmontra wrote: | There is a section about boson stars at | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Exotic_star | | > [...] For this type of star to exist, there must be a stable | type of boson with self-repulsive interaction; one possible | candidate particle is the still-hypothetical "axion" (which is | also a candidate for the not-yet-detected "non-baryonic dark | matter" particles, which appear to compose roughly 25% of the | mass of the Universe). It is theorized that unlike normal stars | (which emit radiation due to gravitational pressure and nuclear | fusion), boson stars would be transparent and invisible. [...] | m3kw9 wrote: | What happens if I fly into a boson star? | einpoklum wrote: | You get a ticket from the boson police of course. The thing | is, they only have a secret police. | sbierwagen wrote: | A non-interacting boson star would be transparent, but it | still has gravity, so it would probably pick up baryonic | matter. Should look like an ordinary star that has too much | mass for its diameter and burns more brightly due to the | additional gravity compression. | | Dropping straight through a clean solar-mass boson star, | though, would be uneventful. A little bit of blueshift on | starlight, but probably not enough to detect by eye. | | Avoid a slingshot orbit. If it has the mass of the Sun and | the same density, then it would have a "surface" gravity of | 28g one million kilometers out. With that sharp of a | gradient, a close orbit will want to pull your spacecraft | apart as each atom tries to take a different trajectory, | tidal forces. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit (A | plot point in many a Larry Niven story) | raattgift wrote: | Depends very much on the boson and its interaction with the | (extended) Standard Model that includes it. | | Axions, if they exist, take part in nuclear interactions. | You can expect to have a bad day when encountering them at | high density (e.g. expect fissions from neutron | disruptions). | | In the preprint at the top, the Action (eqn (1)) and | Lagrangian densities (eqn (2)) are non-interacting (except | for self-interaction and gravitation) for tractability | reasons, so the scalar boson version is only sorta like the | axion. The paper's setting only considers each type of | boson in isolation from any other type of matter in the | universe. However any infalling body which has any nonzero | distribution of these proposed vector or scalar bosons in | them would expect the self-interaction term to be | important, so you could still have a bad day for non- | gravitational reasons. | | I don't think a non-relativistic analysis of a manifestly | relativistic compact object is particularly enlightening. | Boson stars can be more compact than neutron stars (see | Figure 2 on p. 7 of the preprint). Qualitatively though, | you'd have a bad day if you got too close; you are right | that tidal stresses are probably what will get you in the | case of only-self-interacting bosons. | | The Roche limit, developed well before even special | relativity, matters for slowly-orbiting (hyperbolic orbits | count) self-gravitating bodies (so big asteroids and comets | count). Your parent commentator's flight would presumably | be in a spacecraft (or suit) that is held together by | intermolecular forces instead of its own gravity. Those | forces are typically much stronger than gravity; gravity | only overcomes them in relativistic systems. | akomtu wrote: | "Boson stars have also been proposed as candidate dark matter | objects, and it has been hypothesized that the dark matter | haloes surrounding most galaxies might be viewed as enormous | [toroidal] boson stars." | | That's quite a sci-fi plot. | metalliqaz wrote: | absolutely not confirmed to be a boson star. Most likely a black | hole found its way there under unusual circumstances | eterevsky wrote: | Still exciting. Do we have any other examples of stars closely | orbiting around black holes? | daniel-thompson wrote: | [1] S62 comes within 16 AU at closest approach to Sag A* but | its orbit is highly elliptical. | | The distance between objects in this system 1.4 AU, which is | _incredibly_ close. | | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S62_(star) | dylan604 wrote: | Do we know the distance to the event horizon for Sgr A*? | I'm no astrophysicist, but 1.4AU sounds _really_ | _incredibly_ close. In my sci-fi thoughts, something at | 1.4AU would be attempting to go "in, through, and beyond" | and not orbiting. So excuse me while I try to re-evaluate | whatever pre-existing notions I might have | daniel-thompson wrote: | I'm no astrophysicist, but the paper and some web data | show | | - Sag A* has a mass of ~4,000,000 times the sun, and an | event horizon of approximately 12,000,000 km (0.08 AU). | This is just the event horizon; Sag A*'s _accretion disk_ | has a diameter of about 150,000,000,000 km (1000 AU). So | your intuition would certainly be right about Sag A* - | there is a huge disk of gas and other junk you 'd be | flying through. | | - This object has a mass of at most ~12 times the sun, | and (if it's a black hole) an event horizon of | approximately 35 km. The paper doesn't say anything about | an accretion disk given that it's exploring the idea that | the object is not a black hole. Regardless, a star | orbiting at 1.4 AU would probably clear out everything in | the immediate neighborhood. | spuz wrote: | This paper doesn't seem to agree: | | > the scenario of a central black hole requires unreasonable | amount of fine-tuning within the usual evolutionary channels. | In particular, if the system is expected to have formed as a | binary in isolation, a common envelope formation scenario is | rather unlikely, given the system's arrangement. This requires | an extreme, and possibly unphysical, tuning of the relevant | parameters of the evolutionary channel under consideration. | Moreover, formation within a globular cluster is also | improbable given the geometrical characteristics of the | observed orbit. Other evolutionary channels such as formation | without a common envelope or via a hierarchical triple also | seem unlikely for similar reasons. | | What makes you think their proposal isn't more likely than a | black hole? | nawgz wrote: | Is a "boson star" even a confirmed physical construct? I can | see confirmed neutron stars like RXJ1856 that they think | might be a strange star, but... Just based on what is a | confirmed physical construct in the universe, a black hole | seems far likelier. Obviously they address this in a way I'm | not knowledgeable enough to argue against. | | Regardless, it will be an interesting scenario to watch | evolve! | pja wrote: | > Is a "boson star" even a confirmed physical construct? | | No. We don't even have evidence of a candidate boson you | could use to make one. | jwuphysics wrote: | > What makes you think their proposal isn't more likely than | a black hole? | | Because a boson star is purely theoretical and I have a much | stronger observational prior that the object is a black hole. | bookofjoe wrote: | Once upon a time black holes were purely theoretical. | | See, for example: | | >The Country Parson Who Conceived of Black Holes [in 1783] | | https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum- | collections/cosm.... | | >A Brief History of Black Holes | | https://www.amnh.org/learn-teach/curriculum- | collections/cosm.... | | >At a conference in New York in 1967, Dr. Wheeler, seizing | on a suggestion shouted from the audience, hit on the name | "black hole" to dramatize this dire possibility for a star | and for physics. | | https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/14/science/14wheeler.html#: | ~.... | The_Colonel wrote: | Survivorship bias. Aether was once also a theory which | "just" needed an experimental evidence. | jiggawatts wrote: | P-hacking. | | The universe is big and has _lots_ of stars. Even "very | unlikely" things ought to turn up. | | E.g.: one in a billion chance ought to occur hundreds of | times... in our galaxy alone! | burnte wrote: | This is one of the hardest things to grasp about the size | of the universe; it's so damn big pretty much anything is | possible somewhere. | metalliqaz wrote: | that's what I mean by "unusual circumstances". As you point | out, the "usual evolutionary channels" don't really fit. | spuz wrote: | This is why I included this part of the quote: | | > Other evolutionary channels such as formation without a | common envelope or via a hierarchical triple also seem | unlikely for similar reasons. | | Maybe it's hard to say without getting into specifics but | it seems that the paper has considered the "unusual | circumstances" in your statement. | raattgift wrote: | The paper rests on the MNRAS published version of | <https://arxiv.org/abs/2209.06833> (ref. [EBRQ+22] in the | preprint at the top, cited at the end of the paragraph | you quote upthread). [EBRQ+22] itself _proposes_ a triple | as a possibility: | | "The system's evolution may be better-explained in models | in which the G star was initially a wide tertiary | companion to a close binary containing two massive stars. | In this case, interactions between the two stars could | have prevented either one from expanding to become a red | supergiant, such that the G star could have formed in an | orbit similar to its current orbit (but somewhat tighter) | and remained there ever since. High-precision RV follow- | up offers the tantalizing possibility of testing this | scenario." | | RV there is "radial velocity measurements". | | Moreover, the part you quote and in particular "Moreover, | formation within a globular cluster is also improbable" | does not touch on their reference's "... dynamical | formation in an open cluster that has since dissolved is | more plausible." | | Disruptions of open clusters are well known. <https://en. | wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster#Eventual_fate>. | jheriko wrote: | runaway stars suggest that interactions occur leaving | binaries behind in these kinds of configurations. i see no | need for unphysical fine-tuning. | | looking at the paper they cite as reference for this claim, | those authors thought exactly the same... | | https://academic.oup.com/mnras/article- | abstract/518/1/1057/6... | raattgift wrote: | First see footnote 1 of the first page of the preprint linked | at the top. The authors are jumping the gun. That's fine for | theorists, but bear in mind that they are literally in the | dark on a number of telescopic observables, any of which | would shoot down the idea in the preprint. Some of these are | achievable by EHT. See e.g. Olivares et al. "How to tell an | accreting boson star from a black hole" (2020) <https://disco | very.ucl.ac.uk/id/eprint/10112389/1/staa1878.pd...> [pdf]. | | The exotic bosons available in a 3+1 spacetime have never | been detected at energy levels low enough that one might | expect them to be reasonably bound by the weak (yes, weak) | gravitation required by the boson star's internal repulsive | forces. If the internal repulsive forces are too weak (or | their self-gravitation isn't weak enough), the bosons cannot | support the star against ultimate gravitational collapse | (into a black hole). If the internal repulsive forces are too | strong, the bosons all escape rather than stick around in the | neighbourhood of the star. The latter is especially acute | since the boson masses considered by the paper may be smaller | than that of neutrinos. | | Until a suitable slightly self-repelling exotic boson is | discovered, achieving and maintaining equilibrium between it | and gravitation is pretty fatal to the boson star idea. | | Cold massive bosons are an idea for particle dark matter, | incidentally. An example dark matter candidate is the axion. | Axions have not been convincingly observed, and might not | exist. A compact object made of essentially only axions could | plausibly meet the criteria in the preprint linked at the top | (cf their axion-motivated scalar field equation at eqn (9)), | depending on details of heating during gravitational | compaction. Also see e.g. Mohapatra et al., "Dense Axion | Stars" (2016) <https://arxiv.org/abs/1512.00108> which is the | preprint version of the PRL letter | <https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.117.121801>. There is as | far as I know no clear mechanism to have anything like the | axion density required for self-gravitation _except_ in the | very early universe, a long time before the first galaxies. | So then why would small primordial axion stars be in | galaxies, as the binary in the article at the top appears to | be? How do you keep them small, rather than coalescing into | supermassive compact objects? | | The preprint at the top discusses other Beyond The Standard | Model (of particle physics; BTSM) possibilities, but they are | less convincing than the axion (for starters, such BTSM | extensions need to have some non-physical degrees of freedom | strongly suppressed, since such BTSM theories are almost | always "haunted" by | <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghost_(physics)>s.). | Additionally, the axion is motivated by the strong CP problem | in the Standard Model, and if there is a lot of them they | become gravitationally relevant. The non-axion options in the | preprint at the top are afaik only motivated by a lack of | knowledge about the microscopic details of gravitational | physics. (See Koberlein's 2021 blog entry on Proca Stars | <https://briankoberlein.com/blog/proca-stars/> for a brief | intro to (light) massive vector boson stars). | daniel-thompson wrote: | More likely != confirmed ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2023-05-30 23:00 UTC)