Gravitational Waves, Gamma Ray Bursts, and Black Stars
Extracted source text · arXiv 1611.03853
\documentclass[prd,twocolumn]{revtex4}
%\documentclass[prd,twocolumn,nofootinbib,showpacs]{revtex4}
\usepackage{graphicx, epsfig}
\usepackage{color}
\usepackage{mathrsfs}
%\input epsf
%\tighten
\newcommand{\be}{\begin{equation}}
\newcommand{\ee}{\end{equation}}
\newcommand{\bea}{\begin{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\eea}{\end{eqnarray}}
\newcommand{\ag}{\mbox{I \hspace{-0.82em} H}}
\newcommand{\gapp}{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$>$}\mkern-14mu
\lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
\newcommand{\lapp}{\mathrel{\raise.3ex\hbox{$<$}\mkern-14mu
\lower0.6ex\hbox{$\sim$}}}
\newcommand{\scri}{\mathscr{I}}
\newcommand{\TV}[1]{{\bf \color{green} TV: #1}}
\begin{document}
\title{Gravitational Waves, Gamma Ray Bursts, and Black Stars\footnote{Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2016 Awards for Essays on Gravitation.}}
%\title{Did LIGO and Fermi observe a black star merger?\footnote{Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2016 Awards for Essays on Gravitation.}}
%\title{Observing Black Stars\footnote{Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2016 Awards for Essays on Gravitation.}}
%\title{Black Stars and Gamma Ray Bursts\footnote{Essay written for the Gravity Research Foundation 2016 Awards for Essays on Gravitation.}}
\author{Tanmay Vachaspati}
\affiliation{
Physics Department, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287, USA.
\\
E-mail: tvachasp@asu.edu
}
\date{\today}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\begin{abstract}
\noindent
Stars that are collapsing toward forming a black hole but appear frozen near their
Schwarzschild horizon are termed ``black stars''. The collision of two black stars
leads to gravitational radiation during the merging phase followed by a delayed
gamma ray burst during coalescence.
The recent observation of gravitational waves by LIGO, followed by a possible
gamma ray counterpart by Fermi, suggests that the source may have been a merger of
two black stars with profound implications for quantum gravity and the nature
of black holes.
\end{abstract}
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
%\pacs{???}
\maketitle
%\section{Introduction}
%\label{introduction}
From an asymptotic observer's viewpoint, a collapsing body is forever
suspended just above its Schwarzschild radius. The strong gravitational
redshift near the surface of the collapsing body causes the body
to appear black. Such objects are known as ``frozen stars'' or
``black stars''. Black {\it holes} are the infinite time limit of black stars and
traditionally black stars are viewed as indistinguishable from
black holes ({\it e.g.} Chapter 33, \cite{Misner:1974qy}). However,
there are good reasons to maintain the distinction between black
stars and black holes. First,
{\it quantum} analyses of gravitational collapse show that a black star
evaporates in a finite time \cite{Vachaspati:2006ki} and so it is
impossible to take the infinite time limit. Second,
theories of quantum gravity often predict that black holes have
structure such as a string theory fuzzball \cite{Mathur:2005zp} or a
firewall \cite{Almheiri:2012rt}.
Third, observations of the collision of two black objects can tell us if the
objects are black holes or black stars and hence the distinction between
these objects is experimentally meaningful \cite{Vachaspati:2007fc}.
The resolution of these issues has taken on a new urgency after
the recent exciting observations by LIGO \cite{Abbott:2016blz} and
Fermi \cite{Connaughton:2016umz} in which gravitational
wave emission from two coalescing black hole-like objects appears to have
been followed by a gamma ray burst.
%
%The traditional view -- that a black star should be
%interpreted as a black hole ({\it e.g.} Chapter 33, \cite{Misner:1974qy}) --
%is not suitable when discussing the collision of two black
%stars, especially when quantum effects are taken into account.
%It has been argued that the black star picture is better replaced by a
%black hole picture (\cite{Misner:1974qy}, Chapter 33).
The essential idea behind equating black stars to black holes
is that a collapsing star very quickly fades from an observer's view,
and there is no way to send in probes ({\it e.g.} light rays) at late times so as
to see the surface of the black star. This idea is captured in the spacetime
diagram shown in Fig.~\ref{bh_spacetime} where certain rays can
hit the surface of the star but later rays arrive at the surface
of the star after it has crossed into its own event horizon. So the
surface of the black star can only be probed by rays that
arrive sufficiently early. This is the usual interpretation, also described in
\cite{Misner:1974qy}, and if the object is probed at sufficiently late times,
there is no way to send in probes to distinguish between a black star and
a black hole.
%However, this interpretation only applies when
%the collapsing object creates a fixed background spacetime on which
%light rays propagate. The collision of two macroscopic black stars is
%different, however. Then the observer watches two black stars that
%collide and merge.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=0.35\textwidth,angle=0]{spacetimeFigure}
%\centerline{\scalebox{0.8}{\input{spacetimeFigure.pdf}}}
%\centerline{\scalebox{0.8}{\input{bh_spacetime.pstex_t}}}
\caption{Spacetime of a classical collapsing object (shaded region)
that appears as a black star to an observer located near $i^+$.
Two null rays from $\scri^-$ are shown, one that collides with
the black star and the other that does not.
}
\label{bh_spacetime}
\end{figure}
The picture changes in a {\it quantum} analysis, since then a collapsing
body produces a time-dependent metric that leads to quantum radiation
and causes the body to slowly
evaporate even as it collapses \cite{Vachaspati:2006ki}. This
radiation, very similar to Hawking radiation from a black hole \cite{Hawking:1974sw},
does not require the event horizon of a black hole and holds for any collapsing body,
even when it is outside its own Schwarzschild radius.
Gravitational collapse leads to a black star that
is continually collapsing and concurrently evaporating into quantum radiation.
%\cite{Hawking:1974sw,Davies:1976ei,Gerlach:1976ji,
%Vachaspati:2006ki,Vachaspati:2007hr,BirrellandDavies}.
Then the collapsing object spacetime is shown in Fig.~\ref{qspacetime}.
Now every null ray that hits the collapsing object and reflects off of it will
reach future
null infinity $\scri^+$. This happens if the null ray collides with the collapsing
object at any stage of the collapse. The only caveat is that the interaction of
the null ray and the black star will lead to a time delay in the escape of the
reflected ray but the amount of time delay will depend on when the
reflection actually occurs.
In contrast to a black star, a ``black hole'' is a classical {\it vacuum} solution
of Einstein's equations and there is no matter distribution anywhere in
spacetime except perhaps at the central singularity.
%The traditional
%view is that collapsing objects quickly become black holes even though
%they may always appear to be black stars from afar. In other words,
%a black star is an ``optical illusion'' \cite{Misner:1974qy} of a black hole.
%
%The essence of this discussion is that
Hence the collision of black holes will only
lead to gravitational radiation because the spacetime is devoid of matter.
On the other hand, black star collisions will lead to gravitational {\it and}
electromagnetic radiation. Collisions of black stars
can be a source of gamma ray bursts
%( e.g. \cite{Piran:1999kx,Lamb:2000rc,Piran:2004ba}), and such bursts
({\it e.g.} \cite{Lamb:2000rc,Piran:2004ba}), and such bursts
will be preceded by gravitational wave emission whose characteristics
are similar to those of black hole mergers.
Thus, when two black stars collide, they can be distinguished from the
collision of black holes by the presence of electromagnetic radiation.
%In Fig.~\ref{bh_spacetime} we show the spacetime diagram for a classical
%black hole as formed by stellar collapse, together with some colliding matter
%that we will assume to be a rock.
%An observer located near $i^+$ will only see rays that propagate along the
%event horizon. A rock that falls in early, will collide with the stellar
%material and emit photons, and then it is clear that the collapsing object
%is a black star. If, however, the observer receives only gravitational waves,
%they will conclude that the object is either by a black hole or a black star
%with which the rock has not yet collided. The rock itself will then appear
%frozen on the surface of the collapsing star.
%The reasoning is similar for the collision of two black objects.
%The collision and merger of two black stars
%will lead to electromagnetic emission due to collisions of the matter making
%up the black stars.
In a realistic astrophysical setting the collision of two black holes might be
accompanied by the collision of other accompanying matter, such as an
accretion disk, around the black holes. Stellar mass black holes would
have devoured surrounding matter and are therefore considered relatively
clean environments, though new astrophysical scenarios might include
such matter \cite{Loeb:2016fzn}. Even if there is surrounding matter that collides
and produces gamma rays, this electromagnetic radiation and the gravitational
radiation would be produced at the same time, with no specific time delay between
them. On the other hand, the black star scenario clearly predicts a time delay
between the gravitational wave emission and the gamma ray burst because
first the metric outside the black stars coalesces and only then the material of
the black stars coalesces.
%The collision of two black holes will not emit electromagnetically
%except possibly due to collision of other accompanying matter, such as in an
%accretion disk. However, the electromagnetic radiation from the collision of
%black stars will be delayed, whereas it would seem that the collision of
%astrophysical matter should precede or accompany the gravitational
%radiation.
\begin{figure}
\includegraphics[height=0.5\textwidth,angle=0]{qspacetime}
%\centerline{\scalebox{0.8}{\input{spacetimeFigure.pdf}}}
%\centerline{\scalebox{0.8}{\input{bh_spacetime.pstex_t}}}
\caption{Spacetime of a quantum collapsing object
(labeled a ``domain wall'' in the figure) \cite{Vachaspati:2006ki}.
Now there is no event horizon and singularity, and all rays that
hit the collapsing object reach $\scri^+$, even if they are delayed
due to their interactions with the gravitational field.
}
\label{qspacetime}
\end{figure}
We now estimate the energy radiated from the collision of two black
stars each of mass $M$. The radius of each of the black stars is
$R=2GM$ and so the density is
\begin{equation}
\rho = \frac{1}{8G^3M^2} \sim 10^{14}
\left ( \frac{30M_\odot}{M} \right )^2
{\rm gms / cm^3}
\label{bsdensity}
\end{equation}
where $M_\odot \approx 2\times 10^{33}~{\rm gms}$ is the solar mass.
This density is high but still below the QCD density. Hence a $30M_\odot$
black star is mostly composed of ordinary protons and neutrons.
The collision of two black stars of mass $M$ involves the
collision of their constituent protons and neutrons which will lead to
radiation of photons and other light particles. Since the gravitational
binding between all constituents in this system is very strong,
we treat the collision as being totally inelastic. Then the initial
kinetic energy gets converted to radiation resulting in the release
of total energy
%\begin{equation}
%E \sim M v^2 = 3\times 10^{49}
% \left ( \frac{M}{30 M_\circ} \right )
%% \left ( \frac{v}{300 {\rm km/sec}} \right ) ^2 \delta ~
% \left ( \frac{v}{0.1 c} \right ) ^2 \left ( \frac{\delta}{10^{-4}} \right ) ~
% {\rm ergs}
%\label{ke}
%\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
E \sim M v^2 \delta \approx 4 \times 10^{49}
\left ( \frac{M}{30 M_\circ} \right )
% \left ( \frac{v}{300 {\rm km/sec}} \right ) ^2 \delta ~
\left ( \frac{v}{0.5 c} \right ) ^2 \left ( \frac{\delta}{10^{-6}} \right ) ~
{\rm ergs}
\label{ke}
\end{equation}
where $\delta$ is the gravitational redshift of the energy as it
escapes the collision region.
The collision velocity will typically be an $O(1)$ fraction of
the speed of light, and the gravitational redshift factor $\delta \ll 1$
will depend on how close the black star is to being a black hole.
We assume that the energy is released in a light crossing
time $\sim R/c = 2GM/c \sim 3\times 10^{-4} {\rm sec}$ (for a
$\sim 30M_\odot$ black star), which is the
only relevant length scale in the problem. This time interval
will be dilated by $\delta^{-1}$ and the emitted power in
photons will be
%\begin{equation}
%P \sim 10^{53}
% \left ( \frac{v}{300 {\rm km/sec}} \right ) ^2 \delta^2 ~
% {\rm ergs/sec}
%\label{power}
%\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
P \sim 2 \times 10^{46}
\left ( \frac{v}{0.5 c} \right ) ^2 \left ( \frac{\delta}{10^{-6}} \right )^2 ~
{\rm ergs/sec}
\label{power}
\end{equation}
Note that the power is independent of the mass $M$.
We can estimate the frequency of the photons by once again
treating the collision as being totally inelastic. Then every proton in
the black star gets stopped on collision and the emitted photon
energy is simply the initial kinetic energy of the proton
%\begin{equation}
%E_\gamma \sim m_p v^2 \approx 1
% \left ( \frac{v}{300 {\rm km/s}} \right )^2 \delta ~ {\rm keV}
%\label{Egamma}
%\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
E_\gamma \sim m_p v^2 \delta \approx 0.25
\left ( \frac{v}{0.5 c} \right ) ^2 \left ( \frac{\delta}{10^{-6}} \right )~ {\rm keV}
\label{Egamma}
\end{equation}
%Two black stars that approach each other with some initial velocity
%may or may not collide, depending on the precise initial
%conditions. This is most clearly seen on the spacetime diagram
%for a collapsing star (see Fig.~\ref{bh_spacetime}). If the
%initial conditions are favorable, there will be frequent collisions;
%otherwise collisions will be rare. With our current knowledge,
%it is not possible to reliably estimate the frequency with which
%black star collisions occur.
Even though we cannot precisely estimate the event rate of black
star collisions, we do know that the rate is lower for lower
initial velocity since then the stars will take a long time to collide
{\it i.e.} $\delta$ will be smaller.
Then the emitted energy will redshift by a greater amount and
there will be a greater time delay between the gravitational and
electromagnetic emissions, making the gamma ray burst very
faint and also temporally uncorrelated with the gravitational wave
event. On the other hand, we expect that the
number of black stars falls off with higher velocity. These two
arguments suggest that there should be a velocity at which black
star collisions peak. In terms of gamma ray bursts, it implies
that the gamma ray bursts should have a typical photon energy.
Further, the total power emitted should scale with this photon
energy as seen by dividing Eq.~(\ref{power}) by (\ref{Egamma}),
%\begin{equation}
%\frac{P}{E_\gamma} \approx 10^{62} ~ \delta ~ {\rm sec^{-1}}
%\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
\frac{P}{E_\gamma} \approx 10^{56} ~
\left ( \frac{\delta}{10^{-6}} \right ) ~ {\rm sec^{-1}}
\end{equation}
This formula does not depend on the mass of the colliding
black stars and neither on their velocities, and hence is
an invariant of the model.
%In a more realistic setting,
%however, black star collisions will, in general, not be head-on
%and may be affected by the surrounding environment.
%Black stars will also be spinning.
%Also, the
%emitted radiation may not be isotropically distributed because of
%the lack of spherical symmetry in the initial system
%and geometrical factors are needed to relate the emitted
%power to what an observer would see.
%So far we have considered the collision of two black stars.
%Similar signatures may be expected from the collision
%of a black star and a normal star.
%Next consider the collision of two black objects, each of
%mass $M$, where the matter does not collide but only the
%spacetimes collide. This can happen with black stars for
%which the initial conditions correspond to the later null
%ray in Fig.~\ref{bh_spacetime}, or with primordial black holes
%for which collapsing matter is not present. In this
%case, all the initial kinetic energy -- all $10^{49} {\rm ergs}$
%(Eq.~(\ref{ke})) of it -- will be released in gravitational
%radiation, as the two spacetimes merge. However, the final
%coalescence takes an infinite time and will never be seen.
%Then we can never be sure if the gravitational signatures
%are from colliding primordial black holes or from black stars
%whose matter is yet to collide.
If an observed gamma ray burst is indeed due to colliding
black stars, the burst should be preceded by gravitational
wave radiation from the coalescing spacetimes of the black
stars. The gravitational wave emission should be very similar
to that calculated numerically for black hole collisions
\cite{Pretorius:2005gq,Campanelli:2005dd,Baker:2006yw},
and the final gravitational wave emission due to coalescence
should be accompanied by the gamma ray burst when the material
of the black stars coalesce.
%We expect electromagnetic ringing to accompany the gravitational
%ringing associated with the coalescing spacetimes.
The waveforms of the emitted electromagnetic radiation will depend
on the normal modes of the two black star system. Indeed, characteristics
of the gravitational radiation preceding the gamma ray burst,
together with the gamma ray burst, may allow us to infer the
parameters of the colliding black stars and the initial conditions.
LIGO \cite{Abbott:2016blz} has recently detected the gravitational wave signature from
the merger of two black holes, each with mass $\approx 30M_\odot$.
This stunning announcement has been followed by a cautious
but equally stunning claim by the Fermi collaboration \cite{Connaughton:2016umz}
that they may have seen a gamma ray burst counterpart of the LIGO event.
The energy and emission frequency of the gamma ray burst are broadly
consistent with those estimated for black star collisions. If future gravitational
wave events are followed by delayed gamma ray burst events, it would
be strong support for the black star picture and would provide deep
insight into gravitational collapse, black holes, and quantum gravity.
\begin{acknowledgments}
%I am grateful to Martin Rees for helpful critique, and to Francesc
%Ferrer, Pablo Laguna and Irit Maor for remarks. This work was supported
%by the U.S. Department of Energy and NASA at Case Western Reserve
%University.
This work was supported by the U.S. Department of Energy, Office of High Energy Physics,
under Award No. DE-SC0013605 at ASU.
\end{acknowledgments}
\begin{thebibliography}{9}
%\cite{Misner:1974qy}
\bibitem{Misner:1974qy}
C.~W.~Misner, K.~S.~Thorne and J.~A.~Wheeler,
%``Gravitation,''
San Francisco 1973, 1279p
%146 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 08 Mar 2016
%\cite{Vachaspati:2006ki}
\bibitem{Vachaspati:2006ki}
T.~Vachaspati, D.~Stojkovic and L.~M.~Krauss,
%``Observation of incipient black holes and the information loss problem,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 76}, 024005 (2007)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.024005
[gr-qc/0609024].
%%CITATION = doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.76.024005;%%
%102 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 08 Mar 2016
%\cite{Mathur:2005zp}
\bibitem{Mathur:2005zp}
S.~D.~Mathur,
%``The Fuzzball proposal for black holes: An Elementary review,''
Fortsch.\ Phys.\ {\bf 53}, 793 (2005)
doi:10.1002/prop.200410203
[hep-th/0502050].
%%CITATION = doi:10.1002/prop.200410203;%%
%374 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 12 Mar 2016
%\cite{Almheiri:2012rt}
\bibitem{Almheiri:2012rt}
A.~Almheiri, D.~Marolf, J.~Polchinski and J.~Sully,
%``Black Holes: Complementarity or Firewalls?,''
JHEP {\bf 1302}, 062 (2013)
doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062
[arXiv:1207.3123 [hep-th]].
%%CITATION = doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062;%%
%437 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 12 Mar 2016
%\cite{Vachaspati:2007fc}
\bibitem{Vachaspati:2007fc}
T.~Vachaspati,
%``Black Stars and Gamma Ray Bursts,''
arXiv:0706.1203 [astro-ph].
%%CITATION = ARXIV:0706.1203;%%
%9 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 12 Mar 2016
%\cite{Abbott:2016blz}
\bibitem{Abbott:2016blz}
B.~P.~Abbott {\it et al.} [LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations],
%``Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 116}, no. 6, 061102 (2016)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102
[arXiv:1602.03837 [gr-qc]].
%%CITATION = doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.061102;%%
%29 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 18 fvr. 2016
%\cite{Connaughton:2016umz}
\bibitem{Connaughton:2016umz}
V.~Connaughton {\it et al.},
%``Fermi GBM Observations of LIGO Gravitational Wave event GW150914,''
arXiv:1602.03920 [astro-ph.HE].
%%CITATION = ARXIV:1602.03920;%%
%3 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 18 Feb 2016
%%\cite{Vachaspati:2007hr}
%\bibitem{Vachaspati:2007hr}
% T.~Vachaspati and D.~Stojkovic,
% %``Quantum radiation from quantum gravitational collapse,''
% arXiv:gr-qc/0701096.
% %%CITATION = GR-QC/0701096;%%
%\cite{Hawking:1974sw}
\bibitem{Hawking:1974sw}
S.~W.~Hawking,
%``Particle Creation By Black Holes,''
Commun.\ Math.\ Phys.\ {\bf 43}, 199 (1975)
[Erratum-ibid.\ {\bf 46}, 206 (1976)].
%%CITATION = CMPHA,43,199;%%
%
%%\cite{Piran:1999kx}
%\bibitem{Piran:1999kx}
% T.~Piran,
% %``Gamma-Ray Bursts and the Fireball Model,''
% Phys.\ Rept.\ {\bf 314}, 575 (1999)
% [arXiv:astro-ph/9810256].
% %%CITATION = PRPLC,314,575;%%
%\cite{Lamb:2000rc}
\bibitem{Lamb:2000rc}
D.~Q.~Lamb,
Phys.\ Rep.\ {\bf 333}, 505 (2000)
%``Implications of Recent Observational Discoveries for the Nature and Origin
%of Gamma-Ray Bursts,''
%arXiv:astro-ph/0005028.
%%CITATION = ASTRO-PH/0005028;%%
%\cite{Piran:2004ba}
\bibitem{Piran:2004ba}
T.~Piran,
%``The physics of gamma-ray bursts,''
Rev.\ Mod.\ Phys.\ {\bf 76}, 1143 (2004)
[arXiv:astro-ph/0405503].
%%CITATION = RMPHA,76,1143;%%
\bibitem{Loeb:2016fzn}
A.~Loeb,
%``Electromagnetic Counterparts to Black Hole Mergers Detected by LIGO,''
Astrophys.\ J.\ {\bf 819}, no. 2, L21 (2016)
doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L21
[arXiv:1602.04735 [astro-ph.HE]].
%%CITATION = doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/2/L21;%%
%14 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 12 Mar 2016
%\cite{Pretorius:2005gq}
\bibitem{Pretorius:2005gq}
F.~Pretorius,
%``Evolution of binary black hole spacetimes,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 95}, 121101 (2005)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101
[gr-qc/0507014].
%%CITATION = doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.95.121101;%%
%665 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 12 Mar 2016
%\cite{Campanelli:2005dd}
\bibitem{Campanelli:2005dd}
M.~Campanelli, C.~O.~Lousto, P.~Marronetti and Y.~Zlochower,
%``Accurate evolutions of orbiting black-hole binaries without excision,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ Lett.\ {\bf 96}, 111101 (2006)
doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111101
[gr-qc/0511048].
%%CITATION = doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.96.111101;%%
%680 citations counted in INSPIRE as of 12 Mar 2016
%\cite{Baker:2006yw}
\bibitem{Baker:2006yw}
J.~G.~Baker, J.~Centrella, D.~I.~Choi, M.~Koppitz and J.~van Meter,
%``Binary black hole merger dynamics and waveforms,''
Phys.\ Rev.\ D {\bf 73}, 104002 (2006)
[arXiv:gr-qc/0602026].
%%CITATION = PHRVA,D73,104002;%%
%\cite{Loeb:2016fzn}
\end{thebibliography}
\end{document}