Medium effects on neutron star modified and direct Urca cooling rates

In the context of NS cooling the one key property of the nuclear EOS is whether it allows fast direct Urca (DU) cooling by a large enough proton fraction [1, 21, 22, 23, 2, 24, 4]. The DU process is by several orders of magnitude the most efficient one among all possible cooling reactions involving nucleons and neutrino emission, and depends on the NS EOS and composition. The DU process involves a pair of charged weak-current reactions,

being $l=e,\mu$ a lepton and $\nu_{l}$ the corresponding neutrino. Those reactions are allowed by energy and momentum conservation [25] only if $k_{F}^{(n)}<k_{F}^{(p)}+k_{F}^{(l)}$, where $k_{F}^{(i)}$ is the Fermi momentum of the species $i$. This implies that the proton fraction should be larger than a threshold value $x_{\text{DU}}$ (about 13% when including muons) for the DU process to take place, and therefore the NS central density should be larger than the corresponding threshold density $\rho_{\text{DU}}$.

Thus different EOSs predict different DU threshold densities [4]. We choose here two microscopic Brueckner-Hartree-Fock (BHF) EOSs obtained with the Argonne V18 [26] and the Bonn B (BOB) nucleon-nucleon ($NN$) potential [27] with compatible three-body forces [28, 29, 30, 31], see [32, 33] for a more detailed account. These EOSs are compatible with all current low-density constraints [15, 4, 34] and in particular also with those imposed on NS maximum mass $M_{\text{max}}>2M_{\odot}$ [35, 36, 37], radius $R_{1.4}\approx 11$–$13\,$km [38, 39, 40, 9, 41, 42], and tidal deformability $\Lambda_{1.4}\approx 70$–$580$ [43, 7, 44, 13].

The BHF method provides the EOS for homogeneous nuclear matter, and therefore an EOS for the low-density inhomogeneous crustal part has to be added. For that, we adopt the well-known Negele-Vautherin EOS [45] for the inner crust in the medium-density regime ($0.001\;\text{fm}^{-3}<\rho<\rho_{t}$), and the ones by Baym-Pethick-Sutherland [46] and Feynman-Metropolis-Teller [47] for the outer crust ($\rho<0.001\;\text{fm}^{-3}$). By imposing a smooth transition of pressure and energy density between both branches of the betastable EOS [48], one finds a transition density at about $\rho_{t}\approx 0.08\;\text{fm}^{-3}$. In any case the NS maximum mass domain is not affected by the crustal EOS, with a limited influence on the radius and related deformability for NSs with canonical mass value [48, 49, 50, 51].

If the DU process is kinematically forbidden or strongly reduced, various much less efficient neutrino processes may be operating in the NS core. While the former is a pure weak reaction, those processes involve nucleon collisions driven by strong interactions, and are consequently affected by much greater theoretical uncertainties that will be discussed in the following. The two main ones with an emissivity $Q_{\nu}\propto T^{8}$ are the MU processes,

where $N=n,p$ is a spectator nucleon that ensures momentum conservation. Since five degenerate fermions are involved instead of three, the efficiency is significantly reduced compared to the DU process.

The $NN$ bremsstrahlung (BS) reactions,

with $N$ a nucleon and $\nu$, $\bar{\nu}$ an (anti)neutrino of any flavor, are also abundant in NS cores, and their rate increases with the baryon density, but they are orders of magnitude less powerful than the DU or MU one, thus producing a slow cooling [1]. All those cooling mechanisms can be strongly affected by the superfluid properties of the stellar matter, i.e., critical temperatures and gaps in the different pairing channels. We will turn to this theoretical issue in Sec. II.5.

In this section we briefly recall the main neutrino emission mechanisms in the NS core, which dominate the total neutrino luminosity $L_{\nu}^{\infty}$, and the relevance of the nucleon effective masses and other in-medium effects, following closely the detailed treatment given in Ref. [1] and updates in [24, 52, 53, 54]. Only the rates for the non-superfluid scenarios will be given in this section, for which the dependence on the effective masses is via the general factor [55]

In the presence of superfluidity the dependence becomes highly nontrivial and requires detailed calculations [1].

The emissivities of the MU processes in the neutron and proton branches, employing for the long-range part of the in-medium $NN$ interaction the dominant one-pion-exchange (OPE) contribution and for the short-range part an effective contribution in the framework of Landau theory, are given by [56, 57, 1, 24, 53, 54]

where the factors $\alpha_{n},\alpha_{p}$ take into account the momentum-transfer dependence of the squared reaction matrix element under the Born approximation, and $\beta_{n},\beta_{p}$ include the non-Born corrections due to $NN$ interaction effects, which are not described by the OPE contribution [1]. All emissivities $Q$ are given in units of erg cm^-3s^-1. The currently adopted values are $\alpha_{p}=\alpha_{n}=1.13$ in the original Friman-Maxwell (FM) calculation [56], whereas the more accurate momentum-transfer average discussed in [1, 57] implies $\alpha_{p}=\alpha_{n}=1.76-0.63(\rho_{0}/\rho_{n})^{2/3}$. This is the expression implemented in the cooling code and used throughout this work, with $\beta_{p}=\beta_{n}=0.68$ in both cases.

The main difference between the proton branch and the neutron branch is the threshold character, although usually irrelevant. If muons are present in the dense NS matter, the equivalent MU processes become also possible, and accordingly several modifications should be included in Eqs. (5,6), as discussed in Refs. [1, 54].

The problem of an accurate computation of the MU rates can currently be considered unresolved, as no formalism incorporating consistently (also together with the computation of the EOS) the various in-medium effects has yet been attempted. It seems, however, that the simple expressions Eqs. (5,6) constitute underestimates of the real MU rates. We discuss now briefly the current status of such attempts.

The standard cooling rates mentioned above are computed by assuming reaction matrix elements in the quasiparticle approximation (with sharp Fermi surfaces, apart from temperature effects) at the lowest order in density and temperature, and employing a simple approximation (free one-pion-exchange OPE + Landau parameters) for the in-medium $NN$ interaction. They are consequently density independent apart from the effective-mass corrections and kinematic factors, but are subject to potentially very important in-medium corrections. This is a very complex topic that has been extensively studied in the past, without coming to definite quantitative conclusions so far.

The motivation of our work is to include in the cooling calculations some of the most recent theoretical estimates of medium effects, in order to probe the sensitivity of the final results to them and to identify observable phenomena that might be able to constrain those.

First, let us note that a recent detailed reevaluation of the FM results [56] led to the claim that those are too large by a factor about 2 [53].

While earlier works [58, 59, 60, 61] tried to improve the modeling of the $NN$ (OPE) interaction used in the FM results, coming to quite different conclusions regarding enhancement or suppression of the MU rate, recent theoretical studies focused on the importance of the nucleon in-medium propagation.

Several works attempted to go beyond the approximation of degenerate Fermi gases with sharp momentum distributions by including empirically the quasi-particle $Z$-factor [62] or extended tails of the momentum distributions [63]. However, consistent modifications of the effective masses or the $NN$ interaction were disregarded.

In Refs. [64, 65] the importance of the nucleon off-shell propagator was investigated, approximating it by a constant in the standard MU treatment leading to Eqs. (5,6), thus neglecting the appearance of a pole above the DU threshold. The authors concluded that this generic kinematic effect can enhance the MU rate by a density-dependent factor of order unity, in particular close to the DU onset, and thus provides a smoother switch-on of the DU process. On the other hand, their use of a $G$-matrix to replace the simple $NN$ interaction employed by FM resulted in a substantial decrease of the rate, in qualitative agreement with the in-medium $T$-matrix result of [59].

The results of Ref. [64] were parameterized for the MU enhancement factor $R(\rho)$ in the following convenient form:

with $l=e,\mu$, which only requires the knowledge of the density dependence of the various Fermi momenta for a given EOS. The enhancement factor remains valid when including standard superfluidity suppression factors for the MU rate. The enhancement factor $R$, Eq. (7), is displayed in Fig. 1 for the V18 and BOB EOS, respectively for the electron (solid) and muon channels (dashed). Results are plotted as a function of the density (left panel) and NS mass (right panel), both normalized to the respective electron DU thresholds. The enhancement is already a factor of a few at half the threshold density and grows to $R_{e}\gtrsim 10^{2}$ close to the onset, where it formally diverges and provides the smooth switch-on of the DU cooling advocated in [64]. The muon branch sets in only at $\rho\approx 0.4\rho_{\text{DU}}$ and remains a factor of about two smaller than the electron branch at the same normalized density, since its DU threshold lies slightly higher, as discussed in Sec. II.4. Plotted in these normalized units, the results for the two EOSs nearly coincide: the enhancement is essentially controlled by the proximity to the DU threshold, and the strong EOS dependence seen in absolute units simply reflects the different values of $\rho_{\text{DU}}$ and $M_{\text{DU}}$. The dash-dotted lines show the free-OPE result, which stays close to unity and demonstrates that the enhancement is dominated by the resummed propagator effect rather than by the OPE matrix element itself. Relevant consequences are expected for the NS cooling rate, and this will be discussed in the following sections.

The alternative scenario discussed in Ref. [66] included the width of the proton spectral function due to finite temperature and short-range nuclear correlations into the computation of the DU rate, which leads to a smoothening of the sharp onset of DU cooling with increasing proton fraction. The DU rate becomes then comparable to the MU rate at densities below the standard DU onset. However, the effect of pairing has so far not been included consistently in this approach.

In Ref. [67] the authors tried to improve the MU rate by including the width of the nucleon propagator via its imaginary part. This led to a combined treatment of DU and MU processes, in which the MU rate is substantially enhanced compared to the standard expression. The enhancement is smaller than the one obtained in [64], and only at very low density both methods agree. However, the procedure is not compatible with that one of Ref. [66], and the numerical predictions are quite different. Also in this case, superfluidity was disregarded.

Thus, so far no consistent combined treatment of DU and MU rates has been developed. Different works have focused on improving particular specific features of the standard results, without establishing fully consistent procedures, in particular regarding the in-medium NN interaction. In this situation, we employ in this work the parametrization of Eq. (7) in order to estimate upper limits of the MU rate enhancement. Of course such enhancement will only have visible effects in NSs without active DU cooling, which is still several orders of magnitude stronger than any enhanced MU cooling. This feature and in particular the NS mass range without active DU cooling depends on the nuclear EOS that is discussed in the next subsection.

In order to illustrate the relevant properties of the chosen EOSs, we show in Fig. 2 the DU onset condition (a) and the proton fraction (b), which reaches the DU threshold $x_{\text{DU}}\approx 0.135$ at a density $\rho_{\text{DU}}\approx 0.37(0.41)\;\text{fm}^{-3}$ for the V18 (BOB) EOS. The associated NS mass is $M_{\text{DU}}=1.10(1.54)M_{\odot}$, hence all heavier NSs can potentially cool very fast. When also muons are taken into account, the corresponding DU thresholds lie slightly higher, $\rho_{\text{DU},\mu}\approx 1.13(1.11)\,\rho_{\text{DU}}$ and $M_{\text{DU},\mu}\approx 1.21(1.15)\,M_{\text{DU}}$ for the V18 (BOB) EOS, see also Fig. 1. This difference is decisive for the MU cooling, which plays an important role only for the BOB EOS in the range $M<1.54M_{\odot}$, whereas it is practically irrelevant for the V18 EOS, where DU cooling always dominates. The consequences will be analyzed in the following.

We stress that the values of the maximum mass $M_{\text{max}}=2.36(2.51)M_{\odot}$, as displayed in panel (d) of Fig. 2, are compatible with the current observational lower limits [35, 36, 68], in particular the recent data $M=2.35\pm 0.11M_{\odot}$ for PSR J0952-0607 [69]. However, only the V18 EOS [70, 4, 14] ($R_{1.4},R_{2.0},R_{2.08}=12.3,12.0,11.9\,$km) is also fully compatible with the limits on the radii $R_{2.08}$ [39], $R_{2.0}$ [41, 42], and $R_{1.4}$ [40, 9, 41, 71, 42, 72], obtained from combined NICER analyses of the pulsars J0030+0451, J0740+6620, J0437-4715, J0614-3329, and J1231-1411, together with GW170817, whereas the radii obtained with the BOB EOS ($R_{1.4},R_{2.0},R_{2.08}=12.9,12.8,12.7\,$km) are slightly too large. We therefore consider the V18 EOS more realistic for several reasons, which will also become clear in the following. We use the BOB EOS here only in order to demonstrate the effects of a large DU onset density and mass.

One of the most important nuclear physics input for the NS cooling simulations are the superfluid properties of stellar matter, basically the neutron and proton pairing gaps in the different reaction channels [1, 73, 4]. The most important ones are the proton 1S0 (p1S0) and neutron 3PF2 (n3P2) pairing channels; the proton 3PF2 gap is often neglected due to its uncertain properties at large densities, while the neutron 1S0 gap in the crust is of little relevance for the cooling. Moreover, in our previous works we found that nonzero values of the n3P2 gap cannot reproduce the current observational data in our cooling simulations [14, 15, 74], so we exclude it in this work and focus our study on the possible p1S0 gap function $\Delta(\rho)$.

We use the same method as in our previous works [11, 14, 15, 74, 75], namely a rescaling of both magnitude and range of the naive BCS gap in terms of global scaling factors $s_{y}$ and $s_{x}$,

which will be considered as free parameters in the cooling calculations. Their optimal values will be determined later in a combined analysis of cooling data and deduced NS mass distributions.

The active range of unscaled BCS p1S0 pairing is shown in Fig. 2(c). For the V18 (BOB) EOS the gap vanishes at $\rho_{1S0}=0.57(0.59)\;\text{fm}^{-3}$, corresponding to the central density of a $M_{1S0}=1.91(2.24)M_{\odot}$ NS. Therefore $M<M_{1S0}$ stars are superfluid throughout, whereas for $M>M_{1S0}$ there is a growing non-superfluid core region that is cooling very fast by the unquenched DU process. However, the parameter $s_{x}$ changes the active range of pairing, and is thus essential for the confrontation with cooling data in the next section.

For completeness, we also display the unscaled n3P2 BCS gap in Fig. 2(c). It extends over the entire density and mass range, and therefore would block all cooling processes involving neutrons for all NSs. However, the competing n3P2 PBF process provides too strong cooling for old objects, in disagreement with some data, as found in [76, 14, 74].

We remind that superfluidity arises from the formation of $pp$ and $nn$ Cooper pairs mediated by the attractive component of the NN interaction. The onset of pairing is characterized by a critical temperature $T_{c}$, related to the pairing gap $\Delta$ through $T_{c}\simeq 0.567\Delta$. For temperatures below $T_{c}$, the presence of pairing has two main consequences for neutrino emission. First, neutrino-emission processes involving the paired component are exponentially suppressed. Second, the formation and breaking of Cooper pairs gives rise to the pair-breaking and formation (PBF) process, accompanied by the emission of neutrino-antineutrino pairs. The PBF emissivity becomes non-zero when the temperature drops below the critical temperature of the corresponding baryon species, reaches its maximum efficiency at $T\simeq 0.8T_{c}$, and is exponentially suppressed at temperatures $T\ll T_{c}$.

Further important ingredients in the cooling simulations are the neutron and proton effective masses, which we actually used in [11]. In the BHF approach, the effective masses can be computed consistently together with the EOS in terms of the s.p. energy $e(k)$ [55],

and convenient parametrizations can be found in [49, 77].

Before examining the effect of in-medium corrections we present results of the ‘standard’ calculations without such modifications.

In Fig. 3 we show the cooling diagrams obtained with a Fe atmosphere or a light-elements atmosphere (gray shaded bands), in comparison with the currently known 59 observational data [16, 5, 6]. Panels (a) display the results obtained without superfluidity. One notes the strong effect of the DU process, characterized by a far too rapid cooling for all NSs with $M>M_{\text{DU}}=1.10(1.54)M_{\odot}$ for V18 (BOB) EOS, which is clearly unrealistic, regardless of the atmosphere model. In panels (b) we include the p1S0 BCS ($s_{x}=s_{y}=1$) gap. The main effect is the quenching of the DU process such that stars in the overlap zone $1.10(1.54)M_{\odot}=M_{\text{DU}}<M<M_{1S0}=1.91(2.24)M_{\odot}$ cool moderately fast now, and only high-mass stars, $M>1.91(2.24)M_{\odot}$, cool very rapidly. Now all data points can be covered within their error bars, taking advantage of the two atmosphere models. While the parameter $M_{\text{DU}}$ is fixed by the EOS model, the value of $M_{1S0}$ depends on the scaling parameter $s_{x}$, reflecting our current lack of knowledge regarding the p1S0 gap in dense matter. This allows to tune the assignment of NS masses to the data points in the quenched DU region, which will be exploited in the following.

In panels (c) we investigate the effect of the n3P2 BCS gap: This extends over the entire density range, and therefore blocks the DU process for all NSs. On the other hand the competing n3P2 PBF process provides a too strong cooling for the old ($\gtrsim 10^{6}\,$yr) objects [15, 74], with or without DU process, as already found by other authors [76, 16, 17, 90, 91, 5, 14]. The same is true for using a n3P2 BCS gap scaled down by a factor $s_{y}=0.1$ (i.e., with a maximum gap of about 0.06 MeV), shown in panels (d).

In conclusion, an EOS featuring DU cooling for a wide enough mass range of NSs together with (partial) quenching by the p1S0 BCS gap seems to be required to reproduce the cooling data. It seems difficult to accommodate finite n3P2 pairing in this setup. We therefore continue the analysis including p1S0 pairing but without n3P2 pairing.

At present, no quantitative information on the actual masses of the observed cooling objects is available, so a direct comparison between theoretically predicted and actual masses in the cooling diagram is not feasible. Under these circumstances, one can derive a NS mass distribution consistent with the outcome of a given cooling simulation by counting the data points that fall within the interval between two adjacent fixed-$M$ cooling curves [13, 14, 74], as illustrated in Fig. 4. The resulting histogram can then be compared with NS mass distributions obtained through different and independent theoretical approaches [83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 84, 89]. This procedure rests on two assumptions: first, that the mass distribution of isolated NSs in the cooling diagram does not differ from that of NSs in binary systems [83, 87, 88, 84, 92] or of the entire NS population in the Universe; and second, that the detection of these sources is independent of their brightness (Malmquist bias [93]). Both assumptions are unlikely to be strictly satisfied, as discussed in [14, 74]. A further fundamental limitation is the lack of information on the atmospheres of the observed objects, which necessitates additional theoretical assumptions in the analysis, the simplest being the adoption of a fixed-atmosphere model. Pending improved observational information on the data sources, we nevertheless adopt this approach to derive the mass distribution. The masses of the 53 cooling data points are taken to be those predicted theoretically from their positions in the cooling diagrams relative to the theoretical curves shown in Fig. 3. Figure 4 displays the resulting mass histograms for different choices of the p1S0 pairing parameters ($s_{x},s_{y}$), assuming a common Fe atmosphere and comparing the results obtained with the V18 and BOB EOSs. One observes that increasing $s_{x}$ or to a lesser degree $s_{y}$ shifts the centroid of the derived mass distributions to higher values, since the cooling curves move upwards (warmer stars) due to the increased suppression of the DU process. Theoretical investigations of the NS mass distribution [83, 85, 86, 87, 88, 84] predict typically a median close to the canonical NS mass $1.4M_{\odot}$. This is illustrated in the $(0.8,0.4)$ panel of Fig. 4, where we superimpose the theoretical results of [83, 84]. It can be seen that there is good agreement with the predictions of the V18 EOS, in fact the values $(0.8,0.4)$ are optimized for this purpose. On the contrary, with the BOB EOS no satisfactory agreement with the theoretical curves can be achieved with any values ($s_{x},s_{y}$). The reason is the too large DU onset mass $M_{\text{DU}}=1.54M_{\odot}$ in this case, which causes an abrupt onset of fast cooling at this mass, and therefore a much larger spacing of the individual cooling curves for larger masses than for smaller masses. This clashes with the more or less smooth distribution of the data points. This is a generic problem for any EOS with a DU onset close to $1.4M_{\odot}$: the predicted mass histograms are strongly asymmetric around this value, in contrast with both current cooling data and population models. In our present nucleonic setup, the only permitted DU onset masses have to lie far below $1.4M_{\odot}$, as in fact is the case for the V18 EOS with $M_{\text{DU}}=1.10M_{\odot}$. This important conclusion is also confirmed by the quantitative analysis [14, 74] in terms of the rms deviations between the histograms $\{N_{i}^{\text{dat}}\}$ in Fig. 4 and the expected $\{N_{i}^{\text{theo}}\}$ for various theoretical distributions,

where $i$ labels the mass bins and $N^{\text{dat}}$ is the total number of data points contained in the proper histogram. The results are visualized in the heatmap shown in Fig. 5 for the various combinations $(s_{x},s_{y})$, where we also indicate the optimal values $(s_{x},s_{y})$ (those predicting the smallest $\delta N$) for each theoretical mass distribution. Similar to Refs. [14, 74], for a Fe atmosphere and the V18 EOS the best agreement with most considered distributions is obtained with $s_{x}\approx 0.8$ and $s_{y}\approx 0.4$, which would also be consistent with microscopic investigations of the 1S0 pairing gap [4], as discussed before. On the contrary, for the BOB EOS no $(s_{x},s_{y})$ combination reaches a comparably small value of $\delta N$, mainly because its higher DU onset mass $M_{\text{DU}}=1.54M_{\odot}$ limits the fast-cooling component that is required by the data and is efficiently provided by the V18 EOS.

We now quantify the impact of the in-medium enhanced MU rate on the cooling evolution and on the mass-distribution analysis presented above. For that purpose we have implemented in the NSCool code the enhancement factor of [64], Eq. (7), by replacing in the emissivity of the neutron branch, Eq. (5), the standard matrix-element factor $\alpha_{n}\beta_{n}\approx 0.77$ by the density-dependent combination $R=0.6R_{A}+0.2R_{B}$, evaluated separately for the electron and the muon channel. The modified expression is applied for $\rho\geq 0.1\;\text{fm}^{-3}$ and below the respective DU threshold, where the parametrization is valid, whereas outside this domain the standard rate is retained in order to avoid the unphysical singularity at the DU onset. The proton branch and the standard superfluid suppression factors are not modified, as suggested in [64].

The effect on the cooling evolution is illustrated in Fig. 6, which decomposes the luminosity of a $M=1.4M_{\odot}$ star with unscaled p1S0 gap, $(s_{x},s_{y})=(1,1)$, and Fe atmosphere into the contributions of the various processes, without (a,b) and with (c,d) the MU modification, for the V18 (a,c) and BOB (b,d) EOSs. For the V18 EOS the DU process is active ($M=1.4M_{\odot}>M_{\text{DU}}=1.10M_{\odot}$), but it is efficiently quenched by the p1S0 gap: the $nn$ BS process, which involves no protons and is therefore not affected by the proton superfluidity, is the leading neutrino source at early times, whereas DU is the largest contribution only around $t\sim 10$–$100\,$yr; the n1S0 PBF process is a comparable contribution throughout, and the MU process is subdominant at all times. After $t\approx 10^{3}\,$yr the $nn$ BS process dominates again until the onset of the photon era at $t\approx 10^{5}\,$yr. For the BOB EOS the DU process is not operative at this mass ($M_{\text{DU}}=1.54M_{\odot}$), and the $nn$ BS dominates the core luminosity at essentially all times, exceeding the MU rate by about three orders of magnitude at $t\approx 10^{2}\,$yr, because the p1S0 pairing suppresses the MU rate exponentially. The n1S0 PBF process is the second contribution, about one order of magnitude below the $nn$ BS rate.

Switching on the MU modification enhances the MU luminosity of a $1.4M_{\odot}$ star by a factor of at most about twenty (V18) or two (BOB) during the neutrino-cooling era, but the surface photon luminosity changes by less than about 2% for $t\lesssim 10^{5}\,$yr and by less than 10% at later times, which is far inside the observational uncertainties of the cooling data. The same holds for other masses (for example $M=1.2M_{\odot}$ for the BOB EOS, where the effect is even smaller).

We therefore conclude that in the currently favored scenario – fast DU cooling quenched by p1S0 pairing – medium modifications of the MU rates are practically insignificant for the cooling evolution: an enhanced MU rate could become visible only in NSs without active DU cooling, but precisely there the proton superfluidity quenches the MU process and leaves the $nn$ BS as the dominant neutrino source and the n1S0 PBF process as the second. The cooling diagrams of Fig. 3 and the deduced mass distributions of Figs. 4 and 5 are thus not modified, and the main theoretical uncertainty of the slow-cooling component of our models resides in the $nn$ BS rate rather than in the MU rates.