text:
# Rotating wormhole and scalar perturbation

## I Introduction

The wormhole has the structure which is given by two asymptotically flat regions and a bridge connecting two regionsMT88 . For the Lorentzian wormhole to be traversable, it requires exotic matter which violates the known energy conditions. To find the reasonable models, there had been studying on the generalized models of the wormhole with other matters and/or in various geometries. Among the models, the matter or wave in the wormhole geometry and its effect such as radiation are very interesting to us. The scalar field could be considered in the wormhole geometry as the primary and auxiliary effectsK00 . Recently, the solution for the electrically charged case was also found KL01 .

Among the models, the rotating wormhole is very interesting to us, since Kerr black hole is the final stationary state of most black holes. The Kerr metric has many insights in black hole physics as the general black hole solution with angular momentum. Likewise, the rotating wormhole is stationary and axially symmetric generalization of the Morris-Thorne (MT) wormhole. The reason is that it may be the most general extension of MT wormhole. TeoT98  derived the rotating wormhole model from the generally axially symmetric spacetime and have shown an example with ergoregion and geodesics able to traverse wormhole without encountering any exotic matter.

Meanwhile, scalar wave solutions in the wormhole geometryKSB94 ; KMMS95  was in special wormhole model and the transmission and reflection coefficients were found. The electromagnetic wave in wormhole geometry is recently discussedBH00a  along the method of scalar field case. These wave equations in wormhole geometry draws attention to the research on radiation and wave.

In the recent paper, we found the general form of the gravitational perturbation of the traversable wormholeK04 , which will be a key to extend the wormhole physics into the problems similar to those relating to gravitational wave of black holes. The main idea and resultant equation is similar to Regge-Wheeler equationRW57  for black hole perturbation.

In this paper, we studied the rotating wormhole and examined a couple of models to see their properties and geometric structures. We also found the equation of the scalar perturbation for the special example, rigid rotating wormhole. Here we adopt the geometrical unit, i.e., $`G=c=\mathrm{}=1`$.

## II Rotating wormhole

The spacetime in which we are interested will be stationary and axially symmetric. The most general stationary and axisymmetric metric can be written as

$$ds^2=g_{tt}dt^2+2g_{t\varphi }dtd\varphi +g_{\varphi \varphi }d\varphi ^2+g_{ij}dx^idx^j,$$
(1)
where the indices $`i,j=1,2`$. TeoT98  used the freedom to cast the metric into spherical polar coordinates by setting $`g_{22}=g_{\varphi \varphi }/\mathrm{sin}^2x^2`$T71  and found the metric of the rotating wormhole as:

$`ds^2`$ $`=`$ $`N^2dt^2+e^\mu dr^2+r^2K^2d\theta ^2+r^2K^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [d\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }dt]^2`$
$`=`$ $`N^2dt^2+{\displaystyle \frac{dr^2}{1b(r)/r}}+r^2K^2d\theta ^2+r^2K^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [d\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }dt]^2,`$
where $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is the angular velocity $`d\varphi /dt`$ acquired by a particle that falls freely from infinity to the point $`(r,\theta )`$, and which gives rise to the well-known dragging of inertial frames or Lense-Thirring effect in general relativity. In general, $`N,b,K,\omega `$ are functions of both $`r`$ and $`\theta `$. $`K(r,\theta )`$ is a positive, nondecreasing function that detemines the “proper radial distance” $`R`$ measured at $`(r,\theta )`$ from the origin.

It is regular on the symmetry axis $`\theta =0,\pi `$ and two identical, asymptotically flat regions joined together at throat $`r=b`$. There are no event horizons or curvature singularities. The off-diagonal component of the stress-energy tensor is $`T_{t\varphi }`$ that is interpreted as the rotation of the matter distribution.

It clearly reduces to the MT metric in the limit of zero rotation and spherical symmetry:

$$N(r,\theta )e^{\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)},b(r,\theta )b(r),K(r,\theta )1,\omega (r,\theta )0.$$
(3)
We also require that the metric should be asymptotically flat, in which case

$$N1,\frac{b}{r}0,K1,\omega 0$$
(4)
as $`r\mathrm{}.`$ Thus, $`r`$ is asymptotically the proper radial distance. In particular, if

$$\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2a}{r^3}+O\left(\frac{1}{r^4}\right),$$
(5)
then by changing to Cartesian coordinates, it can be checked that $`a`$ is the total angular momentum of the wormhole.

Afterwards, the source of the rotating wormhole was considered by Bergliaffa and HibberdBH00b . They found the constraints on the Einstein tensor that arise from the matter used as a source of Einstein’s equation for a generally axially symmetric and stationary spacetime. The constraints are

$$G_{11}G_{22}=0,G_{12}=0,G_{03}^2=(G_{00}+G_{22})(G_{11}G_{33})$$
(6)
and

$$G_{00}+G_{33}2G_{03},\left(\frac{u_0}{u_3}\right)^2>1,$$
(7)
where $`u_\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the fluid model of the stress-energy tensor.

## III Examples of rotating wormhole

As the first example, TeoT98  took the gravitational potential of rotating wormhole metric to be

$$N=K=1+\frac{(4a\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2}{r},b=1,\omega =\frac{2a}{r^3}.$$
(8)
Note that $`a`$ is the angular momentum of the resulting wormhole. Proper radius $`R=1+(4a\mathrm{cos}\theta )^2`$ is at throat $`r=1`$ and the proper distance is

$$l=\pm [\sqrt{r(r1)}+\mathrm{ln}(\sqrt{r}+\sqrt{r1})].$$
(9)
If the rotation of the wormhole is sufficiently fast, $`g_{tt}`$ becomes positive in some region outside the throat, indicating the presence of an ergoregions where particles can no longer remain stationary with respect to infinity. This occurs when $`r^2=|2a\mathrm{sin}\theta |>1`$ when $`|a|>1/2`$. The ergoregions does not completely surround the throat, but forms a “tube” around the equatorial region instead of ergosphere in Kerr metric. The plot is in Figs. 1 and 2 which shows the cross-section of the throat and the ergoregion.

As the second example, we just think about the rigid rotating wormhole, i.e.,

$$N=K=1,b=\frac{b_0^2}{r},\mathrm{\Omega }=\text{const.}$$
(10)
such that the metric should be

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{1\frac{b(r)}{r}}+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta [d\varphi \mathrm{\Omega }dt]^2.$$
(11)
Without the angular velocity, the spacetime is just the simplest wormhole model used in former papersK00 ; KL01 ; KK98 . Here, the throat is $`r=b_0`$ and the shape of the throat is a sphere. In this case, the ergoregion is when $`r=1/|\mathrm{\Omega }\mathrm{sin}\theta |`$. When $`b_0\mathrm{\Omega }>1`$, the ergoregion is cut by throat as in Fig. 3, while the cylinder shape ergoregion cover the whole wormhole throat, when $`b_0\mathrm{\Omega }1`$.

When the angular velocity is the same as first example, i.e., $`\mathrm{\Omega }=2a/r^3`$ and when $`r>b_0`$, the ergoregion is tube type for large angular momentum as shown in Fig. 4. It is similar to Fig. 2.

## IV Perturbation of the wormhole

### IV.1 Scalar perturbation of non-rotating wormhole

The spacetime metric for static uncharged wormhole is given as

$$ds^2=e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)}dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{1b(r)/r}+r^2(d\theta ^2+\mathrm{sin}^2\theta d\varphi ^2),$$
(12)
where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }(r)`$ is the lapse function and $`b(r)`$ is the wormhole shape function. They are assumed to be dependent on $`r`$ only for static case.

The wave equation of the minimally coupled massless scalar field is given by

$$^\mu _\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu (\sqrt{g}g^{\mu \nu }_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })=0.$$
(13)
In spherically symmetric space-time, the scalar field can be separated by variables,

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_{lm}=Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )\frac{u_l(r,t)}{r},$$
(14)
where $`Y_{lm}(\theta ,\varphi )`$ is the spherical harmonics and $`l`$ is the quantum angular momentum.

If the time dependence of the wave is harmonic as $`u_l(r,t)=\widehat{u}_l(r,\omega )e^{i\omega t}`$, the equation becomes

$$\left(\frac{d^2}{dr_{}^2}+\omega ^2V_l(r)\right)\widehat{u}_l(r,\omega )=0,$$
(15)
where the potential is

$`V_l(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{L^2}{r^2}}e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}}{\displaystyle \frac{}{r}}\left(e^\mathrm{\Lambda }\sqrt{1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}}\right)`$
$`=`$ $`e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}\left[{\displaystyle \frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}}{\displaystyle \frac{b^{}rb}{2r^3}}+{\displaystyle \frac{1}{r}}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{b}{r}}\right)\mathrm{\Lambda }^{}\right]`$
and the proper distance $`r_{}`$ has the following relation to $`r`$:

$$\frac{}{r_{}}=e^\mathrm{\Lambda }r^2\sqrt{1\frac{b}{r}}\frac{}{r}.$$
(17)
Here, $`L^2=l(l+1)`$ is the square of the angular momentum. It is just the Schrödinger equation with energy $`\omega ^2`$ and potential $`V_l(r)`$. When $`e^{2\mathrm{\Lambda }}`$ is finite, $`V_l`$ approaches zero as $`r\mathrm{}`$, which means that the solution has the form of the plane wave $`\widehat{u}_le^{\pm i\omega r_{}}`$ asymptotically.

As the simplest example for this problem, we consider the special case $`(\mathrm{\Lambda }=0,b=b_0^2/r)`$ as usual, the potential should be

$$V_l=\frac{l(l+1)}{r^2}+\frac{b_0^2}{r^4},$$
(18)
where the proper distance $`r_{}`$ is given by

$$r_{}=\frac{1}{\sqrt{1b_0^2/r^2}}𝑑r=\sqrt{r^2b_0^2}.$$
(19)
### IV.2 Scalar perturbation of rotating wormhole

For the rotating case, we also only think the scalar field case in this paper. By using $`\sqrt{g}=r^2K^2NL\mathrm{sin}\theta `$, where $`L^2=1/(1b/r)`$, the scalar wave equation becomes

$$_\mu ^\mu \mathrm{\Phi }=\frac{1}{\sqrt{g}}_\mu (g^{\mu \nu }\sqrt{g}_\nu \mathrm{\Phi })=0.$$
(20)
In this case we try to separate variables with $`\mathrm{\Phi }=R(r)\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )e^{im\varphi }e^{i\omega t}`$. Then the wave equation in spacetime of metric eq. (II) becomes

$$\frac{\omega ^2}{N^2}+\frac{2\mathrm{\Omega }}{N^2}\omega mm^2\left(\frac{1}{r^2K^2\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{N^2}\right)+\frac{1}{r^2K^2NL}\frac{1}{R}\frac{d}{dr}\left(\frac{r^2K^2N}{L}\frac{d}{dr}\right)R+\frac{1}{r^2K^2NL\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{1}{\mathrm{\Theta }}\frac{d}{d\theta }\left(NL\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{d}{d\theta }\right)\mathrm{\Theta }=0.$$
(21)
It is very hard to separate variables, when $`N,K,L`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ are function of $`r`$ and $`\theta `$.

To make the problem simple, we adapt the toy model as $`N=K=1,b(r)=\frac{b_0^2}{r}`$, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$ such that the metric of the model spacetime is eq. (11)

$$ds^2=dt^2+\frac{dr^2}{1\frac{b(r)}{r}}+r^2d\theta ^2+r^2\mathrm{sin}\theta [d\varphi ^2\mathrm{\Omega }(r)dt]^2$$
(22)
This is the just the rigid rotation of the simplest model when $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ is constant. This model means that the wormhole does not change its shape under rotation with angular velocity $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$. In both cases of constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ and $`r`$-dependent $`\mathrm{\Omega }(r)`$, the wave equation can be simply separated as

$$\frac{1}{\mathrm{sin}\theta }\frac{d}{d\theta }\left(\mathrm{sin}\theta \frac{d}{d\theta }\right)\mathrm{\Theta }\left(\frac{m^2}{\mathrm{sin}^2\theta }\lambda _{lm}\right)\mathrm{\Theta }=0$$
(23)
and

$$\frac{d^2u}{dr_{}^2}+V_l(\omega ,m,r,\mathrm{\Omega })u=0,$$
(24)
where $`R(r)=\frac{u(r)}{r}.`$ The proper distance $`r_{}`$ is defined as

$$\frac{d}{dr_{}}=\sqrt{1\frac{b(r)}{r}}\frac{d}{dr}$$
(25)
which is the same as the ron-rotating caseK00 . The potential is

$$V_l=(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }m)^2\frac{\lambda _{lm}}{r^2}\frac{2b_0^2}{r^4}.$$
(26)
The separation constant $`\lambda _{lm}`$ becomes $`l(l+1)`$ in the limit of $`\omega =0`$. The solution to $`\mathrm{\Theta }(\theta )=S_{ml}(\theta ,0)`$ that is a spheroidal wave function in this case becomes the spherical harmonics when $`\omega \mathrm{\Omega }=0`$.

When $`r\mathrm{}`$ in constant $`\mathrm{\Omega }`$ case, the equation becomes

$$\frac{d^2u}{dr_{}^2}+(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }m)^2u0$$
(27)
which means

$$ue^{\pm i(\omega +\mathrm{\Omega }m)r_{}}.$$
(28)
When $`\mathrm{\Omega }=\frac{2a}{r^3}`$, the equation in the limit of large $`r`$ becomes

$$\frac{d^2u}{dr_{}^2}+\omega ^2u0$$
(29)
and the solutions are

$$ue^{\pm i\omega r_{}}.$$
(30)
They are same asymptotic solutions as those of non-rotating wormhole.

## V Discussion

We examined the rotating wormhole and found the Schrödinger type equation for scalar perturbation in special model of rotating wormhole. The result will be useful for considering the gravitational wave problem by the wormhole and exotic matter. Later, we will extend the problem into the gravitational perturbation like the non-rotating caseK04  to see the more realistic situations.

###### Acknowledgements.

This work was supported by grant No. R01-2000-000-00015-0 from the Korea Science and Engineering Foundation.


format: text

text:
# References and links

## 1 Introduction

In their basic form photonic crystal fibers (PCF) typically consist of fused silica with an arrangement of air-holes running along the full length of the fiber (for a recent review we refer the reader to Ref.  and references therein). Traditionally, triangular  or honeycomb  cladding arrangements of the air-holes have been considered with the core defect formed by removing or adding an additional air-hole in the lattice, respectively. This is of course the most obvious way to form a defect in a regular lattice. However, for the honeycomb lattice (see Fig. 1) there is at least one alternative approach which involves additional use of index-altering dopants. Recently, Lægsgaard and Bjarklev  suggested how a low-index band-gap guiding core could be formed in a germanium doped honeycomb lattice by absence of doping in the core region. Here, we suggest doping by fluorine which results in an index-guiding core. Fluorine-doped PCFs have previously been considered by Mangan et al.  who fabricated a triangular air-hole cladding PCF with a fluorine-doped silica core region. At sufficiently short wavelengths the core index is lower than the effective index of the cladding and the PCF is anti-guiding, but as the wavelength is increased the effective index of the cladding decreases and eventually becomes lower than the core index so that light is guided in the core region. In the present work we use fluorine doping to form a novel large-mode area PCF and the proposed fiber structure may be an alternative to existing large-mode area designs employing a triangular air-hole arrangement in the cladding .

## 2 Fiber design and fabrication

We consider the structure in Fig. 1 where fluorine doped regions (of diameter $`d_f`$) are incorporated in a honeycomb lattice of air-holes (of diameter $`d`$ and nearest-neighbor spacing $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$). The core region is formed by the absence of doping in the central region of the structure. At sufficiently short wavelengths the cladding states will avoid the fluorine-doped regions and the effective cladding index will in some sense resemble that for a triangular arrangement of holes whereas at longer wavelengths the field averages over the fluorine-doped and pure silica regions so that the effective index resembles that of a honeycomb lattice (with a slightly down-shifted background index). The defect region has six-fold rotational symmetry and thus supports a doubly degenerate fundamental mode .

We have fabricated the proposed fiber by the stack-and-pull method  with hexagonal stacking of fluorine-doped rods (step-index like doping profile) and fused silica tubes and rods. The inset in Fig. 2 shows an optical micrograph of a typical fiber cross section. The fiber has an outer diameter of $`175\mu \mathrm{m}`$ in order to reduce micro-bending deformations at short wavelengths  and it is coated with a standard single layer acrylate coating. The fluorine-doped regions are of diameter $`d_f/\mathrm{\Lambda }0.7`$ with an index $`n_f`$ suppressed by $`\delta n5\times 10^3`$ relative to the index $`n_s`$ of silica. The pitch is $`\mathrm{\Lambda }10.1\mu \mathrm{m}`$ and the relative air-hole diameter is $`d/\mathrm{\Lambda }=0.64`$.

## 3 Fiber characterization

To facilitate coupling of light to the core region a SMF28 was spliced to 200 m of the PCF. The spectral attenuation was measured by the cut-back technique using a white-light source and an optical spectrum analyzer. Fig. 2 shows the spectral attenuation of the PCF. Data from OTDR measurements at $`\lambda =1319\mathrm{nm}`$ and 1550 nm are also included and good agreement with the cut-back data is observed. Cut-back transmission experiments on a short length of PCF have revealed no signatures of high-order modes.

The fiber has a low loss regime at short wavelengths and a regime with high loss above 1000 nm extending to the O-H absorption peak. In order to further analyze the modal properties we have studied the mode-spacing which can be derived from micro-deformation measurements. For a detailed description of the method and the interpretation of experimental data we refer the reader to Ref.  and references therein. Fig. 3 shows loss spectra (right axis) for various periodic micro-deformations and the derived mode-spacings, $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ are also included (left axis). The figure also includes numerical data calculated with the finite-element method incorporating perfectly matched layers , see Fig. 1. In agreement with the experimental observations, our simulations also suggest that the PCF is broad-band single mode  in the sense that high-order modes have a negligible spacing ($`10^4`$) to cladding modes.

In order to understand the spacing between guided modes and cladding modes we apply first-order perturbation theory to the guided modes. Treating the absence of fluorine-doping in the core as a perturbation, $`\delta \epsilon =n_s^2n_f^22n_s\delta n`$, we may estimate the shift $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ in mode-index with respect to the cladding modes. From standard perturbation theory (see e.g. Ref. ) we get

$$\mathrm{\Delta }n=\frac{c}{2v_g}\frac{<𝑬\left|\delta \epsilon \right|𝑬>}{<𝑬\left|\epsilon \right|𝑬>}\frac{cn_s}{v_g}\frac{<𝑬\left|\delta n\right|𝑬>}{<𝑬\left|\epsilon \right|𝑬>}$$
(1)
where $`c`$ is the velocity of light, $`𝑬`$ is the unperturbed electrical field, and $`v_g`$ is the group velocity. For a high-order mode the field-intensity is strongly suppressed at the center of the core region  and since $`d_f/\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is not too large the mode has a very small overlap with the region where fluorine is absent. This results in a negligible increase in effective index $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ with respect to the cladding modes. In other words, localization in the core is no big energetic advantage for the high-order modes. For the fundamental mode the situation is opposite since it has a large field-intensity at the center of the core and indeed we find a mode-spacing $`\mathrm{\Delta }n`$ comparable to $`\delta n`$.

The mode-spacing picture in Fig. 3 suggests that the overall loss has little relation to bending-induced scattering loss (we have also verified this by changing the bending radius $`R`$) and since confinement loss can be excluded (we have verified this numerically) it is likely that the overall high background originates from various contamination added during the stack-and-pull fabrication process. We believe that the background loss level can be lowered similarly to the recent achievements in triangular cladding large-mode area PCFs .

## 4 Conclusion

We have studied a new approach to the formation of a core defect in the honeycomb structure by fluorine-doped regions added to the cladding. At sufficiently short wavelengths the cladding states will avoid the fluorine-doped regions and the effective cladding index will in some sense resemble that for a triangular arrangement and light will be confined to the core region where fluorine-doping is absent.

We believe that hybrid cladding designs could be an interesting direction which allows a higher degree of modal/dispersion engineering and the particular structure studied in this paper could also be interesting for photonic band-gap fiber devices employing liquid crystals .

## Acknowledgments

N. A. Mortensen thanks J. Lægsgaard (COM, Technical University of Denmark) for stimulating discussions and L. Gregersen (Comsol A/S) for technical support. M. D. Nielsen acknowledges financial support by the Danish Academy of Technical Sciences.


text:
# Constraining Alternate Models of Black Holes: Type I X-ray Bursts on Accreting Fermion-Fermion and Boson-Fermion Stars

## 1 Introduction

Eighteen excellent black hole candidates have been discovered so far in X-ray binaries (XRBs, McClintock & Remillard 2003). The compact stars in these binaries have masses that exceed the maximum mass of a neutron star (Glendenning 2000); therefore, it is generally assumed that they must be black holes. The mass measurements certainly provide a strong argument for considering the objects to be black holes. However, it would be prudent to keep an open mind on this matter and to consider the possibility that the objects may be some kind of exotic stars that are composed of an as-yet unidentified form of exotic material. Until such a model is ruled out, the objects must be treated only as black hole candidates (BHCs), not true black holes.

Glendenning (2000) has discussed a number of forms of exotic matter that might be present in compact stars, and describes models made up of these kinds of matter. All of the models have a maximum mass that is well under $`3M_{}`$. The models are, therefore, not relevant for BHCs in XRBs. There are other forms of compact stars, however, e.g. Q-stars (Miller, Shahbaz & Nolan 1998, and references therein), that are in principle consistent with the observed objects. Can one show that such objects are ruled out? One way to do this is to demonstrate that BHCs do not have hard surfaces. If we could show this, then the objects must have event horizons and must, therefore, be black holes. Beginning with the work of Narayan, Garcia & McClintock (1997, 2002) and Garcia et al. (2001), a number of studies have attempted to prove this result (e.g., Sunyaev & Revnivtsev 2000; Narayan & Heyl 2002; Done & Gierlinsky 2003). We are concerned in this paper with the work of Narayan & Heyl (2002), who argued that BHCs should exhibit Type I X-ray bursts if they have surfaces. We give an update on that work in §4 of this paper and show that the calculations rule out models of BHCs in which the objects have a hard surface on which accreting gas can collect.

This still leaves open the possibility that BHCs may be made up of some kind of exotic dark matter with which normal gas does not interact. That is, the dark matter may be “porous” and permit accreting gas to fall through and to collect at the center. The dark matter and the fermionic gas would then behave as two independent fluids that interact only via gravity. Such models have been discussed in the literature, both for fermionic dark matter and bosonic dark matter (Lee & Pang 1987; Zhang 1988; Henriques et al. 1989, 1990a,b; Jin & Zhang 1989, 1999). We refer to these objects as fermion-fermion stars and boson-fermion stars, respectively, where the first half of the name refers to the nature of the dark matter, and the second “fermion” in each name corresponds to the nucleonic gas component. If BHCs consist of either fermion-fermion or boson-fermion stars, would they have Type I bursts when they accrete gas from a normal binary companion star? We attempt to answer this question.

We describe in §§2,3 models of fermion-fermion and boson-fermion stars consisting of $`10M_{}`$ of dark matter and various amounts of gas mass $`M^g`$. We calculate how relevant properties of the gas sphere, such as the radius, surface gravity, redshift, etc., vary as a function of $`M^g`$. Then, in §4, we describe the bursting properties of these models. We conclude in §5 with a discussion of the results. Appendix A relates the accretion efficiency of a fermion-fermion star to the redshift at the surface of the gas sphere.

## 2 Fermion-Fermion Stars

We consider a spherically-symmetric fermion-fermion star consisting of dark non-interacting fermions plus ordinary gas. We assume that the fermion particles have a mass $`m_f`$ and that the star has a total of $`N^f`$ fermions, corresponding to a dark “baryonic mass” of $`M^f=N^fm_f`$. The ordinary gas component has a baryonic mass $`M^g=N^gm_n`$, where $`m_n=936`$ MeV is the average mass of a nucleon, assuming the initial accreted gas contains 70% Hydrogen and 30% Helium and other elements (Narayan & Heyl 2003). The gravitational mass of the combined star is $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}`$.

We solve for the equilibrium structure of the fermion-fermion star using the field equations of General Relativity. In Schwarzschild coordinates, the line element of a spherically symmetric, time-independent spacetime can be written as

$$ds^2=B(r)dt^2+A(r)dr^2+r^2d\mathrm{\Omega }^2,$$
(1)
where $`A(r)1/(12GM(r)/r)`$, $`G`$ is the gravitational constant, and $`M(r)`$ is the gravitational mass enclosed within radius $`r`$. For an asymptotically flat spacetime, we have $`A(\mathrm{})1`$ and $`B(\mathrm{})1`$. For the specific case of the well-known Schwarzschild metric, $`B(r)=1/A(r)=(12GM_{\mathrm{grav}}/r)`$, where $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ is the total gravitational mass. Since our fermion-fermion star has a spatially distributed mass, we employ the more general metric written in equation (1).

The metric functions $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ are determined by the Einstein field equations,

$$R_{\mu \nu }\frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }R=8\pi G[T_{\mu \nu }^f+T_{\mu \nu }^g],$$
(2)
where $`T_{\mu \nu }^f`$ is the energy-momentum tensor of the fermions and $`T_{\mu \nu }^g`$ is that of the normal nuclear matter. We treat both the dark fermions and the gas as perfect fluids,

$$T_{\mu \nu }^i(\rho ^i,p^i)=(\rho ^i+p^i)U_\mu U_\nu +g_{\mu \nu }p^i,(i=f,g),$$
(3)
where $`U_\mu `$ is the four-velocity of the fluid. From equations (1) and (3), we have the following structure equations, which are an obvious generalization of the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations for the case of a single fluid,

$`A^{^{}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi GrA^2(r)[\rho ^f(r)+\rho ^g(r)]{\displaystyle \frac{A(r)}{r}}[A(r)1],`$ (4)
$`B^{^{}}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`8\pi GrA(r)B(r)[p^f(r)+p^g(r)]+{\displaystyle \frac{B(r)}{r}}[A(r)1],`$ (5)
$`p^f^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{^{}}(r)}{B(r)}}[\rho ^f(r)+p^f(r)],`$ (6)
$`p^g^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{^{}}(r)}{B(r)}}[\rho ^g(r)+p^g(r)],`$ (7)
$`N^f^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi r^2\sqrt{A(r)}n^f(r),`$ (8)
$`N^g^{}(r)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi r^2\sqrt{A(r)}n^g(r),`$ (9)
where primes denote derivatives with respect to radius $`r`$, $`\rho ^f(r)`$ and $`\rho ^g(r)`$ are the proper mass densities of the fermions and the gas, $`p^f(r)`$ and $`p^g(r)`$ are the corresponding pressures, and $`N^f(r)`$ and $`N^g(r)`$ are the total numbers of fermions and gas nucleons enclosed within radius $`r`$.

The boundary conditions are as follows,

$$A(0)=1,B(0)=b_0,p^f(0)=p_c^f,p^g(0)=p_c^g,N^f(0)=0,N^g(0)=0,$$
(10)
where $`p_c^f`$ and $`p_c^g`$ are the central pressures of the fermion fluid and the gas, respectively. Because the equations are linear in $`B(r)`$, $`b_0`$ can be assigned an arbitrary value and later rescaled so as to satisfy the asymptotic flatness condition, $`B(\mathrm{})=1`$. The two central pressures are free parameters that are determined by applying boundary conditions at large $`r`$ on the total baryonic masses of the two fluids.

In order to solve the above coupled equations, we need to know the equations of state of the fermions and the gas,

$`\rho ^i=\rho ^i(n^i),`$ (11)
$`p^i=p^i(n^i),`$ (12)
where $`n^i`$ is the number density of particles of type $`i`$ ($`=f,g`$). For simplicity, we treat the dark fermions as a non-interacting gas whose equation of state (EOS) may be written in parametric form (see Chandrasekhar 1935; Oppenheimer & Volkoff 1939),

$`\rho `$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^4}{32\pi ^2}}(\mathrm{sinh}tt),`$ (13)
$`p`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{3}}{\displaystyle \frac{m_f^4}{32\pi ^2}}(\mathrm{sinh}t8\mathrm{sinh}(t/2)+3t),`$ (14)
where the parameter $`t`$ is defined by

$$t=4\mathrm{log}\left\{\frac{p_F}{m_f}+\left[1+\left(\frac{p_F}{m_f}\right)^2\right]^{1/2}\right\},$$
(15)
and $`p_F`$ is the Fermi momentum. The number density of fermions is

$$n^f=\frac{p_F^3}{3\pi ^2}.$$
(16)
For the normal gas component, we use the FPS equation of state (EOS, Lorenz, Ravenhall & Pethick 1993) when the density is below the nuclear density $`\rho _{\mathrm{nuc}}`$, matching it smoothly to the relativistic mean field theory (RMFT) EOS at higher density, taking the so-called GM1 set of the coupling constants (Glendenning & Moszkowski 1991). In practice, the maximum central density of the gas in the models is below $`2\rho _{\text{nuc}}`$, so different sets of the coupling constants give almost the same results.

Starting from $`r=0`$, the equations for the fermion pressure and fermion number are integrated out until the pressure goes to zero. The radius at which this happens is identified as the surface of the fermion star. So too for the gas. In calculating the fermion-fermion models, we first assumed that we have a pure dark fermion star with no gas. We adjusted the central pressure $`p^f(0)`$ of this model such that the asymptotic gravitational mass $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}^f(r\mathrm{})`$ is equal to $`10M_{}`$. We selected the mass of the fermion particles to be 223 MeV. For this choice of mass, the maximum mass of a pure fermion star is $`12.61M_{}`$. A pure fermion star with a mass of $`10M_{}`$ made of these particles is fairly compact: $`R_f=252`$ km, $`R_f/R_S=8.56`$ in Schwarzschild units. Therefore, the model is interesting as a possible description of a black hole candidate in an X-ray binary. Figure 1 shows the metric quantities $`A(r)`$ and $`B(r)`$ as functions of radius for this model.

We then added different amounts of gas to the above model, from baryonic mass $`M^g=10^6M_{}`$ upto the maximum allowed mass beyond which the object becomes a black hole, and calculated the structure of the combined fermion-fermion star. In each model, we adjusted the central pressures $`p^f`$ and $`p^g`$ such that the total number of dark fermions is equal to the same $`N^f`$ obtained for the pure fermion model, and the baryonic mass of the gas is equal to the desired value. Figure 1 shows the results for the specific case when the baryonic mass of the gas is equal to $`0.7M_{}`$. Note that the gas sphere is very much more compact than the fermion sphere in which it is embedded. This is the case for all the models we have calculated.

For each choice of the baryonic mass of the gas $`M^g`$, we obtained the radius $`R_g`$ of the gas component (the radius at which the gas pressure vanishes), the surface gravitational acceleration $`g`$, and the redshift at the gas surface $`z`$. The redshift $`z(r)`$ at radius $`r`$ is defined as

$$z(r)\frac{1}{\sqrt{B(r)}}1.$$
(17)
For $`g`$, we rewrite equations (6) and (26) in the following form,

$$\frac{dp^g}{d\mathrm{\Sigma }}=\frac{1}{2}\frac{B^{^{}}(r)}{B(r)}\frac{1}{\sqrt{A(r)}}\left(1+\frac{p^g}{\rho ^g}\right)g,$$
(18)
which defines the effective gravitational acceleration. At the surface of the accreted gas, particles are nonrelativistic, thus $`p^g/\rho ^g1`$. The quantity $`\mathrm{\Sigma }`$ in equation (18) is the surface mass density which is defined by $`d\mathrm{\Sigma }(r)=\rho ^g(r)\sqrt{A(r)}dr`$. We also calculated an effective accretion efficiency $`\eta L_{\mathrm{acc}}/\dot{M}c^2`$, which measures the fraction of the rest mass energy of accreting matter that is released when gas accretes on the fermion-fermion star. This is obtained in terms of the gravitational mass of the star as follows:

$$\eta =1\frac{dM_{\mathrm{grav}}}{dM^g}.$$
(19)
We show in Appendix A that $`\eta `$ is given very simply in terms of the redshift at the surface of the gas sphere. The relation we derive is a relativistic generalization for a two-fluid system of a Newtonian result obtained by Rosenbluth et al. (1973).

Figure 2 shows the results of the calculations. The four panels show the variations of the radius of the gas sphere, the gravitational acceleration at its surface, the redshift, and the accretion efficiency, as functions of the gas baryonic mass. With increasing gas mass, the radius of the gas sphere decreases, the gravitational acceleration increases, and the redshift and accretion efficiency increase. The wiggle in the curves at small masses corresponds to a switch between two solution branches. Note that the maximum mass in this sequence of models is $`0.782M_{}`$; beyond this mass, the object collapses to a black hole.

## 3 Boson-Fermion Stars

Boson stars are macroscopic quantum states resulting from the self-gravitational equilibrium of boson fields (see the reviews by Jetzer 1992; Lee 1992; Liddle & Madsen 1992; Mielke & Schunke 1998; Schunke & Mielke 2003). There is no concept of an equation of state for these systems, as they are pure quantum systems that are held up against gravitational collapse by the Heisenberg uncertainty principle. The pioneering studies in this field were done by Kaup (1968) and Ruffini & Bonazzola (1969). The main findings in these two seminal works are that (i) the mass of a boson star is of the order of $`M_{\text{Pl}}^2/m_b`$, and (ii) its characteristic size is of the order of the de Broglie wavelength of bosons $`1/m_b`$, where $`m_b`$ is the mass of the boson particle and $`M_{\text{Pl}}`$ is the Planck mass. Colpi, Shapiro & Wasserman (1986) introduced the idea of self-interaction of the scalar particles and found that self-interacting boson stars have masses of the order of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}M_{\text{Pl}}^2/m_b`$, where $`\mathrm{\Lambda }`$ is a dimensionless quantity which characterizes the strength of the self interactions. For $`\mathrm{\Lambda }^{1/2}1`$, this scaling breaks down, and the mass is instead $`M_{\text{Pl}}^3/m^2`$, which is similar to the result for fermion stars.

Boson stars have several interesting/unique characteristics, including their transparency to photons and baryonic matter, their ability to be non-singular even for masses larger than the maximum mass of neutron stars (hence the interest in these objects as a model of BHCs), and the presence of a different metric than the Schwarzschild metric. Various authors have discussed observational consequences of boson star, such as the Čerenkov effect, gravitational lensing, the rotation curves of accreted matter, and the gravitational redshift of the radiation emitted within the effective radius of boson stars (Schunk & Mielke 2003). Also, the possibility of supermassive nonbaryonic stars (boson stars or neutrino balls) insteading of supermassive black holes existing in the nuclei of galaxies has attracted attention (Schunk & Liddle 1997, 1998; Torres, Capozziello & Lambiase 2000; Tsiklauri & Viollier 1998). It has been argued that the line profile of an emission line from an accretion disk around a supermassive boson star may have signatures that might help to identify the existence of boson stars (Lu & Torres 2003).

The observational signatures of boson stars in X-ray binaries with BHCs has not been discussed very much in the literature. We show in this paper that such stars will produce Type I X-ray bursts with clear signatures.

Henriques (1989, 1990a,b) considered the possibility of compact stars that contain both bosons and fermions and wrote down the structural equations for such objects. We borrow from their analysis in what follows. We analyse a boson-fermion star that consists of dark bosons plus ordinary fermionic gas. As in the case of the fermion-fermion star, we write the number of bosons as $`N^b`$ and the baryonic mass of the bosons as $`M^b=N^bm_b`$.

The energy-momentum tensor for bosons is completely different from that of fermions. For a massive self-interacting scalar field, the Lagrangian reads (Colpi et al. 1986)

$$L=\frac{1}{2}g^{\mu \nu }D_\mu \varphi D_\nu \varphi \frac{1}{2}m_b^2\varphi ^2\frac{1}{4}\lambda \varphi ^4,$$
(20)
where $`\lambda `$ is the self-interaction coupling constant. According to Noether’s theorem, the energy-momentum tensor can be written as

$$T_{\mu \nu }^b(\varphi )=D_\mu \varphi D_\nu \varphi \frac{1}{2}g_{\mu \nu }(g^{\rho \sigma }D_\rho \varphi D_\sigma \varphi +m_b^2\varphi ^2+\frac{1}{2}\lambda \varphi ^4).$$
(21)
In order to solve the Einstein equations, it is reasonable to assume that

$$\varphi (r,t)=\mathrm{\Phi }(r)e^{i\omega t},$$
(22)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }(r)`$ is a real function. The structure equations can then be obtained from the Einstein equations (Henriques 1989),

$`A^{^{}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`xA^2(x)\left[2\overline{\rho }^g(x)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B(x)}}+1\right)\sigma ^2+{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{^{}}}{A(x)}}\right]{\displaystyle \frac{A(x)}{x}}[A(x)1],`$ (23)
$`B^{^{}}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`xA(x)B(x)\left[2\overline{p}^g(x)+\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B(x)}}1\right)\sigma ^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Lambda }}{2}}\sigma ^4+{\displaystyle \frac{\sigma ^{^{}}}{A(x)}}\right]+{\displaystyle \frac{B(x)}{x}}[A(x)1],`$ (24)
$`\sigma ^{^{\prime \prime }}`$ $`=`$ $`\left({\displaystyle \frac{2}{x}}+{\displaystyle \frac{B^{^{}}(x)}{2B(x)}}{\displaystyle \frac{A^{^{}}(x)}{2A(x)}}\right)\sigma ^{^{}}A\left[\left({\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }^2}{B(x)}}1\right)\sigma \mathrm{\Lambda }\sigma ^3\right],`$ (25)
$`\overline{p}^g^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{2}}{\displaystyle \frac{B^{^{}}(x)}{B(x)}}[\overline{\rho }^g(x)+\overline{p}^g(x)],`$ (26)
$`N^b^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{G}}x^2{\displaystyle \frac{\mathrm{\Omega }}{\sqrt{B(r)}}}\sqrt{A(x)}\sigma ^2,`$ (27)
$`N^g^{}(x)`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi x^2\sqrt{A(x)}\overline{n}^g(x),`$ (28)
where all physical quantities have been redefined in dimensionless form,

$`x`$ $`=`$ $`m_br,\sigma =\sqrt{4\pi G}\mathrm{\Phi },\mathrm{\Omega }=\omega /m_b,\mathrm{\Lambda }=\lambda /(4\pi Gm_b^2),`$
$`\overline{\rho }`$ $`=`$ $`4\pi G\rho /m_b^2,\overline{p}=4\pi Gp/m_b^2,\overline{n}^g=n^gm_b^3.`$ (29)
The boundary conditions are as follows,

$`A(0)`$ $`=`$ $`1,B(0)=b_0,\sigma (0)=\sigma _0,\sigma ^{^{}}(0)=0,`$
$`p^g(0)`$ $`=`$ $`p_c^g,N^b(0)=0,N^g(0)=0,\mathrm{\Omega }^2(0)/b_0=c_0.`$ (30)
In addition, the total gravitational mass $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ is given by the asymptotic value of $`A`$ at large $`r`$: $`A(\mathrm{})(1GM_{\mathrm{grav}}/r)^1`$. As in the case of the fermion-fermion star, the equations are linear in $`b_0`$. Hence, this parameter may be given any value and normalized after the calculations have been done so as to achieve $`B(\mathrm{})=1`$. Because the differential equation in $`\sigma `$ is second-order, we require two boundary conditions, one on $`\sigma `$ and another on $`\sigma ^{^{}}`$. As in the case of the fermion star, two parameters, namely $`\sigma _0`$ and $`p_c^g`$, are determined by requiring the total boson and gas masses to equal specified values. In addition, there is an extra parameter $`c_0`$ which behaves like an eigenvalue. This parameter is adjusted so as to obtain a wave-function $`\sigma `$ that is both nodeless and behaves regularly at infinity, i.e., $`\sigma `$ should remain positive for all $`x`$ and should asymptote smoothly to 0 as $`x\mathrm{}`$. (If $`c_0`$ has the wrong value, $`\sigma `$ either crosses 0 and goes negative at a finite radius, or diverges as $`x\mathrm{}`$.)

As in the case of the hybrid fermion star, we first solve for a pure boson star that has a gravitational mass of $`10M_{}`$. We selected a boson particle mass of $`m_b=2.4\times 10^{17}`$ MeV and a coupling constant of $`\mathrm{\Lambda }=100`$. For these parameters, the maximum mass of a pure boson star is $`12.57M_{}`$. Figure 1 shows the variations of $`A(R)`$ and $`B(R)`$ with $`R`$ for the pure boson star. The object does not have a precise surface since the wave-function extends to infinity. If we define the radius as the value of $`r`$ at which 99.9% of the mass is enclosed, then the radius is 153.3 km.

Having solved for the structure of the pure boson star, we then added various amounts of gas from $`10^6M_{}`$ up to the maximum allowed mass of $`0.863M_{}`$ (above which the object becomes a black hole) and solved for the structure of the combined boson-fermion star. Figure 1 shows the solution for the metric functions when $`M^g=0.7M_{}`$. Note that, even though the boson component does not have a precise surface, the gas component behaves like a fermion object and does have a surface at which the pressure goes to zero. The radius of this surface, the surface gravitational acceleration, the redshift and the accretion efficiency are shown as functions of $`M^g`$ in Fig. 3.

## 4 Type I X-ray Bursts in Black Hole Candidates

If black hole candidates (BHCs) in X-ray binaries are not true black holes with event horizons, then they must have surfaces of some kind. As discussed in §1, we may consider two general classes of models. In one class of models, BHCs are made of exotic matter and have a hard surface at some radius $`R_{\mathrm{BHC}}`$. When gas accretes on such a star, it is arrested at the surface and piles up as a layer of normal matter. Narayan & Heyl (2002) showed that the accreting layer will generally produce Type I X-ray bursts.

Type I bursts in accreting neutron stars were originally discovered by Grindlay et al. (1976) and have been studied intensively for many years (see Lewin, van Paradijs & Taam 1993 for a review of the observations, and Bildsten 1998 for a discussion of the physics). When gas accretes and accumulates on a compact star and is compressed by the strong gravity, thermonuclear reactions are ignited in the gas. In many cases (but not all, see Narayan 2003) the nuclear reactions are unstable and all the accumulated nuclear fuel is burned explosively within a short time. The result is a flash of thermal X-ray emission from the surface of the star, which is called a Type I X-ray burst. The theory of these bursts has been developed by a number of authors, e.g., Hansen & van Horn (1975), Woosley & Taam (1976), Joss (1977), Fujimoto, Hanawa & Miyaji (1981), Paczyński (1983), Fushiki & Lamb (1987), Taam et al. (1993), Cumming & Bildsten (2000), Zingale et al. (2001), Narayan & Heyl (2003). The work described here is based on the method developed by Narayan & Heyl (2003), which has some advantages over the earlier work.

Figure 4 shows the results for the case of a $`10M_{}`$ BHC with an interior temperature of $`10^{7.5}`$ K (a reasonable choice, see Narayan & Heyl 2002). We consider different choices for the radius $`R_{\mathrm{BHC}}`$ of the black hole candidate, from $`R_{\mathrm{BHC}}=(9/8)R_S`$, the smallest allowed value for a model in which there is no density inversion with increasing radius (Weinberg 1972), up to $`R_{\mathrm{BHC}}3R_S`$, where $`R_S`$ is the Schwarzschild radius corresponding to the mass of the BHC. We have considered a range of mass accretion rates and determined whether or not the system will have bursts. The solid dots in Fig. 4 indicate regions of the parameter space where the system will produce bursts, and the empty regions indicate regions where the accreting gas burns steadily without producing bursts. It is clear that in this model bursts are very common over a wide range of accretion rates.

Figure 5 shows the expected recurrence times of bursts and the likely durations of bursts (assuming the maximum luminosity during a burst is equal to the Eddington luminosity) for a typical model with $`R_{\mathrm{BHC}}=2R_S`$. It is clear that for a range of accretion rates from a tenth of Eddington upto almost the Eddington rate, bursts occur reasonably frequently and have substantial fluences. These bursts would be hard to miss. The fact that no bursts have been seen from any BHC system in this accretion luminosity range is thus significant and argues against such a model for BHCs (Narayan & Heyl 2002). For accretion rates below a tenth Eddington, the systems are still unstable (see Fig. 4), but the bursts are relatively rare (and have correspondingly very large fluences). The rarity of the bursts means that this region of parameter space may be less useful for setting constraints on models.

Another possibility for BHCs is the case we have focused on in this paper, namely that the objects are fermion-fermion or boson-fermion stars in which the gas collects as a compact sphere at the center of a dark fermion or boson sphere. Will such objects have Type I bursts when they accrete? To answer this question, we have redone the burst calculations using the models described in §§2,3. The quantities required for the burst calculations are the ones shown in Figs. 2, 3, namely the radius of the gas sphere $`R_g`$, the surface gravity $`g`$, the redshift $`z(R_g)`$, and the accretion efficiency $`\eta `$. With this information, it is straightforward to take any given model of a fermion-fermion or boson-fermion star, assume a local surface mass accretion rate $`\dot{\mathrm{\Sigma }}`$ (baryonic mass added per unit area per unit time as measured in the local frame at the surface of the gas sphere), and compute the thermonuclear stability of the accretion layer.

The two top panels in Fig. 6 show the results for the fermion-fermion star models described in §2 and the two bottom panels correspond to the boson-fermion models described in §3. In each panel, the horizontal axis gives the accretion luminosity in Eddington units, where $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ is defined at infinity for the total mass of the star:

$$L_{\mathrm{Edd}}=\frac{4\pi GM_{\text{grav}}c}{\kappa },$$
(31)
with $`\kappa =0.4\mathrm{cm}^2\mathrm{g}^1`$ (corresponding to electron scattering in fully ionized hydrogen). The vertical axis extends over the full range of gas mass that we have considered in the hybrid models. The symbols (filled and open circles) in the panels correspond to models that are predicted to exhibit bursts and the empty spaces to models that are predicted not to have bursts.

We see that there is a considerable range of accretion rate for which the systems will produce bursts. Therefore, the absence of bursts in BHCs argues against such a hybrid model for BHCs. A comparison of Figs. 4 and 6 shows that bursts occur in fermion-fermion and boson-fermion models for lower accretion rates compared to BHC models with hard surfaces. This difference has an interesting explanation. Recall that the Eddington luminosity was defined with respect to the total mass of the hybrid star, which is the obvious choice for an observer at infinity. However, the accretion and burst physics occur on the surface of the gas sphere which lies well within the dark matter sphere. Here, the local Eddington luminosity is given by $`L_{\mathrm{Edd},\mathrm{gas}}=4\pi R_g^2cg/\kappa `$, which is different from the $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$ defined earlier. Redshifting this luminosity to the observer at infinity gives

$$L_{\mathrm{Edd},\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{}}=\frac{4\pi R_g^2cg}{(1+z)^2\kappa },$$
(32)
which is the physically correct luminosity to use as the scale when analysing bursts from these objects. We find that all the models we have analysed are unstable for all accretion rates up to the local Eddington limit. Such models are shown by the solid circles in Fig. 6. In fact, the models are generally unstable even for slightly super-Eddington local accretion rates, as shown by the open circles.

Figure 7 shows the predicted burst recurrence times and burst durations for fermion-fermion and boson-fermion stars with a gas mass of $`0.3M_{}`$ (as an example). The recurrence times are a little long, but well within observational limits. The burst durations have been calculated with two different assumptions regarding the maximum luminosity during the burst. The solid circles assume that the maximum luminosity is equal to the full Eddington luminosity $`L_{\mathrm{Edd}}`$, while the open circles assume that the maximum luminosity is equal only to $`L_{\mathrm{Edd},\mathrm{gas},\mathrm{}}`$. Which is the appropriate one to use depends on whether or not the burst causes a substantial “radius expansion” of the radiating gas. This cannot be determined from the present calculations, but requires full time-dependent computations of the development of the burst.

Regardless of the details, it appears that bursts should occur reasonably frequently on fermion-fermion and boson-fermion stars and that they should be easy to observe. The absence of these bursts means that such models may be ruled out for BHCs.

## 5 Summary and Discussion

For ordinary matter that is made up of baryons, and for any reasonable equation of state, the maximum mass of a compact degenerate star is about $`3M_{}`$. Black hole candidates (BHCs) in X-ray binaries (XRBs) are more massive than this limit, so they cannot be baryonic. However, we cannot rule out the possibility that they are made up of some exotic non-baryonic form of matter. Until we can eliminate this possibility, we cannot be certain that BHCs are true black holes. We have considered two kinds of exotic stars in this paper.

In one kind of model, we assume that the exotic star has a hard surface on which normal accreting gas can pile up. Such an object should behave very much like a neutron star except that it will have a different radius and surface gravity. Narayan & Heyl (2002) showed that such objects would exhibit Type I X-ray bursts when they accrete gas from a companion star. We have here repeated the calculations using the improved version of the burst calculations described in Narayan & Heyl (2003). The main freedom in the models is the radius that we assume for the surface of the BHC. We have tried a wide range (see Fig. 4) and find that the results are not sensitive to the choice of radius. The calculations indicate that $`10M_{}`$ BHCs with hard surfaces are unstable to bursts over an even wider range of mass accretion rates than neutron stars (compare Fig. 4 in this paper to Fig. 10 in Narayan & Heyl 2003). The burst durations and recurrence times for the BHCs are longer by a factor of a few than the corresponding time scales for neutron stars, but they are well within the reach of observations.

An alternative variety of exotic star involves dark fermion or boson matter that does not interact with gas except via gravity. The lack of interaction means that accreting gas sinks to the center and forms a separate fluid component at the center of the dark matter distribution. The main free parameter in these models is the mass of the fermion or boson particles in the dark matter. There is not too much freedom, however, because we require the dark matter sphere to have a radius of no more than several Schwarzschild radii. This limit comes from the fact that observations of the X-ray emission of BH XRBs constrain the radius of the accretion disk to be quite small, no larger than about $`6GM/c^2`$ (McClintock & Remillard 2003). High frequency quasi-periodic oscillations, in particular, require that most of the mass of the compact star should be inside this radius, which strongly constrains possible models of BHCs. In view of this constraint, we find that viable models are possible only with fermions of mass $`200`$ MeV or bosons of mass $`\mathrm{few}\times 10^{17}`$ MeV. While we have done the calculations for one particular choice of the mass in each case (223 MeV and $`2.4\times 10^{17}`$ MeV, respectively), we expect the results to be similar for other choices within the relevant range.

We have considered model objects consisting of $`10M_{}`$ of dark matter (fermions or bosons) and a wide range of mass in the gas component: $`10^6M_{}`$ up to about $`1M_{}`$, the maximum mass beyond which the models become black holes. Over this entire range of models, we have calculated the thermonuclear stability of gas accreting on the surface of the gas sphere. In all cases, we find that Type I bursts are expected. Indeed, these models burst for all acretion rates up to the local Eddington rate as calculated at the surface of the gas sphere. (This is less than the Eddington rate for the combined gas plus dark matter object, see §4.) Moreover, the burst durations and recurrence times are not very unusual (Fig. 7 shows results for the specific case when the gas mass is $`0.3M_{}`$), and the bursts should be easy to observe.

What is a reasonable mass for the gas sphere in the models? The answer of course depends on how the particular exotic star is formed. If the star results from the death of a normal star, in which much of the gas is converted somehow to exotic matter, then one imagines that a reasonable fraction of the gas (perhaps several tenths of a solar mass?) might survive as normal matter. In this case, the upper range of gas masses that we have considered would be appropriate. On the other hand, if the exotic star is somehow born as a pristine purely dark matter object, then the only gas it would contain is whatever it accumulates through accretion. The typical mass transfer rate from the companion star in black hole XRBs is $`\dot{M}_{\mathrm{transfer}}10^{10}10^9M_{}\mathrm{yr}^1`$ (King, Kolb & Burderi 1996), and the typical lifetime of the systems is $`10^810^9`$ yr. Thus, we expect the accreted mass to be $`0.1M_{}`$. This is again near the upper end of the range we have considered (we went as low as $`10^6M_{}`$, see Fig. 6).

The basic result of our study is that, for any kind of exotic star that we can consider, Type I X-ray bursts are expected to be present. Can these bursts be seen, and if so why have they not been observed? Tomsick et al. (2003) recently reported detecting bright $`100`$ s flares in the X-ray flux of the BH XRB XTE J1650-500. These particular flares had nonthermal energy spectra, so they were not Type I X-ray bursts (which always have thermal spectra as one would expect for emission from a stellar surface). However, this work demonstrates that bursts are easy to detect in BHCs. The fact that no bona fide Type I burst has been reported in any of the dozen or more BHCs is thus highly significant. It would be useful to go back to the archival data on these systems and to derive quantitative limits on the burst rate.

To our knowledge, only one study so far — Tournear et al. (2003) — has specifically looked for bursts in BHCs. This work was done using data collected with the Unconventional Stellar Aspect Experiment and the Rosse X-Ray Timing Explorer. The authors derive a 95% upper limit on the burst rate in BHCs of $`2.0\times 10^6\mathrm{bursts}\mathrm{s}^1`$, compared to a mean detection rate in neutron star systems of $`(4.1\pm 0.8)\times 10^5\mathrm{bursts}\mathrm{s}^1`$, which is about 20 times higher. Since our calculations indicate that the burst rate in BHCs (if the objects have surfaces) should be only a factor of a few lower than in neutron stars, the upper limit that Tournear et al. have obtained is already quite interesting. A longer observation might lead to quite strict limits on bursts in BHCs.

The most obvious explanation for the lack of bursts in BHCs is that the objects are true black holes, with event horizons. Narayan (2003) has discussed various other explanations for the lack of bursts in BHCs and argues against all except the following two. One possibility is that BHCs are exotic stars with non-interacting dark matter through which gas can percolate down to the center. This is the model that we have analysed in the present paper. We have shown that such a model will produce observable bursts and is therefore not viable. The other possibility discussed by Narayan (2003) is that the unstable accretion layer on the surface of a BHC does not burst coherently in large explosions, in which the entire surface participates, but rather goes off in a series of random localized mini-explosions. The latter would be hard to distinguish observationally. Mini-explosions are expected if the burning front is unable to propagate rapidly over the surface of the star. It is hard to eliminate this possibility since the physics of deflagration fronts is not fully understood (but see Spitkowsky, Levin & Ushomirsky 2002). However, for a given nuclear fuel, we expect the propagation speed of the front to depend primarily on the local surface gravitational acceleration. Since $`g`$ on the surface of a BHC is somewhat below that on a neutron star, and since both neutron stars and white dwarfs (which have much smaller values of $`g`$) are able to burst coherently, it is hard to see why BHCs should have any particular difficulty in producing large coherent bursts.

Another caveat worth mentioning is that, in Fig. 4, we did not consider radii for the BHC smaller than $`(9/8)R_S`$. This radius is the smallest allowed within General Relativity for an object with a physical density distribution that satisfies $`d\rho /dr0`$ (Weinberg 1972). If we allow a positive density gradient — which risks the Rayleigh-Taylor instability and requires a non-monotonic behavior of pressure with density — then smaller radii are possible. For a sufficiently small radius, the redshift would become very large and it would be possible to hide bursts from the view of the observer. As Abramowicz, Kluzniak & Lasota (2002) have noted, the gravitational condensate star described by Mazur & Mottola (2002) is one such model that can have an extremely large redshift. However, this particular model has serious conceptual problems.

Finally, we have assumed that the gas is fully degenerate, whereas one might wonder whether the gas component could remain hot and extended, and be thermally supported, for the entire age of the system (like low-mass brown dwarfs which retain their internal energy for nearly a Hubble time). Fortunately, this kind of a model may be ruled out. As mentioned earlier, X-ray observations indicate a small radius for the accretion disk, which means that the gas sphere must have an even smaller radius. For such radii, the virial temperature is very high ($`10^{11}`$ K), and the density of the gas is also large. Neutrino cooling is then highly effective and the gas loses most of its thermal energy in a very short time (see Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983 for a discussion of the related problem of neutron star cooling). The gas thus quickly achieves degenerate conditions, where our calculations apply.

The authors thank Jeremy Heyl for useful discussions. This work was supported in part by NASA grant NAG 5-10780 and NSF grant AST 0307433. Y.F.Y is partially supported by the Special Funds for Major State Research Projects, and the National Natural Science Foundation (10233030).

## Appendix A Accretion Efficiency of a Fermion-Fermion Star

We begin by quoting a result from Rosenbluth et al. (1973). Consider a gravitating star that is made of a single fluid whose internal energy $`e`$ is a function only of the density $`\rho `$ and satisfies $`de=pd(1/\rho )`$. If $`E(M)`$ is the binding energy for a given mass $`M`$, Rosenbluth et al. (1973) show via a Newtonian analysis that

$$\frac{dE}{dM}=\mathrm{\Phi }_s,$$
(A1)
where $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s`$ is the gravitational potential at the surface of the star. Thus, if a small quantity of mass $`\mathrm{\Delta }M`$ is added to the star, the change in energy is equal to $`\mathrm{\Phi }_s\mathrm{\Delta }M`$. Since this quantity is equal to the energy released in dropping the mass from infinity down to the surface, equation (A1) implies that there is no additional internal energy released when the star adjusts to its new equilibrium. In a sense, the result is not surprising. Stars of different $`M`$ all have the same specific entropy (because of the particular form of the equation of state), so there is neither an excess nor a deficit of specific entropy in going from one stellar mass $`M`$ to another.

We are interested in generalizing the above result for the relativistic problem, and also for the case of two fluids. Let us first consider a general relativistic star with a single fluid. Let $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ and $`M_{\mathrm{bar}}`$ be the gravitational and baryonic masses of the star and let $`R`$ be its radius. Let the fluid consist of particles of mass $`m`$ with a number density $`n(r)`$. Write the metric function $`A(r)`$ as

$$A(r)\left[1\frac{2M(r)}{r}\right]^1,A(R)=\left(1\frac{2M_{\text{grav}}}{R}\right)^1,$$
(A2)
where we have used gravitational units with $`G=c=1`$. The gravitational and baryonic masses of the star are given by

$$M_{\text{grav}}=_0^R4\pi r^2\rho 𝑑r,$$
(A3)
$$M_{\text{bar}}=_0^R4\pi r^2mn(12M/r)^{1/2}𝑑r.$$
(A4)
In equilibrium, for a given baryonic mass, the star will take up the configuration with the lowest energy, i.e., the smallest value of $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}`$. Thus, for small variations of the equilibrium, we must have

$$\delta M_{\text{grav}}\lambda \delta M_{\text{bar}}=0,$$
(A5)
where $`\lambda =M_{\mathrm{grav}}/M_{\mathrm{bar}}`$ is a Lagrange multiplier.

Equation (A5) must be valid for all first-order variations. Consider a specific variation consisting of a Dirac delta-function at the surface of the star,

$$\delta n(r)=ϵ\delta (rR),\delta \rho (r)=mϵ\delta (rR),$$
(A6)
where the second relation follows from the fact that $`n`$ and $`\rho `$ both go to zero at the surface, so that the fluid has no internal energy in this limit. Substituting (A6) into (A3) and (A4), we find

$$\delta M_{\text{grav}}=ϵm4\pi R^2,\delta M_{\text{bar}}=ϵm4\pi R^2(12M_{\text{grav}}/R)^{1/2}.$$
(A7)
Substituting this in equation (A5), we then find

$$\lambda =\frac{M_{\text{grav}}}{M_{\text{bar}}}=\left(1\frac{2M_{\text{grav}}}{R}\right)^{1/2}=\frac{1}{1+z(R)},$$
(A8)
where $`z(R)`$ is the gravitational redshift at the surface of the star. This result is an obvious and natural generalization of the Newtonian result (A1).

Consider now the problem of interest, a two fluid fermion-fermion star. Let us use subscripts 1 and 2 for the two fluids and assume that the outer radius $`R_1`$ of fluid 1 is smaller than the radius $`R_2`$ of fluid 2. (In the context of the main paper, fluid 1 is the gas and fluid 2 is the dark matter.) Define the gravitational mass at a general radius $`r`$ as

$$M(r)=_0^r4\pi r^2(\rho _1+\rho _2)𝑑r^{},$$
(A9)
so that the total gravitational mass of the star is

$$M_{\text{grav}}=M(R_2).$$
(A10)
The baryonic masses of the two fluids are given by

$$M_{\text{bar,1}}=_0^{R_1}4\pi r^2m_1n_1(12M/r)^{1/2}𝑑r,$$
(A11)
$$M_{\text{bar,2}}=_0^{R_2}4\pi r^2m_2n_2(12M/r)^{1/2}𝑑r.$$
(A12)
Requiring the total gravitational mass $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}`$ to be a minimum for fixed baryonic masses of the two fluids gives the variational condition,

$$\delta M_{\text{grav}}\lambda _1\delta M_{\text{bar,1}}\lambda _2\delta M_{\text{bar,2}}=0,$$
(A13)
where $`\lambda _1`$ and $`\lambda _2`$ are two Lagrange multipliers.

Consider first a perturbation of the form

$$\delta n_1(r)=0,\delta n_2(r)=ϵ\delta (rR_2).$$
(A14)
Substituting this in the above equations, and following the same steps as for the single fluid case, we directly obtain

$$\lambda _2=\left(1\frac{2M_{\text{grav}}}{R_2}\right)^{1/2}=\frac{1}{1+z(R_2)},$$
(A15)
which is identical to the result for a single fluid star.

Consider next a perturbation

$$\delta n_1(r)=ϵ\delta (rR_1),\delta n_2(r)=0.$$
(A16)
This gives

$$\delta M(r)=ϵm_14\pi R_1^2,rR_1,$$
(A17)
$$\delta M_{\text{grav}}=ϵm_14\pi R_1^2,$$
(A18)
$$\delta M_{\text{bar,1}}=ϵm_14\pi R_1^2(12M/R_1)^{1/2},$$
(A19)
$$\delta M_{\text{bar,2}}=_{R_1}^{R_2}4\pi rm_2n_2(12M/r)^{3/2}ϵm_14\pi R_1^2𝑑r.$$
(A20)
Substituting these relations in equation (A13) and making use of equation (A15), we obtain the following result for $`\lambda _1`$:

$$\lambda _1=\left[1\frac{2M(R_1)}{R_1}\right]^{1/2}\left[1\left(1\frac{2M_{\text{grav}}}{R_2}\right)^{1/2}_{R_1}^{R_2}4\pi rm_2n_2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{3/2}𝑑r\right].$$
(A21)
This expression does not look as simple as equations (A8) or (A15), but in fact it simplifies considerably when written in terms of the redshift.

To see this, start with the well-known Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff structure equations for a relativisic star. Restricting ourselves to radii $`rR_1`$, where there is only fluid 2, the equations take the form

$`{\displaystyle \frac{dp_2}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{(\rho _2+p_2)(M+4\pi r^3p_2)}{r^2(12M/r)}},`$ (A22)
$`{\displaystyle \frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{B}}{dr}}`$ $`=`$ $`{\displaystyle \frac{1}{\rho _2+p_2}}{\displaystyle \frac{dp_2}{dr}}.`$ (A23)
Using the thermodynamic relation,

$$d\rho _2=\frac{\rho _2+p_2}{n_2}dn_2,$$
(A24)
the above equations can be rewritten as

$$\frac{d}{dr}\left[\frac{n_2}{\rho _2+p_2}\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{1/2}\right]=4\pi rn_2\left(1\frac{2M}{r}\right)^{3/2},$$
(A25)
$$\frac{d\mathrm{ln}\sqrt{B}}{dr}=\frac{d}{dr}\mathrm{ln}\left(\frac{n_2}{\rho _2+p_2}\right).$$
(A26)
Integrating these equations and evaluating the result at $`r=R_1`$, we find

$`{\displaystyle \frac{n_2(R_1)m_2}{\rho _2(R_1)+p_2(R_1)}}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M(R_1)}{R_1}}\right)^{1/2}\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M_{\text{grav}}}{R_2}}\right)^{1/2}`$ (A27)
$`\left[1\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M_{\text{grav}}}{R_2}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle _{R_1}^{R_2}}4\pi rm_2n_2\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M}{r}}\right)^{3/2}𝑑r\right],`$
$`\sqrt{B(R_1)}`$ $`=`$ $`\left(1{\displaystyle \frac{2M(R_2)}{R_2}}\right)^{1/2}{\displaystyle \frac{n_2(R_1)m_2}{\rho _2(R_1)+p_2(R_1)}}.`$ (A28)
Finally, substituting (A27) in (A28) and comparing with (A21), we find that

$$\lambda _1=\frac{M_{\text{grav}}}{M_{\text{bar,1}}}=\sqrt{B(R_1)}=\frac{1}{1+z(R_1)},$$
(A29)
i.e., when written in terms of the redshift, the formula for $`\lambda _1`$ for the two-fluid case is identical to that for a single fluid. The accretion efficiency $`\eta `$ defined in the text is then given by

$$\eta =1\frac{M_{\text{grav}}}{M_{\text{bar,1}}}=\frac{z(R_1)}{1+z(R_1)}.$$
(A30)
We have confirmed equation (A29) by numerically computing the partial derivative $`M_{\mathrm{grav}}/M_{\mathrm{bar},1}`$ and comparing it to $`1/[1+z(R_1)]`$. The agreement is very good. Indeed, numerical calculations show that equation (A29) is true also for a boson-fermion star, though we do not have a formal analytical proof for that case.