Horndeski fermion-boson stars - arXiv
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
Horndeski fermion-boson stars
Armando A. Roquea , L. Arturo Ureña-Lópeza
a
Departamento de Fı́sica, División de Ciencias e Ingenierı́as, Campus León,
Universidad de Guanajuato, C.P. 37150, León, México
arXiv:2109.14747v1 [gr-qc] 29 Sep 2021
August 2021
Abstract. We establish the existence of static and spherically symmetric fermion-
boson stars, in a low energy effective model of (beyond) Horndeski theories. This stars
are in equilibrium, and are composed by a mixing of scalar and fermionic matters that
only interact gravitationally one with each other. Properties such as mass, radius and
compactness are studied, highlighting the existence of two families of configurations
defined by the parameter c4 . Theses families have distinctive properties, although in
certain limits both are reduced to their counterparts in General Relativity. Finally,
by assuming the same conditions used in General Relativity, we find the maximum
compactness of these hybrid stars and determine that it remains below the so-called
Buchdahl’s limit.
Keywords: Modified Gravity, Scalar-Tensor Theories, Horndeski’s Theory, Self-
Gravitating Objects, Boson Stars. Submitted to: Class. Quantum Grav.
1. Introduction
The physics of compact objects such as black holes and neutron stars (NS) has received
increased attention since LIGO’s first detection of gravitational waves (GW) emitted by
a black hole merger [1]. To date, the LIGO-VIRGO collaboration has confirmed around
to 50 merger events [2, 3, 4, 5]. Some of these have shown interesting implications, such
as GW170817 [6], and GW190521 [7]. The first of this (joined with its electromagnetic
counterpart GRB 170817A [8]) imposed that the speed of propagation of GWs, is equal
to the light speed [6, 8, 9], ruling out (or constrained) a large sector of General Relativity
(GR) modifications [10, 11, 12, 13].‡ In the case of GW190521 signal, it was interpreted
as a quasi-circular merger of black holes, but a recently work [14] show that it is also
‡ This condition restricts severely cosmological dark energy models where the scalar field is assumed
to be homogeneously distributed in space. This is not the case for this paper, where the scalar field is
clumped in localized configurations.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 2
consistent with numerically simulated signals from head-on collisions of two horizonless
Proca stars.
In the foreseeable future, with the aid of improved sensitivities of the current
and future generations of GW detectors such as: LIGO, Kamioka Gravitational Wave
Detector (KAGRA) [15, 16, 17], LIGO-Indian (IndIGO) [18], TianQin/Taiji [19], and a
bigger sample of events, it will be possible to discern between the different possibilities of
GW sources, and even to search for the GW signature of a large variety of astrophysical
objects, including those that are, or not, predicted within the framework of General
Relativity (GR) and the Standard Model of Particle Physics.
For instance, it has long been known that massive scalar fields are able to
form self-gravitating configurations without the need of additional matter. These
objects, generically known as boson stars (BS), first appeared in the literature in the
late sixties [20], and have since been widely studied either as astrophysically viable
objects, e.g. black hole mimickers, or as tools in mathematical relativity and galactic
modelling [21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26]. One natural assumption is that during their formation
process these objects will interact with fermionic matter, resulting in a new type of self-
gravitating objects with a mixing of scalar and fermionic matter, which we will refer to
as hybrid stars. As with any other exotics self-gravitating system, their hybrid features
are expected to be reflected in their properties like mass, size and compactness.
Here, we focus on a subset of the so-called Gleyzes-Langlois-Piazza-Vernizzi
(GLPV) models of gravity [27, 28]. The GLPV theory is an extension to Horndeski
gravity (the most general theory of gravity in four spacetime dimensions with a single
scalar field, leading to second-order field equations), has six arbitrary functions of the
scalar field and its first derivatives (contracted with the spacetime metric to provide a
scalar). It encompasses a series of models that are, in general, non-renormalizable, and
that must be seen as a low energy effective field theory [29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36].
Similar to other Horndeski extensions (e.g. DHOST, EST [37, 38]), it includes higher
derivative operators that do not appear in simpler realizations (e.g. the Brans-Dicke
model [39]), but it is ghost-free and does not propagate additional degrees, apart from
the usual spin two field and the scalar [27, 28].
It is important to point out that Horndeski’s theory (and its extensions) is usually
introduced as a way of explaining the current accelerating expansion of the Universe.
However, in most of these models the internal scalar degree of freedom is massless or
quite ultra-light (∼ 10−33 eV) in order to be consistent with the current cosmological
data on the dark energy component. These ultra-light particles could also lead to hybrid
stars, like the ones that we presented in this paper, but they will be so large that they
would not correspond to a compact object. This is the reason why, in the present
manuscript, we concentrate only on mass values that can be relevant at astrophysical
scales (see Fig. 3). As a matter of fact, these particles could constitute part of, or even
all, the dark matter sector (e.g., [40]).
An interesting property of the GLPV theory is the possibility to suppress the
additional degree of freedom (through any of the known screening mechanisms [41, 42]),Horndeski fermion-boson stars 3
which helps to recover GR predictions and to avoid the strong post-Newtonian
constraints from the Solar System [43]. The Vainshtein screening mechanism [44], driven
by derivative self-couplings [45, 46, 47], has attracted recent attention on these models
due to its interesting phenomenology [48], such as the relation with consistent non-linear
massive gravity theories [49, 50, 51]. It is important to note that in some cases, these
models present solid angle deficits that induce a singularity at the center of compact
objects [52, 53]. However, there is evidence that these singularities can be avoided if
the scalar field depends also on time (e.g., [54]).
In this paper we explore the existence and properties of hybrid star in a low
energy effective gravity theory that includes operators with higher order derivatives
presented in [55], and look for the prevalence the Buchdahl’s limit for their compactness.
This effective theory correspond to a subset of the GLPV gravity. For previous
work with similar motivations in GR and Horndeski gravity (with massless field) see
e.g. [56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62].
The organization of the manuscript is as follows. In Section 2, we present the
model that describes the static and spherically symmetric regime and identify the
boundary conditions that allow us to construct the self-gravitating hybrid stars. For
their fermionic part we consider two particular equations of state (EOSs): a polytropic
one, and an incompressible fluid with a constant energy density. In Section 3 we identify
the parameter space where these compact objects lie in, as well as describe their main
characteristics, establishing the existence of a family of solutions and the limits where
typical NS or BS are recovered. In Section 4 we focus on the numerical study of a
possible Buchdahl’s limit on the compactness of theses stars. Finally, in Section 5 we
give some concluding remarks.§
2. Theoretical Framework
As was pointed out before, the GLPV model contains six arbitrary functions:
G2 , G3 , G4 , G5 , F4 , F5 , which depend on the scalar field φ and its first derivatives (written
as a standard canonical kinetic term X ≡ g µν φµ φν ). The corresponding action of the
model is
5
!
√
Z X
S = d4 x −g Li [gµν , φ] + Lm [gµν , Ψ] , (1)
i=2
where Lm is the matter Lagrangian that contains all the standard model fields and
their possible extensions, Li indicates the gravitational sector and is given as a linear
combination of the following Lagrangians,
L2 ≡ G2 (φ, X), (2a)
§ In this manuscript we use Wald’s notation [63]: plus signature for the spacetime metric, (−, +, +, +),
the definitions Rµνρ σ ≡ ∂ν Γσµρ + Γα σ α
µρ Γαν − (ν ↔ µ) for the Riemann tensor, Rµν ≡ Rµαν for the Ricci
µ
tensor, and R ≡ R√µ for the Ricci scalar. We work in natural units, ~ = c = 1, and the reduced Planck
mass is MPl ≡ 1/ 8πG = 2.431 × 1018 GeV. Additionally, we assume a minimal coupling of matter to
Jor.
gravity (i.e. matter fields couple only to the Jordan spacetime metric, gµν ≡ gµν ).Horndeski fermion-boson stars 4
L3 ≡ G3 (φ, X)2φ, (2b)
L4 ≡ G4 (φ, X)R − 2G4X (φ, X) (2φ)2 − φµν φµν
0 0 0
+ F4 (φ, X)µνρ σ µ ν ρ σ φµ φµ0 φνν 0 φρρ0 , (2c)
1
L5 ≡ G5 (φ, X)Gµν φµν + G5X (φ, X) (2φ)3 − 32φφµν φµν + 2φµν φµσ φν σ
3
µνρσ µ0 ν 0 ρ0 σ 0
+ F5 (φ, X) φµ φµ0 φνν 0 φρρ0 φσσ0 , (2d)
In the above equations, R and Gµν = Rµν − 12 Rgµν are the Ricci scalar and Einstein
tensor, respectively. The term µνρσ correspond to the totally antisymmetric Levi-Civita
tensor. To simplify the notation we have used the definition φµν ≡ ∇µ ∇ν φ, 2φ ≡ φµ µ
(d’Alembert operator), together with the subindex notation in the functions Gi and Fi
(e.g. GiX ) to denote partial differentiation with respect to their arguments.
Some comments are in turn about the a priori arbitrary functions Gi , Fi . The set
of GLPV models with F4 or F5 different from zero, will have higher order differential
operators at the level of the equations of motion.k Nevertheless, the propagating
degrees of freedom obey second order equations, avoiding the so-called Ostrogradski
instabilities [65, 66]. Models with F4 = F5 = 0 represent the Horndeski theory, where
the equations of motion remain second order.
2
Notice that by choosing by G4 = MPl /2 with all other functions set to zero (except
2
in the case that we want to include a cosmological constant: G2 = −MPl Λ), GR is
recovered. Along the same lines, if G2 is not a constant (or zero), the scalar degree of
freedom propagates, but it remains minimally coupled to the metric, and the gravity
sector is still described by GR (one could naturally argue whether this represents or not
a real modification of gravity). An example of this particular set (and that is addressed
in this paper) are the Einstein-Klein-Gordon models (EKG): G2 = − 21 X − V (φ). On
the contrary, for the cases where the scalar field is non-minimal coupled to the metric
(as is our case, see Eq. (3)), an additional scalar mediator is added to the gravity sector,
apart from the usual spin two field, and the differences from GR will be manifest [55].
2.1. The gravity sector
The action (1) represents a large family of scalar-tensor theories, in particular we are
interested in those who introduce infrared modifications of gravity. A simple choice
of functions Li that represents a low energy effective model was presented in [55] (see
also [67, 68, 69])
1 2
Lgrav = MPl R − X − m2 φφ̄
2
MPl µν d4 µνρ µ0 ν 0 ρ0 σ
+ 3 c4 XR − 2c4 [2φ2φ̄ − φ φ̄µν ] + σ φµ φ̄µ0 φνν 0 φ̄ρρ0 . (3)
Λ X
k In some case the F4 and F5 terms in the GLPV theory can be mapped to the pure Horndeski action
via disformal transformations (see e.g. [64]), for this case the matter stops being minimally coupled to
gravity. As in this paper we always work in the Jordan frame, the F4 or F5 , are different sectors from
the pure Horndeski theory.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 5
Here, φ̄ denotes the complex conjugate of the scalar field φ, and its mass parameter is
m. In the first line we have removed the 1/2 factor in front of the kinetic complex term
X = φµ φ̄µ , in order to get the standard normalization of a complex scalar field. Note
that the whole cubic and quintic sector was eliminated¶.
We will focus our attention on the family of models with the dimensionless
parameters c4 = 0, ±1/2, d4 = 0 (the F4 contributions are off), in the region of parameter
space where the effective approximation (3) is valid: m < Λ MPl [55]. Note that the
strength of the higher derivative operators are mediated by inverse powers of Λ, which
would then represent the energy scale at which such operators are relevant (the other
scale is m). A lower bound on this scale constrains the possible signatures that these
terms may leave on observables at low energies.
2.2. Hybrid stars
Taking the effective Lagrangian (3) as the gravitational sector in the action (1), and
assuming a fermionic field as the only baryonic source, we now proceed to construct
compact and localized solutions, by first finding the dynamical equations for the metric
components, the scalar field, and the fermionic pressure.
The variation of the action Eq. (1) with respect to the metric g µν results in
c4 1 (φ)
Gµν + H µν = 2
T µν − Tµν , (4a)
2MPl Λ3 MPl
where the tensor Hµν represents the gravitational modification introduced to GR,
Hµν = Gµν X + gµν φ̄αρ φαρ − 2φ2φ̄ + 2Rαρ φα φ̄ρ − φα φ̄ρ (Rµανρ + Rµρνα )
R
+ φµ φν − Rνα φ + φ̄µν 2φ − Rµα φ̄ν φ − φ̄µα φν + c.c ,
α α α
(4b)
2
(φ)
and Tµν , Tµν are the stress-energy tensor of the fermionic and bosonic fields, respectively,
−2 δLm
Tµν = √ , (4c)
−g δg µν
(φ)
= gµν X + m2 φφ̄ − φµ φ̄ν − c.c .
Tµν (4d)
Likewise, the variation with respect to φ̄ leads to,
2c4 MPl µν
2φ − m2 φ + G φµν = 0 . (4e)
Λ3
If we set c4 = 0 in the foregoing equations the standard GR and Klein-Gordon (KG)
equations of motion are readily recovered. A similar result appears in the limit Λ → ∞,
at which the higher derivative operators vanish.
As we are interested in equilibrium configurations, we assume a static and
spherically symmetric spacetime line element in the form
ds2 = −N 2 (r)dt2 + g 2 (r)dr2 + r2 dθ2 + r2 sin2 θdϕ2 , (5)
¶ The F5 sector includes operators of mass dimension nine (or larger), and it is suppressed at low
energies. The contributions from L3 and L5 dissapear by imposing a discrete Z2 mirror symmetry
φ → −φ [70].Horndeski fermion-boson stars 6
and impose a harmonic ansatz for the scalar field,
φ(t, r) = σ(r)eiωt . (6)
The metric functions N (r), g(r) and the radial component of the scalar field σ(r),
depend only on the radial coordinate r, whereas ω, the angular frequency of oscillation
of the scalar field, is real and constant.
The harmonic ansatz (6) reduces the equations of motion (4a)-(4e) to a simpler
time-independent system that is compatible with the static metric (5). After some
manipulations, the equations of motion can be written in the form,
2(1 + α) g 0 ω2
2
(1 − β0 ) 02 2 σ 1 1 T00
3
− 2 2
σ − m + (1 − γ) 2 2
+ 1− 2 2
= 2 2, (7a)
r g MPl g N M g r N MPl
Pl
0 2
2
2(1 + α) N (1 − β1 ) 02 2 ω σ 1 1 T11
− 2
σ + m − (1 − γ) 2
− (1 − ) = 2
, (7b)
r N g2 MPl g 2 N 2 MPl g 2 r2 g 2 MPl
0
g0 ω2
00 N 2(1 + ζ) 0 2 2
(1 + ε)σ + (1 − η) − + σ − g m − (1 + θ) 2 σ = 0, (7c)
N g r N
where T00 and T11 , are the 0 − 0 and 1 − 1 components of the covariant stress-energy
tensor (4c), and α, β0 , γ, β1 , ε, η, ζ, and θ are dimensionless functions given by
2c4 σ 2 ω 2 3σ 02 4σ 00 r
2c4 MPl 1
α= − , β0 = 1 + 2 + 2 0 , (8a)
MPl Λ3 N 2 g 2 σ 2 Λ3 r 2 g g σ
4ω 2 σr
2c4 MPl 1 2c4 MPl 3
γ= 1− 2 , β1 = 1 − 2 − 2 0 , (8b)
Λ3 r 2 g Λ33 r2 g N σ
0
2c4 MPl 2rN 2c4 MPl
− g2 , η = 3 2 2 g2 − 3 ,
ε= 3 2 2 1+ (8c)
Λg r N Λg r
2c4 MPl N 00 3g 0 N 0 2rg 0
2c4 MPl 2
ζ= − , θ = 3 2 2 1−g − . (8d)
Λ3 g 2 N g N Λg r g
It is necessary to point out that a second order derivatives of the lapse functions N 00 is
implicit in the term ζ. Using the trace of the field equations (4a), it is possible to remove
this dependence from the structure equations, leaving a system that only depends on
N, g, p, σ, σ 0 and r.
The fermionic field is describe by a perfect fluid, and its energy-momentum
tensor (4c) takes the form
Tµν = ( + p)uµ uν + pgµν . (9)
Here , and p are the energy density and pressure of the fluid respectively. The four-
velocity was defined as uν = u0 (1, 0, 0, 0), where the component u0 was computed from
the normalization uν uν = −1, which leads to u0 = 1/N .
To get the desired hybrid stars profiles, we need to solve the system (7a)-(7c),
together with the trace of Eq. (4a), and the conservation equation ∇µ Tµν = 0, for
N 0 , g 0 , σ 00 , and p0 functions. The resulting system must be solved numerically, and it is
necessary to define a set of boundary conditions in the center and at large distances fromHorndeski fermion-boson stars 7
the star. At the center, since we want regular spacetime configurations (no divergences
of curvature scalars), we have
g(r = 0) = 1, N (r = 0) = N0 , p(r = 0) = p0 , (10a)
0
σ(r = 0) = σ0 , σ (r = 0) = 0, (10b)
where σ0 is the field amplitude at the origin, p0 is the central fermionic pressure of the
star, and N0 the lapse function evaluated at the centre of the configuration. These are
free and positive constants that one can choose arbitrarily. On other hand, to obtain
localized configurations, the boundary condition at infinity must be the same as that
for the vacuum state:
lim p(r) = 0, lim σ(r) = 0, lim N (r) = N∞ , lim g(r) = 1, (11)
r→∞ r→∞ r→∞ r→∞
where N∞ is an arbitrary and positive constant, which is equal to the limit value
1/ limr→∞ g(r), if we like to recovery the Schwarzschild metric.
A note on the lapse function is in turn. The value N0 can always be reabsorbed
in the definition of the time parameter and fixed to N0 = 1 with no loss of generality.
In such a case, the boundary condition N∞ = 1/ limr→∞ g(r) = 1 is not respected by
outwards integration starting from N0 = 1. However, we can make use of the freedom
to redefine the time coordinate, and the frequency accordingly, (N, ω) 7→ x(N, ω), in
such a way that this condition is satisfied at infinity.
To this effect, we first obtain the corresponding hybrid star profile (with N∞ 6= 1)
for the set of initial values (σ0 , p0 , N0 = 1). To meet the condition N∞ = 1, we then
redefine the time coordinate as N new (r) = xN (r), hence a new frequency ω new = xω, in
such a way that
1
xN (r̄max ) = , (12)
g(rmax )
with rmax the maximum radius of integration in the numerical code. In this manuscript
we not write the super-index “new” explicitly, and it is understood that only rescaled
values are reported. The corresponding profiles of the metric functions associated to one
of these configurations once the re-scaling has been carried out are shown in Figure 1.
To close the system of equations we need to write down an equation of state for the
fluid component, for which we consider two simple cases. First, a polytropic equation
of state
p = kρΓ , (13a)
where k is the polytropic constant, Γ is the adiabatic index, and ρ is the mass density,
all related to the energy density by
p 1/Γ p
= + . (13b)
k Γ−1
Second, an incompressible fluid with a constant energy density, = cte. This case will
allow us to explore numerically the Buchdahl’s limit on the compactness of a star.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 8
1.00 1.200
σ ∼ 10−6 MPl
p=0
p=0
σ ∼ 10−6 MPl
0.95 1.175
0.90
1.150
0.85
1.125
0.80
N
1.100
g
0.75
1.075
0.70
1.050
0.65
c4 = 1/2 1.025 c4 = 1/2
0.60
Schw. black hole Schw. black hole
0.55 1.000
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 0 10 20 30 40 50 60
r [m−1 ] r [m−1 ]
Figure 1. Metric profiles. Lapse function N (r) (left panel) and radial component
g(r) (right panel), normalized to one at spatial infinity Ec. (11), for a configuration with
1/3
σ0 = 0.25 MPl and, p = 8 × 10−4 , in the model: c4 = 1/2, with Λ = 1.5 MPl m2/3 . The
dashed lines represent the Schwarzschild metric components NSchw. (r) = (1 − rs /r)1/2 ,
−1 2
and gSchw. (r) = NSchw. (r), where rs ≡ M/(4πMPl ) is the Schwarzschild radius for an
2 −1
object of the same total mass M = 99.24MPl m . As is possible to see, for r → ∞
the scalar field decays exponentially and it is not possible to differentiate between the
two objects. The vertical lines correspond to the radii where σ ∼O(10−6 ), and p = 0
(border of the baryonic component of the star).
3. Numerical results
For the numerical implementation, it is convenient to rewrite the dynamical equations
in terms of the new dimensionless variables,
σ ω Λ p
r̄ ≡ mr, σ̄ ≡ , ω̄ ≡ , Λ̄ ≡ 1/3 , p̄ ≡ 2 2 , ¯ ≡ 2 2 . (14)
MPl m MPl m2/3 m MPl m MPl
This change of variable remove the dependence on the scalar field mass m, and the
Planck mass MPl , from the equations of motion, combining the energy scales (m, Λ) in
Λ̄.
To find the profiles of these hybrid stars, we solve numerically the system of
differential equations for N 0 , g 0 , p0 , σ 00 , in terms of the new variables (14) and considering
the boundary conditions (10a)-(10b), using a shooting method [71, 72]. At this point
it is necessary to point out that given a (σ0 , p0 ) pair, there can be multiple frequencies
that satisfy the conditions in (11), and to fix this we only look for scalar field profiles
without nodes, that is, the ground state in each case.
Figure 2 shows some illustrative examples of our numerical realizations, in particular
two limit cases: i) stars for which the scalar field profile drops more sharply than the
pressure one (left panel), that we will call hybrid stars with a bosonic core, and ii) for
which the pressure profile drops more sharply that the scalar field one (right panel), that
we will call hybrid stars with a fermionic core. The profiles shown correspond to the
Horndeski models c4 = ±1/2, and for comparison purposes we include also the standard
EKG results (c4 = 0). It can be seen that a positive (negative) values of the couplingHorndeski fermion-boson stars 9
1.0 1.0
c4 = 1/2 ×10−3 c4 = 1/2 ×10−4
c4 = 0 (EKG) 0.1 c4 = 0 (EKG)
p − pc4 =0
p − pc4 =0
0.8 c4 = −1/2 0.0 0.8 c4 = −1/2 0.0
−0.1
−0.2
& p/p0
& p/p0
0.6 0 5 10 15 20 0.6 0 2 4 6 8
×10−3 ×10−2
2.5 1
σ − σc4 =0
σ − σc4 =0
σ/σ0
σ/σ0
0.4 0.4
0.0 0
−2.5 −1
0.2 0 5 10 0.2 0 5 10
0.0 0.0
0 5 10 15 20 25 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
r [m−1 ] r [m−1 ]
Figure 2. Pressure and field profiles. Radial profiles of the fermionic pressure
p (dotted curves), see Eq. (9), and the scalar field φ (solid curves), see Eq. (6), in
1/3
Horndeski models with c4 = ±1/2, Λ = 1.5 MPl m2/3 , and a fermionic fluid described
2 −1
by Eq. (13a) with Γ = 2, and k = 100 m2 MPl . The profiles are normalized with
their respective central values: σ0 = 0.15 MPl and p0 = 0.01 m2 MPl 2
(left panel), and
−4 2 2
σ0 = 0.25 MPl and p0 = 2.25 × 10 m MPl (right panel). The profiles also exemplify
the limit cases i) (left panel) and ii) (right panel) mentioned in the main text. The
insets show the differences in each case with respect to the standard EKG results
(c4 = 0).
constants c4 will open (close) the respectively p and σ profiles, to configurations that
are broader (narrower) in comparison with the equivalents EKG hybrid stars. Similar
results were reported in [55] (for p = 0), suggesting that positive (negative) couplings
are associated to repulsive (attractive) self-interactions.
It is convenient here to take a look at our parameter space. We are interested in
exploring astrophysical objects (i.e., with mass M ∼ 1−20 M and size R ∼ 9−105 km),
such that the fermionic matter forms objects similar to typical neutron stars, with central
density (pressure) of around 1017 kg/m3 (1034 Pa) [73]. The set of central (fermionic)
energy densities that we will explore is then 0 ∈ [10−4 , 10−2 ] m2 MPl
2
, which implies using
−2 −2 −6 −2
Eq. (13b) with k = 100 m MPl and Γ = 2 that p0 ∈ [10 , 10 ] m2 MPl 2
. Using the
3
conversion factors = 1.38 ¯ m[eV] c × 10 kg/m and p = 1.24 p̄ m[eV] × 1056 Pa to
2 2 39 2
recover the right units for the physical quantities, it is relatively simple to check that
field masses in the range 10−9 − 10−11 eV correspond to astrophysical objects. Finally,
as was previously pointed out, the coupling parameter is constrained to m < Λ MPl
implying a borderline represented by by Λ[MPl ] > m/MPl . The scenario that we explore
1/3
in this paper includes an extra constraint Λ MPl m2/3 , that represents a new region
(inside of Λ[MPl ] > m/MPl ) where higher derivative operators are negligible whatever
the amplitude of the central field [55]. All the aforementioned regions are summarized
in Figure 3, where the orange rectangle indicates the one region that is explored in this
paper.
Since the hybrid stars are constituted by two components, fermionic and scalar
fields, whose densities vanish at a finite and infinite radius, respectively, properties likeHorndeski fermion-boson stars 10
M99 [M ]
1021 1013 105 10−3 10−11 10−19 10−27 10−35
UV modification
inaccessible to
10−3 eV IR modification
10−3
observations
stellar objects
10−8
10−13
observations
no evidence
10−18
from
Λ [MPl ] 10−23
10−28
10−33
10−38
m>Λ
10−43
10−30 10−22 10−14 10−6 102 1010 1018 1026
m [eV]
Figure 3. Parameter space. The shaded region corresponds to m > Λ and
denotes the combinations for which hybrid stars are not allowed. The blue straight line
1/3 1/3 1/3
Λ = MPl m2/3 delimits the white (Λ & MPl m2/3 ) and blue regions (Λ . MPl m2/3 ).
Configurations with combinations of parameters inside of the blue sector can be develop
distinctive features associated to the higher derivative operators, contrary to the white
region. In this manuscript we work in an internal region of the white zone, denoted
with an orange rectangle, which corresponds to field masses in the range 10−9 − 10−11
eV. For reference, the most compact stable neutron star configuration has M̄99 = 206.2,
obtained using Eq.(16). This figure is an adapted version of Figure 2 in [55].
the mass or size cannot be computed (keeping in mind all contributions) using only the
typical argument p = 0 (e.g. the extreme case ii)). Nevertheless, by construction
the total density vanishes asymptotically as the spacetime metric approaches the
Schwarzschild solution. Therefore, choosing a sufficiently large radius r, it is possible to
estimate the mass M of these objects via the Schwarzschild metric:
1
M̄ (r̄) = 4πr̄ 1 − 2 , (15)
g (r̄)
2
where M = M̄ MPl /m.
Figure 4 shows the mass profile (computed using Eq. (15)) for the extreme cases i),
ii). The left panel corresponds to the case i), where the scalar field profile drops more
sharply than its pressure profile, and, as we expected, the maximal mass contribution
comes from fermionic density. All mass profiles shown are very similar to that of a
neutron star in GR with the same central pressure (dotted line). Likewise, in the right
panel we show case ii), for which the largest contribution to the mass comes from the
scalar field. The fermionic density is suppressed by the scalar degree of freedom, and
the mass profile lies below the equivalent neutron star in GR (see the inset). Note that
for this case, unlike the previous one, the Hordeski models present differences between
their mass profiles, reflecting the effect of having considered a non-minimal coupling
between the scalar field and the metric. For c4 > 0, p 6= 0 (c4 < 0, p 6= 0), M (r) is
larger (smaller) than in EKG, c4 = 0, p 6= 0†. Additionally, and although the fermionic
† It is also possible to recover the EKG model taking: Λ → ∞. This choice is equivalent to c4 = 0.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 11
175
c4 = 1/2 17.5 c4 = 1/2
c4 = 0 (EKG) c4 = 0 (EKG)
150
c4 = −1/2 15.0 c4 = −1/2
125
12.5
m−1 ]
m−1 ]
100
10.0 185
M [MPl
M [MPl
p(Ri ) = 0
2
2
75 7.5
50 5.0 Total mass
18
0 20 40
25 2.5
0 0.0
p(Ri ) = 0
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 0 2 4 6 8 10
r [m−1 ] r [m−1 ]
Figure 4. Mass profiles. Hybrid star mass profiles M (r), see Eq. (15), as a
1/3
function of the radial coordinate in Horndeski models with Λ = 1.5 MPl m2/3 and
c4 = ±1/2, and also for the EKG model (c4 = 0). The profiles correspond to the same
configurations of Figure 2, and to the cases i) (left panel) and ii) (right panel). Also
shown for comparison is the same configuration in GR with σ = 0 (a neutron star),
and p = 0 (a boson star), represented by the dotted and dashed curves, respectively.
The vertical lines indicate the radii where the fermionic pressure is zero for every
configuration.
matter is suppressed, its inclusion is reflected as a slight increase in the mass of the
objects, see for example the model c4 = 0, p 6= 0, which is slightly higher than the
c4 = 0, p = 0 (dashed line).
Now, we need to defined a criterion for the radius of this hybrid stars. Similarly to
a typical BS, the scalar field profile decreases monotonically as r increases, and in some
cases more sharply than the fermionic pressure profile. Hence, we define the effective
radius of the object, R99 , as that where 99% of the total mass MT is contained, that
is M99 = 0.99MT . Using the above definitions, we computed the relation M99 vs R99
for a set of hybrid stars with two central scalar amplitudes σ0 = 0.25, 0.05 MPl , whose
−2
fermionic matter is described by Eq. (13b), with k = 100 m−2 MPl , Γ = 2, and the
−6 −2 2 2
central pressures are limited to the range p0 ∈ [4 × 10 , 10 ] m MPl . The results are
1/3
shown in Figure 5, for one Hordenski model with Λ = 1.5 MPl m2/3 and c4 = −1/2. As
can be seen, if we start from a purely scalar configuration, p = 0 (dashed line), and we
increase the central pressure p0 , the new configurations will have larger radii and masses
until reaching a maximum point from which both quantities decrease again. It is easy
to see when comparing the curves for σ0 = 0.25 MPl and σ0 = 0.05 MPl , that the largest
mass point can be reached with a lower central pressure (see color bar) for a smaller
scalar field amplitude.
If we move to the right in the p = 0 curve, the configurations resulting from
increasing the central pressure become more similar to that obtained considering only
fermionic matter in the GR (NS curve). Note that the curves p = 0 and σ0 = 0 are
the lower and upper borders, in the sense that all configurations are enclosed between
these. We shaded in red (blue) the region where the pressure (scalar field) profile dropHorndeski fermion-boson stars 12
×10−2
200
c4 = −1/2 NS
175 0.8
150
m−1 ]
125 0.6
m2 ]
M99 [MPl
p0 [MPl
2
2
100
0.4
75
5
0.2
5
=
50
0.0
σ̄
0.2
=
σ̄
25
0 p=0
10 20 30 40 50
R99 [m−1 ]
Figure 5. M99 vs R99 profiles. Each curve corresponds to a set of configurations
computed for varying the central pressure p0 in the range [4 × 10−6 , 10−2 ] m2 MPl2
(vertical color bar), for two central amplitudes σ0 = 0.25, 0.05 MPl , with Λ =
1/3
1.5 MPl m2/3 and c4 = −1/2. The red (blue) shaded region indicates configurations
with a fermionic (bosonic) core. The limit cases i) and ii) are reached when p →
10−2 m2 MPl 2
and p → 4 × 10−6 m2 MPl 2
, respectively. Note that the curves p = 0
(dashed line) and σ0 = 0 (NS curve) represent the lower and upper configuration
limits, respectively. The fermionic matter is described by Eq. (13a) with Γ = 2, and
−2
k = 100 m−2 MPl . See the text for more details.
more sharply that than the scalar field (pressure) profile. The limit cases i) and ii) are
reached when p → 10−2 m2 MPl 2
and p → 4 × 10−6 m2 MPl 2
, respectively. Although the
results correspond to the a particular model, their described features are valid for the
rest of the models (c4 = 0, 1/2). In order to restore the physical quantities for the axes
in Figure 5, the following relations are needed
5.31M̄99 1.97R̄99
M99 = × 10−12 M , R99 = × 10−10 km. (16)
m[eV] m[eV]
4. Compactness
It is usual to define for objects with a sharp border (e.g. fermionic stars, black holes)
the compactness as the ratio between their total mass and radius: C ≡ GMT /(c2 R). In
the case of a hybrid star (in general for stars with a scalar field component), we define
the compactness in terms of the 99% quantities in the form
M99
C≡ 2
, (17)
8πMPl R99
2
where the factor of 8πMPl is included in such a way that the resulting number is
dimensionless. Notice that for the limit case i), which corresponds to the fermionic
dominated case, we find R99 ∼ R where R is the radius at which p(R) = 0.
In the left panel of Figure 6 we show the compactness profile C(r) for a configuration
−2
with σ0 = 0.25 MPl , p0 = 3.82 × 10−3 m2 MPl2
, k = 100 m−2 MPl and Γ = 2 for the modelsHorndeski fermion-boson stars 13
Schwarzschild radius
0.5
0.20 GR-Buchdahl bound
0.4 1/3
c4 = 1/2 with Λ = MPl m2/3
0.15
1/3 c4 = 0 ≡ Λ = ∞ (EKG)
c4 = 1/2 with Λ = MPl m2/3
1/3
c4 = 0 ≡ Λ = ∞ (EKG)
0.3 c4 = −1/2 with Λ = MPl m2/3
C
C
1/3
0.10 c4 = −1/2 with Λ = MPl m2/3
σ0 = σ0c (Λ = 1)
0.2
0.05 non-interacting boson star
0 20 40
0.1
−→
p0 ≤ 0 p0 > 0 p0 0
p0 σ0
0.00
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 0 1 2 3 4 5
r [m−1 ] p0 /0
Figure 6. Hybrid stars compactness. The compactness (17), for the models
1/3
c4 = ±1/2, with σ0 = 0.25 MPl , and a set of values of Λ ∈ [1, ∞) MPl m2/3 . The
solid/dotted orange (blue) curve corresponds to the model c4 = 1/2 (c4 = −1/2) with
1/3
the border value Λ = MPl m2/3 , while the black line correspond to Λ = ∞. (Left)
The compactness profile as function of the radial coordinate for an EOS polytropic
−2
(dotted lines) with k = 100 m−2 MPl , Γ = 2, and an incompressible fluid (solid
2 2
lines), with 0 = 0.01 MPl m . (Right) One example of our numerical Buchdahl’s limit
implementation for the same incompressible fluid. The dashed black line represents
the GR case, while the left (right) shape regions denote the hybrid stars with p0 ≤ 0
(p0 0 and p0 σ0 ). The inset corresponds to the amplitude σ0c = 0.6 MPl , it is the
1/3
last stable configuration for the model with c4 = 1/2, Λ = MPl m2/3 and p = 0. For
comparison we also show the following maximum compactness limits: Schwarzschild
black hole C = 1/2, Buchdahl’s limit Cmax = 4/9 [74], and that of a BS without
self-interactions Cmax = 0.1.
c4 = 0, ±1/2 (indicated by the different colors). The dotted curves correspond to the
polytropic fluid, whereas the solid curves correspond to the pressureless fluid, and we
can see that the maximum value the compactness can reach depend on the parameter
c4 , although the influence of the latter parameter seems to be different for each type of
fluid. The hybrid star with a polytropic fluid has a larger compactness, but this appears
so for the chosen value of p0 , as one can increase its value for the pressureless fluid and
reach much larger compactness. We show some illustrative examples of our numerical
2
realization for the models c4 = ±1/2, with 0 = 0.01 MPl m2 , σ0 = 0.25 MPl . The solid
orange (blue) curve corresponds to the model c4 = 1/2 (c4 = −1/2) with the border
1/3
value Λ = MPl m2/3 , while the black curve corresponds to the other border Λ = ∞
(which is equivalent to EKG model). The shaded orange (blue) region corresponds to
the rest of configurations with values of Λ in between these borders values.
The changes in the compactness profiles will imply changes in several properties,
for example: the possible gravitational radiation emitted by an asymmetric neutron
star [75] or by compact binary systems [76, 77]. The different criteria applied in the
selection of the NS (core) EOSs (see [78, 79] for a summary) could also be affected,
in the sense that already ruled out soft EOSs, because in the context of the GR the
stars cannot reach masses of 2 M , could be viable now in the context of hybrid stars.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 14
It is necessary to comment that although the results presented so far correspond to a
polytropic EOS, the authors hope that this behavior is generic. A study in detail of
more realistic EOSs would be very interesting, but it is beyond the scope of the present
work.
In terms of the compactness (17), neutron stars in GR may reach values in the
range of C ≈ 0.1 − 0.2 [80]. For a BS with no self-interactions the compactness can
be as large as C = 0.1 [81], growing up to C = 0.158 if we include an attractive λφ4
self-interaction term, and C ≈ 0.33 is possible considering solitonic potentials for the
scalar field [82, 83, 77]. In all these cases the compactness are below the Buchdahl’s limit
C = 4/9 [74]‡. To close this section we assume a similar criteria (a constant fermionic
energy density and isotropic pressure), and we explore whether, in these theories where
the scalar field is non-minimally coupled to the metric, there is any change to Buchdahl’s
limit.
Due to the intricacy of the system (7a)-(7c), our implementations is numerical. We
fix an energy density value 0 , and computed the compactness for a set of hybrid stars
profiles with increasing values of p0 . This procedure is repeated for different values of
1/3
Λ ∈ [1, ∞) MPl m2/3 and σ0 ∈ [10−2 , σ0c (Λ)]MPl , where σ0c (Λ) corresponds to the last
stable configuration with p = 0 for a given value of Λ. In the right panel of Figure 6
we show our numerical study of the Buchdahl’s limit. The dashed black line represents
the GR case, while the left (right) shaded regions denote the hybrid stars with p0 ≤ 0
(p0 0 and p0 σ0 ). Note that for large values of p0 , all the compactness profiles
converge to a limit value smaller than Buchdahl’s limit. We have verified that for the
1/3
extreme case: c4 = 1/2, Λ = MPl m2/3 , σ = σ0c = 0.6 MPl (see the inset in Fig. 6), this
behavior is still true§. That is, the Buchdahl’s limit remains as the upper bound in the
compactness for the hybrid stars. Note that considering another value of 0 does not
affect our conclusion, it will only imply that the shaded regions move to the left/right
depending on the chosen value.
5. Concluding remarks
In this paper we have shown that is possible to obtain self-gravitating hybrid objects
in a low energy effective model [55]. This model represents a sub-set of the (beyond)
Horndeski family that introduces infrared modifications of gravity, and in which scalar
field is non-minimally coupled to the metric.
The constructed hybrid stars are composed by a mixing of scalar and fermionic
matter whose only interaction is gravitational. Unlike previous works (see e.g. [61, 62]),
we considered a massive scalar field with a time dependence and a mass range between
‡ Many are the works that study, and generalize this limit. Some assuming various situations [84, 85,
86, 87], or extensions to GR [88, 89, 90, 91].
§ One might think that for a large p0 value, this conclusion is not valid. However, analyzing Figure 5
we conclude that for such cases the hybrid stars can be seen as a typical NS, therefore the conclusion
is still valid.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 15
10−9 − 10−11 eV that correspond to astrophysical objects (see Figure 3). These objects
present some differences and similarities with respect to their EKG counterpart. On
the one hand, configurations with a negative (positive) dimensionless coupling c4 have
scalar/masses profiles that are smaller (larger) than their counterparts in GR. On the
other hand, similarly to the EKG counterpart, for a fixed scalar field amplitude σ0 , and a
large (small) value of the central fermionic pressure p0 , the equivalents NS (BS) profiles
are recovered. Two limit cases were identified: i) stars with a bosonic core, and ii) the
opposite case of stars with a fermionic core. Despite that we used a polytropic EOS to
describe the fermionic matter, the authors consider that our concluding remarks would
be valid for any other EOS, as the aforementioned behaviors are due the gravitational
model and not of the EOS used. However, a future study with more realistic EOSs
could help to further validate our results.
Finally, we studied the compactness of these stars, and our results show that,
unlike typical NS and BS, the hybrids stars present a local and global maximum in
the compactness profile (as a function of the radial distance). This change could
imply possible signatures in some astrophysical observables. In the limit cases i), ii),
their respective compactness profiles are equivalent to GR results. Additionally, an
incompressible fluid with a constant energy density was considered, and we implemented
a numerical Buchdahl’s limit. We showed that for our parameter space the compactness
of these stars will always be less than 4/9, which leads us to conclude that the standard
Buchdahl’s limit is still valid for this family of Hordenski models. It is important to
note that this conclusion about the Buchdahl’s limit can be altered if the solutions are
1/3
coupled strongly and Λ ≤ MPl m2/3 (blue region in Fig. 3). However, these cases are
model dependent and beyond the scope of the present manuscript, and we shall report
about them elsewhere.
Acknowledgments
This work was partially supported by Programa para el Desarrollo Profesional Docente;
Dirección de Apoyo a la Investigación y al Posgrado, Universidad de Guanajuato;
CONACyT México under Grants No. A1-S-17899, No. 286897, No. 297771, No.
304001; and the Instituto Avanzado de Cosmologı́a Collaboration. We acknowledge
the use of the COUGHs server at the Universidad de Guanajuato.
References
[1] B. P. Abbott et al. Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Black Hole Merger. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 116(6):061102, 2016.
[2] B. P. Abbott et al. GWTC-1: A Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog of Compact Binary Mergers
Observed by LIGO and Virgo during the First and Second Observing Runs. Phys. Rev. X,
9(3):031040, 2019.
[3] R. Abbott et al. GWTC-2: Compact Binary Coalescences Observed by LIGO and Virgo During
the First Half of the Third Observing Run. 10 2020.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 16
[4] R. Abbott et al. Population Properties of Compact Objects from the Second LIGO-Virgo
Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog. 10 2020.
[5] R. Abbott et al. Tests of General Relativity with Binary Black Holes from the second LIGO-Virgo
Gravitational-Wave Transient Catalog. 10 2020.
[6] B. P. Abbott et al. GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Binary Neutron Star
Inspiral. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(16):161101, 2017.
[7] R. Abbott et al. GW190521: A Binary Black Hole Merger with a Total Mass of 150M . Phys.
Rev. Lett., 125(10):101102, 2020.
[8] A. Goldstein et al. An Ordinary Short Gamma-Ray Burst with Extraordinary Implications: Fermi-
GBM Detection of GRB 170817A. Astrophys. J. Lett., 848(2):L14, 2017.
[9] B.P. Abbott et al. Gravitational Waves and Gamma-rays from a Binary Neutron Star Merger:
GW170817 and GRB 170817A. Astrophys. J. Lett., 848(2):L13, 2017.
[10] Luca Amendola, Martin Kunz, Ippocratis D. Saltas, and Ignacy Sawicki. Fate of Large-
Scale Structure in Modified Gravity After GW170817 and GRB170817A. Phys. Rev. Lett.,
120(13):131101, 2018.
[11] Jose Marı́a Ezquiaga and Miguel Zumalacárregui. Dark Energy After GW170817: Dead Ends and
the Road Ahead. Phys. Rev. Lett., 119(25):251304, 2017.
[12] Edmund J. Copeland, Michael Kopp, Antonio Padilla, Paul M. Saffin, and Constantinos Skordis.
Dark energy after GW170817 revisited. Phys. Rev. Lett., 122(6):061301, 2019.
[13] Paolo Creminelli and Filippo Vernizzi. Dark Energy after GW170817 and GRB170817A. Phys.
Rev. Lett., 119(25):251302, 2017.
[14] Juan Calderón Bustillo, Nicolas Sanchis-Gual, Alejandro Torres-Forné, José A. Font, Avi Vajpeyi,
Rory Smith, Carlos Herdeiro, Eugen Radu, and Samson H. W. Leong. GW190521 as a Merger of
Proca Stars: A Potential New Vector Boson of 8.7 × 10−13 eV. Phys. Rev. Lett., 126(8):081101,
2021.
[15] Kentaro Somiya. Detector configuration of KAGRA: The Japanese cryogenic gravitational-wave
detector. Class. Quant. Grav., 29:124007, 2012.
[16] T. Akutsu et al. KAGRA: 2.5 Generation Interferometric Gravitational Wave Detector. Nature
Astron., 3(1):35–40, 2019.
[17] T. Akutsu et al. Overview of KAGRA : KAGRA science. 8 2020.
[18] C. S. Unnikrishnan. IndIGO and LIGO-India: Scope and plans for gravitational wave research
and precision metrology in India. Int. J. Mod. Phys. D, 22:1341010, 2013.
[19] Yungui Gong, Jun Luo, and Bin Wang. Concepts and status of Chinese space gravitational wave
detection projects. arXiv e-prints, page arXiv:2109.07442, September 2021.
[20] Remo Ruffini and Silvano Bonazzola. Systems of selfgravitating particles in general relativity and
the concept of an equation of state. Phys. Rev., 187:1767–1783, 1969.
[21] Matthew W. Choptuik. Universality and scaling in gravitational collapse of a massless scalar field.
Phys. Rev. Lett., 70:9–12, 1993.
[22] Tonatiuh Matos and Francisco Siddhartha Guzman. Scalar fields as dark matter in spiral galaxies.
Class. Quant. Grav., 17:L9–L16, 2000.
[23] L.Arturo Urena-Lopez and Argelia Bernal. Bosonic gas as a Galactic Dark Matter Halo. Phys.
Rev. D, 82:123535, 2010.
[24] Diego F. Torres, S. Capozziello, and G. Lambiase. A Supermassive scalar star at the galactic
center? Phys. Rev. D, 62:104012, 2000.
[25] F. S. Guzman and J. M. Rueda-Becerril. Spherical boson stars as black hole mimickers. Phys.
Rev. D, 80:084023, 2009.
[26] Pau Amaro-Seoane, Juan Barranco, Argelia Bernal, and Luciano Rezzolla. Constraining scalar
fields with stellar kinematics and collisional dark matter. JCAP, 11:002, 2010.
[27] Jérôme Gleyzes, David Langlois, Federico Piazza, and Filippo Vernizzi. Healthy theories beyond
Horndeski. Phys. Rev. Lett., 114(21):211101, 2015.
[28] Jérôme Gleyzes, David Langlois, Federico Piazza, and Filippo Vernizzi. Exploring gravitationalHorndeski fermion-boson stars 17
theories beyond Horndeski. JCAP, 02:018, 2015.
[29] H. Georgi. Effective field theory. Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 43:209–252, 1993.
[30] Antonio Pich. Effective field theory: Course. In Les Houches Summer School in Theoretical
Physics, Session 68: Probing the Standard Model of Particle Interactions, pages 949–1049, 6
1998.
[31] C.P. Burgess. Quantum gravity in everyday life: General relativity as an effective field theory.
Living Rev. Rel., 7:5–56, 2004.
[32] David B. Kaplan. Five lectures on effective field theory. 10 2005.
[33] Aneesh V. Manohar. Introduction to Effective Field Theories. Les Houches Lect. Notes, 108,
2020.
[34] Timothy Cohen. As Scales Become Separated: Lectures on Effective Field Theory. PoS,
TASI2018:011, 2019.
[35] C.P. Burgess. Introduction to Effective Field Theory. Cambridge University Press, 12 2020.
[36] Riccardo Penco. An Introduction to Effective Field Theories. 6 2020.
[37] David Langlois and Karim Noui. Degenerate higher derivative theories beyond Horndeski: evading
the Ostrogradski instability. JCAP, 02:034, 2016.
[38] Marco Crisostomi, Kazuya Koyama, and Gianmassimo Tasinato. Extended Scalar-Tensor Theories
of Gravity. JCAP, 04:044, 2016.
[39] C. Brans and R.H. Dicke. Mach’s principle and a relativistic theory of gravitation. Phys. Rev.,
124:925–935, 1961.
[40] Jose A. R. Cembranos. Dark Matter from R2-gravity. Phys. Rev. Lett., 102:141301, 2009.
[41] Philippe Brax. Screening mechanisms in modified gravity. Class. Quant. Grav., 30:214005, 2013.
[42] Austin Joyce, Bhuvnesh Jain, Justin Khoury, and Mark Trodden. Beyond the Cosmological
Standard Model. Phys. Rept., 568:1–98, 2015.
[43] Clifford M. Will. The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment. Living Rev.
Rel., 17:4, 2014.
[44] A.I. Vainshtein. To the problem of nonvanishing gravitation mass. Phys. Lett. B, 39:393–394,
1972.
[45] Rampei Kimura, Tsutomu Kobayashi, and Kazuhiro Yamamoto. Vainshtein screening in a
cosmological background in the most general second-order scalar-tensor theory. Phys. Rev.
D, 85:024023, 2012.
[46] Tatsuya Narikawa, Tsutomu Kobayashi, Daisuke Yamauchi, and Ryo Saito. Testing general scalar-
tensor gravity and massive gravity with cluster lensing. Phys. Rev. D, 87:124006, 2013.
[47] Kazuya Koyama, Gustavo Niz, and Gianmassimo Tasinato. Effective theory for the Vainshtein
mechanism from the Horndeski action. Phys. Rev. D, 88:021502, 2013.
[48] Marco Crisostomi and Kazuya Koyama. Vainshtein mechanism after GW170817. Phys. Rev. D,
97(2):021301, 2018.
[49] V.A. Rubakov and P.G. Tinyakov. Infrared-modified gravities and massive gravitons. Phys. Usp.,
51:759–792, 2008.
[50] Claudia de Rham. Massive Gravity. Living Rev. Rel., 17:7, 2014.
[51] Kurt Hinterbichler. Theoretical Aspects of Massive Gravity. Rev. Mod. Phys., 84:671–710, 2012.
[52] Ryotaro Kase, Shinji Tsujikawa, and Antonio De Felice. Conical singularities and the Vainshtein
screening in full GLPV theories. JCAP, 03:003, 2016.
[53] Antonio De Felice, Ryotaro Kase, and Shinji Tsujikawa. Existence and disappearance of conical
singularities in Gleyzes-Langlois-Piazza-Vernizzi theories. Phys. Rev. D, 92(12):124060, 2015.
[54] Ryotaro Kase, Shinji Tsujikawa, and Antonio De Felice. Cosmology with a successful Vainshtein
screening in theories beyond Horndeski. Phys. Rev. D, 93(2):024007, 2016.
[55] Juan Barranco, Javier Chagoya, Alberto Diez-Tejedor, Gustavo Niz, and Armando A. Roque.
Horndeski stars. 8 2021.
[56] A. B. Henriques, Andrew R. Liddle, and R. G. Moorhouse. Combined Boson - Fermion Stars:
Configurations and Stability. Nucl. Phys. B, 337:737–761, 1990.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 18
[57] A. B. Henriques, Andrew R. Liddle, and R. G. Moorhouse. Stability of boson - fermion stars.
Phys. Lett. B, 251:511–516, 1990.
[58] L. M. Lopes and A. B. Henriques. Boson - fermion stars: Going to larger boson masses. Phys.
Lett. B, 285:80–84, 1992.
[59] Alfredo B. Henriques and Luis E. Mendes. Boson - fermion stars: Exploring different
configurations. Astrophys. Space Sci., 300:367–379, 2005.
[60] Susana Valdez-Alvarado, Ricardo Becerril, and L. Arturo Ureña López. Fermion-boson stars with
a quartic self-interaction in the boson sector. Phys. Rev. D, 102(6):064038, 2020.
[61] Andrea Maselli, Hector O. Silva, Masato Minamitsuji, and Emanuele Berti. Neutron stars in
Horndeski gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 93(12):124056, 2016.
[62] Eugeny Babichev, Kazuya Koyama, David Langlois, Ryo Saito, and Jeremy Sakstein. Relativistic
Stars in Beyond Horndeski Theories. Class. Quant. Grav., 33(23):235014, 2016.
[63] Robert M. Wald. General Relativity. Chicago Univ. Pr., Chicago, USA, 1984.
[64] Marco Crisostomi, Matthew Hull, Kazuya Koyama, and Gianmassimo Tasinato. Horndeski:
beyond, or not beyond? JCAP, 03:038, 2016.
[65] M. Ostrogradsky. Mémoires sur les équations différentielles, relatives au problème des
isopérimètres. Mem. Acad. St. Petersbourg, 6(4):385–517, 1850.
[66] A. Pais and G. E. Uhlenbeck. On Field theories with nonlocalized action. Phys. Rev., 79:145–165,
1950.
[67] Yves Brihaye, Adolfo Cisterna, and Cristián Erices. Boson stars in biscalar extensions of Horndeski
gravity. Phys. Rev. D, 93(12):124057, 2016.
[68] Javier Chagoya and Gianmassimo Tasinato. Compact objects in scalar-tensor theories after
GW170817. JCAP, 08:006, 2018.
[69] Javier Chagoya, C. Ortiz, Benito Rodrı́guez, and Armando A. Roque. Strong gravitational lensing
by DHOST black holes. Class. Quant. Grav., 38(7):075026, 2021.
[70] Alberto Diez-Tejedor, Francisco Flores, and Gustavo Niz. Horndeski dark matter and beyond.
Phys. Rev. D, 97(12):123524, 2018.
[71] W. T. Wetterling W. H. Press, S. A. Teukolsky and B. P. Flannery. Numerical Recipes in C. The
Art of Scientific Computing. Cambridge University Press; 2 edition, October 30, 1992.
[72] Óscar J. C. Dias, Jorge E. Santos, and Benson Way. Numerical Methods for Finding Stationary
Gravitational Solutions. Class. Quant. Grav., 33(13):133001, 2016.
[73] Feryal Özel and Paulo Freire. Masses, Radii, and the Equation of State of Neutron Stars. Ann.
Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 54:401–440, 2016.
[74] Hans A. Buchdahl. General Relativistic Fluid Spheres. Phys. Rev., 116:1027, 1959.
[75] Piotr Jaranowski, Andrzej Krolak, and Bernard F. Schutz. Data analysis of gravitational - wave
signals from spinning neutron stars. 1. The Signal and its detection. Phys. Rev. D, 58:063001,
1998.
[76] Chad Hanna, Matthew C. Johnson, and Luis Lehner. Estimating gravitational radiation from
super-emitting compact binary systems. Phys. Rev. D, 95(12):124042, 2017.
[77] Carlos Palenzuela, Paolo Pani, Miguel Bezares, Vitor Cardoso, Luis Lehner, and Steven Liebling.
Gravitational Wave Signatures of Highly Compact Boson Star Binaries. Phys. Rev. D,
96(10):104058, 2017.
[78] J. L. Zdunik, M. Fortin, and P. Haensel. Neutron star properties and the equation of state for the
core. Astron. Astrophys., 599:A119, 2017.
[79] A. Li, Z. Y. Zhu, E. P. Zhou, J. M. Dong, J. N. Hu, and C. J. Xia. Neutron star equation of state:
Quark mean-field (QMF) modeling and applications. JHEAp, 28:19–46, 2020.
[80] Xtreme astrophysics group at the university of arizona. http://xtreme.as.arizona.edu/NeutronStars/.
[81] Steven L. Liebling and Carlos Palenzuela. Dynamical Boson Stars. Living Rev. Rel., 20(1):5,
2017.
[82] R. Friedberg, T.D. Lee, and Y. Pang. Scalar Soliton Stars and Black Holes. Phys. Rev. D, 35:3658,
1987.Horndeski fermion-boson stars 19
[83] Vitor Cardoso, Seth Hopper, Caio F. B. Macedo, Carlos Palenzuela, and Paolo Pani. Gravitational-
wave signatures of exotic compact objects and of quantum corrections at the horizon scale. Phys.
Rev. D, 94(8):084031, 2016.
[84] Hakan Andreasson. Sharp bounds on 2m/r of general spherically symmetric static objects. J.
Diff. Eq., 245:2243–2266, 2008.
[85] Paschalis Karageorgis and John G. Stalker. Sharp bounds on 2m/r for static spherical objects.
Class. Quant. Grav., 25:195021, 2008.
[86] Hakan Andreasson, Christian G. Boehmer, and Atifah Mussa. Bounds on M/R for Charged
Objects with positive Cosmological constant. Class. Quant. Grav., 29:095012, 2012.
[87] Ranjan Sharma, Arpita Ghosh, Soumik Bhattacharya, and Shyam Das. Anisotropic generalization
of Buchdahl bound for specific stellar models. Eur. Phys. J. C, 81(6):527, 2021.
[88] Naresh Dadhich, Alfred Molina, and Avas Khugaev. Uniform density static fluid sphere in Einstein-
Gauss-Bonnet gravity and its universality. Phys. Rev. D, 81:104026, 2010.
[89] Sumanta Chakraborty and Naresh Dadhich. Limits on stellar structures in Lovelock theories of
gravity. Phys. Dark Univ., 30:100658, 2020.
[90] Miguel A. Garcı́a-Aspeitia and L. Arturo Ureña López. Stellar stability in brane-worlds revisited.
Class. Quant. Grav., 32(2):025014, 2015.
[91] J. Kumar, H. D. Singh, and A. K. Prasad. A generalized buchdahl model for compact stars in f
(R;T) gravity. 6 2021.You can also read
