[Paper Review] A comment on "Exclusion of the remaining mass window for primordial black holes ...", arXiv:1401.3025

Fábio Capela, М. С. Пширков+1 more|arXiv (Cornell University)|Feb 19, 2014

Black Holes and Theoretical Physics9 citations

TL;DR

This comment challenges the claim in Pani et al. (2014) that primordial black holes (PBHs) in the mass range 10^17–10^26 g lose energy via acoustic wave excitation in neutron stars much more efficiently than via dynamical friction. It argues that the supersonic motion of PBHs (v ~ 0.6c) invalidates the acoustic wave model due to causality, as sound waves cannot form in time. The authors show that the energy loss calculation in Pani et al. relies on an unjustified extrapolation of mode amplitudes beyond the core-crust transition scale, and that the resulting enhancement factor is not physically valid, reverting the energy loss to levels comparable to dynamical friction.

ABSTRACT

In arXiv:1401.3025 a new mechanism of energy loss by primordial black holes passing through neutron stars has been proposed, which is more efficient, by many orders of magnitude, than the existing ones. In this comment we point out a problem in the calculations of arXiv:1401.3025 that may invalidate the result.

Motivation & Objective

• To challenge the claim in Pani et al. (2014) that PBHs lose energy via acoustic wave excitation in neutron stars much more efficiently than via dynamical friction.
• To identify a fundamental flaw in the physical justification of the acoustic mode energy loss calculation, particularly the extrapolation of low-l modes to extremely high l values.
• To demonstrate that causality and the supersonic motion of PBHs (v ~ 0.6c) prevent the formation of coherent acoustic waves, making the acoustic model inapplicable.
• To show that the energy loss from PBHs in neutron stars should not exceed the dynamical friction result, as both approaches must converge in the supersonic limit.
• To caution against overestimating constraints on PBH abundance based on unphysical extrapolations in the mode amplitude spectrum.

Proposed method

• Analyzes the perturbation equations for acoustic modes in a gravitating fluid under the Cowling approximation, focusing on the radial and angular dependence of mode amplitudes.
• Uses the radial equation for perturbations (eq. 2) and transforms it via a change of variables to isolate the dominant terms, particularly l(l+1)/r² for high l.
• Estimates the core-crust transition thickness d ~ 30 m from realistic neutron star density profiles, leading to a critical l-scale l_d ~ 500.
• Argues that for l ≳ l_d, the l(l+1)/r² term dominates, causing f-modes to peak in the crust and lose sensitivity to the core's equation of state, invalidating the l⁻ⁿ dependence with n ~ 0.5.
• Evaluates the sum ∑ E_l ∝ ∑ l⁻ⁿ from l=100 to l_max ~ 10¹⁰ in Pani et al., showing that the claimed enhancement factor ~10⁵ is unjustified due to the breakdown of the power-law behavior at high l.
• Considers the validity of the linear approximation used in Pani et al., questioning whether small energy loss relative to PBH mass justifies neglecting non-linear hydrodynamic terms.

Experimental results

Research questions

• RQ1 Does the acoustic wave model for energy loss from PBHs in neutron stars remain valid when the PBH velocity exceeds the speed of sound?
• RQ2 Can the energy loss from PBHs via f-mode excitation significantly exceed the dynamical friction limit in the supersonic regime?
• RQ3 Is the extrapolation of the mode amplitude spectrum E_l ∝ l⁻ⁿ from l=100 to l~10¹⁰ physically justified, given the finite thickness of the core-crust transition layer?
• RQ4 What is the physical scale at which the f-mode behavior transitions from core-dominated to crust-dominated, and how does this affect the energy loss sum?
• RQ5 Does the linearized treatment of hydrodynamic perturbations remain valid when the PBH mass is large and the perturbation energy is not negligible?

Key findings

• The supersonic motion of PBHs (v ~ 0.6c) in neutron stars prevents the formation of coherent acoustic waves, invalidating the acoustic mode approach due to causality constraints.
• The core-crust transition region has a finite thickness d ~ 30 m, corresponding to a critical l-scale l_d ~ 500, beyond which f-mode amplitudes no longer follow the l⁻ⁿ dependence with n ~ 0.5.
• The claimed enhancement factor of ~10⁵ in energy loss from Pani et al. (2014) is invalid because it relies on extrapolating the mode amplitude spectrum to l ~ 10¹⁰, where the physical assumptions break down.
• For l ≲ l_d, the f-modes are localized in the core-crust transition and can reflect core properties; for l ≳ l_d, they peak in the crust and are insensitive to the core's equation of state, invalidating the original power-law fit.
• The energy loss from PBHs should not exceed the dynamical friction result by more than a numerical factor of order unity, as both approaches must converge in the supersonic limit.
• The justification of the linear approximation in Pani et al. is questionable, as small energy loss relative to PBH mass does not guarantee the smallness of non-linear hydrodynamic terms.