In the fourth installment of my “Top arXiv papers of the week” column you can read about quantum foam, whether GW190425 is the first neutron star-black hole merger ever detected, the H0 tension and strong lensing time delays, how to efficiently parametrize the spacetime around black holes, and finally whether microlensing of quasars might point towards primordial black holes. Also, I will at least try to come up with a nice name for this blog before next week’s column!
#1 2001.06016: A limit on Planck-scale froth with ESPRESSO by Ryan Cooke et al.
First of all, let me state that this is one of the best title I have ever read! This is one of those cases where I probably would not even have noticed the paper had it had another title, whereas this one reminded me of the delicious cup of Nespresso coffee I enjoy every morning (yes yes yes I know I’m a bad person because I’m doing horrible things to the environment, though you can now recycle your Nespresso capsules), topped with milk froth produced from my Aeroccino. I’m not sure how intentional this choice was, because if so, it would almost be an unique case of the title choosing the project rather than the other way round which makes more sense scientifically. Anyway, let’s get to the science. The ultimate theory of quantum gravity should describe the structure of spacetime on extremely small lengthscales, comparable to the Planck length of ~10^-35 m. Whatever this theory of quantum gravity turns out to be, it is possible, if not probable, that at such lengths spacetime should fluctuate quantum mechanically to the point that it appears frothy (you might have heard of quantum foam). This sounds pretty crazy and, most importantly, impossible to probe, right? Wrong! In most of these quantum foam models, an important effect is that basically these foamy fluctuations sum up to something visible over cosmological distances. Thus, even if we start out with light from a very distant source being monocromatic, quantum foam will scramble its wavefront, resulting in its period and wavelength dispersing as it travels to us (this would effectively blur cosmological sources).
Today’s work suggests a new way of looking for quantum foam effects. The authors use narrow absorption lines in the spectrum of distant quasars, this absorption being caused by gas along the line-of-sight. The heavier the ion involved, the narrower the energy width of the absorption feature will be. The authors then suggest to look at the relative width of absorption lines from a heavy ion (they choose Fe-II) and search for a wavelength-dependent energy width. They do so using data from the ESPRESSO spectrograph mounted upon the Very Large Telescope. Using a phenomenological parametrization for the effect of quantum foam parametrized by a certain parameter alpha, they manage to rule out alpha<0.6. This is interesting because at face values it rules out an interesting quantum foam scenario known as random walk quantum foam (see Giovanni Amelino-Camelia’s paper) which corresponds to alpha=0.5. It is also on the verge of excluding the holographic quantum foam model proposed by ‘t Hooft and Susskind which corresponds to alpha=2/3. To put it differently, if photons take discrete steps through spacetime, during each of which their wavelengths disperse a bit, these steps must be at least 13 orders of magnitude larger than the Planck length. I always find remarkable how one can constrain, even if with several caveats, models of quantum gravity with astrophysical observations!
#2 2001.07882: Is GW190425 consistent with being a neutron star-black hole merger? by Ming-Zhe Han et al.
Recently, LIGO reported the detection of event GW190425. The official interpretation appears to be that this is due to a binary neutron star (NS) merger. However, many aren’t convinced. For one, while the two individual masses are consistent with what one expects for neutron stars, the total mass of about 3.4 solar masses is way larger than that of any other known binary NS system. In fact, it’s a 5ish sigma outlier from the previously reported range of 2.66±0.12 solar masses for the total gravitational mass of binary NS systems (note that GW170817 fell well within 1 sigma of this range). Which is why many people are looking at the possibility that GW190425 might not, in fact, be due to a NS-NS merger, but might be the first NS-BH merger we ever see. There’s a vastly growing literature on what GW190425 might be, for a continuously up-to-date list please see this INSPIRE link. GW190425 is also peculiar in that it was only detected by the Livingston observatory, as the Hanford one was offline at the time of the detection.
This week’s paper examines the possibility that GW190425 might be a NS-BH merger, which would be the first of its kind and a very exciting thing indeed. In particular, the authors do a parameter estimation exercise for the full associated parameter space of the merger, including the individual NS and BH masses, the NS tidal deformability, the dimensionless spins, and so on. They find that the NS-BH scenario appears to explain data well (although I don’t think they have done anything like a model comparison analysis to compare NS-BH to NS-NS; I think the number P=0.738 and more generally the whole discussion around Eq.(3) is perhaps a bit over-simplified, and I wouldn’t interpret that number too literally). Interestingly, if the NS-BH scenario is to be taken seriously, the BH mass would be about 2.3 solar masses, which is quite low and appears to lie within the so-called mass gap between the masses of the lightest BHs and the heaviest NSs formed by supernovae. If confirmed, this would suggest that BHs might come with a continuous mass distribution and might exclude the mass gap hypothesis (there had already been hints that this hypothesis might not be correct). I think this would be interesting for models of BH formation, but could also mean that one might misidentify BH-BH mergers as NS-BH mergers if one of the two BHs is very light and one believes in the existence of the mass gap. Currently the data does not appear precise enough to confirm or exclude that GW190425 is a NS-NS merger: in this sense, an electromagnetic counterpart would be very welcome. There have been intriguing claims of detection of an electromagnetic counterpart, called of course GRB190425, detected about 6 seconds after the merger. This has yet to be confirmed, of course, and it will be interesting to see how the situation evolves. Should the counterpart be confirmed, it will undoubtedly also provide further stringent tests for theories of gravity, along the lines of what GW170817 did.
#3 2001.07182: Could quasar lensing time delays hint to cored dark matter halos, instead of H0 tension? by Kfir Blum, Emanuele Castorina, and Marko Simonović
Readers of this column most likely know about the H0 tension between local distance ladder (e.g. SH0ES) measurements and high-redshift (CMB+BAO+SNe) inferences of the Hubble constant H0, so I won’t go into more detail in that (an excellent recent accessible review is this summary of this KITP conference). Recently a new chapter in the story has emerged: there is a third completely independent way of measuring H0, based on time delays of strongly lensed systems (SLS) such as quasars. Basically if you have a distant SLS lensed by a foreground lens, you get multiple images of the original system (google - or use Baidu if in China! - something like “h0licow strong lensing” to get an idea of how cool these images are). However, these multiple images do not arrive at the same time, and these time delays depend both on the matter distribution of the lens and a combination of distances (from us to the source, from us to the lens, and from the lens to the source), the latter depending on H0. So by measuring the time delays of SLS one can in principle measure H0, a proposal as far as I know first put forward by the Norwegian astronomer Sjur Refsdal in 1964 (read the original paper here). That’s what the H0LiCOW collaboration has been doing for a few years now. Trouble is that the value of H0 they infer is in 3ish sigma tension with the high-redshift value, with the tension becoming 5ish sigma if combined with the local distance ladder value. Time delays are of course not systematics-free, the most important one being the choice of family of models used to reconstruct the lens potential. In today’s papers, the authors address the interesting question of whether the strong lensing chapter in the H0 tension might be solved by introducing a new feature in the mass density profiles used to model the lenses (or, conversely, what can we learn about such profiles if we believe the high-redshift value of H0).
The key concept here is that of mass sheet transformation/degeneracy (MST/MSD): the lensing reconstruction problem is not solved by an unique convergence field kappa (which measures the projected mass overdensity), but in principle by a whole family of kappas parametrized by a given parameter which the authors call lambda, related to the original kappa by a so-called MST. While the lensing image plane geometry is invariant under the MST, the value of H0 one infers is not (in fact, it’s directly rescaled by this lambda). If this is the case, the H0 likelihood from strong lensing measurements should have a nearly flat direction probed by this lambda. The H0LiCOW team considers power-law (PL) density models for the lenses, but today’s paper shows that if one adds (to all H0LiCOW lenses of course) a core component in addition to the PL one, then the inferred value of H0 would shift downwards. To restore agreement between H0LiCOW and the high-redshift H0, the core component only needs to be 10% of the total enclosed mass of the lens. This is potentially very interesting for dark matter (DM) model-building because cored profiles are known to possibly arise in self-interacting dark matter (DM) models (see e.g. this paper). Let me point out that many concrete particle realizations of these self-interacting DM models feature extra massless or light degrees of freedom which contribute a non-negligible amount of dark radiation (as parametrized by Neff, see also my post from last week), a small amount of which would not be excluded by CMB polarization measurements and would go in the direction of slightly raising the high-redshift value of H0, further helping to solve the tension with strong lensing measurements. On the other hand, the mechanism proposed by the authors of course has no effect on the local distance ladder, so solving the tension between inverse distance ladder and strong lensing measurements of H0 comes at the expense of now introducing a tension between strong lensing and local distance ladder (i.e. loosely speaking there is a conserved charge which is the “total amount of tension”, however you want to measure that :) ). However, I definitely think it’s worth considering scenarios which could explain the strong lensing chapter of the H0 tension, as people so far have almost exclusively focused on reconciling the high-redshift and local distance ladder chapters.
#4 2001.06100: General parametrization of black holes: the only parameters that matter by Roman Konoplya and Alexander Zhidenko
The physics of black holes (BHs) is rapidly flourishing mostly thanks to an increasing number of observations such as gravitational waves or BH shadows. At this point we can really start to test Einstein’s theory of GR in the strong-field regime, comparing observations to predictions of various theories of gravity. However, there are too many theories of gravity out there and we can’t compare them one by one. So clearly we need a framework providing us a general description of the spacetimes around BHs (both close to and far from the event horizon), valid in a wide range of metric theories of gravity, in terms of a finite number of parameters which we can then constrain against observations. These general constraints then can be translated into specific theories of gravity provided you can map these parameters onto your favorite theory (which should be relatively easy). This would be quite similar in spirit to the PPN formalism in the weak-field regime, or the Bellini-Sawicki formalism for cosmological perturbations in a wide class of modified theories of gravity. One of this week’s authors, Zhidenko, together with Luciano Rezzolla (one of the bosses of numerical relativity, you probably recognize him if you’ve followed the press around the time the Event Horizon Telescope delivered the first image of the shadow of M87*), proposed in this earlier paper one such parametrization for spherically symmetric BHs which makes use of infinite fractions function of a compactified radial coordinate. However, this parametrization comes in principle with an infinite number of parameters, which is of course highly impractical. The question this week’s paper then addresses is: given a certain target precision in certain physical observables, how many of these parameters do we actually need?
Let’s clarify a few things: what do the authors mean by physical observables? Basically they mean observables which are of direct interest to ongoing electromagnetic and gravitational observations, and whose physics is mostly determined in what the authors call the radiation region. This region is located at some distance from the event horizon, but not too far from the innermost stable circular orbit (or ISCO for short). The most important such observables are the orbital frequency at the ISCO, the Lyapunov exponent (related to the damping rate of eikonal quasi-normal-modes), and the radius of the BH shadow. Other quantities whose physics is instead determined in what the authors call the near-horizon zone (such as Hawking radiation and echos), which could parametrize aspects related to proposed solutions to the BH information paradox, are argued to not be observable in the near future (although see my post from two weeks ago). Konoplya and Zhidenko then study a large number of BH solutions in alternative theories of gravity (such as Einstein-scalar-Gauss-Bonnet, Einstein-dilaton-Gauss-Bonnet, Einstein-Weyl, and so on), and study what is the relative error in these observables one makes if truncating the aforementioned infinite fraction parametrization to first or second order compared to the analytic solution (this assumes that you already know the mapping between these theories and the Rezzolla-Zhidenko parametrization, which they do). They find that for most of these theories it is fine to stop at first order, which basically means that one needs only three parameters (which they call epsilon, a1, and b1). For slowly-rotating BHs, the authors claim that only a fourth parameter is needed. This study is definitely very useful, and among the other useful things Konoplya and Zhidenko provide closed expressions for the shadow radius and Lyapunov exponent given these three parameters. On a related note, it is worth noting that the useful idea of relating the real part of the quasi-normal-modes in the eikonal regime to the shadow radius had also been exploited recently in a very interesting paper by Kimet Jusufi (see 1912.13320). As a caveat, today’s study does not apply to BHs which are spinning very fast (one of the problems is that the so-called radiation and near-horizon zones start to overlap), or whose metric changes rapidly near the event horizon (again, this could happen in proposals which attempt to resolve the BH information paradox). While extending this week’s paper to those scenarios would definitely be very interesting, I would expect that it is highly non-trivial and possibly a parametrized approach with a finite number of parameters wouldn’t work in those cases.
#5 2001.07633: The signature of primordial black holes in the dark matter halos of galaxies by Michael R. S. Hawkins
In today’s post I have already talked about strong lensing of quasars in the context of the paper by Blum, Castorina, and Simonović. Basically a massive galaxy along the line-of-sight to a quasar can strongly lens it resulting in multiple images of the quasar itself. However, on top of this strong lensing, strongly lensed quasars are typically also microlensed. For those unfamiliar with the concept of microlensing, it is the idea that smaller and significantly less massive objects (such as stars or even planets, or more generally clumps of matter) will effectively lead to a temporary time-dependent magnification of the background object. That’s basically one of the many ways we have to look for exoplanets, by looking at the microlensing of its star(s). For some time, a question has been whether this microlensing on top of the strong lensing of a distant quasar can be accounted for exclusively by the stellar population of the galaxy responsible for the lensing, and the answer seemed to be “Yes”.
In today’s paper, Hawkins examines this claim using four gravitationally lensed quasars. Making some assumptions, Hawkins manages to extract the stellar surface mass density of the lensing galaxies, and from that the probability that the quasars are being microlensed by the stars in question. For each of the four systems, the probability that the microlensing of the background quasar is due to the stars in the lensing galaxy is estimated to be between 2% and 12%, resulting in a total probability of ~10^-6 that the microlensing of all four quasars is due to the stellar population in the lensing galaxies. I do not have enough expertise to judge whether the modelling leading to these results is correct (we did discuss it at our journal club today and nobody found any obvious flaw, although we only skimmed the paper). Hawkins then argues that this indicates the need for additional compact dark matter sources to explain this excess microlensing, and this could be compact dark matter in the halos of the lensing galaxies or along the line-of-sight. What I am not convinced by is Hawkins’ subsequent claiming that the most probable candidate for these compact objects is primordial BHs. I could in principle imagine many other plausible candidates for such compact structures, such as axion dark matter minihalos formed from white-noise isocurvature density fluctuations in the post-inflationary scenario (see e.g. this paper by Dai and Miralda-Escudé).