Constraints on the antistar fraction in the Solar system neighborhood from the 10-years Fermi Large Area Telescope gamma-ray source catalog Simon Dupourqu´ e, Luigi Tibaldo, and Peter von Ballmoos Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Plan´ etologie (IRAP) Universit´ e de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, CNES 31400 Toulouse, France (Dated: April 27, 2021) 1 arXiv:2103.10073v3 [astro-ph.HE] 26 Apr 2021
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Constraints on the antistar fraction in the Solar system
neighborhood from the 10-years Fermi Large Area Telescope
gamma-ray source catalog
Simon Dupourque, Luigi Tibaldo, and Peter von Ballmoos
Institut de Recherche en Astrophysique et Planetologie (IRAP)
Universite de Toulouse, CNRS, UPS, CNES
31400 Toulouse, France
(Dated: April 27, 2021)
1
arX
iv:2
103.
1007
3v3
[as
tro-
ph.H
E]
26
Apr
202
1
Abstract
I. INTRODUCTION
We generally take it for granted that equal amounts of matter and antimatter were
produced in the Big Bang, yet the observable Universe seems to contain only negligible
quantities of antimatter. Baryonic antimatter in our Solar and Galactic neighborhood can
be constrained by the observation of high-energy gamma rays [1]: when coming into con-
tact with normal matter, it would produce annihilation radiation featuring a characteristic
spectrum peaking around half the mass of the neutral pion at ∼70 MeV, and with a cutoff
around the mass of the proton at 938 MeV [2]. The non detection of this annihilation fea-
ture in gamma rays has virtually excluded the existence of substantial amounts of baryonic
antimatter in the solar system, the solar neighborhood, the Milky Way, and up to the scale
of galaxy clusters [1, 3, 4]. When combined with observations of the largely isotropic Cosmic
Microwave Background, the lack of an “MeV-bump” in gamma-rays has led to the presently
accepted paradigm in which a matter-antimatter symmetric Universe can be ruled out [5].
Presently, baryon asymmetry is regarded as one of the deepest enigmas of nature. While
emerging in the macroscopic Universe, its origin has been sought mainly in the microscopic
world of particle physics. The discoveries that weak interactions violate parity invariance
(P violation [6]) and charge-parity symmetry (CP violation [7]) were the first experimental
clues leading to baryogenesis scenarios for explaining the excess of matter over antimatter. In
baryogenesis scenarios, the reheating that follows the inflationary epoch produces an initially
symmetric universe (equal abundances of matter and antimatter), and then departure from
the CP invariant state out of thermal equilibrium and the dynamical production of a net
baryon number result in the observed baryon asymmetry [8].
The hitherto observed symmetry violations are, however, far too minute to explain the
FIG. 2. Minimum energy flux in the 100 MeV - 100 GeV energy range for a pointlike source
with matter-antimatter annihilation spectrum to be detectable in the 4FGL-DR2 catalog. Galactic
coordinates.
emission, as expected antistars would be more easily observed outside the Galactic plane,
which tends to be the case for our candidates.
Our estimate of the sensitivity is not fully consistent with the analysis used to build
the 4FGL catalog because the p − p spectrum is not among the spectral forms considered
for source detection. We calculated the sensitivity for a pointlike source with a power-law
spectrum of spectral index 2.7, which is used for the detection of soft sources in 4FGL [21,
Table 3]. This does not entirely match the case of interest either, i.e., a source with p − p
annihilation spectrum analysed by assuming a power-law spectrum. However, we can use
the result to gauge the impact on our limits on antistars. The sensitivity for a power-law
source of spectral index 2.7 is always better than for the p−p annihilation spectrum, with a
median ratio over the sky for the minimum detectable energy flux in the 100 MeV - 100 GeV
energy range of 0.67. For the rest of the paper we will use the more conservative estimate
of the sensitivity based on the p− p annihilation spectrum. Using the sensitivity for a soft
power-law source would make all our limits stronger.
9
III. THE FRACTION OF ANTISTARS IN THE SOLAR SYSTEM NEIGHBOR-
HOOD
A. Gamma-ray flux of an antistar
The limits on the antistar population in the solar neighborhood are established based
on the hypothesis that antistars in the Galaxy would accrete matter from the ISM with
subsequent p− p annihilation at their surface [1].
Following the steps of Steigman [1], we compute the total luminosity of an antistar for
Bondi-Hoyle-Littleton accretion [31] and using the gamma-ray yield per p − p annihilation
from Backenstoss et al. [2]. Taking into account explicitly the speed of sound c and the
density of matter ρ in the ISM, this yields
Lγ = 8.45× 1035
(ρ
mp cm−3
)(M
M�
)2( √
v2 + c2
10 km s−1
)−3
[ph s−1]. (4)
The remaining parameters are the antistar mass M and its velocity v with respect to the
ISM. Assuming isotropic gamma-ray emission and that there is no significant absorption
during the propagation, the total source flux at a distance d is Φ = Lγ/4πd2.
Owing to the unavailability of measurements of the annihilation cross sections for reac-
tions of antinuclei other than p − p and the lack of robust prescriptions on the elemental
and isotopic composition of antistars, all along this study we neglect the effect of species
heavier than p both in antistars and in the ISM. Taking those into account would make all
the upper limits derived in the following sections stronger.
Beside antistar properties, the calculation of the gamma-ray fluxes requires some knowl-
edge about the ISM.
• Throughout this work we fix c = 1 km s−1, i.e., the isothermal sound speed of the
dominant cool atomic phase in the ISM at a temperature of 100 K [32]. Variations
of c of a factor of a few that are known to occur in the ISM are not expected to
change substantially our conclusions for antistars with velocities ranging from tens to
hundreds of km s−1 which will be mainly discussed below.
• In Sections III C 2 and III C 3 the density of interstellar hydrogen at the antistar posi-
tions is calculated based on the model by Shibata et al. [33].
10
• In Sections III C 2 and III C 3 the velocity of the antistars is converted into velocity
with respect to the ISM under the hypothesis of purely circular motion of the ISM
around the Galactic center, described by the universal rotation curve of Persic et al.
[34] with the parameters for the Milky Way inferred from recent parallax distance
measurements of high-mass star-forming regions [35].
B. Parametric derivation of the antistar fraction
In this section we establish limits on the antistar fraction based on the method proposed
by Steigman [1] and largely employed in the earlier literature on the subject. The method
consists in assuming that the brightest antistar candidate is the nearest antistar. One can
thus determine its distance based on its photon flux Φmax for any mass, velocity, and ISM
density values. The sphere with radius equal to such distance is assumed to contain at most
one antistar, and the fraction of antistars to normal stars is given by f∗ = (n∗V )−1 where
n∗ is the local star density (for which we assume the value of 0.15 pc−3 from Latyshev [36]),
and V is the volume of the sphere.
In parametric form, the antistar fraction upper limit is given by
f∗ ≤ 2.68× 103
(Φmax
cm−2 s−1
)3/2(ρ
mp cm−3
)−3/2(M
M�
)−3( √
v2 + c2
10 km s−1
)9/2
(5)
We use the energy flux in the 100 MeV-100 GeV energy range from 4FGL-DR2 to obtain
the total photon flux for the p − p annihilation spectrum [2], and thus obtain the minimal
distances and upper limits on the antistar fraction shown in in Figure 3 as a function of
antistar mass and velocity for an ISM density of ρ = 1 mp cm−3.
The distance to the closest antistar and corresponding antistar fraction varies very much
based on the assumed parameter values. For example, taking M = 1 M�, v = 10 km s−1,
and ρ = 1 mp cm−3 the closest antistar would be at 10 pc, which would yield an upper
limit on the fraction f∗ ≤ 10−8. For comparison, the upper limit provided by Steigman was
f∗ ≤ 10−4 based on SAS-2 data [1].
In 2014, von Ballmoos inferred an upper limit f∗ < 4× 10−5 using unassociated sources
from the LAT 2-year Source Catalog 2FGL [4]. Our upper limit on the antistar fraction
is stronger because antistar candidates are selected according to more restrictive criteria,
notably the lack of significant emission above 1 GeV, drastically reducing their number.
11
101 102
v [km s−1]
100
101
M[M�
]
ρ = 1mp cm−3
d [pc]10−2
10−1
100
101
102
103
101 102
v [km s−1]
100
101
M[M�
]
ρ = 1mp cm−3
f∗10−14
10−12
10−10
10−8
10−6
10−4
10−2
100
102
FIG. 3. Left: distance d of the closest antistar candidate in the 4FGL-DR2 catalog based on the
luminosity relation in Equation 4. Right: corresponding upper limit on the antistar fraction f∗
from Equation 5. In both panels the quantities are shown as a function of velocity v w.r.t. the
ISM and antistar mass M for an ISM density ρ = 1 mp cm−3.
Moreover, the accumulation of additional data by the LAT also makes it possible to observe
sources whose photon flux is 10 times lower than those selected by von Ballmoos [4]: their
distance would be larger, thus lowering the upper limit on the fraction.
This method for estimating f∗ has several limitations: it relies on arbitrary choices for
the parameters and the obtained limits do not have a well-defined statistical meaning. In
addition, Equation 5 takes into account the flux of one source only, neglecting the rest of
the exploitable information.
C. Monte Carlo derivation of the antistar fraction
1. General method description
To overcome the limitations of the previous procedure, we propose a novel Monte Carlo
method. The method relies on a well-defined hypothesis on the antistar population with
only one free parameter (the antistar fraction f∗ or the antistar density n∗). Based on this
hypothesis we build an estimator N∗ for the number of antistars that should be detected for
a given value of the free parameter. For each parameter value, we generate 1000 synthetic
antistar populations according to the hypothesis and calculate the associated gamma-ray
12
fluxes. The fluxes are then compared to the sensitivity map (Figure 2) to check whether
the synthetic sources would be detected or not, and determine the number of expected
detections.
We note that this method does not provide accurate results w.r.t. to effects relevant
to individual sources (e.g., presence of a nearby source, small-scale fluctuation of the ISM
density). However, owing to the large number of populations generated, the procedure
should provide a reliable estimation of the average number of expected detections.
We determine the value of the free parameters that yields N∗ ≤ 14 for 95% of the
synthetic populations, and N∗ > 14 for 5% of the populations, where 14 is the number of
antistar candidates found in 4FGL-DR2 (Section II A). This provides a 95% confidence level
upper limit on the parameter value. The value is determined via the probabilistic bisection
algorithm [37], which is an adaptation of the classical bisection algorithm for stochastic root
finding. We use the implementation4 of this algorithm by Fass et al. [38] with the maximum
number of iterations on the parameter value set to 1000.
2. Antistar fraction for a young disk population
The first hypothesis that we consider is that antistars have the same properties as normal
stars, dominated by the young stellar populations in the Galactic disk. Although difficult
to justify physically5, this hypothesis makes it possible to compare our results with previous
works that employ star-like parameters for antistars. In order to generate synthetic star
population we use the code Galaxia [39], which implements the state-of-the-art Besancon
model [40]. The free parameter here is the fraction f∗, and the generation of a Monte Carlo
population at a given f∗ is done by randomly selecting stars from a Galaxia population
with probability f∗. Populations are generated for a maximum distance of 11 kpc, which
corresponds to the maximal detection distance by the LAT for star properties according to
the considered model.
Using this method, the local fraction of antistars is estimated at f∗ < 2.5× 10−6 at 95%
confidence level. This result is 20 times more constraining than the limit reported based on
2FGL [4], and no longer relies on arbitrary choices for the antistar properties.
4 Publicly available at https://github.com/choderalab/thresholds.5 See, e.g., the discussion in Poulin et al. [16] on the challenges to the hypothesis that antistars are actively
forming in the Milky Way at the current epoch, which would require the survival of anticlouds from the