Arxiv:1912.00685V2 [Gr-Qc] 30 Mar 2020

USTC-ICTS-19-29 Relativistic stars in mass-varying massive gravity

Xue Sun1 and Shuang-Yong Zhou2 1School of Physical Sciences, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China 2Interdisciplinary Center for Theoretical Study, University of Science and Technology of China, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China and Peng Huanwu Center for Fundamental Theory, Hefei, Anhui 230026, China (Dated: March 31, 2020) Mass-varying massive gravity allows the graviton mass to vary according to different environments. We investigate neutron star and white dwarf solutions in this theory and find that the graviton mass can become very large near the compact stars and settle down quickly to small cosmological values away the stars, similar to that of black holes in the theory. It is found that there exists a tower of compact star solutions where the graviton mass decreases radially to zero non-trivially. We compute the massive graviton effects on the mass-radius relations of the compact stars, and also compare the relative strengths between neutron stars and white dwarfs in constraining the parameter space of mass-varying massive gravity.

I. INTRODUCTION ton mass near the horizon, there is an extra potential barrier to the left of the photosphere barrier in the modified Regge-Wheeler-Zerilli equation, and this can lead to Recent advances in astrophysics, particularly the ar- gravitational wave echoes [18, 19] in the late time ring- rival of gravitational wave astronomy [1, 2], have pro- down waveform when the black hole is perturbed [16]. vided fresh new opportunities to test gravity in the strong field regime with compact astronomical objects. Whilst The detection of gravitational waves from neutron star in Einstein gravity the graviton is massless, an interest- mergers [2] has added a new dimension to our ability to ing class of alternative theories of gravity is to let the unravel the nature of strong gravity and the structure of graviton become massive [3–6]. See [7–9] for a recent relativistic compact stars. Neutron star solutions have review on recent developments in constructing massive been previously investigated in the original dRGT model gravity and bi-gravity models [3–6] that are free of the [20] and in bi-gravity [21] with a graviton mass that is Boulware-Deser ghost [10] and their applications. Typi- much greater than typical cosmological scales. Relativis- cally, the graviton mass is set to be close to the current tic star solutions in dRGT-like models with a singular Hubble scale [11], as one of the main phenomenological reference metric have also been studied [22, 23]. applications of these models is to explain the late time In this paper, we will further investigate the compact cosmic acceleration [12, 13]. For such a small graviton star solutions in mass-varying massive gravity. We will mass, or such a long Compton wavelength, simple di- compute the neutron star and white dwarf solutions, us- mension analysis suggests that these models can be best ing the APR [24] and SLy [25] equations of state for neu- constrained by large scale or cosmological observations, tron stars and the Chandrasekhar equation of state for although sometimes the solar system gravity tests may white dwarfs, and analyze the behavior of the graviton achieve comparable bounds, thanks to their superb accu- mass near compact stars. We will study how the effects of racy [11]. a varying graviton mass affect the mass-radius diagram However, the graviton mass does not have to be uni- of compact stars and compare the relative strengths of formly small across the whole spacetime. In mass- neutron stars and white dwarfs in constraining the pa- varying massive gravity [14, 15], the original de Rham- rameter space of mass-varying massive gravity. Gabadadze-Tolley (dRGT) model [4] is augmented with The paper is organized as follows: We introduce mass- an extra environmental scalar field and the graviton mass varying massive gravity in Section II, and in Section III,

arXiv:1912.00685v2 [gr-qc] 30 Mar 2020 now depends on the environmental field, which can take we reduce the field equations into a system of ordinary different values in various different astrophysical environ- differential equations for compact stars and describe our ments. In [16], it is shown that the graviton mass can be- numerical setup; In Section IV, we set up the equations come extremely large near the event horizon of the hairy of state for neutron stars, compute their solutions and black hole in mass-varying massive gravity [17], while set- investigate how the mass-radius diagrams change with ting down to the small cosmological value away from the the model parameters; In Section V, we investigate the horizon, thus satisfying all the current tests of gravity and white dwarf solutions and compare the relative strengths yet still giving rise to interesting deviations from general of neutron stars and white dwarfs in constraining the relativity that are testable in the current and upcoming parameters in mass-varying massive gravity; We conclude experiments. An important feature of those hairy black in Section VII. We shall use geometric units which set holes is that because of the rapid increase of the gravi- c = G = 1 and express dimensionful quantities in terms 2 of kilometers. α and β are related to α3 and α4 by

α = 1 + α3, β = α3 + α4. (8) II. MASS-VARYING MASSIVE GRAVITY

Mass-varying massive gravity (MVMG) [14] is ex- III. SETUP tended dRGT massive gravity [4] where the mass of the graviton can vary according to the value of a scalar field We consider a static and spherically symmetric Ansatz in different environments. Its action is given by for the scalar field σ = σ(r) and for the metric 1 Z √ R ds2 = −a(r)dt2 + 2b(r)drdt + e(r)dr2 + d(r)dΩ2, (9) S = d4x −g + V (σ)U(K) 8π 2 2 2 2 2 2 dsη = −dt + dr + r dΩ . (10) 1 − gµν ∂ σ∂ σ − W (σ) + S [g ] , (1) 2 µ ν m µν Plugging these into the Einstein tensor, the nonzero components are where Sm is the action of the conventional matter which only couples to the dynamic metric g and the dRGT 2a0cdd0 + 4acdd00 − 4c2d − 2ac0dd0 − acd02 µν Gt = , (11) graviton potential is given by t 4c2d2 0 0 02 00 µ ν µ ν ρ µ ν ρ σ t bc dd + bcd − 2bcdd U(K) = K K + α3K K K + α4K K K K , (2) G = , (12) [µ ν] [µ ν ρ] [µ ν ρ σ] r 2c2d2 0 0 02 µ µ p −1 µ −1 µν −4cd + 2a dd + ad with Kν ≡ δν − g η , g = (g ) being the in- r ν Gr = 2 , (13) verse metric and η = (ηµν ) being the Minkowski metric. 4cd 1 The anti-symmetrization is defined with unit weight, e.g., Gθ = − a0c0d2 + 2ca0dd0 − ac0dd0 − acd02 µ ν µ ν µ ν θ 4c2d2 K[µ K ν] = (KµKν − Kν Kµ)/2. There are of course many 00 2 00 choices for V (σ) and W (σ), which are functions of the + 2a cd + 2acdd , (14) environment scalar field σ. We consider a simple model 0 where these potentials are [16] where denotes a derivative with respective to the radius φ θ r and by symmetry we have Gφ = Gθ. The matter energy 1 V (σ) = m2 + m2σ4,W (σ) = m2 σ2 + λ σ6, (3) momentum tensor is taken to be a perfect fluid 0 2 σ σ Tµν = (ρ(r) + p(r))uµuν + p(r)gµν , (15) where m0 is chosen to be at most of the order of the Hubble scale, potentially generating the late time cosmic where ρ is the matter energy density, p is the matter pres- acceleration. For star solutions, which are well within sure and uµ is the 4-velocity of the perfect fluid, which, in 2 the Hubble horizon, we can safely neglect the m0 term. the static case, is determined completely by the normal- 6 The σ term, where λσ is small, is added for the stability µ ν ization gµν u u = −1. Then the non-trivial components of the vacuum and can be neglected for local star solu- of the matter energy momentum tensor are tions [16]. So apart from α3 and α4, the essential theory parameters are m and m , the dependence of which will (p + ρ)b σ T t = −ρ, T t = ,T r = T θ = T φ = p. (16) be explored for the compact stars in the next sections. t r a r θ φ The equations of motion for this model are given by On the other hand, the nonzero components of the (σ) Gµν = 8πTµν + Tµν + V (σ)Xµν , (4) energy-momentum tensor generated by the scalar σ are √ µv √ ∂µ −gg ∂vσ = −g (Wσ − VσU) , (5) 02 (σ)t (σ)θ (σ)φ aσ T t = T θ = T φ = −W (σ) − , (17) where Vσ = dV/dσ, Wσ = dW/dσ, Tµν is the energy 2c momentum tensor from S , m and the nonzero components of the effective energy- 1 momentum tensor from the massive graviton are T (σ) = ∂ σ∂ σ − g gργ ∂ σ∂ σ + W (σ) (6) µν µ ν µν 2 ρ γ b2n2k − k K Xt = 1 2 3 + k (αk + 2) , (18) and t b2n2 − 1 3 3 bK X = − g Kρ − Kµ1 g t r 3 µν µρ ν µ1 µν Xr = −Xt = , (19) c ρ σ µ1 ρ µ1 µ2 2 2 + α gµρKσKν − Kµ gµρKν + K K gµν b n k − k K 1 [µ1 µ2] Xr = 2 1 3 + k (αk + 2) , (20) r 2 2 3 3 ρ σ τ µ1 ρ σ b n − 1 − β gµρKσKτ Kν − Kµ gµρKσKν 1 Xθ = Xφ = α (k k + k k + k k ) + βk k k θ φ 1 2 1 3 2 3 1 2 3 µ1 µ2 ρ µ1 µ2 µ3 + K K gµρK − K K K gµν . (7) [µ1 µ2] ν [µ1 µ2 µ3] + k1 + k2 + k3, (21) 3

2 where K3 = βk3 + 2αk3 + 1 and k1, k2 and k3 are the µ 1.0 eigenvalues of matrix Kν , explicitly given by 0.9 s k3+ 2 0.8 k1 = 1 − , (22) p 2 k3- a + e + (a + e) − 4c 0.7 s 2 A 0.6 k2 = 1 − , (23) p 2 a + e − (a + e) − 4c 0.5 r r2 0.4 k3 = 1 − , (24) d 0.3 with n = 2/(p(a + e)2 − 4c + a − e) and c = b2 + ae. 0.1 1 10 100 r From the t component of the modiﬁed Einstein equa- R km r r (σ)r tion, because of Gt = Tt = T t = 0, we must have r 1.0 Xt = 0. This can be solved by @ D p ± α2 − β − α 0.8 k3+ k3 = , (25) β k3- 0.6

which generically have two branches of solutions, to be C t r labelled as k3+ and k3− respectively. The r and r com- 0.4 ponent of the Einstein equation reduce respectively to ac0 0.2 − acσ02 − 8π(p + ρ)c2 = 0, (26) r 2 0.0 a − (1 − k ) c + ra0 aσ02 0.1 1 10 100 3 − r2 2 R km −8πpc + cW − k3 (2 + αk3) cV = 0, (27) 0.20 and the scalar equation of motion reduces to @ D √ √ k3+ 2c2k (−2 + k − αk + 2 c + αk c) V 3 3 √3 3 σ (28) 0.15 k3- c 0 4acσ s + + 2acσ00 + 2a0cσ0 − ac0σ0 − 2c2W = 0. (29) 0.10 r σ θ 0.05 Note that e can be obtained from the θ component of the modified Einstein equation. In the above three equations, a, c, σ, p, ρ are unknowns, thus more equations 0.00 needed to close the system. The two extra equations 0.1 1 10 100 come from: the matter energy-momentum conservation, R km which implies FIG. 1. Radial profiles of representative neutron stars. A is 0 0 2 (p + ρ)a + 2ap = 0, (30) the tt metric component, C = B @+ AED (see metric (39)) and σ is the environmental scalar field. The graviton potential and the knowledge of the equation of state for the rela- parameters are α = 2, β = 3, which leads to k3+ = −1/3 and tivistic star k3− = −1 for the two branches of solutions. The two branches of solutions are only slightly different from each other in the p = p(ρ). (31) top two plots. We use geometric units G = c = 1 and express dimensionful quantities in kilometers. The mass parameters Thus, we can solve Eqs. (26, 27, 28, 30, 31) to obtain the are chosen as m = 1km and mσ = 0.05km. The matter compact star solution in mass-varying massive gravity. energy density at the center of the neutron star is chosen to −2 Near the center of the star, we can taylor-expand be ρ0 = 0.001km .

X n X n X n a(r) = anr , c(r) = cnr , σ(r) = σnr , n=0 n=0 n=0 X n X n p(r) = pnr , ρ(r) = ρnr . (32) n=0 n=0 4

Regularity of the solution at the center requires that a1 = 1.0 c1 = σ1 = 0. Plugging these into the equations of motion, we can perturbatively solve the equations of motion. To order O(r2), we get 0.8 2 - D 2 2 2 0.6 a0r mσσ0 km @ a(r) = a0 + 2 12πp0 + 4πρ0 − 3 3 (1 − k3) 2 - 10 0.4

¥ 2 2 4 3 r k + k3 (2 + k3α) m0 + m σ0 + O r , (33) 3+ 0.2 k3- a 4a π (p + ρ ) c(r) = 0 + 0 0 0 r2 + O r3 , (34) (1 − k )2 (1 − k )4 0.0 3 3 0.2 0.5 1.0 2.0 5.0 10.0 2 r 2 2 3 R km σ(r) = σ0 + 2 mσσ0 − 4k3m σ0 (k3α + 2) 6 (1 − k3) 2 3 |1 − k3| 3 0.014 − 4k3m σ0 √ (k3 − k3α − 2) + O r , @ D a0 2 0.012 k +

- 3 (35) D 0.010 k3- km (p + ρ ) r2 m2 σ2 @ 0 0 σ 0 0.008 p(r) = p0 − 2 12πp0 + 4πρ0 − 6 (1 − k3) 2 Scalar 0.006 2 2 4 3 + k3 (2 + k3α) m0 + m σ0 + O r , (36) 0.004 Ricci 2 3 0.002 ρ(r) = ρ0 + ρ2 (ρ0, σ0) r + O r , (37) 0.000 0.01 0.1 1 10 100 where p is determined by ρ via the equation of state 0 0 R km p0(ρ0) and ρ2 depends on ρ0 and σ0 and is easily determined once the functional form of the equation of state FIG. 2. Matter energy density ρ and Ricci scalar curvature is specified. Therefore, the free parameters at the center for the Neutron star solutions in@ Fig.D 1. The radii of the are ρ0, a0 and σ0. However, as we shall see, two of them stars for the k3+ and k3− branches are 11.26km and 11.30km will be fixed by the asymptotical flatness at infinity, up respectively. to some discrete sets of values for, say, (a0, σ0). Numerically, we integrate Eqs. (26, 27, 28, 30, 31) from −8 a point near the center of the star (r/km = 10 ) to IV. NEUTRON STARS the boundary of the star r = rs where ρ(rs) → 0 (the threshold being set at 10−10km−2), and then set ρ(r) = p(r) = 0 and integrate from the boundary to a large r. As mentioned in the last section, to obtain a neutron star solution, we need the input of the equation of state Via a shooting procedure, we can tune (a0, σ0) to obtain asymptotically flat solutions such that σ(r → ∞) → 0 p(ρ). However, the exotic nature of matter inside the neutron star, particularly in the strong gravity environ- and b(r → ∞) → 0. Our model Eq. (3) is Z2 symmetric in σ, so without lost of generality we can choose the value ment, is far from what we know or can probe in the cur- of σ to be positive near the center. rent particle/nuclear physics. Therefore, our knowledge 2 2 about the equation of state of a neutron star is rather By Eq . (24), we can infer that d = r /(1−k3) , which means that r is not the radial coordinate that asymptotes limited. There are quite a few theoretical models for the neutron star equation of state such as the APR model to the standard Minkowski metric ηµν at infinity. The standard asymptotically Minkowski radial coordinate can [24], the SLy model [25], the Shen Model [26], etc. be obtained by a constant re-scaling In this paper, we will make use of the APR and SLy equation of state, both of which allow for a neu- r tron star whose maximum mass is greater than the R = . (38) |1 − k3| most massive neutron stars observed so far such as PSR J1614-2230 (1.97 ± 0.04M ) [27] and PSR J0348+0432 such that in the new radial coordinate we have (2.01 ± 0.04M ) [28], M being the solar mass. The APR equation of state mainly describes the liquid core ds2 = −A(R)dt2 + 2B(R)dRdt + E(R)dR2 + R2dΩ2, of a neutron star. It is obtained by the variational chain (39) summation method, using the new Argonne ν18 two- where A(R) = a(r), B(R) = |1 − k3|b(r) and E(R) = nucleon interaction. When the two-nucleon boost cor- 2 e(r)(1−k3) . We will present the numerical results using rections and three-nucleon interactions are also included, this metric. the maximum mass of the static neutron star can be in- 5 creased to 2.20 M [24]. The SLy model, on the other 0.6 hand, takes into account both the liquid core and the s crust of the neutron star using the Skyrme-type effec- 0 0.5 0.6 tive nucleon-nucleon interaction, which provides a max- 0.5 imum mass limit of 2.05 M for a static neutron star 0.4 [25]. The equation of state of the crust is obtained in the 0.4 0.3 zero temperature approximation, while the equation of 0.3 state of the liquid core is calculated when minimal npeµ s composition is satisfied. Analytical fits of these equa- 0.2 0.2 tions of state have been obtained, which are easier to 0.1 −3 0.1 use for our purposes. Defining ξ = log ρ/g cm , ζ = 0 −1 −2 x --062426 log p/gcm s , f0(x) = 1/(e + 1), the equation of 0.0 state can be written as [29] -0.1 3 0.5 1.0 5.0 10.0 50.0 a1 + a2ξ + a3ξ ζ = f0 (a5 (ξ − a6)) R km 1 + a4ξ + (a7 + a8ξ) f0 (a9 (a10 − ξ)) 1.8 0.3 + (a11 + a12ξ) f0 (a13 (a14 − ξ)) @ D Ú Ú · 0.29 + (a15 + a16ξ) f0 (a17 (a18 − ξ)) , (40) 1.7 Ú

L Ú Ú where the ﬁtting parameters for the two models are given 0.28 L H · ü in Table I. 1.6 H 0 M

ê · 0.27 a M Ú · TABLE I. Equation of state – neutron star 1.5 · · 0.26 ai SLy APR ai SLy APR a1 6.22 6.22 a10 11.4950 11.5756 1.4 0.25 a2 6.121 6.121 a11 -22.775 -42.489 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.6

a3 0.005925 0.006035 a12 1.5707 3.8175 s0

a4 0.16326 0.16354 a13 4.3 2.3 FIG. 3. A sequence of neutron star solutions where the σ ﬁeld a 6.48 4.73 a 14.08 14.81 5 14 “oscillates” a number of times before setting down to zero a6 11.4971 11.5831 a15 27.80 29.80 at large R. The bottom plot depicts the parameters of the a7 19.105 12.589 a16 -1.653 -2.976 solutions in the top plot. The graviton potential parameters

a8 0.8938 1.4365 a17 1.50 1.99 are α = 2, β = 3 and the k3+ = −1/3 branch is chosen. The mass parameters are chosen as m = 10km and mσ = a9 6.54 4.75 a18 14.67 14.93 0.05km. In the bottom plot, the left vertical axis labels the ADM mass and the right vertical axis labels the a0 parameter. The radial profiles of representative neutron star so- The horizontal dashed line corresponds to the ADM mass in lutions are given in Fig. 1 and Fig. 2. As we can see, general relativity. for a given set of parameters, there are two branches of solutions, corresponding to the different sign choices in Eq. (25). Although very close to each other, the met- for each extra half cycle of oscillation (up to a certain ric quantities A and C and the matter energy density ρ number of oscillations) there is a unique extra solution. for the two branches are not the same but differ slightly But the number of the extra solutions seems to depend from each other, while the scalar field σ is relatively dif- on the values of m and mσ, at least under our current ferent for the two branches. The Ricci scalars of the two numerical accuracy. In particular, we find that the num- branches differ significantly well inside the star but are ber of solutions increases for bigger m and as well as for almost the same when approaching to the surface and smaller mσ. outside the star. One intriguing observation of the bottom plot of Fig. 3 For the solutions in Fig. 1, the scalar field quickly falls is that there is some kind of approximate reflection sym- off to zero radially. But this is not the only solution we metry between the ADM mass M at infinity and a0 near can have. By tuning different values of (σ0, a0), we can the center of the star. Note that in our numerical scheme actually find a sequence of asymptotically flat solutions we integrate from the center of the star to the infinity for for a given ρ0. For these solutions, the σ field “oscillates” which we choose appropriate σ0 and a0 to find a solution; a number of times before setting down to zero at infinity Alternatively, we could have integrated from the infinity (see Fig. 3). For m = 10km and mσ = 0.05km, we can to the center for which we choose appropriate σ0 and find four extra such kind of neutron star solutions, and M to find the same solution. Therefore, this apparent 6

1.2 2.5 s0 APR 1.0 0.6 2.0 0.5 2

- 0.8 D 0.4 ü 1.5 km M @ ê 3 0.6 -

0.3 M 10

¥ 1.0 r 0.4 0.2 m = 0.04 km m = 0.10 km 0.1 0.2 0.5 m = 10.0 km 0 --6042246 0.0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 9 10 11 12 13 R km R km 2.5 FIG. 4. Matter energy densities for the diﬀerent neutron star SLy @ D solutions in Fig. 3. We see that@ theD mass of the neutron star 2.0 M becomes smaller for a larger σ0 because the matter energy density decreases when σ0 increases.

ü 1.5 M ê

0.005 M Log m¥10 km-1 1.0 3.0 = 0.004 m 0.04 km @ H LD m = 0.10 km 2.5 0.5 m = 10.0 km 0.003

m 2.0 ê 2 ê 1

V 9 10 11 12 13 0.002 1.5 R km 1.0 0.001 FIG. 6. Mass-radius relations for neutron stars for diﬀerent 0.5 m. The top plot is for the APR@ modelD and the bottom one 0.000 --0624426 is for the SLy model. The graviton potential parameters are 0 100 200 300 400 500 600 α = 2, β = 3 and the k3+ = −1/3 branch is chosen. We ﬁx R km mσ = m/100.

FIG. 5. Radial profile of the effective graviton mass V 1/2. The graviton potential parameters are@ α =D 2, β = 3 and the k3+ = mass [11] and other tests of gravity [30]. −1/3 branch is chosen. We fix mσ = m/100. The logarithm is with base 10. The effective graviton mass becomes sizable We have computed the mass-radius relation of the neu- near the center of the star and decreases to negligible values tron star for both the APR and SLy models for different away from the center. parameters in MVMG; see Fig. 6 and Fig. 7. We see that in mass-varying massive gravity, for the same equation of state, the maximum mass of the neutron star can be raised for both the APR and SLy model, compared to reflection symmetry suggests that there is some kind of that in general relativity. The patterns of the modifica- symmetric connection between the two sets of boundary tion to the mass-radius relation are quite similar for the data. Also, we see that for bigger σ the ADM mass 0 APR and SLy model. Interestingly, for the steepest part can be significantly smaller than the corresponding value of the mass-radius relation, the modifications are small in general relativity. This is because when σ increases 0 for both of these two models. the matter energy density ρ decreases, most significantly near the center (see Fig. 4), which seems to suggest that for larger σ0 the scalar forces can significantly alleviate the gravitational attraction. V. WHITE DWARFS Similar to the case of hairy black holes [16], the effective graviton mass in this model can become very large Now, we turn our attention to the white dwarf solu- near the center of the neutron star but decrease very tions. The procedure to obtain white dwarf solutions is rapidly away from the neutron star (see Fig. 5), thus mostly the same as the neutron stars, except, of course, easily evading all the current constraints on the graviton we need to use the equation of state of white dwarfs, 7

3.5 2.5 APR m = 0.002 km m = 0.004 km 3.0 m = 0.010 km m = 0.020 km 2.0 m = 1.000 km 2.5 ü ü

1.5 M M ê 2.0 ê M M 1.5 1.0 2 m ms = 1.0¥10 2 m ms = 2.0¥10 1.0 3 0.5 m ms = 1.0¥10 ê 0.5 ê 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 9 ê 10 11 12 13 R km R km 3.5 2 m ms = 5.0¥10 2.5 2 m ms = 8.0¥10 3 SLy 3.0 m ms = 1.5¥10 @ D 3 m ms = 2.5¥10 @ D 4 2.0 mêms = 1.0¥10 2.5 ê ê

ü ê

M ê

ê 2.0 ü 1.5 M M ê

M 1.5 1.0 2 m ms = 1.0¥10 1.0 2 m ms = 2.0¥10 3 0.5 m ms = 1.0¥10 0.5 ê 2000 4000 6000 8000 10 000 ê R km 9 ê 10 11 12 13 R km FIG. 8. Mass-radius relations for white dwarfs. The graviton potential parameters are α =@ 2, βD= 3 and the k3+ = −1/3 FIG. 7. Mass-radius relations for neutron stars for different branch is chosen. For the top plot we choose mσ/m = 0.002 m. The top plot is for the APR@ modelD and the bottom one and for the bottom plot we choose m = 0.002km. is for the SLy model. The graviton potential parameters are α = 2, β = 3 and the k3+ = −1/3 branch is chosen. We fix m = 0.04km. model parameters, and find that a white dwarf with mass 2.9M can be obtained. Generically, a greater maximum which are less dense than neutron stars. white dwarf mass can be achieved for a smaller m or For the white dwarfs, we employ the simple Chan- smaller mσ. drasekhar equation of state, which is given by [31, 32] Probably not surprisingly, we also find sequences of white dwarf solutions where the scalar field oscillates ra- m4 h 1 i p = e x 2x2 − 3 x2 + 1 2 + 3 sinh−1 x , (41) dially to zero for a given central matter energy density, in 24π2~3 addition to the solution where the scalar field decreases to zero directly, which is very much analogous to the case where x = p3 3π2ρ 3/(m3m µ ), m is the electron mass, ~ e p e e of neutron stars in Fig. 3. mp is the proton mass and we choose the mean molec- ular weight per electron µe = 2. Note that we have set the speed of light to 1. The classic Chandrasekhar limit VI. COMPARISON OF DIFFERENT states the mass of a white dwarf does not exceed 1.44 M CONSTRAINTS in Newtonian physics and 1.405 M in general relativity. However, recent observations of type Ia supernovae seem to prefer a larger maximum mass for the white dwarf, and We may also compare the relative strengths between it has been suggested that there may exist white dwarfs neutron stars and white dwarfs in constraining the with the mass ranging from 2.1M to 2.8M [33–38]. To MVMG parameter space in terms of the ADM mass devi- reconcile the theoretical predictions with observations, ations. In Fig. 9, we plot the contours of constant ADM an improved equation of state may be considered. Here, mass deviations from general relativity for a neutron star −2 alternatively, we see that the same can be achieved by re- with central matter energy density ρ0 = 0.001km and placing general relativity with a massive gravity theory. for a white dwarf with central matter energy density −8 −2 In Fig. 8, we plot the mass-radius diagram for different ρ0 = 1.2×10 km . We see that greater mσ and smaller 8

-1.5 10-20 WD eV -2.0 10-23 LIGO bound D Mass

m NS ê -26 s 10 NS m

@ -2.5 WD Graviton Log 10-29 1% -3.0 5% -32 10 Hubble scale 10% Effective

10-35 -0.5 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 10000 15000 20000 Log m¥10 km-1 R km

FIG. 9. Contours of constant ADM mass deviations from FIG. 10. Effective graviton mass with respect to the dis- −1 general relativity. The solid lines are for neutron stars and the tance from the center of the star.@ WeD choose m = 0.1km , @ H LD −1 dashed lines are for white dwarfs. For example, for every point mσ = 0.001km , and other parameters are as the same as in the solid orange line, the ADM mass of the star in MVMG Fig. 9. NS labels for a neutron star solution and WD for a deviates from that of general relativity by 1%. The graviton white dwarf solution. For a typical star solution, the effec- potential parameters are α = 2, β = 3 and the k3+ = −1/3 tive graviton mass decreases to the Hubble scale at around branch is chosen. 19000km, which is well within the solar radius, so the star solution trivially pass all the graviton mass bounds and the weak gravity tests such as the solar system gravity tests or the binary pulsar gravity tests. Yet, for the same set of parame- m tend to have greater ADM mass deviations, and neu- ters, the relativistic star solution can deviation from general tron stars tend to better constrain MVMG for larger m relativity by about 10% in the strong gravity regimes. and mσ while white dwarfs have a slight advantage for smaller m and larger mσ. Finally, we would like to emphasize a point we briefly mentioned in the Introduction. One salient and interesting feature of the star as well as the black hole solutions in MVMG is that the effective graviton mass in the theory is more reliable tests [11]. In any case, the solar system very large near the center of the star or black hole but de- gravity constraints are valid at distances greater than creases very rapidly to the cosmological value away from the solar radius. The binary pulsar gravity tests also the star or black hole. As we mentioned in Section II, constrain deviations from general relativity within about we let the effective graviton mass squared V (σ) contain a percentage level, but they are also valid at distances a small m2, where m is of the current Hubble scale, so 0 0 about one solar radius. There are also other bounds when σ goes to zero in weak gravity regimes, the theory on the graviton mass obtained by, for example, testing effectively goes back to the original dRGT model. From the dispersion relation of the graviton propagation across Fig. 10, we can see that the graviton mass V 1/2 decreases long distances. The aLIGO graviton mass bound is one (faster than) exponentially to the Hubble scale away from of this kind, which sets the graviton mass to be 10 orders the center for a typical neutron star and a typical white of greater than the current Hubble scale. The aLIGO dwarf. This behavior is independent of the equation of bound is a very reliable bound, but it is much weaker state of the star, as we can see that for both the neutron than some other bounds [11]. star and white dwarf solution in Fig. 10, despite quite different equations of state, the graviton mass reduces almost identically to the cosmological background value The original dRGT model satisfies all these bounds if m0 at around 19000km from the center, which is well a Hubble scale graviton mass is assumed. Therefore, the within the radius of the sun. typical solutions in Fig. 10 trivially pass all these weak The solar system gravity tests significantly constrain gravity tests and all the current bounds on the graviton deviations from general relativity in the weak gravity mass. Yet, for these same solutions in the strong gravity regimes. In particular, the Yukawa force and fifth force regime, the deviations from general relativity are around tests in the solar system set the graviton mass bound to 8% to 10%, as can be seen in Fig. 9. This exemplifies a be close to the current Hubble scale if specific massive central feature of MVMG, which is that the model can gravity models are assumed or some other assumptions easily satisfy the weak gravity tests and at the same time are made, but the mass bounds are significantly weaker can give rise to testable deviations from general relativity for model independent tests or if only focusing on the in the strong gravity regime. 9

VII. SUMMARY neutron stars can constrain MVMG better than white dwarfs for larger m and mσ, while white dwarfs have a slight advantage for smaller m and larger mσ. In this paper, we have investigated the compact star We have found that there typically exists a discrete solutions in mass-varying massive gravity. In the con- tower of relativistic star solutions for a given central mat- ventional weak gravity or cosmological environments, the ter energy density. In this tower, the star solution with mass of the graviton has been constrained to be very the highest mass corresponds to an environmental scalar small, and if the graviton mass is of the current Hubble profile that falls directly to zero, while the scalar field scale, the massive graviton effects may account for the oscillates to zero for the solutions with lower masses, ex- observed late time cosmic acceleration [11]. However, for actly one solution for each possible oscillation pattern. such a small graviton mass, its effects on compact stars We have also found that the number of possible solu- is negligibly small. In mass-varying massive gravity, the tions in the tower depends on the parameter m and mσ graviton mass can vary in different environments, as de- in the theory. termined by a scalar field which takes different values in different gravity regimes. We have shown that the graviton mass can be extremely large near the compact Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Qing-Guo stars while quickly decreasing to its cosmological value Huang, Fan Wang and Jun Zhang for helpful suggestions away from the stars. This is exactly the same as the and discussions. SYZ acknowledges support from the case of black holes in MVMG, which has been previously starting grant from University of Science and Technology investigated [16]. The effects from the massive graviton of China under grant No. KY2030000089 and is also and the environmental scalar field can be very small or supported by National Natural Science Foundation significantly affect the mass-radius relation of the com- of China under grant No. GG2030040375 and grant pact star, depending on the choice of the parameters in No. 11947301. the theory. Also, we have surveyed the MVMG parameter space (m, mσ) for deviations from general relativity in terms of the mass of the compact star. We see that

[1] LIGO Scientific, Virgo collaboration, B. P. Abbott [11] C. de Rham, J. T. Deskins, A. J. Tolley and S.-Y. Zhou, et al., Observation of Gravitational Waves from a Graviton Mass Bounds, Rev. Mod. Phys. 89 (2017) Binary Black Hole Merger, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 025004, [1606.08462]. 061102, [1602.03837]. [12] Supernova Search Team collaboration, A. G. Riess [2] LIGO Scientific, Virgo collaboration, B. P. Abbott et al., Observational evidence from supernovae for an et al., GW170817: Observation of Gravitational Waves accelerating universe and a cosmological constant, from a Binary Neutron Star Inspiral, Phys. Rev. Lett. Astron. J. 116 (1998) 1009–1038, [astro-ph/9805201]. 119 (2017) 161101, [1710.05832]. [13] Supernova Cosmology Project collaboration, [3] C. de Rham and G. Gabadadze, Generalization of the S. Perlmutter et al., Measurements of Ω and Λ from 42 Fierz-Pauli Action, Phys. Rev. D82 (2010) 044020, high redshift supernovae, Astrophys. J. 517 (1999) [1007.0443]. 565–586, [astro-ph/9812133]. [4] C. de Rham, G. Gabadadze and A. J. Tolley, [14] Q.-G. Huang, Y.-S. Piao and S.-Y. Zhou, Mass-Varying Resummation of Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106 Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. D86 (2012) 124014, (2011) 231101, [1011.1232]. [1206.5678]. [5] S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Resolving the Ghost [15] Q.-G. Huang, K.-C. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Generalized Problem in non-Linear Massive Gravity, Phys. Rev. massive gravity in arbitrary dimensions and its Lett. 108 (2012) 041101, [1106.3344]. Hamiltonian formulation, JCAP 1308 (2013) 050, [6] S. F. Hassan and R. A. Rosen, Conﬁrmation of the [1306.4740]. Secondary Constraint and Absence of Ghost in Massive [16] J. Zhang and S.-Y. Zhou, Can the graviton have a large Gravity and Bimetric Gravity, JHEP 04 (2012) 123, mass near black holes?, Phys. Rev. D97 (2018) 081501, [1111.2070]. [1709.07503]. [7] C. de Rham, Massive Gravity, Living Rev. Rel. 17 [17] A. J. Tolley, D.-J. Wu and S.-Y. Zhou, Hairy black (2014) 7, [1401.4173]. holes in scalar extended massive gravity, Phys. Rev. [8] A. Schmidt-May and M. von Strauss, Recent D92 (2015) 124063, [1510.05208]. developments in bimetric theory, J. Phys. A49 (2016) [18] V. Cardoso, E. Franzin and P. Pani, Is the 183001, [1512.00021]. gravitational-wave ringdown a probe of the event [9] K. Hinterbichler, Theoretical Aspects of Massive horizon?, Phys. Rev. Lett. 116 (2016) 171101, Gravity, Rev. Mod. Phys. 84 (2012) 671–710, [1602.07309]. [1105.3735]. [19] V. Cardoso and P. Pani, Tests for the existence of black [10] D. G. Boulware and S. Deser, Can gravitation have a holes through gravitational wave echoes, Nat. Astron. 1 ﬁnite range?, Phys. Rev. D6 (1972) 3368–3382. (2017) 586–591, [1709.01525]. 10

[20] T. Katsuragawa, S. Nojiri, S. D. Odintsov and Relativity and Experiment, Living Rev. Rel. 17 (2014) 4, M. Yamazaki, Relativistic stars in de [1403.7377]. Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley massive gravity, Phys. Rev. [31] S. Chandrasekhar, The maximum mass of ideal white D93 (2016) 124013, [1512.00660]. dwarfs, Astrophys. J. 74 (1931) 81–82. [21] A. Sullivan and N. Yunes, Slowly-Rotating Neutron [32] S. Chandrasekhar, The highly collapsed configurations of Stars in Massive Bigravity, Class. Quant. Grav. 35 a stellar mass (Second paper), Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. (2018) 045003, [1709.03311]. Soc. 95 (1935) 207–225. [22] S. H. Hendi, G. H. Bordbar, B. Eslam Panah and [33] SNLS collaboration, D. A. Howell et al., The type Ia S. Panahiyan, Neutron stars structure in the context of supernova SNLS-03D3bb from a massive gravity, JCAP 1707 (2017) 004, [1701.01039]. super-Chandrasekhar-mass white dwarf star, Nature [23] B. Eslam Panah and H. L. Liu, White dwarfs in de 443 (2006) 308, [astro-ph/0609616]. Rham-Gabadadze-Tolley like massive gravity, Phys. Rev. [34] R. A. Scalzo et al., Nearby Supernova Factory D99 (2019) 104074, [1805.10650]. Observations of SN 2007if: First Total Mass [24] A. Akmal, V. R. Pandharipande and D. G. Ravenhall, Measurement of a Super-Chandrasekhar-Mass The Equation of state of nucleon matter and neutron Progenitor, Astrophys. J. 713 (2010) 1073–1094, star structure, Phys. Rev. C58 (1998) 1804–1828, [1003.2217]. [nucl-th/9804027]. [35] M. Hicken, P. M. Garnavich, J. L. Prieto, S. Blondin, [25] F. Douchin and P. Haensel, A unified equation of state D. L. DePoy, R. P. Kirshner et al., The Luminous and of dense matter and neutron star structure, Astron. Carbon-Rich Supernova 2006gz: A Double Degenerate Astrophys. 380 (2001) 151, [astro-ph/0111092]. Merger?, Astrophys. J. 669 (2007) L17–L20, [26] H. Shen, H. Toki, K. Oyamatsu and K. Sumiyoshi, [0709.1501]. Relativistic equation of state of nuclear matter for [36] M. Yamanaka et al., Early phase observations of supernova explosion, Prog. Theor. Phys. 100 (1998) extremely luminous Type Ia Supernova 2009dc, 1013, [nucl-th/9806095]. Astrophys. J. 707 (2009) L118–L122, [0908.2059]. [27] P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts and [37] J. M. Silverman, M. Ganeshalingam, W. Li, A. V. J. Hessels, Shapiro Delay Measurement of A Two Solar Filippenko, A. A. Miller and D. Poznanski, Fourteen Mass Neutron Star, Nature 467 (2010) 1081–1083, Months of Observations of the Possible [1010.5788]. Super-Chandrasekhar Mass Type Ia Supernova 2009dc, [28] J. Antoniadis et al., A Massive Pulsar in a Compact Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 410 (2011) 585, Relativistic Binary, Science 340 (2013) 6131, [1003.2417]. [1304.6875]. [38] S. Taubenberger et al., High luminosity, slow ejecta and [29] P. Haensel and A. Y. Potekhin, Analytical persistent carbon lines: SN 2009dc challenges representations of unified equations of state of thermonuclear explosion scenarios, Mon. Not. Roy. neutron-star matter, Astron. Astrophys. 428 (2004) Astron. Soc. 412 (2011) 2735, [1011.5665]. 191–197, [astro-ph/0408324]. [30] C. M. Will, The Confrontation between General