← Recent

AG-2024.10-178·astro-ph.HE·cross-listed: cond-mat.quant-gascond-mat.supr-congr-qcnucl-th

Magnetic coupling through flux branching of adjacent type-I and -II superconductors in a neutron star

Authors

  • K. H. Thong
  • A. Melatos

Abstract

The inner and outer cores of neutron stars are believed to contain type-I and -II proton superconductors, respectively. The type-I superconductor exists in an intermediate state, comprising macroscopic flux-free and flux-containing regions, while the type-II superconductor is flux-free, except for microscopic, quantized flux tubes. Here, we show that the inner and outer cores are coupled magnetically, when the macroscopic flux tubes subdivide dendritically into quantized flux tubes, a phenomenon called flux branching. An important implication is that up to $\sim 10^{12} (r_1/10^6 \, {\rm cm}) \, {\rm erg}$ of energy are required to separate a quantized flux tube from its progenitor macroscopic flux tube, where $r_1$ is the length of the macroscopic flux tube. Approximating the normal-superconducting boundary as sharp, we calculate the magnetic coupling energy between a quantized and macroscopic flux tube due to flux branching as a function of, $f_1$, the radius of the type-I inner core divided by the radius of the type-II outer core. Strong coupling delays magnetic field decay in the type-II superconductor. For an idealised inner core containing only a type-I proton superconductor and poloidal flux, and in the absence of ambipolar diffusion and diamagnetic screening, the low magnetic moments ($\lesssim 10^{27} \, {\rm G \, cm^3}$) of recycled pulsars imply $f_1 \lesssim 10^{-1.5}$.

Submitted

9 October 20241 year ago

Version

v1

License

CC-BY-4.0

DOI

10.48550/arXiv.2410.06830

Cite this preprint

Imports into BibLaTeX, Zotero, Mendeley, EndNote.

PDF

Open PDF

Opens in a new tab · v1.

Chat with this PDF

Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.

Community

Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.