# References

Radius-Mass Scaling Laws for Celestial Bodies

R. Muradian, S. Carneiro and R. Marques

Instituto de Física, Universidade Federal da Bahia   
40210-340, Salvador, BA, Brasil

## Abstract

In this letter we establish a connection between two-exponent radius-mass power laws for cosmic objects and previously proposed two-exponent Regge-like spin-mass relations. A new, simplest method for establishing the coordinates of Chandrasekhar and Eddington points is proposed.

In previous papers , Muradian has suggested the two-exponent Regge-like relation

$$J=\mathrm{}\left(\frac{m}{m_p}\right)^{1+1/n}$$
(1)   
between the observed mass $`m`$ and angular momentum $`J`$ of celestial bodies. In this relation $`\mathrm{}`$and $`m_p`$ stand, respectively, for the Planck constant and for the proton mass. The exponent $`n=3`$ for star-like objects and $`n=2`$ for multistellar ones, like galaxies and clusters of galaxies.

Relation (1), besides to fit reasonably well the observational data (see Figure 1), presents two remarkable points: equating (1) to Kerr limit $`J^{Kerr}=Gm^2/c`$ for the angular momentum of a rotating black hole, we obtain

$$m=m_p\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_p^2}\right)^{\frac{n}{n1}}$$
(2)   
which, for $`n=3,`$ can be identified with Chandrasekhar mass $`m_{Ch}=m_p\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_p^2}\right)^{3/2}`$ and, for $`n=2`$, with the Eddington mass $`m_E=m_p\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_p^2}\right)^2`$. The

corresponding limiting angular momenta could be obtained by substitution of these expressions into (1) (or into Kerr relation), as it has been

shown in , : $`J_{Ch}=\mathrm{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_p^2}\right)^2`$ and $`J_E=\mathrm{}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_p^2}\right)^3`$.

In a recent paper , Pérez-Mercader has suggested the existence of two-exponent scaling relation between mass and radius of cosmic objects. Now we will try to establish a connection between such relation and the above referred Regge-like trajectories in the $`Jm`$ plane.

First of all, let us note that a theoretical relation between $`m`$ and $`r`$ should be valid, in particular, for Chandrasekhar and Eddington points, for which the following relation is valid 

$$r=r_p\left(\frac{m}{m_p}\right)^{1/n}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_pc}\left(\frac{m}{m_p}\right)^{1/n}$$
(3)   
where $`r_p=\mathrm{}/m_pc`$ stands for the proton radius.

Here, for $`n=3`$ and $`m=m_{Ch}`$ we obtain the radius of neutron star $`r_{NS}=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_pc}\left(\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_p^2}\right)^{1/2}`$, while for $`n=2`$ and $`m=m_E`$ the radius of observable Universe follows, $`r_U=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_pc}\frac{\mathrm{}c}{Gm_p^2}.`$ In this last case relation (3) is just a possible expression for well known large number coincidences , .

In this way, (3) seems to be a good candidate for theoretical two-exponent law relating the radius and mass of primordial dense proto-objects, from which the present day cosmic bodies originated, in the sense of Ambartsumian cosmogony (see  and references there in). Another observation in favor of this suggestion is connected to the fact

that the same relations for $`r_{NS}`$ and $`r_U`$ follow from the expression for half of the gravitational Schwarzchild radius $`r=Gm/c^2`$ after substitution of Chandrasekhar $`m_{Ch}`$ or Eddington $`m_E`$ masses. This is consistent with the above mentioned fact that the Chandrasekhar and Eddington points correspond in the $`Jm`$ Chew-Frautschi plane to maximally rotating black holes (see Figure 1).

Relation (3) is plotted in Figure 2 together with the observational data and line $`r=Gm/c^2.`$ As expected, neutron star and Universe lie on this black hole line. The theoretical line $`r=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_pc}\left(\frac{m}{m_p}\right)^{1/2}`$ fits crudely the data relating to clusters of galaxies, but in the case of star-like objects the theoretical relation$`r=\frac{\mathrm{}}{m_pc}\left(\frac{m}{m_p}\right)^{1/3}`$ is completely uncorrelated with the data (except the point of neutron star). The following reasoning can elucidate this disagreement.

To (1) and (3) be consistent, one needs $`J=mcr,`$ what means that (3) refers to maximally rotating objects. As we have seen, this is the case for the Chandrasekhar and Eddington points, for which the equation $`mcr=Gm^2/c`$ is equivalent to $`r=Gm/c^2`$. But, in general, celestial bodies are far away from this limit and, in consequence, their radii are systematically distributed above the lines representing (3) (see Figure 2).

But if (3) does not exactly represent the observational data, what

does it represent? And why its $`Jm`$ partner, relation (1), fits well the data? A possible answer to these questions is that relations (1) and (3) represent an initial dense stage in the evolution of the bodies, when they have maximum, Regge-like, angular momenta for some given radii. So, as bodies evolve, their radii change, diverging from the original values given by (3).

As indicated in , the fact that there are two radically different power laws for two classes of objects could serve as indication that the objects within each class have a similar physical origin. A possible reason for exponents change is different geometrical shape of the primordial objects: disk-like $`(n=2)`$ for multistellar objects and ball-like $`(n=3)`$ for stellar ones ,,.