- 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

What does a measurement of mass and/or radius of a neutron star constrain: Equation of state or gravity?

Kazım Yavuz Ekşi*, Can Güngör, and Murat Metehan Türkoğlu

  • Istanbul Technical University, Faculty of Science and Letters, Department of Physics, 34469 Maslak, Istanbul, Turkey

  • *eksi@itu.edu.tr
PDF

Phys. Rev. D 89, 063003 – Published 6 March, 2014

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevD.89.063003

Abstract

Neutron stars are thought to be excellent laboratories for determining the equation of state (EoS) of cold dense matter. Their strong gravity suggests that they can also be used to constrain gravity models. The two observables of neutron stars—mass and radius (M-R)—both depend on the choice of EoS and relativistic gravity, meaning that neutron stars cannot be simultaneously good laboratories for both of these questions. A measurement of mass and/or radius would constrain the less well known physics input. The most common assumption—namely, that M-R measurements can be used to constrain the EoS—presumes that general relativity (GR) is the ultimate model of gravity in the classical regime. We calculate the radial profile of compactness and curvature (square root of the full contraction of the Weyl tensor) within a neutron star and determine the domain not probed by the Solar System tests of GR. We find that, except for a tiny sphere of radius less than a millimeter at the center, the curvature is several orders of magnitude above the values present in Solar System tests. The compactness is beyond the solar surface value for r>10  m, and increases by 5 orders of magnitude towards the surface. With the density being only an order of magnitude higher than that probed by nuclear scattering experiments, our results suggest that the employment of GR as the theory of gravity describing the hydrostatic equilibrium of the neutron stars is a rather remarkable extrapolation from the regime of tested validity, as opposed to that of EoS models. Our ignorance of gravity within neutron stars suggests that a measurement of mass and/or radius constrains gravity rather than the EoS, and given that the EoS has yet to be determined by nucleon scattering experiments, M-R measurements cannot tightly constrain the gravity models either. Near the surface the curvature and compactness attain their largest values, while the EoS in this region is fairly well known. This renders the crust as the best site to look for deviations from GR.

View figure in article

Article Text

References (60)

  1. T. Güver, P. Wroblewski, L. Camarota, and F. Özel, Astrophys. J. 719, 1807 (2010).
  2. T. Güver, F. Özel, A. Cabrera-Lavers, and P. Wroblewski, Astrophys. J. 712, 964 (2010).
  3. F. Özel, T. Güver, and D. Psaltis, Astrophys. J. 693, 1775 (2009).
  4. F. Özel, G. Baym, and T. Güver, Phys. Rev. D 82, 101301 (2010).
  5. T. Güver and F. Özel, Astrophys. J. 765, L1 (2013).
  6. A. W. Steiner, J. M. Lattimer, and E. F. Brown, Astrophys. J. 722, 33 (2010).
  7. F. Özel, A. Gould, and T. Güver, Astrophys. J. 748, 5 (2012).
  8. R. Neuhäuser, V. V. Hambaryan, M. M. Hohle, and T. Eisenbeiss, J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 337, 012073 (2012).
  9. V. Suleimanov, J. Poutanen, M. Revnivtsev, and K. Werner, Astrophys. J. 742, 122 (2011).
  10. J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Phys. Rep. 442, 109 (2007).
  11. J. M. Lattimer, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 62, 485 (2012).
  12. Neutron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure, edited by P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev (Springer, Berlin, 2006).
  13. T. Harada, Phys. Rev. D 57, 4802 (1998).
  14. H. Sotani and K. D. Kokkotas, Phys. Rev. D 70, 084026 (2004).
  15. K. Yagi, L. C. Stein, N. Yunes, and T. Tanaka, Phys. Rev. D 87, 084058 (2013).
  16. M. W. Horbatsch and C. P. Burgess, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 08 (2011) 027.
  17. H. Sotani, Phys. Rev. D 86, 124036 (2012).
  18. P. D. Lasky, H. Sotani, and D. Giannios, Phys. Rev. D 78, 104019 (2008).
  19. P. Pani, E. Berti, V. Cardoso, and J. Read, Phys. Rev. D 84, 104035 (2011).
  20. A. Cooney, S. Dedeo, and D. Psaltis, Phys. Rev. D 82, 064033 (2010).
  21. S. Arapoğlu, C. Deliduman, and K. Y. Ekşi, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 07 (2011) 020.
  22. C. Deliduman, K. Y. Ekşi, and V. Keleş, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 05 (2012) 036.
  23. A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov, arXiv:1401.4546.
  24. A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys. 12 (2013) 040.
  25. C. Will, Living Rev. Relativity 9, 3 (2006).
  26. C. M. Will, Space Sci. Rev. 148, 3 (2009).
  27. D. Psaltis, Living Rev. Relativity 11, 9 (2008).
  28. D.-H. Wen, B.-A. Li, and L.-W. Chen, arXiv:1101.1504.
  29. B. Bertotti, L. Iess, and P. Tortora, Nature (London) 425, 374 (2003).
  30. S. S. Shapiro, J. L. Davis, D. E. Lebach, and J. S. Gregory, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 121101 (2004).
  31. S. DeDeo and D. Psaltis, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 141101 (2003).
  32. P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, 1592 (2002).
  33. K. C. Gendreau, Z. Arzoumanian, and T. Okajima, Proc. SPIE Int. Soc. Opt. Eng. 8443, 844313 (2012).
  34. M. Feroci et al., Exp. Astron. 34, 415 (2012).
  35. K. H. Lo, M. C. Miller, S. Bhattacharyya, and F. K. Lamb, Astrophys. J. 776, 19 (2013).
  36. D. Psaltis, F. Ozel, and D. Chakrabarty, arXiv:1311.1571.
  37. R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939).
  38. J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939).
  39. A. Akmal and V. R. Pandharipande, Phys. Rev. C 56, 2261 (1997).
  40. J. W. Negele and D. Vautherin, Nucl. Phys. A207, 298 (1973).
  41. G. Baym, C. Pethick, and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 170, 299 (1971).
  42. D. Psaltis, D. Perrodin, K. R. Dienes, and I. Mocioiu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 100, 091101 (2008).
  43. S. Guillot, M. Servillat, N. A. Webb, and R. E. Rutledge, Astrophys. J. 772, 7 (2013).
  44. S. Abrahamyan et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 112502 (2012).
  45. F. J. Fattoyev and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 86, 015802 (2012).
  46. C. E. Rhoades and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev. Lett. 32, 324 (1974).
  47. N. Chamel, P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, and A. F. Fantina, Int. J. Mod. Phys. E 22, 1330018 (2013).
  48. P. Haensel and J. L. Zdunik, in Electromagnetic Radiation from Pulsars and Magnetars, edited by W. Lewandowski, O. Maron, and J. Kijak (ASP, San Francisco, 2012).
  49. P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts, and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature (London) 467, 1081 (2010).
  50. J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 1233232 (2013).
  51. B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo, and S. E. Thorsett, Astrophys. J. 778, 66 (2013).
  52. J. Näf and P. Jetzer, Phys. Rev. D 81, 104003 (2010).
  53. M. A. Alpar, in The Electromagnetic Spectrum of Neutron Stars, edited by A. Baykal, S. K. Yerli, S. C. Inam, and S. Grebenev (Springer, Berlin, 2005).
  54. D. G. Yakovlev and C. J. Pethick, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 42, 169 (2004).
  55. N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho, and C. M. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241103 (2012).
  56. M. A. Alpar, D. Pines, P. W. Anderson, and J. Shaham, Astrophys. J. 276, 325 (1984).
  57. M. A. Alpar, H. F. Chau, K. S. Cheng, and D. Pines, Astrophys. J. 409, 345 (1993).
  58. T. Damour and G. Esposito-Farese, Phys. Rev. Lett. 70, 2220 (1993).
  59. K. A. Bronnikov and S.-W. Kim, Phys. Rev. D 67, 064027 (2003).
  60. C. Cherubini, D. Bini, S. Capozziello, R. Ruffini, and L. Z. Fang, Int. J. Mod. Phys. D 11, 827 (2002).

Outline

Information

Phys. Rev. D 89, 063003– Published 6 March, 2014
  • Received 29 November 2013

© 2014 American Physical Society

Sign In to Your Journals Account

Filter

Filter

Article Lookup

Enter a citation