Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-p2v8j Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-30T18:45:16.606Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Neutron star equation of state and uncertainty on the radius determination

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 June 2018

Morgane Fortin
Morgane Fortin*
Affiliation:
Nicolaus Copernicus Astronomical Center of the Polish Academy of Sciences, Bartycka 18, Warsaw 00-716, Poland email: fortin@camk.edu.pl
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

Simultaneous measurements of the radius and mass of neutron stars (NSs) are expected from the new generation of X-ray telescopes, potentially constraining the NS equation of state (EoS). However using ‘non-unified’ EoSs with the ones for the core and the crust not based on the same nuclear model can introduce an uncertainty on the radius as large as the precision expected from these instruments. I present two solutions to this problem: a large collection of unified EoSs and an approximate and yet precise approach that, with no need of a crust EoS, provides the relation between the NS mass and radius. I discuss correlations between the NS radius and nuclear parameters, possibly allowing to constrain the NS radius with experiments on Earth. Finally, I show that in spite of the observation of massive NSs, one can not exclude that hyperons appear at high densities in NSs due to the scarcity of the available experimental data.

Keywords

stars: neutronpulsars: generalequation of state
Type
Contributed Papers
Information
Proceedings of the International Astronomical Union , Volume 13 , Symposium S337: Pulsar Astrophysics the Next Fifty Years , September 2017 , pp. 225 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © International Astronomical Union 2018 

References

Alam, N., Agrawal, B. K., Fortin, M., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 94, 052801Google Scholar
Antoniadis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 448Google Scholar
Arzoumanian, Z., Gendreau, K. C., Baker, C. L., et al. 2014, Proc. SPIE, 9144, 914420Google Scholar
Douchin, F., & Haensel, P., 2001, A&A, 380, 151Google Scholar
Ducoin, C., Margueron, J., Providência, C., & Vidaña, I., 2011, Phys. Rev. C, 83, 045810Google Scholar
Fonseca, E., Pennucci, T. T., Ellis, J. A., et al. 2016, ApJ, 832, 167Google Scholar
Fortin, M., Providência, C., Raduta, A. R., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 94, 035804Google Scholar
Fortin, M., Avancini, S. S., Providência, C., & Vidaña, I., 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 95, 065803Google Scholar
Gal, A., Hungerford, E. V., & Millener, D. J., 2016, Rev. of Modern Phys., 88, 035004Google Scholar
Haensel, P., Potekhin, A. Y., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2007, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, 326Google Scholar
Motch, C., Wilms, J., Barret, D., et al. 2013, arXiv:1306.2334Google Scholar
Oertel, M., Hempel, M., Klähn, T., & Typel, S., 2017, Rev. of Modern Phys., 89, 015007Google Scholar
Zdunik, J. L., Fortin, M., & Haensel, P., 2017, A&A, 599, A119Google Scholar