Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-25T13:42:34.868Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Possible Contraction of the Members of the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16 and its Astrophysical Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 August 2017

N. Spyrou
N. Spyrou*
Affiliation:
Astronomy Department, University of Thessaloniki, Thessaloniki, Greece

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.

It is proposed that the small difference between the observed and the theoretically predicted decrease of the orbital period of the Binary Pulsar PSR 1913+16 is not due to the insufficiency of the quadrupole formula and can be attributed to a mass-energy loss due to the contraction of the binary's members. Assuming that the pair's primary is a typical, noncontracting pulsar, is in favour of a slowly contracting, neutron-star companion, thus limiting the member's radii to at most 25 km and 28 km, respectively. The primary's computed total absolute luminosity is in excellent agreement with the observed upper limit of its X-ray and optical luminosities. Moreover, the companion's slow contraction rate implies that its present total absolute luminosity presents a maximum at wavelengths characteristic of X-rays. Finally, it suggests that if the energy-loss remains constant, the duration of the contraction phase will be of the order of 108 y and the final radius about 25 km.

Type
Research Article
Information
Symposium - International Astronomical Union , Volume 104: Early Evolution of the Universe and Its Present Structure , 1983 , pp. 431 - 436
Copyright
Copyright © Reidel 1983 

References

Caporali, A., Spyrou, N. 1981, Gen. Rel. Grav., 13, 689.Google Scholar
Davidsen, A., Margon, B., Liebert, J., Spinrad, H., Middleditch, J., Chanan, G., Mason, K.O., and Sanford, P.W. 1975, Ap. J. (Letters), 200, L19.Google Scholar
Ehlers, J., Rosenblum, A., Goldberg, J.N., and Havas, P. 1976, Ap. J. (Letters), 208, L77.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epstein, R., and Wagoner, R.V. 1975, Ap. J., 197, 717.Google Scholar
Manchester, R.N., and Taylor, J.H. 1977, Pulsars, Freeman and Co., San Francisco.Google Scholar
Misner, C.W., Thorne, K.S., and Wheeler, J.A. 1972, Gravitation, Freeman and Co., San Francisco.Google Scholar
Peters, P.C., and Mathews, J. 1963, Phys. Rev., 131, 435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smarr, L.L., and Blandford, R. 1976, Ap. J., 207, 574.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Spyrou, N. 1981a, Gen. Rel. Grav., 13, 473.Google Scholar
Spyrou, N. 1981b, Gen. Rel. Grav., 13, 487.Google Scholar
Srinivasan, G., and van den Heuvel, E.P.J. 1982, Astron. Astrophys., 108, 143.Google Scholar
Taylor, J.H., Fowler, L.A., and McCulloch, P.M. 1979, Nature, 277, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar