4.7 Article

Unified interacting quark matter and its astrophysical implications

期刊

PHYSICAL REVIEW D
卷 103, 期 6, 页码 -

出版社

AMER PHYSICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevD.103.063018

关键词

-

资金

  1. Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The study examines interacting quark matter, deriving a unified equation of state to reduce the number of degrees of freedom. The critical difference in the EOS for interacting quark matter compared to noninteracting quark matter is highlighted. Analysis of pure interacting quark stars and astrophysical observations provide constraints on the parameter space, indicating a new possibility for the composition of compact stars.
We investigate interacting quark matter (IQM), including the perturbative QCD correction and color superconductivity, for both up-down quark matter and strange quark matter. We first derive an equation of state (EOS) unifying all cases by a simple reparametrization and rescaling, through which we manage to maximally reduce the number of degrees of freedom. We find, in contrast to the conventional EOS p = 1/3(rho - 4B(eff)) for noninteracting quark matter, that taking the extreme strongly interacting limit on the unified IQM EOS gives p = rho - 2B(eff), where B-eff is the effective bag constant. We employ the unified EOS to explore the properties of pure interacting quark stars (IQSs) composed of IQM. We describe how recent astrophysical observations, such as the pulsar-mass measurements, the NICER analysis, and the binary merger gravitational-wave events GW170817, GW190425, and GW190814, further constrain the parameter space. An upper bound for the maximum allowed mass of IQSs is found to be M-TOV less than or similar to 3.23 M-circle dot. Our analysis indicates a new possibility that the currently observed compact stars, including the recently reported GW190814's secondary component (M = 2.59(-0.09)(+0.08) M-circle dot), can be quark stars composed of interacting quark matter.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据