4.7 Article

THE EQUATION OF STATE FROM OBSERVED MASSES AND RADII OF NEUTRON STARS

期刊

ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL
卷 722, 期 1, 页码 33-54

出版社

IOP PUBLISHING LTD
DOI: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/33

关键词

dense matter; stars: neutron; X-rays: binaries; X-rays: bursts

资金

  1. Joint Institute for Nuclear Astrophysics at MSU under NSF PHY [08-22648]
  2. NASA ATFP [NNX08AG76G]
  3. U.S. DOE [DE-AC02-87ER40317]
  4. NASA [NNX08AG76G, 101261] Funding Source: Federal RePORTER

向作者/读者索取更多资源

We determine an empirical dense matter equation of state (EOS) from a heterogeneous data set of six neutron stars: three Type-IX-ray bursters with photospheric radius expansion, studied by Ozel et al., and three transient low-mass X-ray binaries. We critically assess the mass and radius determinations from the X-ray burst sources and show explicitly how systematic uncertainties, such as the photospheric radius at touchdown, affect the most probable masses and radii. We introduce a parameterized EOS and use a Markov chain Monte Carlo algorithm within a Bayesian framework to determine nuclear parameters such as the incompressibility and the density dependence of the bulk symmetry energy. Using this framework we show, for the first time, that these parameters, predicted solely on the basis of astrophysical observations, all lie in ranges expected from nuclear systematics and laboratory experiments. We find significant constraints on the mass-radius relation for neutron stars, and hence on the pressure-density relation of dense matter. The predicted symmetry energy and the EOS near the saturation density are soft, resulting in relatively small neutron star radii around 11-12 km for M = 1.4M(circle dot). The predicted EOS stiffens at higher densities, however, and our preferred model for X-ray bursts suggests that the neutron star maximum mass is relatively large, 1.9-2.2 M-circle dot. Our results imply that several commonly used equations of state are inconsistent with observations.

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