neutron star interiors from simulations of core-collapse...
TRANSCRIPT
Inferring the state of matter at neutron star interiors from
simulations of core-collapse supernovae ?
Tobias FischerUniversity of Wroclaw (Poland)
Bonn workshop on Formation and Evolution of Neutron Stars“Supernovae and Formation of Neutron stars”
Bonn (Germany), November 14th, 2016
General pictureCore-co l lapse supernova “converts” iron-core of massive star into (proto)neutron star
Binding energy gain available in form of neutrinos of all flavors
Strong gravity requires general relativity to solve:
“Supernova problem”:ejection of the stellar mantle
Formation of shock wave/shock stalling/shock revival (?)
Concept: Energy liberation from protoneutron star to standing shock
stellar core of a massive star
(weak gravity)
(proto)neutron star
�EG � 3− 6× 1053 erg −→ (νe, νe, νµ/τ , νµ/τ )
(� 9 M⊙)
(strong gravity)
Neutrino heating: (Bethe & Wilson (1985) ApJ 295, 14)
Ev = 3 – 6 x 1053 erg vs. Eexpl ~ 1050 – 1051 erg (ejecta kinetic energy)
Alternative scenarios:
Magnetic fields(Le Banc & Wilson (1970) ApJ 161, 542)
Sound waves (Burrows et al.,(2006) ApJ 640, 878)
High-density phase transition(Sagert & TF et al.,(2009) PRL 102, 081101)
Ferdman et al. (2014) MNRAS 443, 2183; (double pulsar system)
Kramer et al. (2005) 22nd Texas symposium(double pulsar system)
Low-mass progenitors and v-driven supernovaeRef. Minitial MCO MFe MNS fate
[M⊙] [M⊙] [M⊙] [M⊙][1] 8.8 1.376 – 1.3645 ± 0.0015 ECSN†,‡
[2] 8.75 1.368 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.8 1.371 – – ECSN/ONe WD[3] 7.5 1.088 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.0 1.171 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.5 1.271 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.75 1.345 – – ECSN/ONe WD[4] 2.7 1.41 – – ECSN/CCSN-”- 2.6 1.29 – – ECSN/ONe WD[5] 9.75 1.45 1.32(1.33) 1.35 ECSN/CCSN-”- 10.0 1.50 1.31(1.29) 1.36 CCSN[6] 9.6 1.377 1.297 ??? CCSN[7] 11.2 1.75 1.275 1.2906 CCSN�
[1] Nomoto (1984;1987)[2] Jones et al.(2013)[3] Woosley et al.(2015)[4] Tauris et al.(2015)[5] Suwa et al.(2015)[6] Melson et al.(2015),[7] Woosley et al.(2002)† Fischer et al.(2010)‡ Hudepohl et al.(2010),� Muller et al. (2012),Fischer et al.(2016)
baryon mass
PSR J1756–2251: 1.230± 0.007 M⊙
PSR J0737–3039B: 1.249± 0.001 M⊙
Low-mass neutron stars
Ferdman et al. (2014) MNRAS 443, 2183; (double pulsar system)
Kramer et al. (2005) 22nd Texas symposium(double pulsar system)
Low-mass progenitors and v-driven supernovaeRef. Minitial MCO MFe MNS fate
[M⊙] [M⊙] [M⊙] [M⊙][1] 8.8 1.376 – 1.3645 ± 0.0015 ECSN†,‡
[2] 8.75 1.368 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.8 1.371 – – ECSN/ONe WD[3] 7.5 1.088 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.0 1.171 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.5 1.271 – – ECSN/ONe WD-”- 8.75 1.345 – – ECSN/ONe WD[4] 2.7 1.41 – – ECSN/CCSN-”- 2.6 1.29 – – ECSN/ONe WD[5] 9.75 1.45 1.32(1.33) 1.35 ECSN/CCSN-”- 10.0 1.50 1.31(1.29) 1.36 CCSN[6] 9.6 1.377 1.297 ??? CCSN[7] 11.2 1.75 1.275 1.2906 CCSN�
[1] Nomoto (1984;1987)[2] Jones et al.(2013)[3] Woosley et al.(2015)[4] Tauris et al.(2015)[5] Suwa et al.(2015)[6] Melson et al.(2015),[7] Woosley et al.(2002)† Fischer et al.(2010)‡ Hudepohl et al.(2010),� Muller et al. (2012),Fischer et al.(2016)
PSR J1756–2251: 1.230± 0.007 M⊙
PSR J0737–3039B: 1.249± 0.001 M⊙
Podsiadlowski et al. (2005)
MG = 1.26378 M⊙
Constrains on the high-density EoS (?)
Low-mass neutron stars
Demorest et al. (2010) Nature 467, 1081Fonseca et al.(2016) arXiv:1603.00545 (nearly edge-on system with well-measured Shapiro time delay)
Antoniadis et al. (2013) Science 340(optical data and theoretical properties of companion white dwarf)
van Kerkwijk et al. (2010) ApJ 728, 8 (BWP)
Massive neutron stars
5 10 15 20 250
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
R [km]
M [
M ]
13 14 15 16log10( [g cm 3])
!
MMc
Mass-radius relation and central density
ρ0PSR J0348+0432: 2.01± 0.04 M⊙
PSR J1614–2230: 1.928± 0.017 M⊙
B1957–20: 2.4± 0.3 M⊙
Demorest et al. (2010) Nature 467, 1081Fonseca et al.(2016) arXiv:1603.00545 (nearly edge-on system with well-measured Shapiro time delay)
Antoniadis et al. (2013) Science 340(optical data and theoretical properties of companion white dwarf)
van Kerkwijk et al. (2010) ApJ 728, 8 (BWP)
Quark matter inside neutron stars
PSR J0348+0432: 2.01± 0.04 M⊙
PSR J1614–2230: 1.928± 0.017 M⊙
B1957–20: 2.4± 0.3 M⊙
Benic et al. (2015) A&A 577, 40A chance for high-mass twins ?
“commonly-employed” two-phase approach; sufficiently stiff quark matter EoS and strong 1st–oder phase transition
Radius difference of 1–2 km, observable? NICER...
hadronic branchquark branch
hadronic EoS
quar
k EoS
1st–orderphase transition
(Maxwell)
disconnected
large latent heat
EoS in supernova studiesSupernova relevant densities}
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
E/N
-mn
[MeV
]
0.0 0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3
n [fm-3]
0 1 2 3 4 5[1014 g cm-3]
DD2NL3TM1TMASFHoSFHxFSUgoldIUFSULS180LS220QB139 S0.7
Chiral EFT N3LO
ρ [1014 g cm−3]
nB [fm−3]
Neutron matter energy per nucleon
ρ [g cm−3]
T[M
eV]
T = 0.5 MeVnon-NSE
(time-dependent nuclear processes)
NSE
TF. et al.,(2011) ApJS 194, 39
“Supernova phase diagram”
L o w - d e n s i t y E o S w e l l constrained from χEFT
C a n w e u s e s u p e r n o v a simulations to constrain the supersaturation density EoS?
TF. et al.,(2014) EPJ A50, 46
EN−
mN
[MeV
]
Comparison in simulations
0.05 0.1 0.15 0.2 0.25 0.3 0.35 0.420
40
60
80
100
120
140
SFHoSFHxHS(TM1)LS(180)STOSQ155a03
Time after bounce (s)
shock radius
sphere radius
e
km
PNS collapse
Common mistake: many/all EoS parameters are different
Quantitative comparison difficult/impossible !
Suggestion: only supersaturation density EoS is affected; all other nuclear matter properties remain unchanged
Steiner et al.(2013) ApJ 774,17
Supersaturation density
1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.50
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
[1014 g cm 3]
P [M
eV fm
3 ]
HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0) HS(DD2) ref. EOS (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0)
0.08 0.1 0.12 0.14 0.16 0.18 0.2nB [fm 3]
0
2 3 4 5 60.60.81.01.21.4
c s [c]
T = 3 MeVYe = 0.3
stiff
soft
ref. E
oS
Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume:
Vi = V φi
φi = 1−�
j
vjnj
Excluded volume parameter:v ≡ vn = vp
φ(ρ; v) = exp�−v|v|
2(ρ− ρ0)
2�
(Gauss-functional)
DD2 – RMF parameters:K = 243 MeVS = 31.67 MeVL = 55.04 MeV
Ref. EoS in agreement with nuclear constraints (e.g. χEFT and nuc lear masses) and massive neutron stars !
TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54
TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54
0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.50
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
t tbounce [s]
cent
ral [
10
g c
m14
3 ]
HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0) HS(DD2) ref. case (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0)
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
8
10
12
14
16
18
20
T cen
tral
[MeV
]
Central density and temperature
ref. EoS
stiff
soft
Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume:
Vi = V φi
φi = 1−�
j
vjnj
Excluded volume parameter:v ≡ vn = vp
φ(ρ; v) = exp�−v|v|
2(ρ− ρ0)
2�
(Gauss-functional)
La rge va r ia t i ons i n the supernova-core properties
Supernova evolution
TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
L [
1052
erg
s1 ]
!e
!e
!µ/!
0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.56789
1011121314151617
t tbounce [s]
E
[MeV
]
!e
!e
!µ/!
!µ/!
HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0)HS(DD2) ref. case (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5t – tbounce [s]
TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54
Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume:
Vi = V φi
φi = 1−�
j
vjnj
Excluded volume parameter:v ≡ vn = vp
φ(ρ; v) = exp�−v|v|
2(ρ− ρ0)
2�
(Gauss-functional)
Supernova evolution
Supernova evolution, incl. neutrino signal, is insensitive to supersaturation density EoS
TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54
0.1 0.2 0.3 0.40
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
L [
1052
erg
s1 ]
!e
!e
!µ/!
121314151617
[M
eV]
!e
!µ/!
!µ/!
HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0)HS(DD2) ref. case (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0)
0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5t – tbounce [s]
TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54
Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume:
Vi = V φi
φi = 1−�
j
vjnj
Excluded volume parameter:v ≡ vn = vp
φ(ρ; v) = exp�−v|v|
2(ρ− ρ0)
2�
(Gauss-functional)
Supernova evolution
Supernova evolution, incl. neutrino signal, is insensitive to supersaturation density EoS
Thank
s for
your a
ttenti
onIn collaboration with:W. NewtonG. RöpkeF.-K. ThielemannY. SuwaS. TypelM. R. WuD. Voskresensky
S. BenicD. BlaschkeM. HempelC. HorowitzT. KlähnM. LiebendörferK. LangankeA. LohsG. Martínez-Pinedo