![Page 1: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
1
Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii
Cole MillerUniversity of Maryland
Collaborators: Romain Artigue, Didier Barret,Sudip Bhattacharyya, Stratos Boutloukos, Novarah Kazmi, Fred Lamb, Ka Ho Lo
![Page 2: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
2
Outline
• Radii from X-ray bursts• Radii from cooling neutron stars• Radii from X-ray light curves• The promise of gravitational waves
NS masses are known up to 2 Msun. What about radii?
Key point: all current NS radius estimatesare dominated by systematics. None arereliable. But hope exists for the future.
![Page 3: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
3
Measuring stellar radii• Ordinary star, like the Sun• Too far for angular resolution• But can get luminosity L• If we assume blackbody, R2=L/(4psT4)• But for NS, usually gives ~5 km!• Why? Spectral shape is ~Planck, but
inefficient emission• Need good spectral models• But data usually insufficient to test
![Page 4: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
4
M and R from X-ray Bursts• van Paradijs (1979) method• XRB: thermonuclear explosions on accreting NS• Assume known spectrum, emission over whole surf.• Only with RXTE (1995-2011) is there enough data
http://cococubed.asu.edu/images/binaries/images/xray_burst3_web.jpg
![Page 5: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
5
4U 1820 Bursts: Soft EOS?
• Fits of good spectral models to hours-long bursts show that fraction of emitting area changes!
Guver et al. 2010; known dist (globular)Uses most optimisticassumption: no systematics,only statistical uncertainties
But small errors aremisleading; only ~10-8
of prior prob. space givesM, R in real numbers! (Guver et al., Steiner et al.)
Spectral model is terrible fit to best data!
![Page 6: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
6
Inferred relative emitting areas, for 102 16-s segments near the peak of the 1820 superburst: Miller et al., in prep
![Page 7: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
7
Emission from Cooling NS• Old, transiently accreting NS• Deep crustal heating (e.g., e capture)• If know average accretion rate,
emission provides probe of cooling; can we use to fit radius?
• Predictions of simple model: Minimum level of emission Spectrum should be thermalNo variability: steady, slow decay
![Page 8: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
8
Cooling NS Observations• Oops!• All the predictions fail
L sometimes below minimum Large power law component Significant variability
• Excuses exist, but failure of basic model means we can’t use these observations to get R
• Also: is surface mainly H? He? C? Makes 10s of percent difference to R
• Magnetic field can also alter spectrum• Again, wide variety of models fit data, thus can’t
use data to say which model is correct
![Page 9: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
9
RXJ 1856.5–3754• Specific isolated NS• Argument: BB most
efficient emitter, thus R>=RBB
• True for bolometric but not for given band
• Example: Ho et al. condensed surface fit
• Different R constraints for different models
Klähn et al. 2006
![Page 10: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
10
RXJ 1856.5–3754• Specific isolated NS• Argument: BB most
efficient emitter, thus R>=RBB
• True for bolometric but not for given band
• Example: Ho et al. condensed surface fit
• Different R constraints for different models
Klähn et al. 2006
![Page 11: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
11
Baryonic vs. Grav. Mass
• Pulsar B in the double pulsar system• Mgrav=1.249+-0.001 Msun
• If this came from e capture on Mg and Ne, Mbary=1.366-1.375 Msun for core
• But what about fallback?• Or could mass be lost after collapse?
![Page 12: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
12
Ray Tracing and Light Curves• Rapidly rotating star 300-
600 Hz vsurf~0.1-0.2c SR+GR effects
• Light curve informative about M, R Bogdanov 2012; MSP
• Must deal carefully with degeneracies
• Lo et al., arXiv:1304.2330 (synth data); no systematic that gives good fit, tight constraints, and large bias Weinberg, Miller, and Lamb 2001
![Page 13: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
13
Phase Accumulation from GWs• aLIGO/Virgo: >=2015• Deviation from point mass
in NS-NS inspiral: accumulated tidal effects
• For aLIGO, can measure tidal param (Del Pozzo+ 2013: distinguish R~11, 13 km?)
• Recent analytics confirmed by numerical relativity (Bernuzzi et al. 2012)
• High-freq sensitivity key Damour et al., arXiv:1203.4352High-freq modeling, too
![Page 14: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
Conclusions
Current radius estimates are all dominated by systematicsLight curve fitting shows promise: No deviations we have tried from our models produce significant biases while fitting well and also giving apparently strong constraints. LOFT, AXTAR, NICER
Future measurements of M and R using gravitational waves may be competitive in their precision with X-ray based estimates, and will have very different systematics
Open question: how can we best combine astronomicalinformation with laboratory measurements (e.g., 208Pb skinthickness)?
![Page 15: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
15
Ray Tracing from MSP• S. Bogdanov 2012• Binary millisecond
pulsar J0437-4715• Two spots, H atm• Multitemp plus
Comptonized spect• Qs about beaming,
spectrum; intriguing results, though! Bogdanov 2012
![Page 16: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
16
High inclinations allow tight constraints on M and R
Spot and observer inclinations = 90°, high background
![Page 17: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
17
Low inclinations produce looser constraints Amplitude similar to the previous slide, but low spot and
observer inclinations, low background
![Page 18: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
18
Independent knowledge of the observer’s inclination can increase the precision
Observer inclination unknown
spot and observer inclinations = 90°, high background
![Page 19: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
19
Observer inclination known to be 90°
Independent knowledge of the observer’s inclination can increase the precision
spot and observer inclinations = 90°, high background
![Page 20: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/20.jpg)
20
Incorrect modeling of the spot shapeincreases the uncertainties
Actual spot elongated E-W by 45°
spot and observer inclinations = 90°, medium background
![Page 21: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/21.jpg)
21
Fits Using New Models64-second segment at peaktemperature
This model has F=0.95FEdd
Best fit: 2/dof=42.3/48Best B-E fit: 2/dof=55.6/50
For full 102-segment data set,best fit has 2/dof=5238/5098B-E best: 2/dof=5770/4998
Fits are spectacularly good!Much better than B-E, so further info can be derived
Pure He, log g = 14.3, F=0.95FEdd
Model from Suleimanov et al. 2010
Yes! New models from Suleimanov et al. 2010 do seemto fit the data quite well.
![Page 22: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/22.jpg)
22
Keplerian ConstraintsSuppose we observe periodic variations in theradial velocity of star 1, with period Pb andamplitude vrad. Then we can construct themass function
This is a lower limit to the mass of star 2, butdepends on the unknown inclination i and theunknown mass m1 of the observed star.
![Page 23: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/23.jpg)
23
Post-Keplerian ParametersWith high-precision timing, can break degeneracies:
If both objects are pulsars, also get mass ratio.Allows mass measurements, GR tests
![Page 24: Challenges in the Measurement of Neutron Star Radii](https://reader035.vdocuments.mx/reader035/viewer/2022062323/568165dd550346895dd8f6af/html5/thumbnails/24.jpg)
24
Artigue et al. 2013
2/dof for all five bursts combined: 1859/1850 (44%)2/dof for far left burst only: 401.8/372 (14%)Hot spot model fits very well
Analysis of bursts from 4U 1636-536; previously claimed to contradict rotating spot model