Inferring the state of matter at neutron star interiors from simulations of core-collapse supernovae?

Transcription

1 Inferring the state of matter at neutron star interiors from simulations of core-collapse supernovae? Tobias Fischer University of Wroclaw (Poland) Bonn workshop on Formation and Evolution of Neutron Stars Supernovae and Formation of Neutron stars Bonn (Germany), November 14 th, 2016

2 General picture stellar core of a massive star ( 9M ) (proto)neutron star Core-collapse supernova converts iron-core of massive star into (proto)neutron star (weak gravity) (strong gravity) E G erg (ν e, ν e,ν µ/τ, ν µ/τ ) Neutrino heating: (Bethe & Wilson (1985) ApJ 295, 14) Ev = 3 6 x erg vs. Eexpl ~ 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, ) 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

3 Low-mass neutron stars Low-mass progenitors and v-driven supernovae Ref. M initial M CO M Fe M NS fate [M ] [M ] [M ] [M ] [1] ± ECSN, [2] ECSN/ONe WD ECSN/ONe WD [3] ECSN/ONe WD ECSN/ONe WD ECSN/ONe WD ECSN/ONe WD [4] ECSN/CCSN ECSN/ONe WD [5] (1.33) 1.35 ECSN/CCSN (1.29) 1.36 CCSN [6] ??? CCSN [7] CCSN PSR J : ± M Ferdman et al. (2014) MNRAS 443, 2183; (double pulsar system) PSR J B: ± M Kramer et al. (2005) 22 nd Texas symposium (double pulsar system) [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) Hüdepohl et al.(2010), Müller et al. (2012), Fischer et al.(2016) baryon mass

4 Low-mass neutron stars Low-mass progenitors and v-driven supernovae Ref. M initial M CO M Fe M NS fate [M ] [M ] [M ] [M ] [1] ± ECSN, [2] M ECSN/ONe WD G = M ECSN/ONe WD [3] ECSN/ONe WD ECSN/ONe WD ECSN/ONe WD ECSN/ONe WD [4] ECSN/CCSN ECSN/ONe WD [5] (1.33) 1.35 ECSN/CCSN (1.29) 1.36 CCSN [6] ??? CCSN [7] CCSN PSR J : ± M Ferdman et al. (2014) MNRAS 443, 2183; (double pulsar system) PSR J B: ± M Kramer et al. (2005) 22 nd Texas symposium (double pulsar system) [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) Hüdepohl et al.(2010), Müller et al. (2012), Fischer et al.(2016) Podsiadlowski et al. (2005) Constrains on the high-density EoS (?)

5 Massive neutron stars M [M ] Mass-radius relation and central density log 10 ( [g cm 3 ]) M c ρ 0 PSR J : ± M Demorest et al. (2010) Nature 467, 1081 Fonseca et al.(2016) arxiv: (nearly edge-on system with well-measured Shapiro time delay) PSR J : 2.01 ± 0.04 M Antoniadis et al. (2013) Science 340 (optical data and theoretical properties of companion white dwarf) B : 2.4 ± 0.3 M van Kerkwijk et al. (2010) ApJ 728, 8 (BWP) R [km]

6 Quark matter inside neutron stars hadronic EoS 1 st order phase transition (Maxwell) large latent heat quark EoS Benic et al. (2015) A&A 577, 40 PSR J : ± M Demorest et al. (2010) Nature 467, 1081 Fonseca et al.(2016) arxiv: (nearly edge-on system with well-measured Shapiro time delay) PSR J : 2.01 ± 0.04 M Antoniadis et al. (2013) Science 340 (optical data and theoretical properties of companion white dwarf) B : 2.4 ± 0.3 M van Kerkwijk et al. (2010) ApJ 728, 8 (BWP) quark branch disconnected hadronic branch A chance for high-mass twins? commonly-employed two-phase approach; sufficiently stiff quark matter EoS and strong 1 st oder phase transition Radius difference of 1 2 km, observable? NICER...

7 EoS in supernova studies EN E/N-m mn n [MeV] [MeV] Supernova relevant densities } ρ [ g cm 3-3 ]] Chiral EFT N 3 LO DD2 NL3 TM1 TMA SFHo SFHx FSUgold IUFSU LS180 LS220 QB139 S n B [fm 3 ] n [fm -3 ] Neutron matter energy per nucleon TF. et al.,(2014) EPJ A50, 46 T [MeV] Supernova phase diagram NSE ρ [g cm 3 ] T =0.5 MeV non-nse (time-dependent nuclear processes) Low-density EoS well constrained from χeft Can we use supernova simulations to constrain the supersaturation density EoS? TF. et al.,(2011) ApJS 194, 39

8 Comparison in simulations km shock radius PNS collapse Q155a03 STOS LS(180) HS(TM1) SFHx SFHo 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 e sphere radius Time after bounce (s) Steiner et al.(2013) ApJ 774,17

9 Supersaturation density P [MeV fm 3 ] c s [c] n B [fm 3 ] HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0) HS(DD2) ref. EOS (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0) T =3MeV Y e = [10 14 g cm 3 ] TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54 0 stiff ref. EoS soft Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume: V i = V φ i φ i = 1 v j n j j Excluded volume parameter: v v n =v p φ(ρ;v)=exp v v 2 (ρ ρ 0) 2 (Gauss-functional) Ref. EoS in agreement with nuclear constraints (e.g. χeft and nuclear masses) and massive neutron stars! DD2 RMF parameters: K = 243 MeV S = MeV L = MeV

10 Supernova evolution 14 3 [10 g cm ] central Central density and temperature HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0) HS(DD2) ref. case (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0) T central [MeV] soft ref. EoS stiff Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume: V i = V φ i φ i = 1 v j n j j Excluded volume parameter: v v n =v p φ(ρ;v)=exp v v 2 (ρ ρ 0) 2 (Gauss-functional) Large variations in the supernova-core properties t t bounce [s] TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54

11 Supernova evolution 7 6 ν e HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0) HS(DD2) ref. case (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0) Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume: V i = V φ i φ i = 1 j v j n j L [10 52 erg s 1 ] ν e ν µ/τ Excluded volume parameter: v v n =v p φ(ρ;v)=exp v v 2 (ρ ρ 0) 2 (Gauss-functional) TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54 ev] 13 ν µ/τ ν µ/τ ν e t t bounce [s] Supernova evolution, incl. neutrino signal, is insensitive to supersaturation density EoS

12 S. Benic W. Newton D. Blaschke 7 G. Röpke M. Hempel ν e F.-K. Thielemann C. Horowitz 6 Y. Suwa T. Klähn S. Typel M. Liebendörfer 5 M. R. Wu K. Langanke D. Voskresensky A. Lohs 4 ν e G. Martínez-Pinedo L [10 52 erg s 1 ] TF (2016) EPJA 52, 54 ev] Supernova evolution In collaboration with: 13 ν µ/τ ν µ/τ ν e ν µ/τ t t bounce [s] HS(DD2 EV) (v = +8.0) HS(DD2) ref. case (v=0) HS(DD2 EV) (v = 3.0) Geometric excluded volume approach; modifying the available volume: V i = V φ i φ i = 1 v j n j j Excluded volume parameter: v v n =v p φ(ρ;v)=exp v v 2 (ρ ρ 0) 2 (Gauss-functional) Supernova evolution, incl. neutrino signal, is insensitive to supersaturation density EoS Thanks for your attention