Introduction to equation of state (EoS) for supernovae, compact stars and HIC applications

Transcription

1 Introduction to equation of state (EoS) for supernovae, compact stars and HIC applications D. Blaschke (Wroclaw & Dubna) PSR J Collaboration (incomplete): D.E. Alvarez Castillo (Dubna), S. Benic (Zagreb), T. Fischer (Wroclaw), H. Grigorian (Dubna & Yerevan), T. Klähn, R. Lastowiecki (Wroclaw), S. Kubis (Cracow), T. Maruyama (JAERI), G. Röpke (Rostock), S. Typel (NAVI), D. Voskresensky (Moscow), H. Wolter (Munich), N. Yasutake (Chiba) Simulating the Supernova Neutrinosphere with Heavy Ion Collisions ECT* Workshop, Trento,

2 Introduction to equation of state (EoS) for supernovae, compact stars and HIC applications D. Blaschke (Wroclaw & Dubna) PSR J Contents: Introduction Cluster formation and breakup EoS for supernovae (CompOSE) Clusters in core collapse SN Compact star masses and radii Simulating the Supernova Neutrinosphere with Heavy Ion Collisions ECT* Workshop, Trento,

3 Core collapse supernovae: temperatures, densities, asymmetries 0 < T[MeV] < < n[fm 3] < 1 0 < Ye < 0.6 T. Fischer et al., EPJA 50, 46 (2014)

4 Heavy ion collisions: temperatures, densities, asymmetries Supernova param. 0 < T[MeV] < < n[fm 3] < 1 0 < Ye < 0.6 Densitometer based on chem. equilibrium constants within QS G. Roepke et al., PRC 88, (2013)

5 Heavy ion collisions: temperatures, densities, asymmetries Supernova param. 0 < T[MeV] < < n[fm 3] < 1 0 < Ye < 0.6 Constraint on stiffness of cold nuclear matter from flow observables in HIC P. Danielewicz et al., Science (2002)

6 Compact stars: T=0, densities, asymmetries Supernova param. 0 < T[MeV] < < n[fm 3] < 1 0 < Ye < 0.6 Notice: the higher the maximum mass, the lower the central density direct Urca (DU) constraint limits proton fractions to x<xdu for typical neutron stars with masses M<1.5 MO T. Klahn et al., PRC 74, (2006); Remastered in CBM Book, Springer (2011)

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15 Nuclear matter properties in different models; T=0 ; ;

16 Nuclear matter properties in different models; T=0 ; ;

17 Nuclear matter properties in different models; T=0 Important constraints for the supernova EoS: at T=0 the mass of PSR J must be reached M = / 0.04 MO [Antoniadis et al. Science (2013)] low density neutron matter constrained by N3LO Chiral Effective Field Theory [Kruger, Tews, Hebeler & Schwenk, PRC (2013)]

18

19

20 T. Fischer, M. Hempel, I. Sagert, Y. Suwa, J. Schaffner Bielich, EPJA 50 (2014) Core collapse SN simulation

21 T. Fischer, M. Hempel, I. Sagert, Y. Suwa, J. Schaffner Bielich, EPJA 50 (2014) post bounce 20 ms 250 ms

22 Post bounce evolution of neutrino Luminosities and mean energies T. Fischer, M. Hempel, I. Sagert, Y. Suwa, J. Schaffner Bielich, EPJA 50 (2014) Core collapse SN simulation

23 250 ms post bounce 5 s after onset of explosion T. Fischer, M. Hempel, I. Sagert, Y. Suwa, J. Schaffner Bielich, EPJA 50 (2014) Core collapse SN simulation: Light nuclear clusters

24 Core collapse SN simulation: Light nuclear clusters The two standard supernova EsoS: LS and STOS are soft and stiff limiting cases A new EoS with clusters in NSE beyond the single nucleus approximation is HS(DD2) HS(DD2) allows to study effects of clusters in the core collapse (see Fischer et al.) Details of cluster dissociation mechanism shall be improved (Pauli blocking) Task: work out neutrino transport coefficients in partially clustered nuclear matter with in medium effects Explore the potential of improved neutrino transport in nonideal nuclear plasma for the puzzling explosion mechansim (multi D) Explore the role of structures (pasta phases) Can the QCD phase transition realistically occur in SN collapse? Serve as explosion mechanism?

25 Compact stars: mass radius constraint S. Guillot et al., ApJ 772, 7G (2013) Small radius: RNS = km Attention: strong assumptions! isotropic emission, homogeneous temperature distribution; but X ray sources have hot spots! hydrogen atmosphere; but if He atmosphere is assumed, radius rises by 3 km! (Servillat et al.)

26 Compact stars: mass radius constraint M. Servillat et al., MNRAS 423, 1556 (2012): Quiescent LMXB in globular cluster M28; Changing hydrogen to helium atmosphere radius increases by 2 km!

27 Which constraints require caution? A. Steiner, J. Lattimer, E. Brown, ApJ Lett. 765 (2013) L5 Ruled out models too strong a conclusion! M(R) constraint is a lower limit, which is itself included in that from RX J1856, which is one of the best known sources.

28 Another hint for large radii: Bogdanov! Nearest millisecond pulsar PSR J revisited by XMM Newton Distance: d = / 1.3 pc Period: P= 5.76 ms, dot P = 10^ 20 s/s, field strength B = 3x10^8 G Three thermal component fit R > 11.1 km (at 3 sigma level) M = 1.76 M_sun S. Bogdanov, arxiv: (2012)

29 Disjunct M R constraints for Bayesian analysis! Blaschke, Grigorian, Alvarez, Ayriyan, JPCS 496, (2014)

30 Measure masses and radii of CS!

31 Measure masses and radii of CS!... unless the latter sources emit X rays from hot spots lower limit on R

32 The lesson learned from RX J1856 X ray emitting region is a hot spot, J. Trumper et al., Nucl. Phys. Proc. Suppl. 132 (2004) 560

33 Goal: Measure the cold EoS! Direct approach: EoS is given as P(ρ) solve the TOV Equation to find M(R) Idea: Invert the approach Given M(R) find the EoS Bayesian analysis Plots: M. Prakash, Talk Hirschegg 2009

34 Goal 1: Measure the cold EoS! Bayesian TOV analysis: Steiner, Lattimer, Brown, ApJ 722 (2010) 33 Caution: If optical spectra are not measured, the observed X ray spectrum may not come from the entire surface But from a hot spot at the magnetic pole! J. Trumper, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 674 Such systematic errors are not accounted for in Steiner et al. M(R) is a lower limit softer EoS

35 Goal 1: Measure the cold EoS! Bayesian TOV analysis: Steiner, Lattimer, Brown, ApJ 722 (2010) 33 Caution: If optical spectra are not measured, the observed X ray spectrum may not come from the entire surface But from a hot spot at the magnetic pole! J. Trumper, Prog. Part. Nucl. Phys. 66 (2011) 674 Such systematic errors are not accounted for in Steiner et al. M(R) is a lower limit softer EoS

36 Which constraints can be trusted? 1 Largest mass J (Demorest et al. 2010) 2 Maximum gravity XTE (Bhattacharyya et al. (2005) 3 Minimum radius RXJ (Trumper et al. 2004) 4 Radius, 90% confidence limits LMXB X7 in 47 Tuc (Heinke et al. 2006) 5 Largest spin frequency J (Hessels et al. 2006)

37 Neutron star EoS: role of high n symmetry energy T. Klähn et al., PRC 74 (2006) nucl th/

38 Neutron star EoS: role of high n symmetry energy ; ;

39 Neutron star EoS: role of high n symmetry energy ; High density behaviour: Bezier curves [Kubis, Alvarez Castillo, arxiv: ] Fitting behaviour of MDI [Chen et al. PRL(2005)] for x=0 (asy soft) and x= 1 (asy stiff) Sv=31 MeV, L=40, 60, 90 MeV No effect on Mmax, Effect on radius: ΔR(1.25 Msun)=1 km; ΔR(1.6 Msun)=1.2 km

40 EoS constraint: double pulsar J

41 Gravitational binding: double pulsar J

42 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius

43 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius What role do clusters play?

44 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius What role do clusters play? Negligible effect on R for M~1.25 MO

45 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius what if MB were lower? approximately linear behaviour!

46 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius what if MB were lower? approximately linear behaviour!

47 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius what if MB were lower? MB=1.355 MO favors asy stiff EoS!?

48 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius what if MB were lower? MB=1.355 MO favors asy stiff EoS!?

49 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? MB=1.36 MO favors asy soft EoS ΔMB= MO equiv to ΔL=20 MeV lowering MB at fixed M lowers the gravitational binding energy and increases the star radius what if MB were lower? MB=1.355 MO favors asy stiff EoS!? U t c e r Di P a rc m e l b ro!!

50 Neutron star EoS: radius from MB? SOLUTION: MB=1.355 MO and asy soft EoS stiff E0(n) required, while asy soft example: DD2 fulfils new MB, DU and Mmax constr.

51 Neutron star EoS: Stiff and asy soft! SOLUTION: MB=1.355 MO and asy soft EoS stiff E0(n) required, while asy soft example: DD2 fulfils new MB, DU and Mmax constr. ATTENTION: high mass twin stars!!

52 Observable signature for Quark matter in neutron stars: High Mass Twin Stars Twins prove existence of disconnected populations (third family) in the M R diagram Consequence of a first order phase transition Question: Do twins prove the 1st order phase trans.? Alvarez & Blaschke, arxiv:

53 High mass twins: more examples! Blaschke, Alvarez, Benic, arxiv: (PoS CPOD2013) Pc=80 MeV/fm3 in HIC, Rafelski/Petran [arxiv: ] SUMMARY: excluded volume (quark Pauli blocking) important high density quark matter slightly stiffer eta_v=0.25 the scaled energy density jump (0.65) fulfills the twin condition of the schematic model by Alford et al. (2013) Astronomers: Find disconnected star branches!!

54 Exploring hybrid star matter at NICA T.Klähn (1), D.Blaschke (1,2), F.Weber (3) (1) Institute for Theoretical Physics, University of Wroclaw, Poland (2) Joint Institute for Nuclear Research, Dubna (3) Department of Physics, San Diego State University, USA Heavy Ion Collisions Compact Stars stiff EoS (at flow limit) high Mmax low ncrit (at NICA fixt) low Monset soft EoS (dashed line) (J ) (all NS hybrid) excluded (J ) Proposal: 1. Measure transverse and elliptic flow for a wide range of energies (densities) at NICA and perform Danielewicz's flow data analysis > constrain stiffness of high density EoS 2. Provide lower bound for onset of mixed phase > constrain QM onset in hybrid stars The CBM Physics Book, Springer LNP 841 (2011), pp

55 Conclusions Stiffness of Es(n) at n>n0 and L= MeV has influence on R but not Mmax Relation between MB and R at M=1.25 MO is well linear MB = 1.36 MO is consistent with asy soft Es(n) and fulfils DU and Mmax constraints for E0(n) from APR Smaller MB = MO with E0(n) from APR would favor asy stiff EoS, DU problem! MB = MO with stiffer E0(n) from DD2 would favor asy soft EoS, no DU problem! High mass twins are possible observable signature of strong phase transition in dense matter 1.36 MO < MB < 1.37 MO requires asy soft Es(n) and soft E0(n) for n < 2 n0, but stiff E0(n) at n > 2 n0 for Mmax > 2 MO

56 CSQCD IV: September 26 30, 2014 Copenhagen Prerow Hamburg Szczecin Berlin Venue: ``Haus hinter den Dünen'' in Prerow, Baltic Sea (Germany) Contact: Website: