Neutron Star Merger with Tabulated EOS and Spin
Wolfgang Kastaun MICRA, Stockholm, Aug. 2015
Neutron Star Merger with Tabulated EOS and Spin Wolfgang Kastaun - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Neutron Star Merger with Tabulated EOS and Spin Wolfgang Kastaun MICRA, Stockholm, Aug. 2015 Topics Part 1: A recent merger simulation Gauge independent measures Structure of post-merger fluid flow Nature of hot spots Structure
Wolfgang Kastaun MICRA, Stockholm, Aug. 2015
Part 1: A recent merger simulation
◮ Gauge independent measures ◮ Structure of post-merger fluid flow ◮ Nature of hot spots ◮ Structure of merger remnant ◮ Matter ejection
Part 2: Influence of initial NS spin on
◮ Inspiral ◮ GW signal ◮ Matter ejection
◮ Spatial gauge used in evolution bad for analysis of HMNS ◮ Define better coordinates
◮ Consider the equatorial plane ◮ Meaningful coordinate distances
grr = 1, gφφ,φ = 0
◮ Prevent spirals
π
−π
grφ dφ = 0
◮ Fix global rotation
βφ → 0 for r → ∞
◮ Choice of origin: use π-symmetry axis
◮ Spatial gauge used in evolution bad for analysis of HMNS ◮ Define better coordinates
20 10 10 20 x [km] 20 10 10 20 y [km]
Problem
◮ Want to quantify density profile and compactness ◮ Compactness should not be sensitive to low density parts ◮ Should not require symmetries or preferred coordinates
Problem
◮ Want to quantify density profile and compactness ◮ Compactness should not be sensitive to low density parts ◮ Should not require symmetries or preferred coordinates
Solution
◮ Consider shells of constant (rest frame) mass density ◮ Each shell contains proper volume V and baryonic mass Mb
⇒ Unambiguous baryonic mass versus proper volume relations
◮ Compute “volumetric” radius Rv of Euklidian sphere with
same volume
◮ Define compactness C = Mb/Rv ◮ Define the “bulk” as shell with maximum compactness
⇒ bulk mass, bulk volume, bulk entropy..
◮ Irrotational, equal mass ◮ No magnetic field ◮ Zero temperature, β equilibrium ◮ EOS: G. Shen, Horowitz, Teige ◮ Baryonic mass 2 × 1.513 M⊙ ◮ Bulk mass 98% total mass ◮ Grav. mass of single star 1.4 M⊙ ◮ Initial proper separation 57.6 km ⇒ 4 Orbits ◮ Maximum TOV baryonic mass 3.33 M⊙
⇒ Remnant is stable !
◮ Corner case, probably not realistic
Computed isodensity surfaces that contain 1
4 of total mass.
Cut in xy+t:
Inspiral Merger Ringdown
Computed isodensity surfaces that contain 1
4 of total mass.
Cut in xy+t:
Collision: very compact, rapid rotation
Double core phase Fully merged
Computed isodensity surfaces that contain 1
4 of total mass.
Cut in xy+t:
Angular momentum re-arranges Pattern velocity decouples from fluid velocity
◮ Quantify mass in double core ◮ Total mass of matter with density > central density
5 10 15 20 25 t [ms] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Mb [M ⊙]
Separate cores Bulk
3 2 1 1 2 3 h at 100 MPc 1e 22
h +
q
h 2
+ +h 2 ×
5 10 15 20 (t−r) [ms] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 f [kHz]
0.0 0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1.0 1.2 1.4 1.6 ˜ hf at 100 MPc 1e 24 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 4.0 4.5 f [khz] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 |h| at 100 MPc 1e 22
◮ Bulk entropy produced at merger, then constant ◮ Matter outside bulk hotter, ongoing heating
5 10 15 20 25 30 t [ms] 1 2 3 4 5 s [kB/Baryon]
Total S/N Bulk Sblk/Nblk Disk Sd/Nd
Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots
Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots
Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots
Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots
Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots
Hot spots survived >10 ms by now
Hot spots survived >10 ms by now
40 20 20 40 x [km] 40 20 20 40 y [km] t =6.128 ms, φ =3.7 π
Density
0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 S/V [kB/fm3 ]
◮ Final state convectively stable ◮ Evolve adiabatically during inspiral
10 20 30 40 50 50 × sinh−1 (R[M ⊙] / 50) 5 10 15 20 25 t [ms]
activate thermal 1.00 0.75 0.50 0.25 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 1.25 log10(s[kB/baryon])
◮ Violent rearrangement of rotation profile after merger
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 rc [km] 10 15 20 25 t [ms] 0.0 0.8 1.6 2.4 3.2 4.0 4.8 5.6 6.4 7.2 Frot [kHz]
◮ Remnant rotation profile has slowly rotating core ◮ Outer layers close to Kepler rate
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 rc [km] 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ω [rad ms−1 ]
Ω −βφ ΩK ˙ φ22
◮ Final specific angular momentum profile stable ◮ Specific entropy profile adds even more stability
5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 rc [km] 2 4 6 8 lφ [M ⊙]
◮ Central region of remnant very similar to a TOV star 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 V [M 3
⊙]
1e3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Mb [M ⊙]
Mass inside Volume Initial star t =27.0 ms (final)
◮ Central region of remnant very similar to a TOV star ◮ Define TOV core equivalent by matching bulk properties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 V [M 3
⊙]
1e3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Mb [M ⊙]
Mass inside Volume Initial star t =27.0 ms (final) TOV, cold TOVs, T =0
◮ Central region of remnant very similar to a TOV star ◮ Define TOV core equivalent by matching bulk properties 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 V [M 3
⊙]
1e3 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 3.5 Mb [M ⊙]
Mass inside Volume Initial star t =27.0 ms (final) TOV, cold TOVs, T =0 TOV, s =1kB TOVs, s =1kB
◮ Bulk baryonic mass 2.4 M⊙ ◮ TOV core equivalent mass 2.2 M⊙ ◮ Mass outside bulk (Envelope+Disk) 0.62 M⊙ ◮ Mass at r > 20 km (Disk) 0.3 M⊙
60 40 20 20 40 60 r [km] 10 20 30 40 50 z [km]
core bulk 95 % mass 92 % mass 90 % mass
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 s [kB/Baryon]
Previous estimate for unbound mass
◮ Assume stationary spacetime ◮ Assume fluid moves along geodesics ◮ Compute volume integral of “unbound” mass
Previous estimate for unbound mass
◮ Assume stationary spacetime ◮ Assume fluid moves along geodesics ◮ Compute volume integral of “unbound” mass
Problem
◮ Patently wrong close to remnant ◮ Too far from remnant matter diluted below cut-off
Previous estimate for unbound mass
◮ Assume stationary spacetime ◮ Assume fluid moves along geodesics ◮ Compute volume integral of “unbound” mass
Problem
◮ Patently wrong close to remnant ◮ Too far from remnant matter diluted below cut-off
Solution
◮ Use flux of unbound baryonic mass through spherical shell ◮ Also compute flux of entropy, electron fraction
◮ One wave, launched at merger, escape velocity ≈ 0.17 c
5 10 15 20 25 t [ms] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ˙ M [M ⊙/ms] 1e 4
r =73.84 km
◮ One wave, launched at merger, escape velocity ≈ 0.17 c ◮ Relatively low amount of unbound matter
5 10 15 20 25 t [ms] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 M [M ⊙] 1e 4
Surf r =73.84 km
◮ One wave, launched at merger, escape velocity ≈ 0.17 c ◮ Relatively low amount of unbound matter ◮ Average specific entropy ≈ 15 kB/Baryon
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 t [ms] 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 s [kB/Baryon]
Surface r =73.84 km (flow) Surface r =73.84 km (cumulative)
◮ One wave, launched at merger, escape velocity ≈ 0.17 c ◮ Relatively low amount of unbound matter ◮ Average specific entropy ≈ 15 kB/Baryon ◮ Electron fraction (not accurate without neutrino radiation)
12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 t [ms] 0.0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4 0.5 Ye
Surface r =73.84 km (flow) Surface r =73.84 km (cumulative)
Lattimer-Swesty (K = 220 MeV) EOS Equal mass, MB = 3.12 M⊙ = 1.10 MKepler Irrotational Aligned rotation ∆FR ≈ 160 Hz
Equal mass, MB = 4.01 M⊙ = 1.01 MKepler Irrotational Aligned rotation ∆FR ≈ 155 Hz
mergers of spinning binaries, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064027 (2015)
◮ Inspiral takes longer with spin ◮ Different impact trajectory
10 8 6 4 2 2 Orbits 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Proper distance [M∞ ]
SHT-M2.0-I SHT-M2.0-S LS220-M1.5-I LS220-M1.5-S LS220-M1.7-I LS220-M1.8-I
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20
◮ Strong quasi-radial oscilation ◮ Oscillation amplitude smaller for spinning NSs
5 10 15 (t−tm) [ms] 6 8 10 12 14 16 ¯ Rc [km]
SHT-M2.0-I LS220-M1.5-I SHT-M2.0-S LS220-M1.5-S
◮ Average rotation rate has central dip again 5 10 15 20 25 30 rc [km] 5 10 15 Ω [rad ms−1 ]
LS220-M1.5-I LS220-M1.5-S
◮ Average rotation rate has central dip again ◮ Influence of initial spin varies 5 10 15 20 25 30 rc [km] 2 4 6 8 10 12 Ω [rad ms−1 ]
SHT-M2.0-I SHT-M2.0-S
◮ No clear spin signature in post-merger spectra ◮ Better chances for inspiral+plunge
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 ˜ heff 1e 24
Irrotational Spinning
1 2 3 4 5 f [khz] 2 4 6 8 (t−tm) [ms] LS220-M1.5
Irrotational Spinning
◮ No clear spin signature in post-merger spectra ◮ Better chances for inspiral+plunge
0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 2.0 2.5 3.0 ˜ heff 1e 24
Irrotational Spinning
1 2 3 4 5 f [khz] 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 (t−tm) [ms] SHT-M2.0
Irrotational Spinning
◮ Matter ejected in spiral waves caused by m = 2 mode. ◮ Modulated by radial oscillation. 5 10 15 20 25 rc [km] 2 2 4 6 8 (t−tm) [ms] 6 12 18 24 30 36 42 48 54 T [MeV]
◮ Matter ejected in spiral waves caused by m = 2 mode. ◮ Modulated by radial oscillation. ◮ Initial spin influences amount of ejected matter. 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 (t−tm ) [ms] 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 Mu [M ⊙] 1e 2
SHT-M2.0-I SHT-M2.0-S LS220-M1.5-I LS220-M1.5-S LS220-M1.4-U
◮ Merger remnant cores rotate slowly ◮ Thermal effects unimportant for core profile ◮ Outer envelope supported mainly by centrifugal force ◮ New measure: Mass versus volume relation ◮ Observed dynamic hot spots,
resilient to differential rotation
◮ Spin seems to influence matter ejection ◮ Weak and complicated influence on GW