Neutron Star Merger with Tabulated EOS and Spin Wolfgang Kastaun - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

neutron star merger with tabulated eos and spin
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

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


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Neutron Star Merger with Tabulated EOS and Spin

Wolfgang Kastaun MICRA, Stockholm, Aug. 2015

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Topics

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

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Measuring Deformations

◮ 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

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Measuring Deformations

◮ 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]

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Measuring Compactness

Problem

◮ Want to quantify density profile and compactness ◮ Compactness should not be sensitive to low density parts ◮ Should not require symmetries or preferred coordinates

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Measuring Compactness

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..

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Initial data

◮ 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

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Merger dynamics

Computed isodensity surfaces that contain 1

4 of total mass.

Cut in xy+t:

Inspiral Merger Ringdown

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Merger dynamics

Computed isodensity surfaces that contain 1

4 of total mass.

Cut in xy+t:

Collision: very compact, rapid rotation

  • 1. Bounce

Double core phase Fully merged

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Merger dynamics

Computed isodensity surfaces that contain 1

4 of total mass.

Cut in xy+t:

Angular momentum re-arranges Pattern velocity decouples from fluid velocity

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Merger dynamics

◮ 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

slide-12
SLIDE 12

GW signal

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]

slide-13
SLIDE 13

GW signal

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

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Thermal evolution

◮ 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

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Thermal evolution

Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Thermal evolution

Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Thermal evolution

Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Thermal evolution

Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Thermal evolution

Schock heating Concentration into vortices Quadruple hot spots T wo surviving hot spots

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Thermal evolution

Hot spots survived >10 ms by now

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Thermal evolution

Hot spots survived >10 ms by now

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Thermal evolution

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 ]

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Thermal evolution

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Thermal evolution

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Thermal evolution

◮ 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]

  • 0.3
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5

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])

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Rotation profile

◮ 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]

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Rotation profile

◮ 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

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Rotation profile

◮ 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 ⊙]

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Remnant mass distribution

◮ 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)

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Remnant mass distribution

◮ 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

slide-31
SLIDE 31

Remnant mass distribution

◮ 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

slide-32
SLIDE 32

Remnant mass distribution

◮ 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]

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Measuring matter ejection

Previous estimate for unbound mass

◮ Assume stationary spacetime ◮ Assume fluid moves along geodesics ◮ Compute volume integral of “unbound” mass

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Measuring matter ejection

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

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Measuring matter ejection

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

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Matter Ejection

◮ 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

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Matter Ejection

◮ 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

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Matter Ejection

◮ 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)

slide-39
SLIDE 39

Matter Ejection

◮ 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)

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Spin – Initial data

Lattimer-Swesty (K = 220 MeV) EOS Equal mass, MB = 3.12 M⊙ = 1.10 MKepler Irrotational Aligned rotation ∆FR ≈ 160 Hz

  • G. Shen, Horowitz, Teige (NL3) EOS

Equal mass, MB = 4.01 M⊙ = 1.01 MKepler Irrotational Aligned rotation ∆FR ≈ 155 Hz

  • W. Kastaun, F. Galeazzi, Properties of hypermassive neutron stars formed in

mergers of spinning binaries, Phys. Rev. D 91, 064027 (2015)

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Spin – Inspiral

◮ 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

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Spin – Radial Oscillations

◮ 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

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Spin – Rotation Profile

◮ 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

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Spin – Rotation Profile

◮ 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

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Spin – GW Spectrum

◮ 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

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Spin – GW Spectrum

◮ 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

slide-47
SLIDE 47

Spin – Matter ejection

◮ 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]

slide-48
SLIDE 48

Spin – Matter ejection

◮ 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

slide-49
SLIDE 49

Summary

◮ 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

slide-50
SLIDE 50

Thanks!