Paper detail

On the possibility of GW190425 being a black hole--neutron star binary merger

We argue that the kilonova/macronova associated with the gravitational-wave event GW190425 could have been bright enough to be detected if it was caused by the merger of a low-mass black hole and a neutron star. Although tidal disruption occurs for such a low-mass black hole as is generally expected, the masses of the dynamical ejecta are limited to <~10^{-3}M_sun, which is consistent with previous work in the literature. The remnant disk could be as massive as 0.05--0.1M_sun, and the disk outflow of ~0.01--0.03M_sun is likely to be driven by viscous or magnetohydrodynamic effects. The disk outflow may not be neutron-rich enough to synthesize an abundance of lanthanide elements, even in the absence of strong neutrino emitter, if the ejection is driven on the viscous time scale of >~0.3s. If this is the case, the opacity of the disk outflow is kept moderate, and a kilonova/macronova at the distance of GW190425 reaches a detectable brightness of 20--21mag at 1day after merger for most viewing angles. If some disk activity ejects the mass within ~0.1s, instead, lanthanide-rich outflows would be launched and the detection of emission becomes challenging. Future possible detections of kilonovae/macronovae from GW190425-like systems will disfavor the prompt collapse of binary neutron stars and a non-disruptive low-mass black hole--neutron star binary associated with a small neutron-star radius, whose mass ejection is negligible. The host-galaxy distance will constrain the viewing angle and deliver further information about the mass ejection.

preprint2020arXivOpen access
0citations
0reviews
0saves
Nocode
Nodataset
0institutions

Next steps

Decide what to do with this paper

Use like or dislike for the fast social read. The more specific scholarly feedback stays available below when needed.

Log in to curate

Reading frame

Keep the important context close to the paper

Keep the important signals around this paper in one place: votes, save state, collection context, reviews and the metadata you need before deciding what to do next.

Institutions

Add specific reaction

Move through the context

Research map

Open full explorer

Move through nearby people, institutions, topics and adjacent work without leaving the paper page.

Building this graph slice

BZPEER is loading the nearby papers, people, topics and institutions for this page.

Structured reviews

0 review(s)

ContributeLeave structured feedbackUse the review template when you have a concrete strength, concern or method question.Open review form

No structured reviews yet. High-signal critique starts here.

Work discussion

0 comment(s)

DiscussAdd a high-signal commentKeep quick notes, caveats and replication pointers separate from formal reviews.Open comment form

No discussion yet. The first strong comment sets the tone.