Paper detail

Updated Parameter Estimates for GW190425 Using Astrophysical Arguments and Implications for the Electromagnetic Counterpart

The progenitor system of the compact binary merger GW190425 had a total mass of $3.4^{+0.3}_{-0.1}$ M$_\odot$ (90th-percentile confidence region) as measured from its gravitational wave signal. This mass is significantly different from the Milky Way (MW) population of binary neutron stars (BNSs) that are expected to merge in a Hubble time and from that of the first BNS merger, GW170817. Here we explore the expected electromagnetic signatures of such a system. We make several astrophysically motivated assumptions to further constrain the parameters of GW190425. By simply assuming that both components were NSs, we reduce the possible component masses significantly, finding $m_1 = 1.85^{+0.27}_{-0.19}$ M$_\odot$ and $m_2 = 1.47^{+0.16}_{-0.18}$ M$_\odot$. However if the GW190425 progenitor system was a NS-black hole merger, we find best-fitting parameters $m_1 = 2.19^{+0.21}_{-0.17}$ M$_\odot$ and $m_2 = 1.26^{+0.10}_{-0.08}$ M$_\odot$. For a well-motivated BNS system where the lighter NS has a mass similar to the mass of non-recycled NSs in MW BNS systems, we find $m_1 = 2.03^{+0.15}_{-0.14}$ M$_\odot$ and $m_2 = 1.35 \pm 0.09$ M$_\odot$, corresponding to only 7% mass uncertainties. For all scenarios, we expect a prompt collapse of the resulting remnant to a black hole. Examining detailed models with component masses similar to our best-fitting results, we find the electromagnetic counterpart to GW190425 is expected to be significantly redder and fainter than that of GW170817. We find that almost all reported observations used to search for an electromagnetic counterpart for GW190425 were too shallow to detect the expected counterpart. If the LIGO-Virgo Collaboration promptly provides the chirp mass, the astronomical community can adapt their observations to improve the likelihood of detecting a counterpart for similarly "high-mass" BNS systems. (abridged)

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.