Paper detail

Was GW170817 a canonical neutron star merger? Bayesian analysis with a third family of compact stars

We investigate the possibility that GW170817 has not been the merger of two conventional neutron stars (NS) but involved at least one if not two hybrid stars with a quark matter core which might even belong to a third family of compact stars. To this end, we develop a Bayesian analysis method for selecting the most probable equation of state (EoS) under a set of constraints from compact star physics, which now also include the tidal deformability from GW170817 and the first result for the mass and radius determination for PSR J0030+0451 by NICER. We apply this method for the first time to a two-parameter family of hybrid EoS based on the DD2 model with nucleonic excluded volume for hadronic matter and the color superconducting generalized nlNJL model for quark matter. The model has a variable onset of deconfinement and can mimic the effects of pasta phases with the possibility of a third family of hybrid stars in the mass-radius ($M-R$) diagram. The main findings of this study are that: 1) the presence of multiple configurations for a given mass (twins) corresponds to a set of disconnected lines in the diagram of tidal deformabilities for binary mergers, so that merger events from the same mass range may result in a probability landscape with different peak positions; 2) the Bayesian analysis with the above observational constraints favors an early onset of the deconfinement transition, at masses of $M_{\rm onset}\le 0.8~M_\odot$ with a $M-R$ relationship that in the range of observed neutron star masses is almost indistinguishable from that of a soft hadronic APR EoS; 3) a few yet fictitious measurements of the NICER experiment with a $1σ$ range that is half of the present value and different mass and radius would change the posterior likelihood so that hybrid EoS with a phase transition onset in the range $M_{\rm onset} = 1.1 - 1.6~M_\odot $ would be favored.

preprint2020arXivOpen access

Signal facts

What is known right now

Open access4 authors3 topics

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 map preview

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.