2018
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac2b7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Allowed Parameter Space of a Long-lived Neutron Star as the Merger Remnant of GW170817

Abstract: Limited by the sensitivities of the current gravitational wave (GW) detectors, the central remnant of the binary neutron star (NS) merger associated with GW170817 remains an open question. Considering the relatively large total mass, it is generally proposed that the merger of GW170817 would lead to a shortly lived hypermassive NS or directly produce a black hole (BH). There is no clear evidence to support or rule out a long-lived NS as the merger remnant. Here we utilize the GW and electromagnetic (EM) signal… Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

7
90
0
1

Year Published

2019
2019
2021
2021

Publication Types

Select...
9

Relationship

2
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 110 publications
(101 citation statements)
references
References 98 publications
7
90
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…If the lifetime of SMNS is 155 d or longer, without violating the EM observational constraints, we should have B p < 8.5 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 1.0 × 10 −6 for WFF1, B p < 8.5 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 1.4 × 10 −6 for WFF2, B p < 8.5 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 7.1 × 10 −7 for AP4, B p < 8.7 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 5.9 × 10 −6 for BSK21, B p < 9.3 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 2.2 × 10 −5 for AP3 and B p < 1.0 × 10 11 G and ǫ < 3.4 × 10 −5 for DD2. The constraints on B p mainly come from the EM observations, which are roughly consistent with (slightly looser than) the constraints derived in our previous work (Ai et al 2018). In this paper, we only used the peak luminosity (or total kinetic energy) rather than the full lightcurve (used in Ai et al (2018)) to constrain the parameters.…”
Section: Constraints On the Ns Properties In The Mns Casessupporting
confidence: 72%
“…If the lifetime of SMNS is 155 d or longer, without violating the EM observational constraints, we should have B p < 8.5 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 1.0 × 10 −6 for WFF1, B p < 8.5 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 1.4 × 10 −6 for WFF2, B p < 8.5 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 7.1 × 10 −7 for AP4, B p < 8.7 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 5.9 × 10 −6 for BSK21, B p < 9.3 × 10 10 G and ǫ < 2.2 × 10 −5 for AP3 and B p < 1.0 × 10 11 G and ǫ < 3.4 × 10 −5 for DD2. The constraints on B p mainly come from the EM observations, which are roughly consistent with (slightly looser than) the constraints derived in our previous work (Ai et al 2018). In this paper, we only used the peak luminosity (or total kinetic energy) rather than the full lightcurve (used in Ai et al (2018)) to constrain the parameters.…”
Section: Constraints On the Ns Properties In The Mns Casessupporting
confidence: 72%
“…Additionally, searches for enhanced late-time radio emission following 10 2 10 1 10 0 10 1 10 2 t (yr) SGRBs have placed limits on the fraction of BNS mergers that form magnetar remnants (Metzger & Bower 2014;Fong et al 2016;Horesh et al 2016), consistent with the estimates adopted in §3. The kinetic energy transferred to the ejecta via magnetic-dipole spin-down may be smaller than the total rotational energy of the magnetar due to inefficiencies in coupling the magnetar wind to the BNS merger/AIC ejecta (e.g., Bucciantini et al 2012), and hence we adopt E = 3 × 10 52 erg as a fiducial value 1 in 1 Even this energy deposition would be overestimated if the NS is sufficiently deformed into a non-axisymmetric shape such that that GW spin-down dominates over magnetic-dipole spin-down (Ai et al 2018); however, this requires extreme NS ellipticities, which may not be sustainable given that the required magnetic field configurations are not MHD stable except in a narrow region of parameter space ). Figure 3 show a simplified model for the radio light curve produced by the interaction of the magnetar-accelerated ejecta with the ISM, using the formulation of Nakar & Piran (2011) and assuming M ej = 0.1M , E = 3 × 10 52 erg, v ej given by Equation 4, and different ISM densities.…”
Section: Ejecta Radio Transparency Afterglow Andmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The only remaining variables in Equations (8) and (14) are related to the NS EoS. Here, we consider 12 EoSs that are usually discussed in the literatures (see Table 1), and EoS parameters are taken from Lasky et al (2014), , Li et al (2016), and Ai et al (2018). Figure 2 and 3 show the t col as a function of protomagnetar mass (M p ) for GRB 101219A and GRB 160821B, respectively.…”
Section: Constraining the Eosmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…If this is the case, the GW radiation of a newly born magnetar can be produced via either a mass quadrupole deformation with ellipticity ε for an NS rotating as a rigid body or an r -mode fluid oscillation with amplitude α Lindblom et al 1998;Andersson & Kokkotas 2001;Zhang & Mészáros 2001;Owen 2010;Yu et al 2010;Fan et al 2013;Lasky 2015;Ho 2016;Lasky & Glampedakis 2016;Lü et al 2017). These GW signals are too weak to be detected by the current Advanced LIGO and Advanced Virgo observatories (Alford & Schwenzer 2014, 2015Abbott et al 2017c;Lü et al 2017Lü et al , 2019Ai et al 2018).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%