REVIEW 1 cited by
The impact of the crust equation of state on the analysis of GW170817
Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.
This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.
SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event
T0 review · schema-true
One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.
pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp
Signed reviews
abstract
The detection of GW170817, the first neutron star-neutron star merger observed by Advanced LIGO and Virgo, and its following analyses represent the first contributions of gravitational wave (GW) data to understanding dense matter. Parameterizing the high density section of the equation of state (EOS) of both neutron stars through spectral decomposition, and imposing a lower limit on the maximum mass value, led to an estimate of the stars' radii of $R_1 = 11.9_{- 1.4}^{+ 1.4}$ km and $R_2 = 11.9_{- 1.4}^{+ 1.4}$ km. These values do not, however, take into account any uncertainty owed to the choice of the crust low-density EOS, which was fixed to reproduce the SLy EOS model. We here re-analyze GW170817 data and establish that different crust models do not strongly impact the mass or tidal deformability of a neutron star: it is impossible to distinguish between low-density models with GW analysis. However, the crust does have an effect on the inferred radius. We predict the systematic error due to this effect using neutron star structure equations, and compare the prediction to results from full parameter estimation runs. For GW170817, this systematic error affects the radius estimate by 0.3 km, approximately $3\%$ of the NS radii.
Forward citations
Cited by 1 Pith paper
-
The key factor to determine the relation between radius and tidal deformability of neutron stars: slope of symmetry energy
For 1.4 solar mass neutron stars the radius-deformability relation is nearly independent of higher-order nuclear parameters but strongly depends on the symmetry energy slope L, and the relation fails for 1.8 solar mass stars.
Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.