Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T10:36:22.278Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The masses of 18 pairs of double neutron stars and implications for their origin

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 December 2019

ChengMin Zhang
Affiliation:
CAS Key Lab of FAST, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Key Lab of Radio Astronomy, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China School of Physical Science, University of Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100049, China
YiYan Yang
Affiliation:
CAS Key Lab of FAST, National Astronomical Observatories, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing 100101, China Astronomy Department, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China emails: [email protected], [email protected]
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

For the observed 18 pairs of double neutron star (DNS) systems, we find that DNS mass distribution is very narrow and its mean value (about 1.34 solar mass) is less than the mean of all measured pulsars of about 1.4 solar mass. To interpret the special DNS mass characteristics, we analyze the DNS formation process, via the phases of HMXBs, by investigating the evolution of massive binary stars. Moreover, in DNSs, two classes of NSs are taken into account, formed by supernova (SN) and electron capture (EC), respectively, and generally the NS mass by SN is bigger than that by EC. Quantitatively, with various initial conditions of binary stars, the observed special DNS distribution can be satisfactorily explained.

Type
Contributed Papers
Copyright
© International Astronomical Union 2019 

References

Abbott, B. P., Abbott, R., Abbott, T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 118, 221101 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bhattacharya, D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J., 1991, Physics Reports, 203, 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulse, R. A., Taylor, J. H. 1975, ApJL, 195, 51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kramer, M., Stairs, I. H., Manchester, R. N., et al. 2006, Science, 314, 97 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lyne, A. G., Burgay, M., Kramer, M., et al. 2004, Science, 303, 1153 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Miller, M. C., & Miller, J. M. 2015, Physics Reports, 548, 1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nomoto, K., 1984, ApJ, 277, 791 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Özel, F., & Freire, P., 2016, ARAA, 54, 401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsiadlowski, P., Langer, N., Poelarends, A. J. T., et al. 2004, ApJ, 612, 1044 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Podsiadlowski, P., Dewi, J. D. M., & Lesaffre, P. 2005, MNRAS, 361, 1243 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tauris, T. M., Kramer, M., Freire, P. C. C. et al. 2017, ApJ, 846, 170 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van den Heuvel, E. P. J., 2004, Science, 303, 1143 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulse, R. A., Taylor, J. H. 1975, ApJL, 195, 51 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weisberg, J. M., & Huang, Y. 2016, ApJ, 829, 55 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yang, Y. Y., Zhang, C. M., Li, D., et al. 2017, ApJ, 835, 185 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zhang, C. M., Wang, J., Zhao, Y. H., et al. 2011, A & A, 527, 83 CrossRefGoogle Scholar