Constraining nuclear matter parameters and neutron star observables using PREX-2 and NICER

data
S. K. Biswal1 ,∗ H. C. Das 2,3
, Ankit Kumar2,3 , and S. K. Patra2,3
1
Department of Engineering Physics, DRIEMS Autonomous Engineering College, 754022, India
2
Institute of Physics, Sachivalaya Marg, Bhubaneswar 751005, India and
3
Homi Bhabha National Institute, Training School Complex, Anushakti Nagar, Mumbai 400094, India
(Dated: September 27, 2021)
We try to constraints some of the nuclear matter parameters such as symmetry energy (J) and its slope (L)
from the recent inferred data of the PREX-2. Other nuclear matter parameters are adopted from [Phys. Rev. C
85 035201 (2012), Phys. Rev. C 90 055203 (2014)] papers and the linear correlation among them are checked
by using the Pearson’s formula. We find the correlation between J − L, Kτ − J and Kτ − L with coefficients
0.85, 0.81 and 0.76 respectively. The neutron star properties such as mass and radius are calculated with 50
unified equation of states. The results are consistent with recently observed pulsars and NICER data except few
arXiv:2109.11895v1 [nucl-th] 24 Sep 2021

exceptions. From the radii constraints, we find that the new NICER data allows a narrow radius range contrary
to a large range of PREX-2 and the old NICER data leaving us an inconclusive determination of the neutron star
radius.

I. INTRODUCTION (L) are 38.1 ± 4.7 MeV and 106 ± 37 MeV, respectively. The
inferred limits are systematically larger as compared with ei-
The neutron star (NS), a highly dense and asymmetric nu- ther theoretical or experimental values [35, 42–52]. Reed et
clear system having a central density 5–6 times the nuclear al. has also been calculated the NS properties by combin-
saturation density [1]. It has a unique internal structure, where ing old NICER and PREX-2 constraints. The predicted ra-
all the four fundamental forces play an essential role. Study dius range is 13.25 < R1.4 < 14.26 km. Recently, NICER
of the NS reveals that the internal structure is more compli- also put a revised limit, which is inferred by combining the
cated because new degrees of freedom like hyperons [2–9] old NICER data, ∼ 2 M pulsars, and the tidal deforma-
and quarks are in the core [10–12]. To explore its properties, bility constraints form GWs data, and different EOSs mod-
such as mass, radius and tidal deformability, etc., one has to eling. The new NICER radius range for the canonical star is
consider the interaction between nucleons in the form of inter- 12.45 ± 0.65 km. In this study, we want to constraint the ra-
action Lagrangian. This provides the equation of state (EOS), dius of the canonical NS using both NICER and Reed et al.
the main ingredient for the calculation of the NS properties. data.
Different formalism have been developed to calculate the The paper is organized as follows: The formalism for the
EOSs of the NS. The relativistic mean-field (RMF) [13– calculation of different NM quantities is given in Sec. II. The
19], Skyrme-Hartree-Fock (SHF) [20–27], density-dependent results and discussions on the NM and NS properties are pro-
RMF (DD-RMF) [28], and point couplings [29] formalism are vided in Sec. III. A summary of our work is enumerated in
quite successful. First, we focus on the nuclear matter (NM) the Sec. IV.
system, where the Coulomb and surface interactions are ne-
glected. The binding energy per particle of the NM system
is ≈ −16 MeV at the saturation density ρ0 ∼ 0.148 fm−3 II. FORMALISM
[30]. The characteristics EOS of the NM is calculated by us-
ing different force interactions [26]. There are some empiri- The energy density E(ρ, α) of the NM system can be ex-
cal/experimental data to constraint the NM EOSs as given in panded in a Taylor series in terms of asymmetry factor α =
ρn −ρp

Refs. [19, 31]. Different NM quantities such as incompress- ρn +ρp [19, 47]:
ibility, symmetry energy and its slope parameter etc. play im-
portant role to explore the NS properties [26, 32–37]. In this E(ρ, α) = E(ρ) + S(ρ)ξ 2 + O(ξ 4 ), (1)
study, our motivation is to constraint these NM parameters us-
ing recent experimental data [38–40]. where ρ, ρn , and ρp are the total baryon, neutron, and pro-
Recently, the updated Lead Radius Experiment (PREX) ton densities, respectively, The E(ρ) is the energy density of
has given the neutron skin thickness of 208 Pb as Rskin = the symmetric NM. The density dependence symmetry energy
0.283 ± 0.071 fm [38]. Based on this data Patnaik et al. (S(ρ)) can be written as
[41] tuned the G3 and IOPB-I parameter sets. The impacts !
of PREX-2 data on the NM and NS properties have been ex- 1 ∂2E
S(ρ) = . (2)
plicitly studied in the Ref. [39]. The inferred values of NM 2 ∂α2
α=0
quantities such as symmetry energy (J), its slope parameter
The value of S(ρ) is the most uncertain property of the NM,
and it has a large diversion at a high-density limit [53]. Many
progress have been made to constrain the S(ρ) starting from
∗ [email protected] heavy-ion collision to NS [31, 54]. Here, we can expand the
 2

S(ρ) in a leptodermous expansion near the saturation density 200

RMF Point Coupling
as follow [19, 55–58]: SHF Reed et al. 2021
DD-RMF
1 1 150
S(ρ) = J + Lξ + Ksym ξ 2 + Qsym ξ 3 + O(ξ 4 ), (3)
2 6

where ξ = ρ−ρ

L (MeV)
3ρ0 , J is the symmetry energy at saturation
0

density ρ0 and the other parameters like slope (L), curvature 100
(Ksym ) and skewness (Qsym ) are given as follow:

∂S(ρ) 50
L = 3ρ , (4)
∂ρ ρ=ρ0
∂ 2 S(ρ)
Ksym = 9ρ2 , (5)
∂ρ2 ρ=ρ0 0
∂ 3 S(ρ) 30 32.5 35 37.5 40 42.5 45
Qsym = 27ρ3 . (6) J (MeV)
∂ρ3 ρ=ρ0

Similarly, one can expand the asymmetric NM incompressib- FIG. 1. (color online) The value of slope parameter for 224 RMF,
lity K(α) as 240 SHF, 7 DD-RMF and 18 PC parameter sets are shown. The
light green box represents the values of J = 38.1 ± 4.7 MeV and
K(α) = K + Kτ α2 + O(α4 ), (7) L = 106 ± 37 MeV taken from the Ref. [39].

where K is the incompressibility of the NM at the saturation

density and
1.0
Q0 L K 1 0.084 0.57 0.082 0.071 0.11 0.37 0.44
Kτ = Ksym. − 6L − , (8)
K
3 M * 0.084 1 0.22 0.26 0.49 0.63 0.24 0.31 0.8
with Q0 = 27ρ3 ∂∂ρE3
in symmetric NM at saturation density.
We use another quantity K 0 = −Q0 . K0 0.57 0.22 1 0.065 0.091 0.088 0.11 0.54
0.6
J 0.082 0.26 0.065 1 0.85 0.29 0.21 0.81
III. RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONS
L 0.071 0.49 0.091 0.85 1 0.72 0.5 0.76 0.4
1. Nuclear Matter Properties 0.11 0.63 0.088 0.29 0.72 1 0.46 0.32
K sym
0.37 0.24 0.11 0.21 0.5 0.46 1 0.32 0.2
In this section, we constrain the values of J and L. More- Q sym
over, with the addition of NM properties, we also want to con-
straint the mass and radius of the NS with the help of recent K 0.44 0.31 0.54 0.81 0.76 0.32 0.32 1
NICER data. To calculate NM properties we take 224 RMF, 0.0
240 SHF, 7 DD-RMF, 18 PC parameter sets from the Dutra et K M * K0 J L K sym Q sym K
al. [26, 29], which span a large parameter space. For the cal-
culation of NS properties, we take 50 well-known EOSs from
FIG. 2. (color online) Correlations matrix represent the correlation
the Refs. [59, 60]. between different NM parameters. The number inside the box repre-
In Fig. 1, we plot the symmetry energy (J) as a function of sents the correlation coefficient between corresponding parameters.
the slope parameter (L) for the considered parameter sets. Re-
cently, the PREX-II experiments put a limit on the skin thick-
ness of 208 Pb is Rskin = 0.283 ± 0.071 fm [38]. There is
strong correlation have been observed between Rskin and L at
saturation density [39, 61]. Reed et al. [39] inferred the values To check the correlation between different NM parameters
of J and L as 38.1±4.7 MeV and 106±37 MeV respectively. as calculated in Sub-Sec. III 1, we plot the correlation ma-
We put a light green box in Fig. 1 to constraint the values of trix as shown in Fig. 2. To check the linear correlation be-
J and L. Most of the RMF and PC parameter sets satisfy the tween pairs of quantities, we calculate the correlation coeffi-
constraints well as compare to SHF and DDRMF parameter cient using Pearson’s formula as used in Ref. [60]. We find
sets. Hence, we conclude that the parameter sets which pre- that the correlation coefficient between J and L is found to be
dict higher values of J and L are consistent with Reed et al. 0.85. Slightly weaker correlations are found between Kτ –J
data. and Kτ –L with coefficients 0.81 and 0.76, respectively.
 3

500 3
RMF
DD-RMF
GW190814
SHF 2.5
400

PSR J0740+6620
2 PSR J0348+0432
PNS (MeV/fm3)

300 PSR J1614-2230

M [M⊙]
Old NICER
1.5
200

1 Reed et al. 2021

New NICER
100 RMF
DD-RMF
0.5 SHF

0
0 200 400 600 800 1000
εNS ( MeV/fm3 ) 0
10 12 14 16 18
R (km)
FIG. 3. (color online) EOSs are shown for RMF, SHF and DD-RMF
sets. FIG. 4. (color online) M –R are shown for RMF, SHF and DD-RMF
sets with different observational constraints. Both old NICER data
shown with two violet boxes [72, 73] and new NICER data with dark
A. Neutron Star Properties red doubled head lines are also depicted [40] for canonical star. Re-
cently radius constraint given by Reed et al. [39] is also shown with
The NS is composed of neutrons, protons, and leptons. In- black headed line.
side the NS, the neutron decays to proton, electron, and anti-
neutrino. This process is called β-decay. Both β-equilibrium
From the Fig. 4, it is clear that all EOSs reproduces
and charge neutrality processes are required for the stability of
∼ 2 M except few RMF EOSs. None of the EOSs re-
the NS [30]. Therefore, the total EOS of the NS is the addition
produces the GW190814 data. Almost all EOSs satisfy old
of baryons and leptons as given as [19, 62]
NICER data, as clearly visible in the figure. The old NICER
EN S = E + El , PN S = P + Pl , (9) radius range is 11.52–14.26 km which provides a wider limit.
But new NICER radius range is 11.8–13.1 km, which is a nar-
where E (El ) is the energy density of the NM (leptons) as row band compared to old NICER data. Reed et al. radius
given in Refs. [62–64]. The l correspond to both electron range is 13.25–14.26 km which satisfy by some RMF and few
(e− ) and muon (µ− ). In Fig. 3 , we plot 50 selected uni- SHF EOSs. If one carefully observe this three radius limits,
fied EOS taken from the Refs. [59, 60] for comparison. The there is a large uncertainty to constraint the radius of the NS.
mass and radius of the NS are calculated by solving Tolman- Future observation may put a tight constraint on the radius of
Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations [65, 66] with boundary con- the NS.
ditions P (0) = Pc and P (R) = 0 for a fixed central density.
Each EOS gives a different maximum mass and radius. We
calculate the mass-radius (M -R) profile of the NS for con- IV. SUMMARY
sidered EOSs as shown in Fig. 4. The massive pulsars data
such as PSR J1614-2230 [67], PSR JO348+0432 [68] and In this manuscript, we calculate the NM properties with
PSR J0740+6620 [69] are shown with different colour bars. different formalisms such as RMF, SHF, DD-RMF, and PC.
Recently, the secondary component of the GW190814 event The symmetry energy and its slope are constrained by the re-
is observed in the mass range 2.50–2.67 M . A lot of de- cently inferred data from the PREX-2 experiment. We find
bates are in progress, whether the secondary component is the that a numbers of RMF parameter sets, almost all PC parame-
lightest black hole or heaviest NS [70, 71]. The old NICER ter sets, and few SHF and DDRMF parameter sets satisfy the
data depicted with two violet boxes from two different analy- constraints given by Reed et al.. We also obtain some corre-
ses [72, 73]. New NICER data [40] is shown with a double- lations between J − L, Kτ − J and Kτ − L with correlation
headed dark red line. Recently, Reed et al. [39] have given ra- coefficients 0.85, 0.81 and 0.76 respectively.
dius constraints for canonical star inferred from the PREX-2, For the NS case, we take 50 unified EOSs and calculate the
and old NICER data is also shown with double-headed black mass and radius. Almost all EOSs satisfy 2 M constraints.
line. None of the considered parameter sets satisfy the GW190814
 4

data. The old NICER radius range is reproduced by almost are stiffer. Therefore, all the NM and NS properties inferred
all considered EOSs as it spans over a broader radius region. from PREX-2 data provide large value symmetry energy co-
But the new NICER data is reproduced by almost all SHF efficient as compare to other theoretical/experimental data. In
and DD-RMF with few of the RMF sets. From the PREX-2 the case of the NS, the implied radius range is also push to-
and old NICER data, Reed et al. inferred the radius of the wards a higher value, which can only be supported by stiffer
canonical star, which is shown with a double-headed black EOSs. But new NICER data provides the radius range, which
line. Only stiff EOSs satisfy the Reed et al. data because the supports by the softer EOSs. Therefore, a possible uncertainty
radius range is a little bit higher as compare to new NICER has been developed to constraints the radius of the NS. We
data. hope future experiments/observations may answer this ques-
In conclusion, the PREX-2 data supports the EOSs, which tion.

[1] J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Science 304, 536 (2004). [32] M. Centelles, X. Roca-Maza, X. Viñas, and M. Warda, Phys.
[2] V. A. Ambartsumyan and G. S. Saakyan, sovast 4, 187 (1960). Rev. Lett. 102, 122502 (2009).
[3] N. K. Glendenning, APJ 293, 470 (1985). [33] C. Xu, B.-A. Li, and L.-W. Chen, Phys. Rev. C 82, 054607
[4] J. Schaffner and I. N. Mishustin, Phys. Rev. C 53, 1416 (1996). (2010).
[5] S. K. Biswal, B. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, (2016), [34] F. J. Fattoyev, W. G. Newton, J. Xu, and B.-A. Li, Phys. Rev.
arXiv:1602.08888 [nucl-th]. C 86, 025804 (2012).
[6] M. Fortin, S. S. Avancini, C. Providência, and I. Vidaña, Phys. [35] A. W. Steiner and S. Gandolfi, Phys. Rev. Lett. 108, 081102
Rev. C 95, 065803 (2017). (2012).
[7] M. Bhuyan, B. V. Carlson, S. K. Patra, and S.-G. Zhou, IJMP [36] W. G. Newton, M. Gearheart, and B.-A. Li, APJ Suppl. Series
E 26, 1750052 (2017). 204, 9 (2012).
[8] S. K. Biswal, AIP Conf. Proceedings 2127, 020031 (2019). [37] S. K. Singh, M. Bhuyan, P. K. Panda, and S. K. Patra, Journal
[9] S. K. Biswal, S. K. Patra, and S.-G. Zhou, APJ 885, 25 (2019). of Physics G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 40, 085104 (2013),
[10] J. C. Collins and M. J. Perry, Phys. Rev. Lett. 34, 1353 (1975). arXiv:1211.5461 [nucl-th].
[11] M. Orsaria, H. Rodrigues, F. Weber, and G. A. Contrera, Phys. [38] D. Adhikari, H. Albataineh, D. Androic, et al. (PREX Collabo-
Rev. C 89, 015806 (2014). ration), Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172502 (2021).
[12] R. Mellinger, F. Weber, W. Spinella, G. Contrera, and M. Or- [39] B. T. Reed, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, and J. Piekarewicz,
saria, Universe 3, 5 (2017). Phys. Rev. Lett. 126, 172503 (2021).
[13] L. D. Miller and A. E. S. Green, Phys. Rev. C 5, 241 (1972). [40] M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, et al., (2021),
[14] B. D. Serot and J. D. Walecka, Adv. Nucl. Phys. 16, 1 (1986). arXiv:2105.06979 [astro-ph.HE].
[15] R. J. Furnstahl, C. E. Price, and G. E. Walker, Phys. Rev. C 36, [41] J. A. Pattnaik, R. N. Panda, M. Bhuyan, and S. K. Patra,
2590 (1987). (2021), arXiv:2105.14479 [nucl-th].
[16] P. G. Reinhard, Z. Phys. A Atomic Nuclei 329, 257 (1988). [42] Z. Zhang and L.-W. Chen, Physics Letters B 726, 234 (2013).
[17] R. J. Furnstahl, B. D. Serot, and H.-B. Tang, Nucl. Phys. A [43] C. J. Horowitz and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. Lett. 86, 5647
615, 441 (1997), arXiv:9608035 [nucl-th]. (2001).
[18] B. Kumar, S. Singh, B. Agrawal, and S. Patra, Nuclear Physics [44] C. Ducoin, J. Margueron, and C. Providência, EPL (Euro-
A 966, 197 (2017). physics Letters) 91, 32001 (2010).
[19] B. Kumar, S. K. Patra, and B. K. Agrawal, Phys. Rev. C 97, [45] C. Ducoin, J. Margueron, C. m. c. Providência, and I. Vidaña,
045806 (2018). Phys. Rev. C 83, 045810 (2011).
[20] T. H. R. Skyrme, The Philosophical Magazine: A Journal of [46] K. Hebeler, J. M. Lattimer, C. J. Pethick, and A. Schwenk, The
Theoretical Experimental and Applied Physics 1, 1043 (1956). Astrophysical Journal 773, 11 (2013).
[21] T. Skyrme, Nuclear Physics 9, 615 (1958). [47] C. J. Horowitz, E. F. Brown, Y. Kim, et al., Journal of Physics
[22] D. Vautherin and D. M. Brink, Phys. Rev. C 5, 626 (1972). G: Nuclear and Particle Physics 41, 093001 (2014).
[23] E. Chabanat, P. Bonche, P. Haensel, J. Meyer, and R. Schaef- [48] C. Drischler, R. J. Furnstahl, J. A. Melendez, and D. R. Phillips,
fer”, Nucl. Phys. A 635, 231 (1998). Phys. Rev. Lett. 125, 202702 (2020).
[24] B. Alex Brown, Phys. Rev. C 58, 220 (1998). [49] G. Hagen, A. Ekström, C. Forssén, et al., Nature Physics 12,
[25] J. Stone and P.-G. Reinhard, Progress in Particle and Nuclear 186 (2016).
Physics 58, 587–657 (2007), arXiv:nucl-th/0607002 [nucl-th]. [50] L.-W. Chen, C. M. Ko, B.-A. Li, and J. Xu, Phys. Rev. C 82,
[26] M. Dutra, O. Lourenço, J. S. Sá Martins, et al., Phys. Rev. C 024321 (2010).
85, 035201 (2012). [51] S. Gandolfi, J. Carlson, S. Reddy, A. W. Steiner, and R. B.
[27] J. Dechargé and D. Gogny, Phys. Rev. C 21, 1568 (1980). Wiringa, The European Physical Journal A 50, 10 (2014).
[28] S. Typel, Phys. Rev. C 71, 064301 (2005). [52] X. Roca-Maza, X. Viñas, M. Centelles, B. K. Agrawal, G. Colò,
[29] M. Dutra, O. Lourenço, S. S. Avancini, et al., Phys. Rev. C 90, N. Paar, J. Piekarewicz, and D. Vretenar, Phys. Rev. C 92,
055203 (2014). 064304 (2015).
[30] N. K. Glendenning, Compact stars: Nuclear physics, parti- [53] B.-A. Li, P. G. Krastev, D.-H. Wen, and N.-B. Zhang, EPJ A
cle physics, and general relativity (Springer-Verlag New York, 55 (2019), 10.1140/epja/i2019-12780-8.
1997). [54] B.-A. Li and X. Han, Physics Letters B 727, 276 (2013).
[31] P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, 1592 [55] T. Matsui, Nucl. Phys. A 370, 365 (1981).
(2002). [56] S. Kubis and M. Kutschera, Phys. Lett. B 399, 191–195 (1997).
 5

[57] M. Del Estal, M. Centelles, X. Viñas, and S. K. Patra, Phys. [65] R. C. Tolman, Phys. Rev. 55, 364 (1939).
Rev. C 63, 024314 (2001). [66] J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374
[58] W.-C. Chen and J. Piekarewicz, Phys. Rev. C 90, 044305 (1939).
(2014). [67] P. B. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. M. Ransom, M. S. E. Roberts,
[59] M. Fortin, C. Providência, A. R. Raduta, F. Gulminelli, J. L. and J. W. T. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081–1083 (2010).
Zdunik, P. Haensel, and M. Bejger, Phys. Rev. C 94, 035804 [68] J. Antoniadis, P. C. C. Freire, et al., Science 340 (2013),
(2016). 10.1126/science.1233232.
[60] S. K. Biswal, H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, [69] H. T. Cromartie, E. Fonseca, S. M. Ransom, P. B. Demorest,
(2020), arXiv:2012.13673 [astro-ph.HE]. et al., Nature Astronomy 4, 72–76 (2019).
[61] X. Roca-Maza, M. Centelles, X. Viñas, and M. Warda, Phys. [70] R. Abbott, T. D. Abbott, S. Abraham, et al., The Astrophysical
Rev. Lett. 106, 252501 (2011). Journal 896, L44 (2020), arXiv:2006.12611 [astro-ph.HE].
[62] H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, et al., MNRAS 495, 4893 [71] H. C. Das, A. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, (2021),
(2020). arXiv:2109.01853 [astro-ph.HE].
[63] H. C. Das, A. Kumar, B. Kumar, S. K. Biswal, and S. K. Patra, [72] M. C. Miller, F. K. Lamb, A. J. Dittmann, et al., APJ 887, L24
JCAP 2021, 007 (2021). (2019).
[64] H. C. Das, A. Kumar, and S. K. Patra, (2021), [73] T. E. Riley, A. L. Watts, S. Bogdanov, et al., APJ 887, L21
arXiv:2104.01815 [astro-ph.HE]. (2019).