2024
DOI: 10.3847/1538-4357/acfb83
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

An Updated Mass–Radius Analysis of the 2017–2018 NICER Data Set of PSR J0030+0451

Serena Vinciguerra,
Tuomo Salmi,
Anna L. Watts
et al.

Abstract: In 2019 the NICER collaboration published the first mass and radius inferred for PSR J0030+0451, thanks to NICER observations, and consequent constraints on the equation of state characterizing dense matter. Two independent analyses found a mass of ∼1.3–1.4 M ⊙ and a radius of ∼13 km. They also both found that the hot spots were all located on the same hemisphere, opposite to the observer, and that at least one of them had a significantly elongated shape. Here we reanalyze, in greater detail… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

2
23
1

Year Published

2024
2024
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 36 publications
(26 citation statements)
references
References 50 publications
2
23
1
Order By: Relevance
“…The calculation is carried out with the EOS constraint result of the GP model (As shown in Figure 1, the results of the three reconstruction methods are well consistent with each other). Different from the direct inference results only with the NICER and XMM-Newton data (i.e., the almost "separated" counter regions marked by the dashed solid lines that are adopted from Vinciguerra et al 2024), for the ST+PDT and PDT-U models our inferred mass and radius of PSR J0030 +0451 are well consistent with each other. This is anticipated since both models yield rather similar , although the PDT-U model has a larger error bar than that of the ST+PDT model, which is why the inferred mass for the former is more uncertain than the latter.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 98%
See 4 more Smart Citations
“…The calculation is carried out with the EOS constraint result of the GP model (As shown in Figure 1, the results of the three reconstruction methods are well consistent with each other). Different from the direct inference results only with the NICER and XMM-Newton data (i.e., the almost "separated" counter regions marked by the dashed solid lines that are adopted from Vinciguerra et al 2024), for the ST+PDT and PDT-U models our inferred mass and radius of PSR J0030 +0451 are well consistent with each other. This is anticipated since both models yield rather similar , although the PDT-U model has a larger error bar than that of the ST+PDT model, which is why the inferred mass for the former is more uncertain than the latter.…”
Section: Resultscontrasting
confidence: 98%
“…We would also remark that our current results are also consistent with the initial mass/radius inference results with the X-ray data published in Riley et al (2019) and Miller et al (2019). Note that when adopting the same models used in Riley et al (2019) and Miller et al (2019), Vinciguerra et al (2024 found consistent results, although with more stringent inference requirements. Now we estimate the tidal deformability, moment of inertia, and gravitational BE of PSR J0030+0451.…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 91%
See 3 more Smart Citations