Arxiv:2010.01509V2

Home , Quark star

arXiv:2010.01509v2 [nucl-th] 6 Apr 2021 itn h xsec fbsncsaso rvsas see gravastars, or stars pre- theories bosonic on of or existence 17] the [16, dicting based theories are gravity possibilities extended Other on natal [1]. large momentum BH- the angular dissipating a NS before how merge explain could to system needs NS Regarding one EOSs. explanation, softer second favor the derived which constraints [7] deformability GW170817 tidal from the experiments from collisions and heavy-ion con- [15] with from tension in obtained are straints NSs massive such of existence the et r 23 compo- whose a system are binary nents a of merger the by generated hudexceed should n es atrpyis h au fisms falls gap mass mass so-called its the of of value end (2 lower The com- expected astrophysics this the physics. for within of challenge matter big nature dense a and nowadays the is Explaining object pact object. compact ed ahrsi O,wt pe fsound one of case speed first a with the EOS, In stiff rather interpretations. a of drawbacks needs kinds major keplerian two the these however, to of are, mass close There large very rotating such [12–14]. was limit support NS to the matter order or dense [7–11] in of EOS stiff the significantly NS: is massive a such of existence [6]. addressed be to rotational need the the NSs and concerning of (EOS) state issues properties of several equation instead the then is of (NS), stiffness object compact star this neutron if for- a contrast, put of In been formation have [2–5]. the BHs) ward for primordial (including proposals BHs and light system, BH actually is binary interpreta- GW190814 are a that assumption there the Nevertheless, on based BH. tions a be to expected . h rvttoa aesga W984[]hsbeen has [1] GW190814 signal wave gravitational The hr r urnl w osbeepaain o the for explanations possible two currently are There 5 M ⊙ 3 1 < M < iatmnod iiaeSinedlaTra Università d Terra, della Scienze e Fisica di Dipartimento iatmnod iia“nioFri,Uiestad Pisa Università di Fermi”, “Enrico Fisica di Dipartimento n hsclymtvtdeutoso tt.Mroe tis it Moreover o state. and masses of stellar equations large motivated very of physically ca request and equa the the softer both to a f satisfy require close to instead which sound constraints can physics of scenario) nuclear two-families velocity and the a in for stars need hyperonic the without index, W984wsasrneqaksa.Ti osblt sviabl coex GW190814, stars is by quark possibility strange indicated This and range stars mass star. neutron which quark in strange scenario a was GW190814 tro h re rls hn1 m hc sipsil fonl if impossible is which km, numbers: 11 PACS than less or order the of star M eivsiaetepsiiiyta h o ascmaino companion mass low the that possibility the investigate We √ ⊙ 0 5 . INTRODUCTION M 6 lc oe(H n (2 a and (BH) hole black a W984abakhl tag ur trsystem? star quark strange – hole black a GW190814 Was c .Bombaci I. ⊙ 8.I un Oswihalwfor allow which EOSs turn, In [8]. n,teeoe hsojc snot is object this therefore, and, ) 5 NNSzoed aai,VaSnaSfi 4 -52 Catania, I-95123 64, Sofia Santa Via Catania, di Sezione INFN 2 NNSzoed ia ag .Pneov ,I517Ps,It Pisa, I-56127 3, Pontecorvo B. Largo Pisa, di Sezione INFN 4 NNSzoed err,VaSrgt1 -42 err,Ita Ferrara, I-44122 1, Saragat Via Ferrara, di Sezione INFN 1 , 2 .Drago A. , . 5 − 3 , 4 2 .Logoteta D. , M . 67) v s ∼ that M (2 ⊙ . 5 − 2 atce)aatfo h supinta h true not the ( is up of that matter mixture interacting deconfined assumption a strongly but the of state from ground apart particles) ( physics therein. references and [1] opnn nG101 a o Hnran nor BH a not mass was low nary GW190814 the indeed in that component possibility the investigate We ( mass nieycmoe fdeconfined of composed entirely where htbcm xrml eeatatrtedsoeyof discovery the with after stars relevant compact extremely became what hw ht fol n aiyo opc tr exists, stars compact the of been if family has it Actually, one NS, only R a if 34]. is that, GW190814 [30, shown of stars exis- component massive mass the low very and binaries of X-ray tence compact and very bursts of thermonuclear be- existence a tension the is of possible stars, This indications the the relieving [26–34]. tween for papers several possibility in viable detail in discussed commonly QSs for QSs, is challenges [25]. be pose It can oscillations stars magnetar index [24]. instance compact for star all adiabatic not the the that of however QSs accepted surface in the because at limit diverges close causal velocities sound the for need to the without reached be can yaishsidctdtepsiiiyta h asof values, mass larger the reach that could quark possibility sophisticated QSs the more indicated of has introduction dynamics The [22]. QSs ewe urspouevr opc ( compact very produce interactions quarks perturbative between lowest-order only considering s . 1 67) 1 urs aeysrneqakmte Q)[18–21]. (QM) matter quark strange namely quarks, ) , epooeaslto htde o eur new require not does that solution a propose We S n S ol oxs,a a enpooe and proposed been has as coexist, could QSs and NSs 2 . err,VaSrgt1 -42 err,Italy, Ferrara, I-44122 1, Saragat Via Ferrara, i 4 .Pagliara G. , M ag .Pneov ,I517Ps,Iay, Italy Pisa, I-56127 3, Pontecorvo B. Largo , ∼ > ll h rsnl vial astrophysical available presently the ulfill M Sbta(tag)qaksa (QS), star quark (strange) a but NS ino tt.I hsshm ti possible is it scheme this In state. of tion ⊙ R R ml ai hl sn oal realistic totally using while radii small f (11 1 1 s.Srneqaksascnrahthe reach can stars quark Strange ist. 1 = osbet e aisfra1.4 a for radius a get to possible u oalrevleo h adiabatic the of value large a to due e.g., . . n aiyo opc tr exists. stars compact of family one y 4 4 . sllmt eto tr (actually stars Neutron limit. usal ihntes-aldtwo-families so-called the within e 6 sterdu fasa aigagravitational a having star a of radius the is ∼ < . 4 h lc oei h oreof source the in hole black the f − M oie rvt rteicuino new of inclusion the or gravity modified 11 11 ⊙ 3 . m ugse ysm nlsson analyses some by suggested km, 5 , . n o o asv ( massive too not and ) 4 )k u otecua ii 9 35]. [9, limit causal the to due km 8) M n .Vidaña I. and ∼ 2 M ly, aly, Italy ⊙ lo hs ag masses large those Also, . u ,d s d, u, M ,dw ( down ), 5 max Q M Calculations QM. ∼ M M R d ⊙ 2 n strange and ) 1 max Q . . 75 4 i.e., ∼ < M < ⊙ 1km, 11 2 star a ordi- M 56 [23], ⊙ Fe ) 2

Moreover, those rather small radii are obtained only in 150 the extreme situation in which most of the star is occu- a4=0.7 pied by matter with vs c. Two coexisting families of a4=0.8 ∼ 145 a =0.6 compact stars are thus necessary if M 2.6 M⊙ and 4 max ∼ R1.4 < 11.6 km. ∼ 140 nucleation allowed

EQUATIONS OF STATE [MeV] 1/4

B 135 Let us discuss the EOSs of hadronic matter (HM) and sun =2.5M sun of QM that could possibly describe the two coexisting M max families of compact stars. =2.6M 130 M max 2-flavor line The first EOS of HM (composed of nucleons and hyperons) is obtained within the Brueckner-Hartree- Fock (BHF) approach using nucleon-nucleon and three- 125 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 nucleon interactions derived in chiral effective field theory ∆[MeV] suplemented by nucleon-hyperon and nucleon-nucleon- hyperon interactions [36]. This microscopic EOS re- FIG. 1: The triangular regions delimit the values of ∆ and 1/4 Q ≥ Q ≥ produces the empirical properties of nuclear matter at B which lead to Mmax 2.6 M⊙ (solid lines) and Mmax −3 2.5 M⊙ (dot-dashed lines) for three different values of a4. The the saturation density n0 = 0.16 fm , does not vio- 1 4 horizontal lines indicate the values of B / below which two- late causality (i.e., vs < c), and is consistent (see Fig. flavor QM is more stable than 56Fe and are thus excluded, see 2 in [37]) with the measured elliptic flow of matter in analogous figure in [46]. The dashed lines indicate the regions heavy-ion collisions experiments [15]. When computing of the parameter space for which QM nucleation is possible the mass-radius (M-R) relation for the corresponding or- for the 1.5 M⊙ metastable HS configuration obtained with dinary NSs (also referred to as hadronic stars (HSs), the RMF EOS. For the BHF EOS those lines are not shown because they do not further restrict the parameter space with i.e. compact stars with no fraction of QM) we ob- Q H respect to the constraint on Mmax. tain: i) a maximum mass Mmax 2 M⊙ (the transition to a QS is discussed later); ii)∼ a tidal deformability of the 1.4 M⊙ configuration Λ1 4 = 388, compati- . being µ the quark chemical potential, B the bag constant, ble with the constraints derived from GW170817 [38]; a4 a parameter that encodes perturbative QCD correc- and iii) a threshold mass, for the prompt collapse to tions, ∆ the color–flavor locking (CFL) superconducting a BH of the postmerger compact object in GW170817, gap [44] and ms the strange quark mass. The parameter Mthreshold = 2.79 M⊙ (estimated by using the empirical Q space allowing for M 2.6 M⊙ ( 2.5 M⊙, solid and formula given in Ref. [39]) indicating that GW170817 is max dot-dashed lines respectively)≥ is displayed≥ in Fig. 1. In compatible with being a NS-NS system if NSs are de- the following discussion, as an example, we consider the scribed by this EOS. 1/4 parameter set B = 135 MeV, a4 = 0.7, ∆ = 80MeV The second EOS we consider is based on a relativistic Q and ms = 100 MeV that allows Mmax =2.58 M⊙. Notice mean field (RMF) scheme in which nucleons, hyperons 2 2 that the sign of a2 = m 4∆ for this choice of parame- and ∆-resonances are present [40]. The effect of the pro- s − ters is negative. Negative values of a2 have been explored duction of ∆s is a further softening of the EOS: from one also in Ref.[45] where ∆ is considered to be as large as side this allows values of R1 4 as small as 11 km [30, 41] . 150 MeV and m is varied in the range (150 300) MeV. to be reached, but on the other side the maximum mass s − H A negative value of a2 reduces the effective bag constant is limited to be M 1.6 M⊙. The tidal deformability max ∼ which in turn favors the existence of quark stars and dis- is Λ1 4 = 150 and Mthreshold 2.5 M⊙ [42]. Therefore, . favors the formation of hybrid stars, as found in Ref.[45]. when using this EOS, GW170817∼ cannot be described as a NS-NS merger, but it can be a NS-QS merger. In that It is well known that in the limit of massless, non- case the average tidal deformability associated with the interacting quarks the maximum mass of QSs scales as B−1/2 [19] and, therefore, to obtain very massive QSs mixed binary system is Λ˜ 450 550, depending on the ∼ − one has to adopt small values of the bag constant. In adopted quark EOS [41], and Mthreshold (3 3.5) M⊙, turn, such small values of B easily lead to an unreason- again depending on the quark EOS. ∼ − ably small critical density for the phase transition to QM, For the second family of compact stars, QSs, we use which is excluded by heavy-ion experiments [15]. By us- the simple QM model suggested in Ref. [43] where the ing Eq. (1) we avoid that problem, because the CFL gap grand canonical potential reads [79]: can exist only if strange quarks are present and abundant [52, 53]. 3 4 3 2 2 2 Ω= a4µ + µ (m 4∆ )+ B (1) −4π2 4π2 s − We explicitly checked that at T = 0 nuclear matter is 3

3 M /M 1608 M13 R [km] b 1724 M28 2.5 1731 M30 2.5 HS (BHF) 2.5 1745 NGC6304 HS (RMF) 2 1748 NGC6397 QS 1820 ω Cen 47 Tuc X5 2 2 1.5 47 Tuc X7 M/M M/M M/M 1 1.5 1.5

0.5 1 1 0 9 10 11 12 13 14 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 GW170817-m1 2.5 NICER J0030+0451 GW170817-m2 4U 1702-429 2000 2.5 2 2 1.5 1500

M/M M=1.55M

M=1.5M M/M

1 g [MeV] 1.5 1000 0.5 M=1.28M 1 0 10 100 10 100 5 10 15 5 10 15 3 3 R [km] R [km] p [MeV/fm ] p [MeV/fm ]

FIG. 2: Mass-radius relations of NSs (thick black and blue FIG. 3: Upper left panel: gravitational mass vs radius for lines correspond to the BHF and RMF EOS, respectively) HSs (black and blue lines) and QSs (red line). Also shown an and of QSs (thick red line), compared with several astrophys- example of jump (orange arrow) from the first to the second ical data. Upper left panel: thermonuclear bursts [47]. Up- family of stars. Upper right panel: gravitational mass M vs per right panel: low mass X-ray binaries in quiescence [47]. baryonic mass Mb for HSs and QSs. QSs are more bound Lower left panel: the NICER results for J0030+0451 [48] and than HSs with the same baryonic mass. Lower left panel: the RXTE results for the cooling tail spectra of 4U1702-429 Gibbs energy per baryon gH (gQ) for the hadronic (quark) [49]. We have modelled the mass-radius posterior distribu- phase vs pressure. Since, at fixed pressure, gQ < gH then tion of 4U1702-429 by using a bivariate gaussian with ρ = 0.9 QM nucleation is allowed. Lower right panel: gravitational as in [50]. All constraints are at the 68% CI. Lower right mass vs central pressure for HSs and QSs. The dots in all panel: constraints on the two compact stars of GW170817, panels indicate the critical hadronic configuration, for each solid (dashed) lines correspond to the 90% (68%) CI [51]. EOS model, and the final QS configuration having the same baryonic mass of the initial one. Notice that the final QS configurations are very close in mass (see text) and thus both energetically favored with respect to two-flavor QM up to are indicated by the same red dot. the highest density reached in the computed EoS 7n0. ∼

MASS-RADIUS RELATIONS

smaller than 2M⊙. This is not a problem within the two- We display in Fig. 2 the M-R relations for HSs and QSs, families scenario since 2 M⊙ compact stars belong to the compared with several astrophysical constraints. The QSs family. It is interesting to note that the constraints two hadronic EOSs are soft enough to satisfy most of coming from NICER and from GW170817 can be satis- the constraints suggesting small radii for stars having a ﬁed by using both BHF and RMF EOSs, but as already mass of about (1.4 1.5)M⊙. The RMF EOS can reach mentioned, in the case of BHF GW170817 was a NS-NS − particularly small radii, displaying a R1.4 < 11 km, but it merger (although a NS-QS merger could also be possi- is not clear if this is really needed because the constraints ble) whilst when using the RMF EOS GW170817 can on masses and radii depend strongly on the composition only be explained as an NS-QS merger [41, 42, 55]. The of the stellar atmosphere, and larger radii are obtained constraint from NICER suggests either an HS or a QS when assuming a He rather than a H atmosphere, see when using the BHF EOS whilst in the case of the RMF e.g., [54]. It is clear that M-R relations giving values of EOS the QS interpretation seems more likely. Finally, 4U R1.4 in the range (11-12) km can be obtained with EOSs 1702-429 limits are satisﬁed by the BHF EOS, whereas sitting in between the BHF and the RMF. Notice that the interpretation as a QS seems more problematic, at H in the case of the RMF EOS the corresponding Mmax is least with the present quark EOS. 4

CONVERSION OF A HADRONIC STAR INTO A larger radius has been analysed in detail in [34]. The QUARK STAR total binding energy of compact stars is the sum of the gravitational and nuclear binding energies [26], the last It has been shown [27–29] that HSs above a threshold being related to the microphysics of the interactions. An value of their mass (threshold central density nthr) be- HS can convert into a QS with a larger radius because come metastable to the conversion to QSs. Metastable the consequent reduction of gravitational binding is over- HSs have a mean-life time related to the nucleation time τ compensated by the large increase in the nuclear binding to form the first critical-size QM droplet in their center. and the process turns out to be exothermic. As shown in [27–29], τ decreases very steeply with the stellar central density nc from τ = (when nc = nthr) to values much smaller than typical∞ pulsar ages (Fig. 1 DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS in [27]). At this point (e.g. when τ = 1yr) the conversion to a QS is very likely. This configuration defines [27] We have shown that within the two-families scenario it H H the critical mass Mcr = M (ncr) = M (τ = 1 yr) and is possible to have compact stars reaching a mass similar the corresponding critical density ncr. This conversion to the one indicated by GW190814 and that those mas- process releases a huge amount of energy of 1053 erg sive objects are QSs. We can obtain that result while [26]. A way to produce QSs is therefore through∼ mass ac- using physically motivated EOSs for the hadrons and for cretion onto HSs in binary systems [27, 56] or during the the quarks and without the need to assume velocities of spin-down of rapidly rotating HSs [57]. Within the two- sound close to the causal limit. A sizable superconduct- families scenario QSs can also be produced through the ing gap in the quark phase is needed, still in the range merger of two HSs [42, 55] and, potentially, through the indicated in the literature. Finally, the hadronic branch conversion of a protoneutron star (PNS) into a QS im- can have very small radii, breaking the limits derived by mediately after a successful core-collapse supernova [58] assuming that only one family of compact stars exists. or during the early evolution of a PNS [59, 60]. The Which are the possible evolutionary paths leading to exact value of Mcr and ncr needs a calculation of the the formation of a (2.5 2.6)M⊙ QS in GW190814? One nucleation time of the first QM droplet with the same possibility is that GW190814− originates from a triple sys- flavor content as that of the HM in the stellar center tem [66, 67] and the QS formed from the merger of two [27–29, 33, 61] and is temperature-dependent when con- lighter NSs. Another possibility is that it was produced sidering PNSs [33, 59]. Here for simplicity we choose as directly as a heavy QS from an anomalous supernova ex- the critical density the one for which the hyperon frac- plosion powered by quark deconfinement, as mentioned tion reaches the value nY /nB =0.10 in the stellar center, above. −3 namely n 0.9 (0.5) fm for the RMF (BHF) EOS. What are the implications of M (2.5 2.6)M⊙? cr ∼ max The corresponding critical HS configuration is marked Since the distribution of masses of compact∼ stars− in bi- by a dot on the HSs curves in all panels of Fig. 3. Once nary systems is peaked around 1.33M⊙ with σ =0.11 M⊙ the process of deconfinement starts it proceeds at first [68] a large fraction of mergers would produce a sta- as a rapid deflagration (notice that the central pressure ble or a supramassive QS. In the case of GW170817 of the QS is smaller than the pressure of the original Mtot 2.73M⊙, the outcome of that merger was most HS, lower right panel in Fig. 3) and then as a diffusion likely∼ a stable QS and not a BH. Only a small amount [62]: during this process the baryon number is conserved of rigid rotation, if any, would be needed to avoid col- (upper right panel), but the gravitational mass decreases lapse to a BH since the mass of the final object is smaller because the process is strongly exothermic. The criti- than Mtot due to the ejection of matter and of energy cal baryonic masses are of 1.67 M⊙ and 1.68 M⊙ for the in the form of GWs and neutrinos. This possibility BHF and the RMF EOSs, respectively. Thus, the final would fit with the suggestion that a long-lived NS was QSs configurations are very close in mass and therefore the outcome of GW170817 [69] although the observed both indicated by the same dot. In our scenario the dis- prolongued X-ray emission could also be related to the tribution of HSs is thus restricted to masses smaller than non-thermal “kilonova afterglow” [70]. Notice that lim- about (1.5 1.6)M⊙, while QSs have masses larger than its on the lifetime of the GW170817’s remnant have been − 1.3M⊙. Interestingly, this partition is very similar to put in [71, 72] by examining the nucleosynthesis of heavy ∼ the one suggested by the analysis of the distribution of elements. It has been shown that the remnant should the masses of NSs [63–65]. Also, the number of QSs in collapse within a few tens of ms to avoid too large a depo- binary systems produced by mass accretion onto an HS sition of energy in the ejecta. Notice anyway that if the is rather limited because they form from HSs close to the conversion to QS occurs immediately after the merger, critical mass: in [56] the fraction of QSs in LMXBs was the moment of inertia of the newly formed object in- estimated to be smaller than about 25%. The fraction of creases and a significant fraction of the rotational energy HS-QS and QS-QS systems is even smaller. dissipates into heat [73]. In this way the energy trans- The possibility for an HS to convert into a QS with ferred to the kilonova is reduced, alleviating the problems 5 of a delayed collapse to BH. Moreover, in the two-families [18] A. R. Bodmer, Phys. Rev. D 4, 1601 (1971). scenario GW170817 could be interpreted as a HS-QS sys- [19] E. Witten, Phys. Rev. D 30, 272 (1984). tem [42, 55], but a detailed investigation on the associ- [20] H. Terezawa, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 58, 3555 (1989). ated nucleosynthesis is still missing. [21] H. Terezawa, J. Phys. Soc. Japan 58, 4388 (1989). [22] J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, Astrophys. J. 550, 426 While these implications of Mmax (2.5 2.6)M⊙ are (2001), astro-ph/0002232. rather general and do not refer specifically∼ − to a QS, a [23] A. Kurkela, P. Romatschke, and A. Vuorinen, Phys. Rev. more direct implication can be drawn when considering D 81, 105021 (2010), 0912.1856. possible mechanisms for the generation of short gamma- [24] P. Haensel, J. Zdunik, and R. Schaeffer, Astron. Astro- phys. 160, 121 (1986). ray bursts. Clearly, if the outcome of the merger is a [25] A. L. Watts and S. Reddy, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. stable or a supramassive NS or QS, mechanisms based on 379, L63 (2007), astro-ph/0609364. the formation of a BH would not be appropriate, but one [26] I. Bombaci and B. Datta, Astrophys. J. Lett. 530, L69 can consider the protomagnetar model [74–77]. In that (2000), astro-ph/0001478. model though a problem exists concerning the duration of [27] Z. Berezhiani, I. Bombaci, A. Drago, F. Frontera, and the burst, which is related to the time during which a jet A. Lavagno, Astrophys. J. 586, 1250 (2003), astro- with the appropriate baryon load is produced: typically ph/0209257. [28] I. Bombaci, I. Parenti, and I. Vidaña, Astrophys. J. 614, that time is of the order of seconds or tens of seconds 314 (2004), astro-ph/0402404. if the surface of the star is made of nucleons. In Ref. [29] A. Drago, A. Lavagno, and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. D69, [78] it has been shown that, if during the merger a QS is 057505 (2004), nucl-th/0401052. produced, then that time reduces to tenths of a second [30] A. Drago, A. Lavagno, and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. D89, since baryons stop being ablated and ejected once the 043014 (2014), 1309.7263. surface of the star converted into quarks. Therefore our [31] A. Drago and G. Pagliara, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 41 (2016), suggestion that the binary system generating GW190814 1509.02134. [32] A. Drago, A. Lavagno, G. Pagliara, and D. Pigato, Eur. contained a QS is consistent with a global scenario of Phys. J. A52, 40 (2016), 1509.02131. gamma-ray burst production. [33] I. Bombaci, D. Logoteta, I. Vidaña, and C. Providência, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 58 (2016), 1601.04559. [34] A. Drago and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. D 102, 063003 (2020), 2007.03436. [35] D. A. Godzieba, D. Radice, and S. Bernuzzi (2020), [1] R. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Astrophys. J. 2007.10999. Lett. 896, L44 (2020), 2006.12611. [36] D. Logoteta, I. Vidaña, and I. Bombaci, Eur. Phys. J. [2] M. Safarzadeh and A. Loeb, Astrophys. J. 899, L15 A55, 207 (2019), 1906.11722. (2020), 2007.00847. [37] I. Bombaci and D. Logoteta, Astron. Astrophys. 609, [3] Y. Yang, V. Gayathri, I. Bartos, Z. Haiman, M. Sa- A128 (2018), 1805.11846. farzadeh, and H. Tagawa (2020), 2007.04781. [38] B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. [4] S. Clesse and J. Garcia-Bellido (2020), 2007.06481. Lett. 119, 161101 (2017), 1710.05832. [5] K. Vattis, I. S. Goldstein, and S. M. Koushiappas (2020), [39] S. Köppel, L. Bovard, and L. Rezzolla, Astrophys. J. 2006.15675. Lett. 872, L16 (2019), 1901.09977. [6] A. Tsokaros, M. Ruiz, and S. L. Shapiro (2020), [40] A. Drago, A. Lavagno, G. Pagliara, and D. Pigato, Phys. 2007.05526. Rev. C90, 065809 (2014), 1407.2843. [7] F. Fattoyev, C. Horowitz, J. Piekarewicz, and B. Reed [41] G. F. Burgio, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, H. J. Schulze, and (2020), 2007.03799. J. B. Wei, Astrophys. J. 860, 139 (2018), 1803.09696. [8] I. Tews, P. T. Pang, T. Dietrich, M. W. Coughlin, [42] R. De Pietri, A. Drago, A. Feo, G. Pagliara, M. Pasquali, S. Antier, M. Bulla, J. Heinzel, and L. Issa (2020), S. Traversi, and G. Wiktorowicz, Astrophys.J. 881, 122 2007.06057. (2019), 1904.01545. [9] Y. Lim, A. Bhattacharya, J. W. Holt, and D. Pati (2020), [43] M. Alford, M. Braby, M. Paris, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. 2007.06526. J. 629, 969 (2005), nucl-th/0411016. [10] A. Sedrakian, F. Weber, and J. J. Li, Phys. Rev. D 102, [44] M. G. Alford, A. Schmitt, K. Rajagopal, and T. Schäfer, 041301 (2020), 2007.09683. Rev. Mod. Phys. 80, 1455 (2008), 0709.4635. [11] K. Huang, J. Hu, Y. Zhang, and H. Shen (2020), [45] M. Alford and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. D 67, 074024 (2003), 2008.04491. nucl-th/0211046. [12] E. R. Most, L. J. Papenfort, L. R. Weih, and L. Rezzolla [46] S. Weissenborn, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, (2020), 2006.14601. and J. Schaffner-Bielich, Astrophys. J. 740, L14 (2011), [13] N.-B. Zhang and B.-A. Li (2020), 2007.02513. 1102.2869. [14] V. Dexheimer, R. Gomes, T. Klähn, S. Han, and M. Sali- [47] F. Ozel¨ and P. Freire, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 54, nas (2020), 2007.08493. 401 (2016), 1603.02698. [15] P. Danielewicz, R. Lacey, and W. G. Lynch, Science 298, [48] M. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019), 1592 (2002), nucl-th/0208016. 1912.05705. [16] A. V. Astashenok, S. Capozziello, S. D. Odintsov, and [49] J. Nättilä, M. C. Miller, A. W. Steiner, J. J. E. Kajava, V. K. Oikonomou (2020), 2008.10884. V. F. Suleimanov, and J. Poutanen, Astron. Astrophys. [17] J. Moffat (2020), 2008.04404. 608, A31 (2017), 1709.09120. 6

[50] J.-L. Jiang, S.-P. Tang, Y.-Z. Wang, Y.-Z. Fan, and D.- [67] W. Lu, P. Beniamini, and C. Bonnerot (2020), M. Wei, Astrophys. J. 892, 1 (2020), 1912.07467. 2009.10082. [51] B. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. [68] B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, M. De Yoreo, and S. E. Thorsett, Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), 1805.11581. Astrophys. J. 778, 66 (2013), 1309.6635. [52] G. Lugones and J. E. Horvath, Phys. Rev. D66, 074017 [69] L. Piro et al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 483, 1912 (2002), hep-ph/0211070. (2019), 1810.04664. [53] I. Bombaci, G. Lugones, and I. Vidaña, Astron. Astro- [70] E. Troja, H. van Eerten, B. Zhang, G. Ryan, L. Piro, phys. 462, 1017 (2007), astro-ph/0603644. R. Ricci, B. O’Connor, M. Wieringa, S. Cenko, and [54] N. Baillot d’Etivaux, S. Guillot, J. Margueron, N. Webb, T. Sakamoto, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 498, 5643 M. Catelan, and A. Reisenegger, Astrophys. J. 887, 48 (2020), 2006.01150. (2019), 1905.01081. [71] J. Lippuner, R. Fernández, L. F. Roberts, F. Foucart, [55] A. Drago and G. Pagliara, Astrophys. J. Lett. 852, L32 D. Kasen, B. D. Metzger, and C. D. Ott, Mon. Not. Roy. (2018), 1710.02003. Astron. Soc. 472, 904 (2017), 1703.06216. [56] G. Wiktorowicz, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, and S. Popov, [72] B. Margalit and B. D. Metzger, Astrophys. J. Lett. 850, Astrophys. J. 846, 163 (2017), 1707.01586. L19 (2017), 1710.05938. [57] S. Bhattacharyya, I. Bombaci, D. Logoteta, and A. V. [73] A. G. Pili, N. Bucciantini, A. Drago, G. Pagliara, and Thampan, Astrophys. J. 848, 65 (2017), 1709.02415. L. Del Zanna, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 462, L26 [58] T. Fischer, I. Sagert, G. Pagliara, M. Hempel, (2016), 1606.02075. J. Schaffner-Bielich, T. Rauscher, F. Thielemann, [74] T. A. Thompson, P. Chang, and E. Quataert, Astrophys. R. Kappeli, G. Martinez-Pinedo, and M. Liebendorfer, J. 611, 380 (2004), astro-ph/0401555. Astrophys. J. Suppl. 194, 39 (2011), 1011.3409. [75] B. Metzger, D. Giannios, T. Thompson, N. Bucciantini, [59] I. Bombaci, D. Logoteta, C. Providencia, and I. Vidaña, and E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 413, 2031 Astron. Astrophys. 528, A71 (2011), 1102.1665. (2011), 1012.0001. [60] G. Lugones, Eur. Phys. J. A52, 53 (2016), 1508.05548. [76] B. Metzger, E. Quataert, and T. Thompson, Mon. Not. [61] I. Bombaci, P. K. Panda, C. Providencia, and I. Vidaña, Roy. Astron. Soc. 385, 1455 (2008), 0712.1233. Phys. Rev. D77, 083002 (2008), 0802.1794. [77] N. Bucciantini, B. Metzger, T. Thompson, and [62] A. Drago and G. Pagliara, Phys. Rev. C 92, 045801 E. Quataert, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 419, 1537 (2015), 1506.08337. (2012), 1106.4668. [63] J. Antoniadis, T. M. Tauris, F. Ozel, E. Barr, D. J. [78] A. Drago, A. Lavagno, B. Metzger, and G. Pagliara, Champion, and P. C. C. Freire (2016), 1605.01665. Phys. Rev. D 93, 103001 (2016), 1510.05581. [64] T. Tauris et al., Astrophys. J. 846, 170 (2017), [79] This potential can be obtained by expanding the poten- 1706.09438. tial proposed in [45] in terms of the ratio between the [65] J. Alsing, H. O. Silva, and E. Berti, Mon. Not. Roy. As- strange quark mass and the quark chemical potential. tron. Soc. 478, 1377 (2018), 1709.07889. [66] B. Liu and D. Lai (2020), 2009.10068.