4.1. Speed of Sound and Tidal Deformability
In our study, we used two cases for the value of speed of sound, the lower bound of
and the upper one of
, and four transition densities
[
65].
In
Figure 2, we display the corresponding mass-radius (M-R) diagram, which we obtained from the numerical solution to the TOV system of equations. The green colored lines correspond to the
limit, while the blue ones correspond to the
limit. One can observe that each transition density leads to bifurcations in the M-R diagram. Between the same kind of linestyle, the lower and upper bounds,
and
of speed of sound correspond to lower and higher masses, respectively. In general, the higher the transition density, the softer the EoS, with the lower bound of
leading to a more soft EoS compared to the
case. In addition, the estimation of the GW170817 event and the NICER’s data are also displayed [
24,
121]. We notice that while there is an accordance between the two observations, the GW170817 event (from the gravitational-waves perspective) is more informative for our study than the NICER’s detection, as it restricts the cases leading to the exclusion of EoS at least with transition density
, for both bounds of speed of sound.
Our study takes into consideration the observation of binary neutron stars mergers from the gravitational waves detectors. Therefore, we used the measured upper limit of the effective tidal deformability
provided by the events GW170817 and GW190425 [
14,
24,
98]. The chirp masses for the two events are
[
13] and
[
14], respectively. The component masses vary in the ranges
and
[
98] (GW170817) and
and
(GW190425). We notice that we modified the range of the component masses (especially in the second event) to have an equal mass boundary, i.e.,
.
In
Figure 3, we display the effective tidal deformability
as a function of
q for both events. In
Figure 3a, we observe that the upper limit on
(derived from the GW170817 event) leads to the exclusion of both cases of speed of sound with transition density
. By comparing to
Figure 2, the constraints on the upper limit of
in
Figure 3 make more clear which cases must be excluded. For the second event in
Figure 3b, we observe that all the EoSs are shifted to lower values of
, compared to the GW170817 event. This is because of the higher value of chirp mass in the second event (GW190425). Contrary to the GW170817 event, the upper limit on
, provided by GW190425 event, excludes only these EoSs with transition density
, for both bounds of the speed of sound. In general, for both events, the EoSs corresponding to higher values of transition density
lead to smaller values of
. Therefore, the measured upper limits of
favor softer EoSs. We have to notice that for the GW190425 event, we did not take into consideration the cases with transition density
because the EoS with
and
cannot reproduce the masses of this event.
Beyond the useful constraints that we obtained so far by the study of the EoSs through the observed upper limit of
, a more direct connection between this quantity and the speed of sound bounds is still needed. This idea, which lies at the very heart of our study, was the main motive. Such a direct relation between the referred quantities can be accomplished if we treat the variation of
in
Figure 3 as a function of the transition density
, i.e., the
and
relations.
In
Figure 4, we display the relation between the effective tidal deformability
and the transition density
at the maximum mass configuration for the two bounds of the speed of sound,
and
, and the two events GW170817 (
Figure 4a) and GW190425 (
Figure 4b). The corresponding upper measured limits for
, as well as the compatible lower transition density values, are also indicated. The predictions on the bound of the speed of sound which are considered between the two referred limits correspond to the middle region.
The main remarks from the observation of
Figure 4 are the following
According to our findings, for the GW170817 event, the lower limit for the transition density is 1.626
for
and 1.805
for
. In the case of the second event, GW190425, the corresponding limits are 1.015
for
and 1.216
for
. Therefore, the first event imposes more stringent constraints on the EoS. In particular, the value of the speed of sound must be lower than
, at least up to density 1.626
(so the EoS is soft enough to predict the tidal deformability). Furthermore, the EoS must remain casual at least up to density 1.805
. In addition, according to the Fermi liquid theory (FLT), the speed of sound must be
for
[
122], meaning that the EoS cannot exceed this value for
, which is in agreement with our finding of the lower limit
for the case of
.
We notice that so far we used the upper limit on
to impose stringent constraints on the
. The existence of a lower limit on
could provide further information. Indeed, for the GW170817 event, such a lower limit is provided both by the gravitational wave data [
24,
98] and the electromagnetic (EM) counterpart of the merger [
123,
124,
125,
126,
127,
128]. Most et al. [
129] used the bound of Reference [
123] and demonstrated its significance in order to further constrain the tidal deformability
and the radius
of a
neutron star. For our case of interest and especially for the GW170817 event, a lower limit on
similar to the proposed values, could not provide any further constraint, even if we consider the more optimistic boundary of
.
On the contrary, for the second event GW190425, its higher component masses lead to smaller values of
. Hence, there is an inability for the upper limit of
to provide further constraints. We speculate that the existence of a lower limit on
would be able to provide constraints, especially leading to an upper limit for
. Hence, binary neutron stars coalescences with heavy masses would be helpful to constrain the upper limit of
via the lower limit of
as provided by the EM counterpart. Unfortunately, an EM counterpart for the GW190425 event was not detected [
14,
130].
Furthermore, we provide in
Figure 4 an expression for the
and
boundary curves of the green (lower) and blue (upper) shaded regions, respectively. This expression gives the exact value of the lower limit on
and
, respectively. The expression is given by the following equation, and the coefficients on
Table 1,
As one can observe from
Figure 2, the highest mass is provided by the stiffest EoSs, i.e., the higher value of speed of sound. Therefore, the behavior of the maximum mass
and the speed of sound
has to be studied further.
In
Figure 5, the behavior of the effective tidal deformability
as a function of the maximum mass for the two speed of sound bounds and for both events is displayed. The corresponding upper observational limit for
(black dashed horizontal line), the compatible maximum mass in each case (horizontal arrows), and the current observed maximum neutron star mass
(vertical purple shaded region) are also indicated.
At first glance in
Figure 5, there is a contradiction between the maximum mass and the upper limit of the observed
. For the first event shown in
Figure 5a, the upper limit of
is compatible with a maximum mass value
for
and
for
. Nonetheless, this bound corresponds to transition density in approximation 1.5
. Experimental evidence disfavors this value. Therefore, the simultaneous derivation of the maximum mass combined with the experimental knowledge that the EoS cannot take this bound of sound speed for
are in contradiction. Furthermore, the upper limit on
for the case of
lies roughly inside the estimation of the measured maximum mass. In the general perspective, we notice that two different points of view antagonize each other. The constraints derived by the upper limit on
lead to softer EoSs, contrary to the observational estimations of the maximum mass of neutron stars, which lead to stiffer EoSs. As we move to higher values of the speed of sound, this contrast decreases, with the causal scenario of
leading to a very wide area for the maximum mass.
In the case of the second event GW190425 displayed in
Figure 5b, the constraints provided by the measured
are less stringent than the GW170817 event, with a maximum mass value of
for
and
for
. However, the presence of a lower limit on
, especially in the case of events with heavy components (such as GW190425), could constrain the lower maximum mass.
In addition, we provide an expression that describes the
as a function of the maximum mass
. The expression is given by the following equation and the coefficients in
Table 1,
The expression in this form means that
. Moreover, the adoption of an upper limit on the maximum mass
in
Figure 5 could provide an additional constraint on the behavior of the speed of sound. Specifically, by applying the estimated upper limit
[
131], the case of
in
Figure 5a for the GW170817 event should be excluded. On the contrary, the estimated upper limit
for the
bound, is a more tight constraint. Additionally, an upper limit such as
imposes a general upper bound on the possible intermediate values of speed of sound (intermediate shaded area in the figure). Concerning the second event in
Figure 5b, a strict upper limit on
could constrain even the
case.
Another interesting relation is the
as a function of the radius of a
neutron star, for both events, which is displayed in
Figure 6. First of all, the upper limit on
leads to a limitation on the maximum values of the radius, especially in the case of
. Furthermore, there is a trend between
and
, which was also remarked on by Raithel et al. [
132], mentioning that the effective tidal deformability depends strongly on the radii of the stars rather on the component masses. This strong dependence can be observed in
Figure 6.
In particular, for the GW170817 event, the curves of the two limited cases, red and blue for the
and
bounds, respectively, of the speed of sound are almost identical. The cross marks correspond to the specific values for each case. In our study, we considered four cases of transition density
; therefore, eight marks are expected in total, but in the diagram, only seven can be seen. This is because of the identical values for the
case that the two bounds provide. This is clear from their behavior in
Figure 2 in which, for the mass range of GW170817 event, their M-R curves are identical.
Moreover, as the effective tidal deformability
shows higher values, the distance between them also increases. The same behavior is present in the curves of
Figure 3a, in which their in-between distance increases for higher values of
. This increment is related to the
, meaning that the differentiation for small values of
is more obvious. Hence, in these cases, the effect of each bound of the speed of sound is easier to be manifested.
The dotted purple line corresponds the approximate relation of References [
133,
134]. We notice that this approximate relation is valid only for the first event and for specific assumptions on the components’ radii. In particular, the main assumption of this approximation consists on the
relation. From the comparison of
Figure 6 with the M-R diagram of
Figure 2, it follows that for smaller values of
(i.e., more stiff EoSs), (a) the inclination of the curves increases and (b) the difference between the M-R curves of boundary cases also increases. Therefore, these remarks, combined with the strong dependence of
to
R (see Equation (
20)), show the inability of the proposed expression to accurately reproduce the values of
in the high-values region can be explained.
The grey shaded area indicates the excluded area due to the upper limit on
, provided by Reference [
98]. The upper limit of
leads to constraints on the radius
, especially
for the
bound and
for the
bound. These upper limits are consistent with other analyses [
24,
124,
128,
129,
132,
134,
135,
136,
137].
For the second event (GW190425), we notice that the exact range of the component masses is not determinant [
130]. The orange and green lines and marks correspond to the
and
bounds, respectively, of the speed of sound. The shaded grey region indicates the excluded region by the upper limit of
[
14]. The orange and green arrows indicate the allowed region for each case. For
, the constraint on the radius is
, while for
is
. These are more stringent constraints compared to the
and
of Reference [
14]. We notice that recently it was found in Reference [
138] that the joint contribution of gravitational waves and NICER data favors the violation of the conformal limit
. In particular, this analysis suggests the violation of the conformal limit around
density, where
is the nuclear saturation density.
In addition, one can observe the similarity of the curves’ behavior between the two events. For higher values of
, the distance between the points grows. One of the main differences is that for the second event, the curves and the points are shifted to smaller values of
because of the higher chirp mass
of the system. Another observation is that the fitting lines are more distinct from each other, contrary to the GW170817 event, in which they were almost identical; nevertheless, there is a common trend (see also Reference [
132]). For this reason, we applied the following expression
where
is in
, similar to the proposed relations of References [
133,
134]. The coefficients for each case are given in
Table 2.
4.2. GW190814: A Postulation of the Most Massive Neutron Star
The GW190814 event that arose from the merger of a ∼
black hole with a ∼
compact object has provided various scenarios for the nature of the second component. In particular, the possibilities for the second merger component are that of (a) the lightest black hole, (b) the most compact neutron star, (c) a rapidly rotating neutron star, and (d) an exotic compact object. We note that in the present review, we consider only the scenarios where the compact object is a nonrotating (most compact) neutron star or is a rapidly rotating one [
66].
In
Figure 7, we display the gravitational mass as a function of the Kerr parameter for the pure MDI-APR EoS. In addition, we note the universal relation
where
is the Kerr parameter at the mass-shedding limit, for two limiting cases: (a)
and (b)
[
139]. The limiting cases correspond to the minimum and maximum possible mass for a neutron star [
139], along with the maximum value of the Kerr parameter (considering the minimum possible mass) [
139]. The area marked by the intersection of the gravitational mass,
, with the Kerr parameter,
[
139], notes the area where the compact object can exist.
Figure 1 and
Figure 7 show that the pure MDI-APR EoS, which is well-defined in the above limits, is a suitable hadronic EoS to describe the ∼2.6
compact object.
Furthermore, by assuming that the second merger component is rotating at its mass-shedding limit, possible constraints are available through the Kerr parameter, the equatorial radius, and the central energy/baryon density. Specifically, by employing the relation found in Reference [
63]
for the observable gravitational mass, the maximum Kerr parameter is evaluated in the range
, a feature that is also noted in
Figure 7. Moreover, taking into consideration the relation from Reference [
64] that connects the Kerr parameter with the compactness parameter at the mass-shedding limit, namely
the equatorial radius is calculated in the range
.
Finally, we focused on the central energy/baryon density, a property that is connected to the time evolution of pulsars and the appearance of a possible phase transition. The above dependence is presented in
Figure 8 as the dependence of the maximum gravitational mass on both the central energy density and the central baryon density. Specifically,
Figure 8 contains a wide range of hadronic EoSs (23 EoSs) [
63] both at the nonrotating and maximally rotating configurations, the analytical solution of Tolman VII, Equation (
66), denoted as
according to Reference [
63], the calculation data from Cook et al. [
140] and Salgado et al. [
141], and the recent data for the nonrotating and maximally rotating configurations both in the cases of
and
with the corresponding transition densities.
In addition, via Equation (
66), which is used for the description of the upper bound for the density of cold baryonic matter [
63], the central energy density can be constrained in the narrow range
. The latter indicates that neutron stars with higher values of central energy density cannot exist. Furthermore,
Figure 8 provides us the tools to extract the corresponding region for the central baryon density, which is
. It is worth mentioning that the cases in this review meet the limit for the central energy/baryon density as they are included in the region described under Equation (
66).