September 19, 2013 14:42 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE 01122

Proceedings of the 3rd Galileo–Xu Guangqi Meeting

International Journal of Modern Physics: Conference Series
Vol. 23 (2013) 157–160

c World Scientific Publishing Company
DOI: 10.1142/S2010194513011227

MONTE CARLO SIMULATION OF NEUTRON STAR MASSES

by 78.21.30.155 on 07/30/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

ZHENG CHENG∗ , CHENGMIN ZHANG and ALI TAANI

National Astronomical Observatories, 20A Datun Road
Chaoyang District, Beijing 100012, China
Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013.23:157-160. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

∗chengzheng@nao.cas.cn

We perform a Monte Carlo simulation to investigate the distribution and evolution of

66 mass measured pulsars. We get the best fits to the distribution at 1.35 ± 0.27MJ
(1σ confidence level). In addition, we notice bimodal distributions in 1.34 ± 0.15MJ and
1.48 ± 0.53MJ , this can be led to the idea that radio pulsars in binary systems have
recycled. Thus we divide the data according to the characteristic spin period into two
groups, millisecond pulsars (MSPs), PSpin ≤ 20 ms and less recycled pulsars PSpin ≥
20 ms, respectively. We show that the distributions of MSPs at 1.42 ± 0.36MJ , and
1.32 ± 0.18MJ for less recycled pulsars. As such, the mass of MSPs are heavier than
those in less recycled pulsars by ∼ 0.1MJ , since they accreting material from their
companions. On the other hand, the formation of heavier pulsars from the accretion
induced collapse of accreting white dwarfs, must be invoked.

Keywords: Pulsars: general; mass distribution; Monte Carlo simulation.

1. Introduction
Chandrasekhar limit1 is of key importance for the evolution of white dwarfs (WDs)
in binary systems and for the formation of neutron stars (NSs) and black holes in
binaries. However, based on Tolman’s (NOT Included in your references list)
, Oppenheimer and Volkoff studied the mass of NSs and they inferred the minimum
mass limit at ∼0.7MJ .2 While the maximum mass at ∼ 3.2MJ3 which was quite
varies of calculation in NS structure by using different equation of state (EOS).
As such play important dynamically role role in constraint NS mass in observation
level.
The determination of NS masses rely on the binary pulsar system by orbital
parameter measurement. For X-ray binaries, from the steady optical emission (light-
curve modulate4 or spectral line shift5 ) of the optical companion, mass function
of the star can be derived, with orbital inclination angle which can be estimated
through the observation of eclipse phenomenon or rotational broadening effect. As
such, both masses can be determined in this system. For radio binaries, precise pul-
sar timing observation is a good tool to measure the post-Kepler parameters (PK)
such as the periastron advance, time dilation, orbital shrinking rate and Shipiro
delay. By using the measurement of mass function, an accurate determination of
the pulsar mass becomes possible.6

157
 September 19, 2013 14:42 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE 01122

158 Z. Cheng, C. Zhang & A. Taani

Table 1. New measured pulsar mass.

Object M (MJ ) Mc (MJ ) Pspin (ms) Reference

1.58 ± 0.27 21.24 ± 2.4 8

IGR J18027-2016 139600
1.36 ± 0.21 18.6 ± 0.8
XTE J1807-294 1 − 2.5 5.25 9

1.68 ± 0.27 17 ± 0.7 10

OAO 1657-415 38220
1.41 ± 0.27 14.2 ± 0.4
SWIFT J1749.4-2807 < 2.2 11

1.4 ± 0.02 0.075 ± 0.004 12

by 78.21.30.155 on 07/30/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

*J2339-0533
Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013.23:157-160. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

However, many authors have studied detailed statistical properties of mass mea-
sured pulsars.7 This will not just give a constraint on EOS of NSs and their struc-
tures, but also may provides us a good opportunity to study the formation of mil-
lisecond pulsars (MSPs) in binary systems since they are formed in recycled process,
or via accretion-induced-collapse (AIC) in accreting WDs.13 Here we present the
Monte Carlo (MC) simulation to study the mass distribution base on the mass mea-
surement of 66 sources (including 18 X-ray binaries, 47 radio pulsar and 1 unclear
source). The data were we used are taken from Refs. 14-15 and other sources. The
new measured pulsar masses are shown in Table 1.

2. Monte Carlo Simulation

We divide the data set into two groups according to their spin periods, MSPs with
(PSpin ≤ 20 ms) and less recycled pulsars (PSpin ≥ 20 ms), respectively. However,
we notice that relatively Gaussian distribution for most objects. While the remains
are analyzed as the law of uniform distribution with 3σ. Every measured results have
the same weight and independent of each other, we perform the MC simulation to
test the distribution and evolution of mass pulsars.
The result of MC simulation is shown in Fig. 1. The Gaussian fitting gives us a
result that the mass distribution in 1.35 ± 0.27MJ with 1σ confidence level (dash
line). The histogram displays bimodal distributions, consequently the fitting param-
eters are currently agree with14, .16 The solid line shows the double Gaussian fitting
curves (1.34 ± 0.15MJ and 1.48 ± 0.53MJ with 1σ confidence level, respectively).
It should be noticed that the bimodal distribution is coincidence with the result
of Bayesian statistical method based on the data of double neutron star (DNS)
and NS-WD system.14 This has strongly supports the idea that the recycled MSP
become more massive (∼ 0.15MJ ) than less recycled pulsar via accreting enough
material to spin-up.
To discriminate this result as just an effect of observed coincide or the
consequence of different evolution scenario, we set a characteristic spin period
(Pspin =20ms) which help us divide all the sources in to two groups, Pspin < 20ms
as MSPs, and the others are thought to be less-recycled pulsar. We study the MC
simulation with these two groups. While our results are shown in Fig. 2, left panel
 September 19, 2013 14:42 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE 01122

Monte Carlo Simulation of Neutron Star Masses 159

0.25

0.2
Probability Density

0.15

0.1
by 78.21.30.155 on 07/30/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

0.05
Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013.23:157-160. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
NS mass[Msun]

Fig. 1. Monte Carlo simulation of NS mass.

Ps<20ms Ps>20ms
0.14 0.14

0.12 0.12
Probability Density

Probability Density

0.1 0.1

0.08 0.08

0.06 0.06

0.04 0.04

0.02 0.02

0 0
0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3
NS mass[Msun] NS mass[Msun]

Fig. 2. Monte Carlo simulation of NS mass for MSP and less recycled pulsar.

is the MSPs, while the right one is the less recycled pulsar. It can be seen that the
masses of these systems are uniformly distributed. The best fit normal distribution
curves are shown in solid line with 1.42 ± 0.36MJ and 1.32 ± 0.18MJ, respectively.

3. Summary and Conclusion

We show that based on MC simulation of our pulsar sample, the average mass of
radio pulsar is 1.35 ± 0.27MJ . This result agrees with the modelled by Thorsett.7
However, bimodal distributions seem possible for 1.34±0.15MJ and 1.48±0.53MJ,
respectively, since the effect of recycled process. On the other hand, the average
mass distributions of MSPs and less recycled pulsars are 1.42 ± 0.36MJ and 1.32 ±
0.18MJ , respectively, hence this strongly supports the view that the MSPs have
been recycled (∼ 0.1MJ ) from radio pulsars in the binary accretion phase.
 September 19, 2013 14:42 WSPC/INSTRUCTION FILE 01122

160 Z. Cheng, C. Zhang & A. Taani

Furthermore, the AIC scenario must be invoked to produce MSPs higher than
those in less recycled pulsars, since AIC is expected to produce normal NSs, which
in binaries can evolve into MSPs through the usual recycling scenario.

Acknowledgments
This work has been supported by NSFC (No.10773034) and NBRPC
(2009CB824800).
by 78.21.30.155 on 07/30/20. Re-use and distribution is strictly not permitted, except for Open Access articles.

References
Int. J. Mod. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2013.23:157-160. Downloaded from www.worldscientific.com

1. S. Chandrasekhar, MNRAS 91 (1931) 456.

2. J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev (1939) 55 374.
3. C. E. Rhoades and R. Ruffini, Phys. Rev 32 (1974) 324.
4. J. A. Orosz and E. Kuulkers, MNRAS 305 (1999) 132.
5. J. A. Tomsick et al., Astrophys. J. 581 (2002) 570.
6. J. H. Taylor, L. A. Fowler and P. M. McCulloch, Nature 277 (1979) 437.
7. S. E. Thorsett and D. Chakrabarty, Astrophys. J. 512 (1999) 288.
8. A. B. Mason et al., ArXiv e-prints (2011) 1106.5821.
9. D. A. Leahy, S. M. Morsink and Y. Chou, Astrophys. J. 742 (2011) 17.
10. A. B. Mason et al., ArXiv e-prints (2011) 1102.3363.
11. C. B. Markwardt and T. E. Strohmayer, Astrophys. J. 717 (2010) 149.
12. R. W. Romani and M. S. Shaw, ArXiv e-prints (2011) 1111.3074.
13. D. Bhattacharya and E. P. J. van den Heuvel, Phys. Rep 203 (1991) 1.
14. B. Kiziltan, A. Kottas, and S. E. Thorsett, ArXiv e-prints (2010) 1011.4291.
15. C. M. Zhang et al., A&A 527 (2011) 83.
16. R. Valentim, E. Rangel and J. E. Horvath, MNRAS 414 (2011) 1427.