See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/262991931

Deformation of a magnetized neutron star

Article in Physical Review C · March 2014

DOI: 10.1103/PhysRevC.89.045805 · Source: arXiv

CITATIONS READS
35 63

2 authors, including:

Ritam Mallick
Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies
27 PUBLICATIONS 186 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Ritam Mallick on 13 October 2014.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

 Deformation of a magnetized neutron star

Ritam Mallick∗ and Stefan Schramm†

Frankfurt Institute for Advanced Studies,
60438 Frankfurt am Main, Germany
(Dated: July 22, 2013)
arXiv:1307.5185v1 [astro-ph.HE] 19 Jul 2013

Abstract
Magnetars are compact stars which are observationally determined to have a very strong surface
magnetic fields of the order of 1014 − 1015 G. The centre of the star can even have a magnetic field
several orders of magnitude larger. We study the effect of the magnetic field on the mass and
shape of such a star. In general, we assume a non-uniform magnetic field inside the star which
varies with density. The magnetic energy and magnetic pressure as well as the metric are expanded
as multipoles in spherical harmonics up to the quadrupole term to the total energy and pressure.
Solving the Einstein equations for the expanded gravitational potential, one obtains the correction
terms of the expansion as functions of magnetic pressure. These are related to the excess mass
and deformation of the star. Within a nonlinear model for the hadronic EoS the excess mass and
deformation of the star are quite significant if the surface magnetic field is 1015 G and the central
field is about 1018 − 1019 G. However, higher magnetic fields leads to a violation of the assumption
of a perturbative correction as the correction terms then becomes larger than the original term.
This provides an upper limit for the central magnetic field within this approach. The excess mass
for such huge magnetic fields is at least one order of magnitude lower than the original stellar mass.
The deformation of the star is quite large for reasonable values of the magnetic field. The equatorial
radius becomes extended, whereas the pole shrinks and the star exhibits an oblate spheroid shape.

PACS numbers: 26.60.Kp, 52.35.Tc, 97.10.Cv

Keywords: dense matter, stars: neutron, stars : magnetic field, equation of state

∗
ritam.mallick5@gmail.com
†
schramm@th.physik.uni-frankfurt.de

1
I. INTRODUCTION

Pulsars are among the most important “laboratories” to study the properties of matter at
extreme conditions. They are known to emit waves of almost every wavelength, from x-rays
to gamma rays. Connecting them with neutron stars (NS) [1] opened up a whole new branch
of physics dealing with the equation of state (EoS) of matter at extreme densities with huge
gravitational effects. The recent observational evidence of two solar mass neutron stars has
generated significant additional activity in this field [2, 3]. The other important feature of
pulsars are the huge surface magnetic fields. Usually, the observed surface magnetic field of
pulsars range from 108 −1012 G. However, some new classes of pulsars, namely the anomalous
X-ray pulsars (AXPs) and soft-gamma repeaters (SGR), have been identified to have much
higher surface magnetic field. The SGR are usually associated with supernova remnants,
which points to the fact that they are young NS [4, 5]. Recent measurement of the spin
down and the rate of change of spin down suggest that they are quite different from the
bulk pulsar population with a surface magnetic field as high as 1015 G. Observation of some
X-ray pulsars also suggests that they can have surface fields of strengths of 1014 − 1015 G.
The relation between the SGR and X-ray pulsars is not quite clear, but we definitely have
a class of NS with very high magnetic fields, termed as magnetars [6–9].

The properties of NS, i.e., mass, radius, spin, etc., depends very sensitively on the EoS
of matter describing the NS. However, in magnetars it also depends sensitively on the mag-
netic field. Firstly, the matter in a strong magnetic background experiences two quantum
effect, the Pauli paramagnetism (interaction of spin of the fermion with magnetic field) and
Landau diamagnetism. Secondly, the magnetic pressure due to the Landau force induces a
deformation of the star. The background magnetic field also affects the cooling down and the
magnetic field evolution of a neutron star. Hence, it is important to study the deformation
of NS in presence of strong magnetic fields.

The effect of a strong magnetic field on dense hadronic matter has been extensively
studied previously [10–14]. The high magnetic field can affect the hydrostatic equilibrium of
NS and render the star unstable. The deformation of magnetised NS was first discussed by
Chandrasekhar & Fermi and by Ferraro [15, 16]. The limiting field strength of the magnetic
field was found to be of the order of 1018 G. Instabilities related to the anisotropy of magnetic
pressure was also extensively discussed [17–21], both for uniform and nonuniform magnetic

2
field. The anisotropy of magnetic pressure in the NS would induce a deformation in NS and
in this paper we intend to study the deformation of NS due to the anisotropy.
Calculations leading to deformation of NS have been done before. The general relativistic
approach by Bocquet et al. [22] and Bonazolla & Gourgoulhon and Cardall et al. [23, 24]
are very interesting, but are numerically extremely involved. An analytic discussion was
done by Konno et al. [25], but it lacked a discussion involving a realistic EoS. In this work
we follow a line related to Chandrasekhar and Fermi [15]. We will take into account the
anisotropic pressure and treat it as a perturbation similar to the method developed by Hartle
and Thorne [26, 27] for slowly rotating NS. We shall employ a strong non-uniform magnetic
field distribution of frozen-in field.
The motivation of this work is to carry out the semi-analytic calculation the of defor-
mation of a neutron star, caused by a non-uniform magnetic field pressure along different
directions. We treat the non-uniform pressure as a perturbation to the total pressure (mat-
ter and magnetic) and solve its effect for the deformed star. In particular, we determine
the excess mass and the ellipticity of the deformed star. We also comment on the possible
instability of a NS for a given field strength.
The paper is organised as follows. In Section II we carry out the calculation for the
deformation of the NS for the anisotropic pressure up to the quadrupole term. In section III
we employ a realistic NS EoS and numerically calculate the excess mass and the ellipticity
of the star which gives the deformation of the star due to the magnetic effect. In Section IV
we summarise and discuss our results.

II. FORMALISM

In the rest frame of the fluid the magnetic field is aligned along the z-axis, and so the
total energy density and pressure takes the form
B2
ǫ = ǫm + (1)
8π
B2
P⊥ = Pm − MB + (2)
8π
B2
Pk = Pm − . (3)
8π
B2
where, ǫ is the total energy density, ǫm is the matter energy density and 8π
is the magnetic
stress. P⊥ and Pk are the perpendicular and parallel component of the total pressure with

3
respect to the magnetic field. Pm is the matter pressure and MB is the magnetization. It
has been discussed earlier in the literature that the effect of landau quantization on the EoS
is negligible for reasonable magnetic fields[20, 21]. The significant magnetic effect arises
from the extra stress and pressure terms. Also, the effect due to magnetization is not very
significant for very strong fields, when the star itself becomes unstable due to very high
magnetic fields at the centre. In our calculation we neglect all these effects and only deal
with the magnetic stress and magnetic pressure. Therefore, the energy tensor can be written
as

B2
ǫ = ǫm + (4)
8π
B2
P⊥ = Pm + (5)
8π
B2
Pk = Pm − . (6)
8π

The pressure part is given as

P = Pm ± PB (7)
2
B
P = Pm + (1 − 2cos2 θ). (8)
8π

where, PB is the magnetic pressure and θ is the polar angle with respect to the direction of
the magnetic field. We can rewrite the total pressure as an expansion in spherical harmonics

B2 1 4
P = Pm + [ − P2 (cosθ)] (9)
8π 3 3
P = Pm + [p0 + p2 P2 (cosθ)]. (10)

B2 4B 2
p0 = 3.8π
is the monopole contribution and p2 = − 3.8π the quadrupole contribution of the
magnetic pressure. P2 (cosθ) is the second order Legendre polynomial and is defined as

1
P2 (cosθ) = (3cos2 θ − 1). (11)
2

We first assume that the neutron star is spherically symmetric. The interior solution of
a static spherically symmetric object can be written in terms of Schwarzschild coordinates
t, r, θ, φ as

ds2 = −eν(r) dt2 + eλ(r) dr 2 + r 2 (dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ), (12)

4
where the metric functions ν(r) and λ(r) are function of r only. The metric functions can
be expressed as
dν 1 dPm
=− , (13)
dr ǫm + Pm dr
2Gm(r) −1
eλ = (1 − ) , (14)
r
where m(r) is the mass enclosed in a sphere of radius r.
The general metric can also be formulated as a multipole expansion. However, for this
problem we only take along terms up to the quadrupole term. Hence, the metric can be
written as [15, 26]

ds2 = −eν(r) [1 + 2(h0 (r) + h2 (r)P2 (cosθ))]dt2 (15)

eλ(r)
+eλ(r) [1 + (m0 (r) + m2 (r)P2 (cosθ))]dr 2 (16)
r
+r 2 [1 + 2k2 (r)P2 (cosθ)](dθ2 + sin2 θdφ2 ), (17)

where h0 , h2 , m0 , m2 , k2 are the corrections up to second order.

Solving the Einstein equations, we get
dm0
= 4πr 2p0 , (18)
dr
dh0 1 dν λ 1
= 4πreλ p0 + e m0 + 2 eλ m0 , (19)
dr r dr r
dν λ
dh2 dk2 1 e 1 dνdr
+ = h2 ( − dr ) + m2 ( + ), (20)
dr dr r 2 r r 2
eλ
h2 + m2 = 0, (21)
r
dh2 dk2 1 dν dk2 1
+ + r = 4πreλ p2 + 2 eλ m2 (22)
dr dr 2 dr dr r
λ
1 dν λ 3/r 2
+ e m2 + h2 + eλ k2 . (23)
r dr e r
From the conservation law of the total momentum, we obtain
dp0 dν dh0
= − p0 − (ǫ + P ) , (24)
dr dr dr
p2 = −(ǫ + P )h2 , (25)
dp2 dν dh2
= − p2 − (ǫ + P ) . (26)
dr dr dr
With some simple algebra the fields can be expressed in terms of known quantities
dk2 2p2 dν
dr
+ dp
dr
2

= , (27)
dr ǫ+P
dh2 −p2 dν
dr
− dp
dr
2

= . (28)
dr ǫ+P

5
Solving equations 18,19,21,27,28 for given values of p0 and p2 , we can calculate m0 , h0 , m2 , k2
and h2 .
The total mass of the star M is given by

M = M0 + δM, (29)

where M0 is the mass for the matter part and δM ≡ m0 is the mass due to the magnetic
corrections. The shape of the star also gets deformed by the magnetic field, which is non-
isotropic. The deformation of the star can be quantified by its ellipticity (e), which is defined
as v
Rp 2
u
u
e= t
1− , (30)
Re
where Rp is the polar radius and Re is the equatorial radius. At this point all the metric
perturbation potentials are specified. If we know the applied magnetic field and the initial
matter perturbation functions we can calculate the given metric perturbation potentials,
and determine the mass change and deformation of the star.

III. RESULTS

The static, spherically symmetric star can be solved using the TOV equation [28]. The
pressure and enclosed mass of the star is given by

dP (r) Gm(r)ǫ(r) [1 + P (r)/ǫ(r)] [1 + 4πr 3P (r)/m(r)]

=− , (31)
dr r2 1 − 2Gm(r)/r
dm(r)
= 4πr 2 ǫ(r). (32)
dr
(33)

The total mass is defined as

Z R
MG ≡ m(R) = 4π dr r 2 ǫ(r), (34)
0

where R is the radius of the star. The TOV equation is solved for a given central energy
density corresponding to a central pressure and ends at the surface of the neutron star
r = R, where the pressure vanishes. Along with this solution, we also solve for the expanded
perturbation potentials for a given EoS and for a given magnetic field profile. In our problem

6
we show results for two different hadronic EoS. The assumed magnetic profile of the star is
density dependent [10], and is given as
(  γ )
nb
−α n0
B(nb ) = Bs + B0 1 − e . (35)

This simple ansatz covers a more realistic physical situation where the magnetic field in
the star is non-uniform. The model is constructed in such a way that the magnetic field at
the centre of the star can be several orders of magnitude larger than at the surface. The
parameters α and γ control how fast the central magnetic field Bc falls to the asymptotic
value at the surface Bs . The value α controls the field decay rate and γ controls the width
of the decay. Observationally the surface magnetic field strength of magnetars are usually
of the order of 1014 − 1015 G. The central magnetic field strength can be as high as 1018 G
and, assuming some dynamo effect inside the star as discussed in [6] the field might even
be as high as 1019 G. Therefore, in our problem, we vary Bc in the range of 1018 − 1019 G,
keeping the surface value fixed at 1015 G. We assume α = 0.01 and γ = 2, which is quite a
gentle variation of the magnetic field inside the star. Other α, γ combination yield different
possible variations. However, the results for our calculation would not be much affected and
the qualitative conclusions would remain the same.
For the two EoS, we choose a very stiff nuclear EoS, namely the nonlinear Walecka
model [29], which is able to reproduce the mass of observed pulsar PSR J1614-2230 [2]. For
comparison we use a much softer EoS (TM1) [30, 31] that includes hyperons.
Fig 1 shows the excess mass of the star due to the magnetic field. It is clear from the
figure that as the central magnetic field increases the excess mass due to the magnetic
field also increases. For a field strength of Bc = 1018 G this mass is very small, in the
range of 10−4 − 10−3 M⊙ and for a field strength of Bc = 1019 G its value is in the range of
10−2 − 10−1M⊙ . The excess mass is also related to the m0 component of the correction for
the monopole term (∆M = m0 (R)). The curves show that, as the central energy increases,
the excess mass due to the magnetic field also increases. This is a direct result of Eqn. 35,
as with increasing central energy density the corresponding number density and therefore
the central magnetic field become larger as well. For the stiff EoS the excess mass is less
than for a soft EoS, because the ratio of the magnetic pressure to matter pressure is smaller
compared to the stiffer EoS.
As the anisotropic magnetic pressure generates excess mass for the star. It is likely that it

7
 15 18
NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
15 19
0.01 NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
15 18
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
15 19
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bs=10 G

∆Μ
0.001

0.0001
5e+14 1e+15 1.5e+15 2e+15 2.5e+15
central energy density (gm/cc)

FIG. 1. ∆M as a function of central energy density. Curves are plotted for two different EoS, NW
and TM1 model. The applied central and surface magnetic field Bc and Bs are specified in the
figure.

a b
0.05

0
0

-0.1
-0.05
h0

h2

-0.2

-0.1
15 18 -0.3 15 18
NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
15 19 15 19
NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
-0.15 15 18
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G 15 18
-0.4 TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
15 19 15 19
TM1, bs=10 G, Bc=10 G TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
-0.2 -0.5
5e+14 1e+15 1.5e+15 2e+15 2.5e+15 5e+14 1e+15 1.5e+15 2e+15 2.5e+15
central energy density (gm/cc) central energy density (gm/cc)
c d
7e+05 0.1

15 18
6e+05 NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
0
15 19
NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
5e+05 15 18
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
-0.1
15 19
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
4e+05
-0.2
m2

k2

3e+05
-0.3
2e+05
15 18
NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
-0.4
1e+05 15 19
NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
15 18
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
0 -0.5
15 19
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
-1e+05
5e+14 1e+15 1.5e+15 2e+15 2.5e+15 5e+14 1e+15 1.5e+15 2e+15 2.5e+15
central energy density (gm/cc) central energy density (gm/cc)

FIG. 2. The different perturbation correction h0 , h2 , m2 and k2 are plotted as a function of central
energy density. Similar to the Fig 1 we consider two different EoS, with NW and TM1 model
parameter set. The variation of the magnetic field is similar to that as given in Eqn. 35 with two
different sets of Bc and Bs .

8
also produces a significant deformation. The magnetic pressure adds to the matter pressure
in the equatorial direction and reduces it along the polar direction. Therefore, we expect a
flattening of the star, taking a shape of an oblate spheroid (similar to the deformation due
to rotation). The polar and equatorial radius of a deformed star is defined as
1
Re = R + ξ0 (R) − (ξ2 (R) + rk2), (36)
2
Rp = R + ξ0 (R) + (ξ2 (R) + rk2 ), (37)

where R is the radius of the spherical star. ξ0 and ξ2 are defined as

r(r − 2Gm(r)) ∗
ξ0 (r) = p, (38)
4πr 3 Pm + Gm(r) 0
r(r − 2Gm(r)) ∗
ξ2 (r) = p , (39)
4πr 3 Pm + Gm(r) 2
with p∗0 and p∗2 given by
B2
p∗0 = p0 / , (40)
8π
B2
p∗2 = p2 / . (41)
8π
Thus, the polar and equatorial radii of a star have contributions from the three terms ξ0 , ξ2
and k2 . The contribution of the ξ’s originates from the surface magnetic field strength of
the magnetar, and k2 is the contribution from the integrated magnetic pressure throughout
the star. Before we plot the function e, we investigate the behaviour of the other correction
terms, namely the h0 , h2 , m2 and k2 . From Fig 2a, we see that for Bc = 1018 G h0 is very
close to zero and is actually of the order of 10−3 , and for Bc = 1019 G h0 is of the order of
10−1 . Fig 2b shows that h2 has the same behaviour and is only about half the size of h0 .
Both function are negative, and corrections increase in absolute value with central energy
density. Therefore, for Bc = 1019 G, the functions are close to −1. Increasing the magnetic
field to higher values, would make the correction term greater than −1, and would violate
our initial assumption that the magnetic field enters the metric as a correction, only (the
original term being 1). In other words, it provides us with an approximate upper limit for
the assumed central magnetic field.
Fig 2c shows the dependence of the quadrupole correction m2 on central energy density.
The value of m2 is greater than 1 but the extra factor in front of m0 and m2 renders the
2eλ
overall term less than 1. If we fully expand the term we see the that it becomes r
m2 , which

9
 a b
1

0.8
3
0.8 NW, nc=1.25e+15 gm/cm
3
NW,nc=1.78e+15 gm/cm
15 18 3
NW, Bs=10 G,Bc=10 G 0.6 TM1, nc=1.25e+15 gm/cm
3
0.6 15
NW, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
19 TM1, nc=1.78e+15 gm/cm
15 18
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G

e
e

15
TM1, Bs=10 G, Bc=10 G
19 0.4
0.4

0.2
0.2

0 0
5e+14 1e+15 1.5e+15 2e+15 2.5e+15 1e+17 1e+18 1e+19
central energy density (gm/cc) Bc (G)

FIG. 3. Eccentricity e as a function of central energy density for fixed Bc and as a function of Bc
for fixed central energy density (nc ). For comparison we have plotted curves for two different EoS.

40

NW, R
NW, Re
35
TM1, R
TM1, Re

30
R, Re(km)

25

20

15

10
5e+14 1e+15 1.5e+15 2e+15 2.5e+15
central energy density (gm/cc)

FIG. 4. Radii Re , R plotted as functions of central energy density. Curves for two different EoS,
NW and TM1 model are shown. The applied central and surface magnetic fields Bc and Bs are
mentioned in the figure.

is actually 2h2 , and that is again less than 1. m2 is an increasing function with central energy
density and its maximum value is several times 105 . If Bc is further increased, m2 becomes
2eλ
of the order of 106 , and the correction term r
m2 exceeds 1, again yielding a limit for the
central magnetic field. The quadrupole correction term k2 which is also the total integrated
contribution of the magnetic field to the deformation of the star, is depicted in Fig 2d. The
value of k2 is quite close to that of h2 differing by a mere fraction. For Bc = 1018 G, k2 is very
small and is of the order of 10−3 , and for Bc = 1019 G is of the order of 10−1 . Its behaviour
with central density is also same as that of h2 , a negative decreasing function.
In Fig 3a we study the variation of the deformation parameter e along with the central

10
energy density. For a just moderately large central field Bc = 1018 G, e is already near 0.2
for both the EoS, and for Bc = 1019 G it is much higher. This is because the as the central
magnetic field increases, the magnetic pressure contribution also increases and thereby the
deformation of the star. The figure also shows that as the central energy density, and
following Eqn. 35 the central magnetic field increases, unsurprisingly the star becomes more
deformed. For larger central magnetic field, the e curve for stiffer EoS is flatter than that of
softer EoS. This is due to the fact that the ratio of the magnetic pressure to matter pressure
is less for the stiff EoS than for a soft EoS. We also show e as a function of central magnetic
field (Bc ) (Fig 3b) for a fixed central energy density (nc ). The eccentricity is an increasing
function of central magnetic field as shown in the figure.
To give an overall picture of how the equatorial radius of a star changes due to the applied
magnetic field the different radii are presented in Fig 4. The stiffer EoS generates a more
compact star (its mass is larger and radius is smaller) than a softer EoS. Therefore, both R
and Re for the NW model is smaller than in the case of the TM1 model. At lower central
density, the star is not so compact and its radius R is larger. As the central energy density
increases the radius R becomes smaller. However, Re , which is also strongly affected by
the contribution from the magnetic field does not decrease going beyond a certain central
energy density. Then, the contribution due to the magnetic pressure on the equatorial
radius becomes comparable to that of the matter pressure. Therefore, it contributes to the
enlargement of the equatorial radius, since along the equatorial direction, in contrast to the
polar direction, the magnetic pressure adds to the matter pressure. Therefore, due to the
magnetic field the star is strongly deformed, and is extended along the equatorial direction
and compressed along the polar one, thus becoming oblate in shape.

IV. SUMMARY & DISCUSSION

In the present work we have carried out a semi-analytic calculation of the deformation of a
neutron star assuming non-uniform magnetic pressure along different directions (equatorial
and polar). We have treated the magnetic pressure as a perturbation on the total pressure.
In general, we have assumed a non-uniform magnetic field distribution inside the star [10, 20,
21]. We have neglected the effect due to the magnetization of matter and the modification
of the nuclear EOS due to the fields, because its contributions even at large magnetic fields

11
is very small [20]. We have expanded both the pressure and energy density as spherical
harmonics up to the quadrupole term. Analogously, we have also expanded the space-time
metric, following similar approaches by previous authors [15, 25, 26]. Subsequently, we
have solved the Einstein equations and obtained all the metric corrections as function of
known magnetic pressure contributions. Much more numerically involved calculations have
been done before [22–24], however, our semi-analytical approach provides an intuitive and
practical description of the excess mass and deformation of a star due to magnetic field
effects.

We have solved the metric corrections for a given central and surface magnetic field.
The correction terms are related both to the excess mass and deformation of the star. The
monopole correction term m0 gives the excess mass and the quadrupole correction term k2
along with the surface magnetic field determines the deformation of the star. As expected
the correction terms and the excess mass and deformation are proportional to the central
and surface magnetic field. The variation of the magnetic field inside the star affects both
the mass and deformation, but only by a small amount. We find that up to a field strength
of Bc = 1019 G, the correction terms are less than 1, roughly in line with our perturbative
treatment. Higher magnetic fields would yield correction terms larger than the original ones,
which is clearly beyond our approximation. This provides a rough upper limit to the central
magnetic field for the stability of the star. For such a magnetic field strength the excess mass
is of an order of magnitude lower than that of the original star. However, the deformation of
the star is quite significant. The equatorial radius becomes very extended, while the polar
radius shrinks, and the star takes on a distinct oblate shape.

Note that we have not assumed any electric field or current distribution in our calcula-
tion. Our work can be extended if we assume some current distribution that generates the
magnetic field. Also, inclusion of the rotational effect would generate finite electric field,
which would further complicate the equations. However, it poses an interesting scenario, as
in that case the rotational deformation adds to the magnetic one, limiting further the central
magnetic field. Extended calculations along this line are our immediate future projects.

12
 ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

The authors would like to thank the HIC for FAIR for providing financial support to the
project.

[1] Gold, T., Nature 218, 731 (1968)

[2] Demorest, P., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S., Roberts, M., & Hessels, J., Nature 467, 1081 (2010)
[3] Antonidis, J., Freire, P. C. C., Wex, N. et. al., Science 340, 448 (2013)
[4] Kulkarni S. & Frail, D., Nature 365, 33 (1993)
[5] Murakami, T., et al, Nautre 368, 127 (1994)
[6] Duncan, R. C. & Thompson, C., AstroPhys. J. 392, L9 (1992)
[7] Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C., AstroPhys. J. 408, 194 (1993)
[8] Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 275, 255 (1995)
[9] Thompson, C. & Duncan, R. C., AstroPhys. J. 473, 322 (1996)
[10] Chakrabarty, S., Bandyopadhyay, D. & Pal, S., Phys. Rev. Lett. 78, 2898 (1997)
[11] Bandyopadhyay, D., Chakrabarty, S., Dey, P & Pal, S., Phys. Rev. D 58, 12 (1998)
[12] Broderick, A., Prakash, M. & Lattimer, J. M., AstroPhys. J. 537, 351 (2000)
[13] Chen, W., Zhang, P. Q. & Liu, L. G., Mod. Phys. Lett. A 22, 623 (2005)
[14] Rabhi, A., Providencia, C. & Providencia, J. Da, J. Phys. G Nucl. Phys. 35, 125201 (2008)
[15] Chandrasekhar, S. & Fermi, E., AstroPhys. J. 118, 116 (1953)
[16] Ferraro, V. C. A., AstroPhys. J. 119, 407 (1994)
[17] Perez Martinez, A., Perez Rojas, H. & Mosquera Cueata, H. J., Internat. J. Mod. Phys. D
17, 2107 (2008)
[18] Huang, X. -G., Sedrakian, A. & Rischke, D. H., Phys. Rev. D 81, 045015 (2010)
[19] Ferrer, E. J., De La Incera, V. & Horvath J. E., Phys. Rev. C 82, 065802 (2010)
[20] Dexheimer, V., Negreiros, R. & Schramm, S., Eur. Phys. J. A 48, 189 (2012)
[21] Sinha, M., Mukhopadhyay, B. & Sedrakian, A., Nucl. Phys. A 898, 43 (2013)
[22] Bonazzola, S., Gourgoulhon, E., Salgado, M. & Marck, J. A., Astron. & Astrophys. 278, 421
(1993)
[23] Bocquet, M., Bonazzola, S., Gourgoulhon, E. & Novak, J., Astron. & Astrophys. 301, 757

13
 (1995)
[24] Cardall, C. Y., Prakash, M. & Lattimer, J. M., AstroPhys. J. 554, 322 (2001)
[25] Konno, K. Obata, T. & Kojima, Y., Astron. & Astrophys. 352, 211 (1999)
[26] Hartle, J. B., AstroPhys. J. 150, 1005 (1967)
[27] Hartle, J. B. & Thorne, K. S., AstroPhys. J. 153, 807 (1968)
[28] Shapiro S. L. & Teukolsky S. A. Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars, (John Wiley
& Sons, New York, 1983)
[29] Walecka, J. D., AstroPhys. J. 83, 491 (1974)
[30] Sugahara, Y. & Toki, H., Nucl. Phys. A 579, 557 (1994)
[31] Schaffner, J. & Mishustin, I. N., Phys. Rev. C 53, 1416 (1996)

14
View publication stats