# On the minimum period of uniformly rotating neutron stars

## 1 Introduction

The lower limit on the period of a uniformly rotating neutron star is sensitive to the equation of state (EOS) of dense matter above the nuclear density. Therefore, an uncertainty in the high density EOS implies a large uncertainty in the minimum period of uniform rotation, $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ (see, e.g. Friedman & Ipser 1987; Friedman, Parker & Ipser 1989; Salgado et al. 1994a,b; Cook et al. 1994). Hence, it is, therefore, of interest to find a lower limit on $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$, that is independent of the EOS. This limit results from the condition of causality, combined with the requirement that EOS yields neutron stars with masses compatible with observed ones \[currently the highest accurately measured neutron star mass is $`M_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{max}}=1.442\mathrm{M}_{}`$ (Taylor & Weisberg 1989)\]. It will be hereafter referred to as $`P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}`$.

The first calculation of $`P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}`$ was done by Glendenning (1992), who found the value of $`0.33`$ms. Glendenning (1992), however, used a rather imprecise empirical formula, to calculate a lowest $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ by using the parameters (mass and radius) of the maximum mass configurations of a family of non-rotating neutron star models. His result, therefore, should be considered only as an estimate of $`P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}`$. Recently, Koranda et al. (1997) extracted the value of $`P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}`$ from extensive exact calculations of uniformly rotating neutron star models. They have shown, that the method of Glendenning (1992) overestimated the value of $`P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}`$ by 6%. The result of Koranda et al. (1997) calculations can be summarized in a formula

$$P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}=0.196\frac{M_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{max}}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\mathrm{ms},$$
(1)   
which combined with measured mass of PSR B1913+16 yields today’s lower bound for $`P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}=0.282`$ ms. This absolute bound on the minimum period was obtained for the “causality limit (CL) EOS” $`p=(\rho \rho _0)c^2`$, which yields neutron star models of the surface density $`\rho _0`$ and is maximally stiff ($`\mathrm{d}p/\mathrm{d}\rho =c^2`$) everywhere within the star; it does not depend on the value of $`\rho _0`$. In the present letter we show that Eq. (1) can be reproduced using an empirical formula for $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ derived for realistic causal EOS by Lasota et al. (1996), combined with an upper bound on the relativistic (compactness) parameter $`2GM/Rc^2`$ for static neutron stars with causal EOS.

## 2 Relation between $`x_\mathrm{s}`$ and $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$

As shown by Lasota et al. (1996), numerical results of Salgado et al. (1994a,b) for the maximum frequency of uniform stable rotation can be reproduced (within better than 2%), for a broad set of realistic causal EOS of dense matter, by an empirical formula

$$\left(\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}\right)_{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{f}.}=𝒞(x_\mathrm{s})\left(\frac{GM_\mathrm{s}}{R_\mathrm{s}^3}\right)^{\frac{1}{2}},$$
(2)   
where $`M_\mathrm{s}`$ is the maximum mass of a spherical (nonrotating) neutron star and $`R_\mathrm{s}`$ is the corresponding radius, and $`𝒞(x_\mathrm{s})`$ is a universal (i.e. independent of the EOS) function of the compactness parameter $`x_\mathrm{s}2GM_\mathrm{s}/R_\mathrm{s}c^2`$ for the static maximum mass configuration,

$$𝒞(x_\mathrm{s})=0.468+0.378x_\mathrm{s}.$$
(3)   
Combining Eq. (2) and Eq. (3) we get 

$$\left(P_{\mathrm{min}}\right)_{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{f}.}=\frac{8.754\times 10^2}{𝒞(x_\mathrm{s})x_\mathrm{s}^{\frac{3}{2}}}\frac{M_\mathrm{s}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\mathrm{ms}.$$
(4)   
At given maximum mass of a spherical configuration, the maximum rotation frequency (minimum rotation period) is obtained for the maximum value of $`x_\mathrm{s}`$. At fixed $`x_\mathrm{s}`$, the value of $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ is proportional to $`M_\mathrm{s}`$. Neutron stars for which masses have been measured, rotate so slowly that their structure can be very well approximated by that of a spherical star. Observations impose thus a condition $`M_\mathrm{s}M_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$.

## 3 Lower bound on $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$

Our empirical relation, Eq. (4), indicates, that to minimize $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ for given $`M_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$ we have to look for an EOS which yields maximum $`x_\mathrm{s}`$ at $`M_\mathrm{s}=M_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{max}}`$. It is well known, that if one relaxes the condition of causality, the absolute upper bound on $`x_\mathrm{s}`$ for stable neutron star models is reached for an incompressible fluid (i.e., $`\rho =const.`$) EOS; the value of $`x_\mathrm{s}`$ is then independent of $`M_\mathrm{s}`$ and equal $`8/9`$ (see, e.g., Shapiro & Teukolsky 1983). It is therefore rather natural to expect that in order to maximize $`x_\mathrm{s}`$ under the condition of causality, one has to maximize sound velocity throughout the star. Together with condition of density continuity in the stellar interior this points out at the CL EOS, $`p=(\rho \rho _0)c^2`$, as to that which yields “maximally compact neutron stars”; introducing density discontinuities does not increase the value of $`x_\mathrm{s}`$, see Gondek & Zdunik (1995). \[The conjecture that the CL EOS minimizes $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ was already proposed and then confirmed numerically in extensive exact calculations by Koranda et al. (1997)\]. Note, that the value of $`x_\mathrm{s}`$ for CL EOS does not depend on $`\rho _0`$ (and therefore is $`M_\mathrm{s}`$-independent). It represents an absolute upper bound on $`x_s`$ for causal EOS, $`x_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{max}}`$. Our numerical calculation gives $`x_\mathrm{s}(\mathrm{CLEOS})=x_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{max}}=0.7081`$. This corresponds to an absolute upper bound on the surface redshift of neutron star models with causal EOS, $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=(1x_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{max}})^{1/2}1=0.8509`$.

Let us consider the effect of the presence of a crust (more generally, of an envelope of normal neutron star matter). For a given EOS of the normal envelope, the relevant (small) parameter is the ratio $`p_\mathrm{b}/\rho _\mathrm{b}c^2`$, where $`p_\mathrm{b}`$ and $`\rho _\mathrm{b}`$ are, respectively, pressure and mass density at the bottom of the crust (Lindblom 1984). The case of $`p_\mathrm{b}=0`$ corresponds to stellar models with no normal crust. Numerical calculations show, that adding a crust onto a CL EOS core implies an increase of $`R_\mathrm{s}`$, which is linear in $`p_\mathrm{b}/\rho _\mathrm{b}c^2`$; for a solid crust we have typically $`p_\mathrm{b}/\rho _\mathrm{b}c^210^2`$. The change (increase) in $`M_\mathrm{s}`$ is negligibly small; it turns out to be quadratic in $`p_\mathrm{b}/\rho _\mathrm{b}c^2`$. This implies, that the decrease of $`x_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{max}}`$, and of the maximum surface redshift $`z_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{max}}`$, due to the presence of a crust, is proportional to $`p_\mathrm{b}/\rho _\mathrm{b}c^2`$. This is consistent with Table 1 of Lindblom (1984). However, the extrapolation of his results to $`p_\mathrm{b}=0`$ yields $`z_{\mathrm{max}}=0.891`$, which is nearly 5% higher than our value of $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$ ! This might reflect a lack of precision of the variational method used by Lindblom (1984), which led to an overestimate of the value of $`z_{\mathrm{max}}`$. It should be stressed that while a precise determination of $`M_{\mathrm{max}}M_\mathrm{s}`$ for static neutron star models is rather easy, determination of the precise value value of the radius of the maximum mass configuration, $`R_\mathrm{s}`$, (with the same relative precision as $`M_\mathrm{s}`$) and consequently of the value of $`x_\mathrm{s}`$ (with, say, four significant digits), is much more difficult and requires a rather high precision of numerical integration of the TOV equations.

In what follows, we restrict ourselves to the case of the absolute upper bound on $`x_\mathrm{s}`$, obtained for neutron star models with no crust. Inserting the value of $`x_{\mathrm{s},\mathrm{max}}`$ into Eq. (4) we get

$$\left(P_{\mathrm{min}}^{\mathrm{CL}}\right)_{\mathrm{e}.\mathrm{f}.}=0.1997\frac{M_{\mathrm{obs}}^{\mathrm{max}}}{\mathrm{M}_{}}\mathrm{ms}.$$
(5)   
Current lower bound on $`P`$, resulting from the above equation, is thus $`0.288`$ms, which is only 2% higher than the result of extensive exact numerical calculations of Koranda et al. (1997).

The formula (5) deserves an additional comment. In numerical calculations, of a family of stable uniformly rotating stellar models, for a given EOS of dense matter, one has to distinguish between the rotating configuration of maximum mass, which corresponds to the rotation frequency $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_{\mathrm{max}}}(\mathrm{EOS})`$, and the maximally rotating one, which rotates at $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}(\mathrm{EOS})`$ (Cook et al. 1994, Stergioulas & Friedman 1995). Notice, that determination of a maximum mass rotating configuration (and therefore of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_{\mathrm{max}}}`$) is a much simpler task than the calculation of exact value of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}`$, which is time consuming and very demanding as far as the precision of numerical calculations is concerned. Usually, both configurations are very close to each other, and $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}`$ is typically only 1-2% higher than $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_{\mathrm{max}}}`$; such a small difference is within the typical precision of the empirical formulae for $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{\mathrm{max}}`$. Actually, the formula for $`𝒞(x_\mathrm{s})`$, Eq. (3), was fitted to the values of $`\mathrm{\Omega }_{M_{\mathrm{max}}}(\mathrm{EOS})`$ calculated in (Salgado et al. 1994a,b). Therefore, Eq.(5) should in principle be used to evaluate the causal lower bound to $`P_{\mathrm{min},M_{\mathrm{max}}}`$; it actually reproduces, within 0.2%, the exact formula for this quantity, obtained by Koranda et al. (1997) \[see their Eq. (8)\].

It should be stressed that Eq. (5) results from an extrapolation of the empirical formula of Lasota et al. (1996). General experience shows that - in contrast to interpolation - extrapolation is a risky procedure. The fact that in our case extrapolation of an empirical formula yields - within 2% - the value of $`P_{\mathrm{min}}`$ of Koranda et al. (1997) (and reproduces their value of $`P_{\mathrm{min},M_{\mathrm{max}}}`$), proves the usefulness of compact “empirical expressions” which might summarize, in a quantitative way, a relevant content of extensive numerical calculations of uniformly rotating neutron star models.

* This research was partially supported by the KBN grant No. 2P03D.014.13. During his stay at DARC, P. Haensel was supported by the PAST Professorship of French MENESRT.