AG-2025.11-1091·nucl-th·cross-listed: hep-ph
Implication of multimessenger observations on the relativistic mean-field equation of state of dense nuclear matter and skin thickness of nuclei
Authors
- Rahul Kumar
- Prasanta Char
- Rana Nandi
Abstract
The composition and properties of infinite nuclear matter under extreme conditions of temperature and pressure remain incompletely understood. In this work, we constrain the equation of state (EoS) of nuclear matter - constructed within the framework of the Relativistic Mean Field (RMF) model - by combining results from chiral effective field theory and multimessenger observations of neutron stars. Using the saturation properties of nuclear matter, we generate a wide ensemble of EoS, which are subsequently constrained within a Bayesian framework. The resulting posterior distributions provide tight bounds on both the saturation parameters and the coupling constants of the RMF model. Our results indicate that the GW170817 event and the latest NICER observation favor a relatively soft EoS, leading to lower crust-core transition densities and thinner neutron star crusts. The radius of a $1.4\,M_\odot$ neutron star is tightly constrained to $12.508_{-0.241}^{+0.257}$ km, while the maximum mass reaches $2.174_{-0.123}^{+0.174}\,M_\odot$. Furthermore, our analysis reveals that the $ω$-$ρ$ coupling, which governs the density dependence of the symmetry energy, becomes increasingly significant under successive astrophysical constraints. Finally, the predicted neutron skin thickness of $^{48}$Ca agrees well with the CREX measurement, whereas that of $^{208}$Pb remains in tension with PREX-II. In contrast to earlier studies, we do not observe a clear correlation between the neutron skin thickness of $^{208}$Pb and the symmetry energy slope parameter $L$.
Submitted
1 November 20256 months ago
Version
v1
License
CC-BY-4.0
DOI
10.48550/arXiv.2511.00646
Chat with this PDF
Ask questions, probe assumptions, request a plain-English summary. Answers cite sections from the preprint itself.
Community
Questions and answers about this paper from other readers. No formal peer review — just a place to think out loud.