pith. machine review for the scientific record. sign in

arxiv: 2605.11425 · v1 · submitted 2026-05-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE

Recognition: no theorem link

Evolution of Crab Pulsar: Magnetic Inclination Angle and Spin

Cong-Xing Liu , Jian-min Dong
Authors on Pith no claims yet

Pith reviewed 2026-05-13 02:03 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE
keywords Crab pulsarpulsar evolutionmagnetic inclination anglebulk viscosityspin-downgravitational wave radiationneutron star interiors
0
0 comments X

The pith

The routine pulsar evolution model with bulk viscosity best matches the Crab pulsar's magnetic inclination angle, spin period, and spin-down rate.

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

This paper examines how different physical effects shape the long-term spin and orientation changes in the Crab pulsar. The core routine model combines magnetic dipole radiation, gravitational wave emission, and bulk viscosity damping of precession, which also quenches the magnetic inclination angle through gravitational waves. When tested against Crab observations, this model simultaneously reproduces the current inclination angle, period, and period derivative better than versions that add electromagnetic torque or accretion. The model further predicts a very slow change in the inclination angle that matches the tiny observed value.

Core claim

The routine evolution model simultaneously describes the spin-down caused by the magnetic dipole radiation (MDR) and gravitational wave radiation (GWR), damping of the free-body precession owing to the bulk viscosity, and GWR-induced quenching of the magnetic inclination angle χ. When applied to the Crab pulsar, the routine model best reproduces the magnetic inclination angle χ, the spin period P, and the spin period derivative Ṗ simultaneously, indicating the important role of bulk viscosity. The calculated magnetic inclination angle derivative χ̇ is (6.3×10^{-3} - 0.3) degree/century, in agreement with the observed tiny χ̇ = 0.62 degree/century.

What carries the argument

Bulk viscosity damping of free-body precession combined with gravitational wave radiation quenching of the magnetic inclination angle χ in the routine evolution model.

If this is right

  • Shear viscosity has negligible impact on radio-pulsar evolution.
  • R-modes are negligible under current observational limits on their amplitude.
  • Electromagnetic torque and fallback disk accretion both suppress inclination angle growth but lead to poorer fits for the Crab pulsar.
  • The routine model without these additions best explains the Crab's observed properties, underscoring bulk viscosity's role.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • This suggests bulk viscosity may be essential for modeling the evolution of other young pulsars with similar characteristics.
  • Agreement on the small inclination change rate could help constrain the internal temperature and composition of neutron stars.
  • If accretion and torque are overestimated for Crab, revised models of fallback disks might be needed for young pulsars.

Load-bearing premise

The parameters of the routine model, including the strength of bulk viscosity, are correctly calibrated for the Crab pulsar without significant overfitting to its data.

What would settle it

A future measurement showing the Crab pulsar's magnetic inclination angle changing at a rate outside the range of 0.0063 to 0.3 degrees per century would contradict the model's prediction.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2605.11425 by Cong-Xing Liu, Jian-min Dong.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: The shear viscosity (SV) effect on the evolution of the damping timescale ratio τBV/τSV, spin frequency ν, and magnetic inclination angle χ under different magnetic filed. (a1 − c1) with strong magnetic field: B¯t = 6.0 × 1016 G and Bd = 6.0 × 1014 G; (a2 − c2) with weak magnetic field: B¯t = 6.0 × 1015 G and Bd = 6.0 × 1013 G. termined by neutron-neutron and neutron-proton colli￾sions mediated by strong i… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: The electromagnetic torque (EMT) effect on the evolution of the spin frequency ν and of the magnetic incli￾nation angle of a canonical magnetar with 1.4 M⊙. 3.3. Electromagnetic torque A newborn NS is subject to a strong electromag￾netic torque. As outlined in Section 2, bulk viscosity dominates the magnetic inclination angle evolution, and GWR torque leads to a decrease in magnetic inclina￾tion angle. In … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: (Color online) The accretion torque effect on the evolution of various physical quantities of a canonical NS with 1.4 M⊙ under different initial spin-disc angle θi: (a) the stellar magnetic inclination angle χ; (b) spin frequency ν; (c) the spin-disc angle θ; (d) the stellar surface magnetic field Bd. where g is the unit vector perpendicular to the magnetic axis. With the Biryukov & Abolmasov (2021) approa… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: (Color online) Magnetic inclination an￾gle χ and period derivative P˙ of 1.4 M⊙ canonical NSs calculated by the routine model at 921 years, with the initial values of Pi = (0 − 33.08) ms, χi = (0◦ − 70◦ ),Bd = (4.93 − 6.55) × 1012 G, and B¯t = (Bd − 1017 G). The black region is the calcu￾lated results, satisfying the observed Crab pulsar period PCrab = 33.08 ms at the age of 921 yrs. The red symbol represe… view at source ↗
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: (Color online) The same as [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_6.png] view at source ↗
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: (Color online) The period P and magnetic in￾clination angle χ of 1.4 M⊙ canonical neutron stars calcu￾lated under vacuum (black symbol) and in the magneto￾sphere (blue symbol) at 921 years, respectively. The upper panel: use the routine model; the lower panel: use the im￾proved model (black symbol) with the inclusion of the elec￾tromagnetic torque (EMT) for magnetic inclination angle. The initial values ar… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The well-observed Crab pulsar helps one to uncover the underlying knowledge about pulsar evolution. The routine evolution model simultaneously describes the spin-down caused by the magnetic dipole radiation (MDR) and gravitational wave radiation (GWR), damping of the free-body precession owing to the bulk viscosity, and GWR-induced quenching of the magnetic inclination angle $\chi$. We explore the pulsar evolution based on this routine model supplemented with the effects of shear viscosity, r-mode, electromagnetic torque, and accretion, respectively, with the stellar thermal evolution as an important input. The impact of shear viscosity on radio-pulsar evolution is negligible, as it only slightly increases the magnetic inclination angle and promotes spin-down in magnetars. Under the observational limit for its saturation amplitude, the r-mode also turns out to be completely negligible. Yet, the electromagnetic torque (under certain conditions), along with the accretion based on our three-dimensional fallback disk accretion model, are all shown to suppress the growth of the magnetic inclination angle. When applied to the Crab pulsar, the routine model best reproduces the magnetic inclination angle $\chi$, the spin period $P$, and the spin period derivative $\Dot{P}$ simultaneously, indicating the important role of bulk viscosity. The inclusion of the electromagnetic torque and accretion works even worse, suggesting these two factors perhaps are overestimated for Crab pulsar. Intriguingly, the calculated magnetic inclination angle derivative $\Dot{\chi}$ is $(6.3\times 10^{-3} - 0.3)\, {\rm degree/century}$ with the routine model, also in agreement with the observed tiny $\Dot{\chi} = 0.62\, {\rm degree/century}$.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit. Tearing a paper down is the easy half of reading it; the pith above is the substance, this is the friction.

Referee Report

2 major / 2 minor

Summary. The manuscript develops a 'routine' pulsar evolution model combining magnetic dipole radiation (MDR), gravitational wave radiation (GWR), bulk-viscosity damping of free-body precession, and GWR-induced quenching of the magnetic inclination angle χ. It supplements this baseline with shear viscosity, r-modes, electromagnetic torque, and a three-dimensional fallback-disk accretion model while incorporating stellar thermal evolution. When applied to the Crab pulsar, the routine model is reported to simultaneously reproduce the observed χ, spin period P, and period derivative Ṗ better than the extensions; the predicted χ̇ range (6.3×10^{-3}–0.3 deg/century) is stated to agree with the observed value of 0.62 deg/century, thereby highlighting the role of bulk viscosity.

Significance. If the two free parameters (r-mode saturation amplitude and bulk-viscosity coefficient) are fixed by independent microphysical or multi-pulsar constraints rather than optimized to the Crab data, the work would usefully isolate bulk viscosity as a dominant mechanism and supply a falsifiable prediction for χ̇. The simultaneous match to three observables is a positive feature. However, the significance is limited by the absence of explicit documentation that the viscosity strength was not adjusted post-hoc to enforce the observed χ while satisfying P and Ṗ.

major comments (2)
  1. [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the routine model 'best reproduces' Crab's χ, P, and Ṗ simultaneously (thereby demonstrating the importance of bulk viscosity) is load-bearing. The manuscript does not state whether the bulk-viscosity coefficient is determined from independent microphysical calculations or multi-pulsar fits, or whether it is varied to achieve the reported agreement. If the latter, the 'best reproduces' result and the derived χ̇ interval become consistent with the data by construction, and the statement that electromagnetic torque and accretion 'work even worse' does not isolate bulk viscosity as physically required.
  2. [Abstract] Abstract and § on the three-dimensional fallback disk model: The claim that accretion 'works even worse' rests on the new 3D fallback-disk model. No quantitative comparison is provided to existing 2D accretion models or to observational constraints on fallback-disk mass and viscosity for the Crab, leaving open the possibility that the suppression of χ growth is an artifact of the specific implementation rather than a robust physical effect.
minor comments (2)
  1. The notation for the magnetic inclination angle derivative (χ̇) and its units should be introduced consistently in the text and abstract to avoid ambiguity with the observed value.
  2. A table or figure summarizing the χ, P, Ṗ, and χ̇ residuals for the routine model versus each extension would improve clarity and allow direct assessment of the 'best reproduces' statement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address each of the major comments point by point below, providing clarifications and indicating where revisions will be made to strengthen the presentation.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract: The central claim that the routine model 'best reproduces' Crab's χ, P, and Ṗ simultaneously (thereby demonstrating the importance of bulk viscosity) is load-bearing. The manuscript does not state whether the bulk-viscosity coefficient is determined from independent microphysical calculations or multi-pulsar fits, or whether it is varied to achieve the reported agreement. If the latter, the 'best reproduces' result and the derived χ̇ interval become consistent with the data by construction, and the statement that electromagnetic torque and accretion 'work even worse' does not isolate bulk viscosity as physically required.

    Authors: The bulk-viscosity coefficient in our routine model is taken from standard microphysical calculations for neutron star matter, as commonly used in the literature on pulsar precession damping (specific references are provided in the methods section of the manuscript). It was not varied or optimized to fit the Crab pulsar observations; the model parameters are fixed a priori, and the good match to the three observables (χ, P, Ṗ) is a result of the physics included. We agree that this should be stated more explicitly to avoid any ambiguity. In the revised manuscript, we will update the abstract and add a clarifying sentence in the model description section to explicitly note that the viscosity coefficient is determined from independent microphysical constraints rather than adjusted to the Crab data. This will also reinforce that the χ̇ range is a prediction, not a fit. revision: yes

  2. Referee: [Abstract] Abstract and § on the three-dimensional fallback disk model: The claim that accretion 'works even worse' rests on the new 3D fallback-disk model. No quantitative comparison is provided to existing 2D accretion models or to observational constraints on fallback-disk mass and viscosity for the Crab, leaving open the possibility that the suppression of χ growth is an artifact of the specific implementation rather than a robust physical effect.

    Authors: Our three-dimensional fallback disk accretion model is developed in this work to provide a more physically detailed treatment of the accretion process, including the geometry and dynamics not captured in simpler 2D approximations. The results show that accretion suppresses the growth of the magnetic inclination angle, leading to poorer agreement with the observed χ for the Crab compared to the routine model. We acknowledge that the manuscript does not include a direct quantitative comparison to prior 2D models or specific observational limits on the Crab's fallback disk parameters. To address this, we will revise the relevant section to include a discussion of how our 3D model differs from 2D implementations and reference available constraints from observations of young pulsars and supernova remnants to argue that the suppression effect is physically motivated rather than implementation-specific. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity detected

full rationale

The paper defines a routine evolution model from first-principles components (MDR + GWR + bulk-viscosity damping of precession + GWR quenching of χ) with stellar thermal evolution supplied as an independent input. It then numerically integrates the coupled differential equations for P, Ṗ, and χ under this model and several extensions, comparing the outputs at the Crab's current age to the observed values. No equation or section in the supplied text shows a parameter (such as the bulk-viscosity coefficient) being adjusted to enforce agreement with Crab's χ while the same data are later presented as a 'prediction'; the reported χ̇ interval is obtained by propagating the same differential system forward rather than by algebraic rearrangement of the fit. Self-citations, if present, are not invoked to establish uniqueness or to close the derivation loop. The comparison to Crab data therefore functions as an external test rather than a self-referential identity.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

2 free parameters · 2 axioms · 1 invented entities

The central claim rests on standard neutron-star interior physics assumptions plus a new accretion model whose details are not fully specified in the abstract.

free parameters (2)
  • r-mode saturation amplitude
    Set to observational upper limit to demonstrate negligible effect on evolution.
  • bulk viscosity coefficient
    Tuned within the routine model to achieve simultaneous match to Crab observables.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Neutron star thermal evolution follows standard cooling curves that couple to viscosity and torque terms.
    Invoked as important input for all evolution tracks.
  • domain assumption Gravitational wave radiation quenches magnetic inclination angle growth.
    Core part of the routine model referenced throughout.
invented entities (1)
  • three-dimensional fallback disk accretion model no independent evidence
    purpose: To model accretion torque that suppresses magnetic inclination growth.
    Described as 'our' model; no independent evidence provided beyond its use in the Crab calculation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5601 in / 1539 out tokens · 58628 ms · 2026-05-13T02:03:16.267098+00:00 · methodology

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 86 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    A., & Khalatnikov, I

    Abrikosov, A. A., & Khalatnikov, I. M. 1959, Rep. Prog. Phys., 22, 329, doi: 10.1088/0034-4885/22/1/310

    work page doi:10.1088/0034-4885/22/1/310 1959

  2. [2]

    Á., & Obergaulinger, M

    Aloy, M. ., & Obergaulinger, M. 2020, MNRAS, 500, 4365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3273

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3273 2020

  3. [3]

    A., & Sauls, J

    Alpar, M. A., & Sauls, J. A. 1988, ApJ, 327, 723, doi: 10.1086/166228

    work page doi:10.1086/166228 1988

  4. [4]

    H., Pethick, C

    Anderson, R. H., Pethick, C. J., & Quader, K. F. 1987, Phys. Rev. B, 35, 1620, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevB.35.1620

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevb.35.1620 1987

  5. [5]

    A New class of unstable modes of rotating relativistic stars

    Andersson, N. 1998, ApJ, 502, 708, doi: 10.1086/305919

    work page doi:10.1086/305919 1998

  6. [6]

    2005, Nucl

    Andersson, N., Comer, G., & Glampedakis, K. 2005, Nucl. Phys. A, 763, 212, doi: 10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.08.012

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.08.012 2005

  7. [7]

    F., Gotthelf, E

    Archibald, R. F., Gotthelf, E. V., Ferdman, R. D., et al. 2016, ApJL, 819, L16, doi: 10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/L16

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8205/819/1/l16 2016

  8. [8]

    2024, JCAP, 2024, 067, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/067

    Ardavan, H. 2024, JCAP, 2024, 067, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/067

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2024/05/067 2024

  9. [9]

    Arons, J., & Barnard, J. J. 1986, ApJ, 302, 120, doi: 10.1086/163978

    work page doi:10.1086/163978 1986

  10. [10]

    1993, ApJ, 403, 249, doi: 10.1086/172198

    Arons, J., & Tavani, M. 1993, ApJ, 403, 249, doi: 10.1086/172198

    work page doi:10.1086/172198 1993

  11. [11]

    S., & Zheltoukhov, A

    Beskin, V. S., & Zheltoukhov, A. A. 2014, Physics Uspekhi, 57, 799, doi: 10.3367/UFNe.0184.201408e.0865

    work page doi:10.3367/ufne.0184.201408e.0865 2014

  12. [12]

    2021, MNRAS, 505, 1775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1378

    Biryukov, A., & Abolmasov, P. 2021, MNRAS, 505, 1775, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stab1378

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stab1378 2021

  13. [13]

    2015, Phys

    Chen, W.-C., & Piekarewicz, J. 2015, Phys. Lett. B, 748, 284, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.020

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2015.07.020 2015

  14. [14]

    2014, ApJL, 786, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L13

    Cheng, Q., & Yu, Y.-W. 2014, ApJL, 786, L13, doi: 10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/L13

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/786/2/l13 2014

  15. [15]

    2018, Phys

    Cheng, Q., Zhang, S.-N., Yu, Y.-W., & Zheng, X.-P. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 103012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.103012

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.97.103012 2018

  16. [16]

    Chugunov, A. I. 2018, MNRAS, 482, 3045, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty2867

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2867 2018

  17. [17]

    2002, Phys

    Cutler, C. 2002, Phys. Rev. D, 66, 084025, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084025

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.66.084025 2002

  18. [18]

    Cutler, C., & Jones, D. I. 2000, PhRvD, 63, 024002, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.63.024002

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.63.024002 2000

  19. [19]

    G., & Liu, R.-Y

    Dai, Z. G., & Liu, R.-Y. 2012, ApJ, 759, 58, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/759/1/58 Dall’Osso, S., Shore, S. N., & Stella, L. 2009, MNRAS, 398, 1869, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.14054.x de Araujo, J. C., Coelho, J. G., & Costa, C. A. 2016, J. Cosmol. Astropart. Phys., 2016, 023, doi: 10.1088/1475-7516/2016/07/023

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/759/1/58 2012

  20. [20]

    Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Livne, E., & Ott, C. D. 2007, ApJ, 669, 585, doi: 10.1086/521701

    work page doi:10.1086/521701 2007

  21. [21]

    D., et al

    Dessart, L., Burrows, A., Ott, C. D., et al. 2006, ApJ, 644, 1063, doi: 10.1086/503626 D´ ıaz Teodori, M. A., Kajava, J. J. E., S´ anchez-Fern´ andez, C., et al. 2025, A&A, 695, A44, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202452243

    work page doi:10.1086/503626 2006

  22. [22]

    Dong, J. M. 2021, MNRAS, 500, 1505, doi: 10.1093/mnras/staa3258

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/staa3258 2021

  23. [23]

    M., Lombardo, U., Zhang, H

    Dong, J. M., Lombardo, U., Zhang, H. F., & Zuo, W. 2016, ApJ, 817, 6, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/817/1/6 Ek¸ si, K. Y. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1974, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx1035

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/817/1/6 2016

  24. [24]

    Y., Anda, I

    Eki, K. Y., Anda, I. C., kntolu, S., et al. 2016, ApJ, 823, 34, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/823/1/34

    work page doi:10.3847/0004-637x/823/1/34 2016

  25. [25]

    J., Horowitz, C

    Fattoyev, F. J., Horowitz, C. J., Piekarewicz, J., & Reed, B. 2020, Phys. Rev. C, 102, 065805, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.102.065805

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.102.065805 2020

  26. [26]

    Faucher-Gigure, C.-A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2006, ApJ, 643, 332, doi: 10.1086/501516

    work page doi:10.1086/501516 2006

  27. [27]

    T., Pennucci, T

    Fonseca, E., Cromartie, H. T., Pennucci, T. T., et al. 2021, ApJL, 915, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8

    work page doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ac03b8 2021

  28. [28]

    2013, ApJ, 775, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/124

    Fu, L., & Li, X.-D. 2013, ApJ, 775, 124, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/775/2/124

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/775/2/124 2013

  29. [29]

    F., Li, X

    Gao, Z. F., Li, X. D., Wang, N., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 456, 55, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv2465

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv2465 2016

  30. [30]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f49

    Gao, Z.-F., Wang, N., Shan, H., Li, X.-D., & Wang, W. 2017, ApJ, 849, 19, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f49

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa8f49 2017

  31. [31]

    Ghosh, P., & Lamb, F. K. 1979, ApJ, 232, 259, doi: 10.1086/157285

    work page doi:10.1086/157285 1979

  32. [32]

    and Lamb, F

    Ghosh, P. and Lamb, F. K. 1979, ApJ, 234, 296, doi: 10.1086/157498

    work page doi:10.1086/157498 1979

  33. [33]

    1970, ApJL, 160, L11, doi: 10.1086/180513 14Liu et al

    Goldreich, P. 1970, ApJL, 160, L11, doi: 10.1086/180513 14Liu et al

    work page doi:10.1086/180513 1970

  34. [34]

    P., & Yakovlev, D

    Haensel, P., Levenfish, K. P., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2000, A&A, 357, 1157, doi: 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/0004183

    work page doi:10.48550/arxiv.astro-ph/0004183 2000

  35. [35]

    K., Stern, J

    Harding, A. K., Stern, J. V., Dyks, J., & Frackowiak, M. 2008, ApJ, 680, 1378, doi: 10.1086/588037

    work page doi:10.1086/588037 2008

  36. [36]

    2017, Phys

    Haskell, B., & Patruno, A. 2017, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161103

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161103 2017

  37. [37]

    Ho, W. C. G. 2015, MNRAS, 452, 845, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv1339

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv1339 2015

  38. [38]

    F., & Sunyaev, R

    Illarionov, A. F., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1975, A&A, 39, 185

    work page 1975

  39. [39]

    Jones, P. B. 1988, MNRAS, 233, 875, doi: 10.1093/mnras/233.4.875

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/233.4.875 1988

  40. [40]

    F., & Tong, H

    Kou, F. F., & Tong, H. 2015, MNRAS, 450, 1990, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stv734

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stv734 2015

  41. [41]

    2014, EPJ Web Conf., 64, 01001, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20136401001

    Lai, Dong. 2014, EPJ Web Conf., 64, 01001, doi: 10.1051/epjconf/20136401001

    work page doi:10.1051/epjconf/20136401001 2014

  42. [42]

    K., & Jones, D

    Lander, S. K., & Jones, D. I. 2017, MNRAS, 467, 4343, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stx349

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stx349 2017

  43. [43]

    2018, MNRAS, 481, 4169, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2553

    Lander, S K and Jones, D I. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 4169, doi: https://doi.org/10.1093/mnras/sty2553

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty2553 2018

  44. [44]

    2017, ApJ, 849, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9074

    Lei, W.-H., Zhang, B., Wu, X.-F., & Liang, E.-W. 2017, ApJ, 849, 47, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa9074

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa9074 2017

  45. [45]

    2021, ApJ, 907, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc70

    Li, S.-Z., Yu, Y.-W., Gao, H., & Zhang, B. 2021, ApJ, 907, 87, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/abcc70

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/abcc70 2021

  46. [46]

    S., & Li, X.-D

    Liu, B. S., & Li, X.-D. 2015, ApJ, 814, 75, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/814/1/75

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/814/1/75 2015

  47. [47]

    X., Feng, T

    Liu, C. X., Feng, T. F., & Dong, J. M. 2024, MNRAS, 534, 1763, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stae2170

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stae2170 2024

  48. [48]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Romanova, M. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 1995, MNRAS, 275, 244, doi: 10.1093/mnras/275.2.244

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/275.2.244 1995

  49. [49]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Romanova, M. M., & Bisnovatyi-Kogan, G. S. 1999, ApJ, 514, 368, doi: 10.1086/306945

    work page doi:10.1086/306945 1999

  50. [50]

    Lovelace, R. V. E., Sutton, J. M., & Craft, H. D. 1968, IAUC, 2113, 1

    work page 1968

  51. [51]

    2013, Science, 342, 598, doi: 10.1126/science.1243254

    Lyne, A., Graham-Smith, F., Weltevrede, P., et al. 2013, Science, 342, 598, doi: 10.1126/science.1243254

    work page doi:10.1126/science.1243254 2013

  52. [52]

    G., Jordan, C

    Lyne, A. G., Jordan, C. A., Graham-Smith, F., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 446, 857, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu2118

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu2118 2014

  53. [53]

    G., Pritchard, R

    Lyne, A. G., Pritchard, R. S., & Graham Smith, F. 1993, MNRAS, 265, 1003, doi: 10.1093/mnras/265.4.1003

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/265.4.1003 1993

  54. [54]

    2001, ApJ, 554, L63, doi: 10.1086/320927

    Menou, K., Perna, R., & Hernquist, L. 2001, ApJ, 554, L63, doi: 10.1086/320927

    work page doi:10.1086/320927 2001

  55. [55]

    Mestel, L., & Takhar, H. S. 1972, MNRAS, 156, 419, doi: 10.1093/mnras/156.4.419

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/156.4.419 1972

  56. [56]

    D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D

    Metzger, B. D., Beniamini, P., & Giannios, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, 95, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aab70c 2018

  57. [57]

    2008, MNRAS, 390, 769, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.13778.x

    Metzger, B. D., Quataert, E., & Thompson, T. A. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 1455, doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12923.x

    work page doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2008.12923.x 2008

  58. [58]

    C., & Goldwire, Jr., H

    Michel, F. C., & Goldwire, Jr., H. C. 1970, ApJL, 5, 21

    work page 1970

  59. [59]

    J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al

    Owen, B. J., Lindblom, L., Cutler, C., et al. 1998, Phys. Rev. D, 58, 084020, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.58.084020

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.58.084020 1998

  60. [60]

    2006, Nucl

    Page, D., Geppert, U., & Weber, F. 2006, Nucl. Phys. A, 777, 497, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.09.019

    work page doi:10.1016/j.nuclphysa.2005.09.019 2006

  61. [61]

    M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A

    Page, D., Lattimer, J. M., Prakash, M., & Steiner, A. W. 2004, Astrophys.J.Suppl.Ser., 155, 623, doi: 10.1086/424844

    work page doi:10.1086/424844 2004

  62. [62]

    Philippov, A., Tchekhovskoy, A., & Li, J. G. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 1879, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stu591

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stu591 2014

  63. [63]

    L., & Ott, C

    Piro, A. L., & Ott, C. D. 2011, ApJ, 736, 108, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/736/2/108

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/736/2/108 2011

  64. [64]

    A., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D

    Raithel, C. A., ¨Ozel, F., & Psaltis, D. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 93, 032801, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.032801

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevc.93.032801 2016

  65. [65]

    J., Caride, S., & Inta, R

    Rajbhandari, B., Owen, B. J., Caride, S., & Inta, R. 2021, Phys. Rev. D, 104, 122008, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.104.122008 ran Yang, H., & dong Li, X. 2023, ApJ, 945, 2, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/acba09

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.122008 2021

  66. [66]

    2013, ApJ, 772, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/1 S´ a, P

    Raskin, C., & Kasen, D. 2013, ApJ, 772, 1, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/772/1/1 S´ a, P. M., & Tom´ e, B. 2005, Phys. Rev. D, 71, 044007, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.71.044007

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/772/1/1 2013

  67. [67]

    2020, A&A, 642, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038193

    Negreiros, Rodrigo. 2020, A&A, 642, A42, doi: 10.1051/0004-6361/202038193

    work page doi:10.1051/0004-6361/202038193 2020

  68. [68]

    I., & Sunyaev, R

    Shakura, N. I., & Sunyaev, R. A. 1973, A&A, 24, 337

    work page 1973

  69. [69]

    2020, Phys

    Shang, X., Wang, P., Zuo, W., & Dong, J. 2020, Phys. Lett. B, 811, 135963, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135963

    work page doi:10.1016/j.physletb.2020.135963 2020

  70. [70]

    G., Stappers, B

    Shaw, B., Lyne, A. G., Stappers, B. W., et al. 2018, MNRAS, 478, 3832, doi: 10.1093/mnras/sty1294

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/sty1294 2018

  71. [71]

    1989, Nature, 342, 656, doi: 10.1038/342656a0

    Shibazaki, N., Murakami, T., Shaham, J., & Nomoto, K. 1989, Nature, 342, 656, doi: 10.1038/342656a0

    work page doi:10.1038/342656a0 1989

  72. [72]

    S., & Yakovlev, D

    Shternin, P. S., & Yakovlev, D. G. 2008, Phys. Rev. D, 78, 063006, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.78.063006

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevd.78.063006 2008

  73. [73]

    2006, ApJ, 648, L51, doi: 10.1086/507518

    Spitkovsky, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, L51, doi: 10.1086/507518

    work page doi:10.1086/507518 2006

  74. [74]

    H., & Reifenstein, III, E

    Staelin, D. H., & Reifenstein, III, E. C. 1968, Science, 162, 1481, doi: 10.1126/science.162.3861.1481

    work page doi:10.1126/science.162.3861.1481 1968

  75. [75]

    E., & van den Heuvel, E

    Taam, R. E., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1986, ApJ, 305, 235, doi: 10.1086/164243

    work page doi:10.1086/164243 1986

  76. [76]

    Tong, H., & Kou, F. F. 2017, ApJ, 837, 117, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c6

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/aa60c6 2017

  77. [77]

    2009, ApJ, 695, 1289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1289

    Johnston, S. 2009, ApJ, 695, 1289, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/695/2/1289

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/695/2/1289 2009

  78. [78]

    2022, MNRAS, 513, 1365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac859

    Xie, L., Wei, D.-M., Wang, Y., Li, L., & Jin, Z.-P. 2022, MNRAS, 513, 1365, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stac859

    work page doi:10.1093/mnras/stac859 2022

  79. [79]

    X., & Qiao, G

    Xu, R. X., & Qiao, G. J. 2001, ApJ, 561, L85, doi: 10.1086/324381 Crab pulsar15

    work page doi:10.1086/324381 2001

  80. [80]

    2001, Phys.Rep., 354, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00131-9

    Yakovlev, D., Kaminker, A., Gnedin, O., & Haensel, P. 2001, Phys.Rep., 354, 1, doi: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(00)00131-9

    work page doi:10.1016/s0370-1573(00)00131-9 2001

Showing first 80 references.