Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 3 cited by

Blast Waves from Magnetar Flares and Fast Radio Bursts

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that a blast wave driven by a magnetar flare into its own cold wind can emit a millisecond GHz radio burst that survives induced scattering, with linear polarization fixed by the rotation axis.

desk verdict Solid theory paper with a real soft spot: the induced-scattering survival claim rests on derivations deferred to 'elsewhere,' and that needs to be fixed before the central claim is fully load-bearing. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.07743 v2 pith:QVTYABPK submitted 2019-08-21 astro-ph.HE

Andrei M. Beloborodov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords fastradioburstsmagnetarsmagnetargiantflaresblastwavesshockmaserwindinducedComptonscatteringFRB121102
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish that fast radio bursts can be produced by the blast waves that giant magnetar flares drive into the magnetar's own relativistic wind. It shows that a shock moving through the cold, magnetized electron-positron wind acts as a maser, and that the resulting GHz burst survives induced Compton scattering, lasts under a millisecond in observer time, drifts downward in frequency, and comes out linearly polarized along the rotation axis. If right, this gives one physical engine for repeating fast radio bursts, connecting their millisecond durations, repetition, and polarization to a single mechanism. It also predicts optical flashes when a blast wave runs into the debris of an earlier flare.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the shock maser. At the blast wave in a strongly magnetized wind, the upstream electron-positron plasma arrives in the blast frame as a cold beam with Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{\rm rel}\approx\Gamma/2\Gamma_w$ and begins to gyrate; this ring in momentum space is unstable to bunching and radiates semi-coherent electromagnetic waves near the Larmor frequency, mostly in the extraordinary mode. Only waves emitted within a narrow cone $\sin\theta<\sigma_w^{-1/2}$ ahead of the shock escape, giving Doppler factor $D\approx 2\Gamma$ and a GHz peak $\nu_{\rm peak}=(\xi/\pi)(e/m_ec)(L_w/cr^2)^{1/2}\,\Gamma/\Gamma_w$. The same machinery sets the efficiency $\epsilon\sim 10^{-3}/\sigma_w$ and the induced-scattering survival condition $\eta>50$, so it simultaneously determines the burst's spectrum, luminosity, polarization, and whether it can escape.

What would settle it

Measure, for a repeating fast radio burst with a known host and rotation measure, the polarization angle across many bursts and the frequency-time drift in single high-resolution bursts: the model predicts a constant intrinsic polarization angle after Faraday correction and a strictly downward drift with $\nu_{\rm peak}\propto t_{\rm obs}^{-1}$ then $\propto t_{\rm obs}^{-3/4}$, with GHz durations below about 1 ms. Observing significant circular polarization, rotation of the polarization angle between bursts, or an upward spectral drift would falsify the central claim.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

At the center of the paper is a single engine: a giant flare on a young magnetar ejects an ultra-relativistic magnetic plasmoid, which drives a blast wave through the magnetar's own cold, helical-B wind. At radii near $r\sim 10^{14}$ cm the shock runs with Lorentz factor $\Gamma_{\rm sh}\gtrsim 10^4$, and the Larmor-mediated shock transition acts as a maser that converts a small fraction of the dissipated energy into coherent radio waves. The paper claims these waves emerge at GHz frequencies in observer time $\lesssim 1$ ms, survive induced Compton scattering for wind energies per particle $\eta\gtrsim 50$, possess linear polarization tied to the rotation axis, and sweep downward in frequency as the blast decelerates. This is presented as a working explanation of repeating fast radio bursts such as FRB 121102.

Load-bearing premise

The engine requires that the wind ahead of the flare be cold, fast, and magnetically dominated, with energy per particle rest mass $\eta$ between roughly $10^2$ and $10^4$ and above about 50; this upstream state is estimated from pair-loading arguments rather than measured, and heating or day-timescale ion pollution of the wind would suppress the maser and destroy the burst.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The model predicts GHz bursts with observed durations under about one millisecond and a strictly downward frequency drift, with the drift law changing from $\nu\propto t_{\rm obs}^{-1}$ to $\nu\propto t_{\rm obs}^{-3/4}$ around the deceleration radius.
  • It predicts a constant linear polarization angle across repeated bursts once Faraday rotation is corrected, set by the magnetar's rotation axis.
  • It predicts that induced Compton scattering will not suppress the burst as long as the wind energy-per-rest-mass $\eta$ exceeds roughly 50, which the paper estimates holds for $\eta\sim 10^2$ to $10^4$.
  • It predicts frequent weak bursts and rare strong ones, with a total radio energy budget consistent with repeaters such as FRB 121102.
  • It predicts roughly one-second optical flashes at up to nearly supernova-Ia luminosity when a blast wave strikes the wind bubble left by a previous flare, at a rate far below the fast radio burst rate.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • If the mechanism is right, the same engine can produce both repeating and apparently non-repeating fast radio bursts, because a burst is seen only when the plasmoid is ejected in the direction of the observer inside a narrow beaming cone.
  • The model implies that a young magnetar's burst activity should be intermittent on day timescales: a flare within roughly a day after an ion-ejecting flare encounters polluted, hot wind and should produce no radio burst, so burst rate should anti-correlate with very recent giant-flare activity.
  • The predicted optical-flash channel gives an independent way to discover hyper-active magnetars: all-sky optical transient surveys could catch the short supernova-like flashes even when the radio beam points away from Earth.
  • Measurements of the fixed polarization angle from many bursts of one repeater would let observers reconstruct the magnetar's rotation axis on the sky; deviations from constancy would cleanly separate intrinsic engine properties from propagation effects in the host galaxy.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that giant magnetic flares on young magnetars eject ultra-relativistic magnetic plasmoids, which drive blast waves into the pre-flare rotationally powered e± wind. It argues that the resulting Larmor-mediated shock maser in the cold helical-B zone of the wind produces FRB-like GHz bursts at radii r ~ 10^14 cm with observer-frame durations below 1 ms, linear polarization fixed by the magnetar rotation axis, downward frequency drift, and possible sub-ms periodicity. The paper also derives constraints from induced Compton scattering, predicts optical flashes when a blast wave strikes the tail of a previous flare, compares with the competing Metzger et al. (2019) model, and discusses FRB host-galaxy locations.

Significance. If the model holds, it provides a single coherent engine for important FRB observables: duration, frequency, spectral drift, polarization, repetition, and energetics are derived from one blast-wave scenario rather than fitted to FRB data. The anchoring of the maser efficiency and spectral peak factor to external PIC simulations (Plotnikov & Sironi 2019) is a concrete strength, as is the paper's explicit discussion of parameter uncertainties in the wind power, particle flux, and plasmoid properties. The model makes falsifiable predictions, including a constant polarization position angle set by the spin axis, a frequency-dependent burst duration, and optical flashes in repeaters. Its main weakness is that the induced-scattering survival claim, which is central to the model's distinguishability, is carried by two calculations explicitly deferred to future work.

major comments (3)
  1. [§7.1, Eqs. (104)–(107) and (113)–(115)] The inside-beam induced Compton scattering result is load-bearing for abstract claim (2) and for the η > 50 condition in Eq. (115), but the numerical prefactor α ≈ 3 × 10^-2 is asserted rather than derived, with the derivation deferred to 'elsewhere.' Equation (107) inherits this coefficient through the factor 8α/π, and Eq. (113) directly controls the threshold in Eq. (115). Because the wind parameter range in Eq. (16) is η ~ 10^2–10^4, a factor-of-few change in α could move the threshold across the lower end of that range and invalidate the survival claim exactly in the regime the model needs. The derivation must be supplied, or a published reference provided, before the survival claim is accepted.
  2. [§7.2, Eqs. (116)–(121)] The outside-beam induced scattering condition is also deferred: the text states that 'a detailed calculation, which will be presented elsewhere, confirms the following simple estimate' before Eq. (117). The exponential gain in Eq. (117) and the radius limit in Eq. (121) are used as quantitative constraints, so this is a second load-bearing component of abstract claim (2). Moreover, Section 8.2 concedes that for observationally typical soft FRB spectra the role of outside-beam scattering is 'less certain.' The caveat about nonlinear spectral evolution in Section 7.2 does not replace the missing derivation.
  3. [§4.3 and §8.2] The model requires the pre-explosion wind to be a cold, ultra-relativistic, magnetically dominated e± flow with η > 50; Section 8.2 states that pollution of the wind by slow ion ejecta more often than about once per day would make the model problematic. Because hyper-active magnetars are invoked to flare frequently, the coexistence of frequent flaring and a clean pre-flare wind is a nontrivial assumption, especially for repeaters such as FRB 121102 with episode intervals shorter than a day. The paper acknowledges this tension but does not quantify how often the ion-ejection threshold is exceeded; I regard this as a parameter-sensitivity concern rather than an internal inconsistency.
minor comments (4)
  1. [§3.1, near Eq. (25)] The text says 'Using Equations (22) and (22)' when Equation (25) is evidently intended; please correct the cross-reference.
  2. [§5.3, text after Eq. (66)] The phrase 'The estimate (88) is valid' refers to an equation introduced several sections later; it should refer to Eq. (66) in this section.
  3. [§8.1, item (8)] The statement that 'the predicted spectral slope d ln E_FRB/d ln ν changes from −1 to −2' is ambiguous: Equation (91) gives dE_FRB/d ln ν, so the stated slope appears to describe the energy per unit frequency rather than dE/d ln ν; please clarify the notation.
  4. [§6.5 and §8.1, item (9)] The summary prediction of a constant linear polarization angle is stronger than the body of Section 6.5, which notes that 3D simulations are still needed and that propagation effects may convert linear to circular polarization; the caveat should accompany the summary claim.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular reduction: predictions are derived from stated wind/flare inputs and independent simulation results; deferred induced-scattering calculations are verification gaps, not tautological inputs.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The engine is explicitly conditional: 'Hyper-active magnetars (HAMs) are hypothetical objects,' and the quantitative inputs used throughout (Lw normalized to 10^39 erg/s, particle flux to 10^42 s^-1, eta ~ 10^2-10^4, explosion energy E ~ 10^44 erg, plasmoid thickness Delta ~ 10^7 cm) are adopted as representative magnetar parameters in Sections 2.3 and 4.1, not fitted to FRB observables. The maser peak factor xi and efficiency eps are imported from independent kinetic simulations (Plotnikov & Sironi 2019; Gallant et al. 1992), so the predicted GHz frequency, luminosity, drift, duration, and polarization are calculated consequences rather than restatements of the inputs. Self-citations to Paper I supply the hypothetical HAM/blast-wave scenario, but no FRB property is inserted into the equations and then recovered as a prediction; observational comparisons in Section 8.1 are consistency checks, not calibration. The one genuine evidentiary gap is that the induced-scattering survival claim rests on two calculations deferred to later papers: Section 7.1 says 'The derivation will be given elsewhere, and here we state the results in a simple intuitive form,' and Section 7.2 says 'A detailed calculation, which will be presented elsewhere, confirms the following simple estimate.' If the coefficient alpha or the exponential gain differed by a factor of a few, the threshold in Equation (115) could move substantially. That is an omitted-proof and correctness risk, not a circular reduction, because the deferred coefficients are not chosen to reproduce the paper's conclusion and the rest of the model would still be independently testable against FRB data. Overall, no step in the paper reduces by construction to its own inputs.

Assumptions & free parameters 10 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 3 invented entities

The model is a parameter-rich order-of-magnitude theory. It does not fit the target FRB data; rather, it adopts representative values for the wind power, particle flux, flare energy, plasmoid thickness, and rotation period, and imports the maser efficiency from PIC simulations. The induced-scattering formulas are stated without derivation. The chief postulate, hyper-active magnetars, is explicitly hypothetical. No parameters are fitted to FRB observations, which keeps the circularity burden low but leaves large uncertainties.

free parameters (10)
  • Pre-flare wind power Lw = 1e39 erg/s
    Normalized in Section 2.3; enters blast wave dynamics, FRB luminosity, and frequency through Equations (46), (78), and (85).
  • Pre-flare particle outflow rate Ndot = 1e42 s^-1
    Normalized in Section 2.3; combined with Lw sets eta = Lw/(Ndot me c^2), which controls Gamma_w and sigma_w.
  • Wind energy per unit rest mass eta = 100 to 10000
    Estimated in Equation (16) from uncertain pair-loading; controls Gamma_w, sigma_w, induced-scattering survival, and FRB efficiency.
  • Plasmoid isotropic energy E = 1e44 erg
    Normalized in Section 4.1; sets the blast wave Lorentz factor, deceleration radius, and FRB energy through Equations (46), (47), and (90).
  • Plasmoid thickness parameter tau = Delta/c = 1e-3 s
    Adopted in Section 4.1 with Delta about 1e7 cm; enters the flare power Lf and the transfer radius R_diamond.
  • e± loading product zeta M = implicitly normalized to Ndot ~ 1e42 s^-1
    Appears in Equation (12); the pair multiplicity and geometry product is poorly known and is absorbed into the adopted Ndot.
  • Maser efficiency epsilon = 1e-3 / sigma_w
    Imported from PIC simulations by Plotnikov and Sironi (2019); sets the FRB luminosity and energy spectrum in Equations (87) to (92).
  • Maser spectral peak factor xi = about 3
    Imported from simulations as the ratio of the peak maser frequency to the Larmor frequency in Section 6.3; enters Equation (78).
  • Rotation period P = about 1 s
    Used to normalize the light cylinder radius and the pair-loading rate in Equations (12) to (14); also sets the sub-millisecond periodicity prediction in Section 8.1.
  • Ion ejecta energy Et = greater than 1e44 erg
    Adopted from observations of SGR 1806-20; controls the wind bubble radius and the optical flash scenario in Section 5.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Hyper-active magnetars younger than about one century exist and flare frequently.
    The entire engine is hypothetical; the paper calls HAMs hypothetical in Section 1 and inherits the scenario from Beloborodov and Li (2016) and Paper I with no direct observational confirmation.
  • domain assumption The magnetar wind is force-free with Lorentz factor Gamma_w about 3 eta^(1/3) and magnetization sigma_w about 0.3 eta^(2/3).
    Used throughout Sections 4 and 6; relies on the Michel monopole wind solution and pair-loading estimates that are not directly measured.
  • domain assumption The pre-flare wind has power Lw about 1e39 erg/s and particle flux Ndot about 1e42 s^-1.
    Normalized in Section 2.3 and used for all numerical frequency, luminosity, and survival estimates.
  • domain assumption The shock maser efficiency epsilon about 1e-3 / sigma_w measured in PIC simulations extends to sigma_w values of order tens to hundreds.
    Extrapolated from Plotnikov and Sironi (2019), which simulated sigma up to 30; the present model requires sigma_w of order 10 to 100.
  • ad hoc to paper The induced Compton scattering formulas in Section 7 are correct.
    Equations (102) and (116) are stated as results of derivations that will be given elsewhere, so the paper itself does not provide a checkable derivation.
  • domain assumption Giant flare ion ejecta follow the velocity distribution of Equation (20), with xi about 2 for the homologous tail.
    Used to derive the wind bubble radius in Section 3 and the optical flash in Section 5; based on fallback arguments and SGR 1806-20 observations.
invented entities (3)
  • Hyper-active magnetars (HAMs)
    purpose: Engine population that produces frequent giant flares and blast waves for FRBs.
    No confirmed HAM has been observed; all known magnetars are much older and less active, and the paper explicitly calls HAMs hypothetical.
  • Ultra-relativistic magnetic plasmoid with E about 1e44 erg and thickness Delta about 1e7 cm
    purpose: Piston driving the blast wave into the magnetar wind.
    Motivated by flare simulations and by analogy to solar flares, but not directly observed; the energy and thickness are chosen representative values.
  • Hot wind bubble behind the previous flare's ion tail
    purpose: Target for a later blast wave, producing the predicted bright optical flash.
    Deduced from the wind-ion interaction model in Section 3, not directly observed.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Blast Waves from Magnetar Flares and Fast Radio Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/QVTYABPK

@misc{pith2026190807743,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Blast Waves from Magnetar Flares and Fast Radio Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/QVTYABPK}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.07743}
}
abstract

Magnetars younger than one century are expected to be hyper active. Besides winds powered by rotation they generate frequent magnetic flares, which launch powerful blast waves into the wind. These internal shocks act as masers producing fast (millisecond) radio bursts (FRBs) with the following properties. (1) GHz radio emission occurs at radii $r\sim 10^{14}$ cm and lasts $\lesssim 1$ ms in observer's time. (2) Induced scattering in the surrounding wind does not suppress the radio burst. (3) The emission has linear polarization set by the magnetar rotation axis. (4) The emission drifts to lower frequencies during the burst, and its duration broadens at lower frequencies. (5) Blast waves in inhomogeneous winds may emit variable bursts; periodicity might appear on sub-ms timescales if the magnetar rotates with $\sim 1$ s period. However, the observed FRB structure is likely changed by lensing effects during propagation through the host galaxy. (6) The FRBs from magnetars are expected to repeat, with rare strong bursts (up to $\sim 10^{43}$ erg) or more frequent weak bursts. (7) When a repeating flare strikes the wind bubble in the tail of a previous flare, the FRB turns into a bright optical flash. Its luminosity may approach that of a supernova Ia and last seconds. The rate of these optical flashes in the universe is much lower than the FRB rate, however it may exceed the supernova rate. Locations of hyper-active magnetars in their host galaxies depend on how they form: magnetars created in supernovae explosions will trace star formation regions, and magnetars formed in mergers of compact objects will be offset. The merger magnetars are expected to be most energetic and particularly hyper-active.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.07743 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. — Mechanism of e± loading of the open field-line bundle. The avalanche of most numerous e± creation develops in the closed magnetic loops extending to r ∼ R± ∼ 50 km (Equation 6) and carrying current I ∼ 106 I0 (shaded in magenta). The loop sprays copious gamma-rays (blue arrows), and some of them convert to e± in the open bundle (magenta dots). At large radii, the open bundle (magnetic flux Ψop) becomes axisymmetri… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. — Environment of an active magnetar with rotation period P = 2π/Ω ∼ 1 s and an inclined magnetic dipole moment µ. The produced e± pairs fill the closed rotating magnetosphere (shaded in yellow) and form a magnetized relativistic outflow outside of it. The outflow has two zones: the striped wind near the equatorial plane, at polar angles |θ − π/2| < χ, and the helical-B wind at |θ − π/2| > χ (Michel 1971; Coroniti 19… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. — Wind interaction with the tail of ion ejecta. The slow ion matter (grey) was ejected time t ago with a velocity distribution v(m) ≤ v0, where m is the Lagrangian (mass) coordinate. The radial spreading r(m) = v(m)t forms the homologous tail of the ion ejecta and reduces its magnetization σ to nearly zero (Equation 26). The continual wind from the magnetar with power Lw drives a forward shock (FS) into the ion tail… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: — Ultra-relativistic blast wave (Lorentz factor Γ >∼ 103 ) is driven into the magnetar wind (Γw >∼ 10) by the plasmoid ejected during a giant flare of the magnetar. The plasmoid has a typical energy E ∼ 1044 erg, thickness ∆ ∼ 107 cm and a Lorentz factor Γf Γ; it acts …
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: — Evolution of the expanding blast wave in the magnetar wind with Lw ≈ 1039 erg/s and η ≈ 103 . The explosion energy in this example is E ≈ 1044 erg. Three Lorentz factors are shown: Γw (the pre-explosion wind), Γsh (the shock), and Γ (the blast — the hot plasma behind…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: — Blast wave striking the slow tail of a previous flare. The wind and the explosion parameters are the same as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Interaction of Strong Electromagnetic Waves with Unmagnetized Pair Plasmas

    physics.plasm-ph 2026-04 unverdicted novelty 7.0 of 10

    The propagation length of strong electromagnetic waves through unmagnetized pair plasmas scales as ε_p^{-2/3}, where ε_p combines wave strength and frequency, verified by kinetic simulations.

  2. Synchrotron Emission from Cooled Particle Distributions

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    New analytic fitting functions for synchrotron emission and absorption from radiatively and adiabatically cooled power-law and thermal electron distributions, validated against numerical integrals and a GRB afterglow model.

  3. Unified kinetic theory of induced scattering: Compton, Brillouin, and Raman processes in magnetized electron and positron pair plasma

    astro-ph.HE 2025-10 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    In strongly magnetized pair plasma, induced Compton and Brillouin scattering dominate in ordinary/neutral modes, while stimulated Raman scattering is enabled in a charged mode with growth rate (t_R)^-1 = a_e (omega0/o...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

61 extracted references · 44 canonical work pages · cited by 3 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    2006, ApJ, 653, 325

    Amato, E., & Arons, J. 2006, ApJ, 653, 325

    work page 2006

  2. [2]

    W., Deller, A

    Bannister, K. W., Deller, A. T., Phillips, C., et al. 2019, Science, 365, 565

    2019

  3. [3]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1044 —. 2013a, ApJ, 777, 114 —. 2013b, ApJ, 762, 13 —. 2017a, ApJ, 843, L26 —. 2017b, ApJ, 838, 125

    work page 2009

  4. [4]

    M., & Li, X

    Beloborodov, A. M., & Li, X. 2016, ApJ, 833, 261

    work page 2016

  5. [5]

    M., & Thompson, C

    Beloborodov, A. M., & Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 967

    work page 2007

  6. [6]

    D., & Scharlemann, E

    Blandford, R. D., & Scharlemann, E. T. 1975, Ap&SS, 36, 303

    work page 1975

  7. [7]

    Bogovalov, S. V. 1999, A&A, 349, 1017

    1999

  8. [8]

    1977, MNRAS, 180, 125

    Buckley, R. 1977, MNRAS, 180, 125

    work page 1977

Show all 61 references
  1. [9]

    Carrasco, F., Vigan` o, D., Palenzuela, C., & Pons, J. A. 2019, MNRAS, 484, L124

    2019

  2. [10]

    Cerutti, B., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, Space Sci. Rev., 207, 111

    2017

  3. [11]

    Cerutti, B., & Philippov, A. A. 2017, A&A, 607, A134

    2017

  4. [12]

    Y., & Beloborodov, A

    Chen, A. Y., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, ApJ, 795, L22

    2014

  5. [13]

    2019, MNRAS, 487, 5753

    Connor, L. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 5753

    2019

  6. [14]

    D., & Rees, M

    Coppi, P., Blandford, R. D., & Rees, M. J. 1993, MNRAS, 262, 603

    1993

  7. [15]

    M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J

    Cordes, J. M., Wasserman, I., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2017, ApJ, 842, 35

    2017

  8. [16]

    Coroniti, F. V. 1990, ApJ, 349, 538

    1990

  9. [17]

    Drenkhahn, G., & Spruit, H. C. 2002, A&A, 391, 1141

    2002

  10. [18]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, ApJ, 392, L9

    1992

  11. [19]

    M., Kouveliotou, C., Gelfand, J

    Gaensler, B. M., Kouveliotou, C., Gelfand, J. D., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1104

    2005

  12. [20]

    A., Hoshino, M., Langdon, A

    Gallant, Y. A., Hoshino, M., Langdon, A. B., Arons, J., & Max, C. E. 1992, ApJ, 391, 73

    1992

  13. [21]

    D., Lyubarsky, Y

    Gelfand, J. D., Lyubarsky, Y. E., Eichler, D., et al. 2005, ApJ, 634, L89

    2005

  14. [22]

    Goldreich, P., & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869 —. 1970, ApJ, 160, 971

    1969

  15. [23]

    1992, ApJ, 395, 250

    Goldreich, P., & Reisenegger, A. 1992, ApJ, 395, 250

    1992

  16. [24]

    S., & Spitkovsky, A

    Granot, J., Komissarov, S. S., & Spitkovsky, A. 2011, MNRAS, 411, 1323

    2011

  17. [25]

    B., et al

    Granot, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Taylor, G. B., et al. 2006, ApJ, 638, 391

    2006

  18. [26]

    2019, ApJ, 876, 74

    Gruzinov, A., & Levin, Y. 2019, ApJ, 876, 74

    2019

  19. [27]

    2019, ApJ, 877, 53

    Hakobyan, H., Philippov, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2019, ApJ, 877, 53

    2019

  20. [28]

    Hessels, J. W. T., Spitler, L. G., Seymour, A. D., et al. 2019, ApJ, 876, L23

    2019

  21. [29]

    1991, Physics of Fluids B, 3, 818

    Hoshino, M., & Arons, J. 1991, Physics of Fluids B, 3, 818

    1991

  22. [30]

    2017, ApJ, 840, 52 —

    Iwamoto, M., Amano, T., Hoshino, M., & Matsumoto, Y. 2017, ApJ, 840, 52 —. 2018, ApJ, 858, 93

    2017

  23. [31]

    M., & Beloborodov, A

    Kaspi, V. M., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2017, ARA&A, 55, 261

    2017

  24. [32]

    Katz, J. I. 2016, ApJ, 826, 226

    2016

  25. [33]

    G., Lyubarsky, Y., & Petri, J

    Kirk, J. G., Lyubarsky, Y., & Petri, J. 2009, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, Vol. 357, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. W. Becker, 421

    2009

  26. [34]

    2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726

    Kumar, P., Lu, W., & Bhattacharya, M. 2017, MNRAS, 468, 2726

    2017

  27. [35]

    B., Arons, J., & Max, C

    Langdon, A. B., Arons, J., & Max, C. E. 1988, Phys. Rev. Lett., 61, 779

    1988

  28. [36]

    J., Abruzzo, M

    Law, C. J., Abruzzo, M. W., Bassa, C. G., et al. 2017, ApJ, 850, 76

    2017

  29. [37]

    2010, ApJ, 720, 1490

    Levinson, A. 2010, ApJ, 720, 1490

    2010

  30. [38]

    2008, ApJ, 682, 1443 —

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2008, ApJ, 682, 1443 —. 2014, MNRAS, 442, L9

    2008

  31. [39]

    2001, ApJ, 562, 494

    Lyubarsky, Y., & Eichler, D. 2001, ApJ, 562, 494

    2001

  32. [40]

    Lyubarsky, Y., & Kirk, J. G. 2001, ApJ, 547, 437

    2001

  33. [41]

    2010, Phys

    Lyutikov, M. 2010, Phys. Rev. E, 82, 056305

    2010

  34. [42]

    P., Shannon, R

    Macquart, J. P., Shannon, R. M., Bannister, K. W., et al. 2019, ApJ, 872, L19

    2019

  35. [43]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2018, ApJ, 868, L4

    2018

  36. [44]

    D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 4091

    2019

  37. [45]

    Michel, F. C. 1969, ApJ, 158, 727 —. 1971, Comments on Astrophysics and Space Physics, 3, 80 —. 1973, ApJ, 180, L133

    1969

  38. [46]

    Michilli, D., Seymour, A., Hessels, J. W. T., et al. 2018, Nature, 553, 182

    2018

  39. [47]

    2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & M´ esz´ aros, P. 2016, MNRAS, 461, 1498

    2016

  40. [48]

    M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., et al

    Palmer, D. M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1107

    2005

  41. [49]

    M., & Hui, L

    Parfrey, K., Beloborodov, A. M., & Hui, L. 2013, ApJ, 774, 92 Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T., & Lorimer, D. R. 2019, A&A Rev., 27, 4

    2013

  42. [50]

    A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B

    Philippov, A. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2015, ApJ, 801, L19

    2015

  43. [51]

    2019, MNRAS, 485, 3816

    Plotnikov, I., & Sironi, L. 2019, MNRAS, 485, 3816

    2019

  44. [52]

    B., & Postnov, K

    Popov, S. B., & Postnov, K. A. 2013, ArXiv e-prints, arXiv:1307.4924

    2013 arXiv

  45. [53]

    X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al

    Prochaska, J. X., Macquart, J.-P., McQuinn, M., et al. 2019, Science, 366, 231

    2019

  46. [54]

    2019, Nature, 572, 352

    Ravi, V., Catha, M., D’Addario, L., et al. 2019, Nature, 572, 352

    2019

  47. [55]

    Spruit, H. C. 2008, in American Institute of Physics Conference

    2008

  48. [56]

    P., Kaspi, V

    Tendulkar, S. P., Kaspi, V. M., & Patel, C. 2016, ApJ, 827, 59

    2016

  49. [57]

    P., Bassa, C

    Tendulkar, S. P., Bassa, C. G., Cordes, J. M., et al. 2017, ApJ, 834, L7

    2017

  50. [58]

    2008, ApJ, 688, 499 —

    Thompson, C. 2008, ApJ, 688, 499 —. 2017, ApJ, 844, 162

    2008

  51. [59]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 2001, ApJ, 561, 980

    2001

  52. [60]

    K., & Ravi, V

    Vedantham, H. K., & Ravi, V. 2019, MNRAS, 485, L78

    2019

  53. [61]

    B., & Rees, M

    Wilson, D. B., & Rees, M. J. 1978, MNRAS, 185, 297 Zel’Dovich, Y. B., & Levich, E. V. 1969, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics, 28, 1287

    1978

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.