pith. sign in

arxiv: 2403.07740 · v1 · pith:4FHGABZJnew · submitted 2024-03-12 · 🌌 astro-ph.HE · cond-mat.supr-con· nucl-th

Gapless neutron superfluidity can explain the late time cooling of transiently accreting neutron stars

Valentin Allard , Nicolas Chamel This is my paper

Pith reviewed 2026-05-24 03:10 UTC · model grok-4.3

classification 🌌 astro-ph.HE cond-mat.supr-connucl-th
keywords neutron starssuperfluiditycoolingaccretionvorticescrustgapless statethermal relaxation
0
0 comments X

The pith

Gapless neutron superfluidity from pinned vortices explains late cooling of accreting neutron stars without suppressing pairing.

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

The paper shows that the observed slow cooling of KS 1731-260 and MXB 1659-29 during quiescence arises naturally once a persistent neutron superflow is included. This superflow, maintained by pinned quantized vortices, drives the superfluid into a gapless regime whose specific heat greatly exceeds the standard BCS value and thereby retards crust thermal relaxation. Cooling calculations that incorporate the gapless state reproduce the data while remaining consistent with ab initio predictions of neutron pairing. A reader would care because the result removes the need for an artificial suppression of superfluidity that had conflicted with microscopic theory.

Core claim

By allowing a neutron superflow driven by the pinning of quantized vortices, the superfluid enters a gapless state in which its specific heat is dramatically increased compared to the classical BCS state assumed so far, thus delaying the thermal relaxation of the crust. Neutron-star cooling simulations that include this gapless superfluidity yield excellent fits to the observed thermal evolution of KS 1731-260 and MXB 1659-29, reconciling astrophysical observations with microscopic theories of dense matter.

What carries the argument

Gapless neutron superfluid state sustained by a persistent superflow from pinned quantized vortices, which raises the specific heat and slows crust cooling.

If this is right

  • Crust thermal relaxation proceeds more slowly because of the elevated specific heat in the gapless state.
  • Excellent agreement is obtained with the late-time cooling data of KS 1731-260 and MXB 1659-29.
  • No artificial suppression of neutron superfluidity is required in the crust.
  • The gapless regime may leave observable signatures in other neutron-star phenomena.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • The same gapless mechanism could be tested against cooling data from other low-mass X-ray binaries.
  • Glitch observations or vortex-dynamics simulations might constrain the pinning lifetime needed for the superflow.
  • If the model holds, the specific-heat enhancement would also affect the thermal response to other heating events in the crust.

Load-bearing premise

Quantized vortices remain pinned long enough throughout the crust during quiescence to maintain a persistent neutron superflow.

What would settle it

Cooling curves from additional transiently accreting sources that cannot be reproduced by gapless-superfluidity models but instead require the suppression of neutron pairing in the crust.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2403.07740 by Nicolas Chamel, Valentin Allard.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: FIG. 1. Evolution of the effective surface temperature in elec [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: shows results for the first outburst of MXB 1659−29. Restricting to BCS superfluidity with realistic pairing, the best model (dotted curve) is ob￾tained for Qimp = 8.05+0.71 −0.61, Tb = (3.11 ± 0.13) × 108 K, 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 Time after outburst (days) 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 T e f f ( e V ) BCS BCS (Deep) Gapless FIG. 1. Evolution of the effective surface temperature in elec￾tronvolts of KS 1731−260 (a… view at source ↗
read the original abstract

The current interpretation of the observed late time cooling of transiently accreting neutron stars in low-mass X-ray binaries during quiescence requires the suppression of neutron superfluidity in their crust at variance with recent ab initio many-body calculations of dense matter. Focusing on the two emblematic sources KS~1731$-$260 and MXB~1659$-$29, we show that their thermal evolution can be naturally explained by considering the existence of a neutron superflow driven by the pinning of quantized vortices. Under such circumstances, we find that the neutron superfluid can be in a gapless state in which the specific heat is dramatically increased compared to that in the classical BCS state assumed so far, thus delaying the thermal relaxation of the crust. We have performed neutron-star cooling simulations taking into account gapless superfluidity and we have obtained excellent fits to the data thus reconciling astrophysical observations with microscopic theories. The imprint of gapless superfluidity on other observable phenomena is briefly discussed.

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 / 1 minor

Summary. The manuscript claims that the late-time cooling of the transiently accreting neutron stars KS 1731-260 and MXB 1659-29 can be explained by gapless neutron superfluidity in the crust induced by a persistent superflow from pinned quantized vortices. This state dramatically increases the specific heat relative to the standard BCS superfluid, delaying crustal thermal relaxation. Neutron-star cooling simulations that incorporate gapless superfluidity are reported to yield excellent fits to the observational data for both sources, thereby reconciling the observations with ab initio many-body calculations without invoking suppression of superfluidity.

Significance. If the gapless regime can be sustained, the work supplies a physically motivated mechanism that removes the tension between cooling data and microscopic theory of dense matter. The cooling simulations achieve good agreement with data for two well-observed sources; this constitutes a concrete, falsifiable prediction that can be tested against additional quiescence light curves or other superfluid-related observables.

major comments (2)
  1. [Model description (gapless superfluidity section)] The central assumption that quantized vortices remain pinned throughout the crust for the full quiescence interval (~10–30 yr) is not supported by any calculation of pinning forces, critical lag velocities, or unpinning timescales at the relevant densities (10^{12}–10^{14} g cm^{-3}). Without such a demonstration the gapless state cannot be guaranteed to persist, undermining the claim that the elevated specific heat naturally explains the observed cooling delay.
  2. [Cooling simulations and results section] The superflow velocity (or equivalent pinning strength) is treated as an adjustable parameter chosen to place the superfluid in the gapless regime and match the data. No sensitivity analysis or error-budget table is supplied showing how the cooling curves respond to variations around the adopted value, nor are the observational uncertainties on the temperature points quantified in the fits.
minor comments (1)
  1. [Abstract] The abstract states that 'excellent fits' are obtained but supplies no quantitative goodness-of-fit metric (e.g., reduced χ² or residual plots) that would allow the reader to judge the quality of the agreement.

Simulated Author's Rebuttal

2 responses · 0 unresolved

We thank the referee for the constructive comments on our manuscript. We address the two major points below and indicate the revisions we will make.

read point-by-point responses

  1. Referee: [Model description (gapless superfluidity section)] The central assumption that quantized vortices remain pinned throughout the crust for the full quiescence interval (~10–30 yr) is not supported by any calculation of pinning forces, critical lag velocities, or unpinning timescales at the relevant densities (10^{12}–10^{14} g cm^{-3}). Without such a demonstration the gapless state cannot be guaranteed to persist, undermining the claim that the elevated specific heat naturally explains the observed cooling delay.

    Authors: We agree that the manuscript presents the persistence of pinned superflow as an assumption rather than deriving it from new pinning-force or unpinning-timescale calculations at the quoted densities. The model is motivated by the established occurrence of vortex pinning in the crust (as required by glitch observations) and by the theoretical existence of a gapless regime once a sufficient superflow is present. We will revise the gapless-superfluidity section to cite existing pinning-strength estimates from the literature, to state explicitly the range of critical lag velocities needed to remain gapless, and to note that sustained pinning over decades remains an open dynamical question whose resolution lies outside the scope of the present thermal-evolution study. This addition will clarify the assumption without altering the central claim that gapless superfluidity, if realized, accounts for the observed cooling delay. revision: partial

  2. Referee: [Cooling simulations and results section] The superflow velocity (or equivalent pinning strength) is treated as an adjustable parameter chosen to place the superfluid in the gapless regime and match the data. No sensitivity analysis or error-budget table is supplied showing how the cooling curves respond to variations around the adopted value, nor are the observational uncertainties on the temperature points quantified in the fits.

    Authors: We accept that the results section would benefit from a more systematic exploration of parameter dependence and from explicit treatment of observational uncertainties. In the revised manuscript we will add a sensitivity analysis that varies the superflow velocity across the interval that keeps the neutrons gapless, displaying the resulting family of cooling curves together with the fiducial model. We will also overlay the observational temperature uncertainties on the data points in the relevant figures and include a brief quantitative discussion of fit quality (e.g., reduced chi-squared values) that incorporates those uncertainties. These additions will be placed in the cooling-simulations section and will not change the reported best-fit parameters. revision: yes

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

Derivation self-contained; no load-bearing step reduces to input by construction

full rationale

The paper posits a neutron superflow (from pinned vortices) as a physical mechanism that places the superfluid in a gapless regime with elevated specific heat, then runs cooling simulations to match the observed late-time cooling curves of KS 1731-260 and MXB 1659-29. This is an assumption-driven model whose central claim rests on the external physical premise of persistent pinning rather than on any equation that defines the gapless state in terms of the cooling data or vice versa. No self-citation chain, fitted parameter renamed as prediction, or self-definitional loop is exhibited in the provided text; the reconciliation with ab initio calculations is presented as an independent consistency check. The persistence of pinning is a falsifiable physical assumption, not a tautology internal to the derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 2 axioms · 0 invented entities

The explanation rests on standard assumptions of neutron superfluidity in the inner crust plus the additional premise that pinning sustains a superflow; no new particles or forces are postulated, but the gapless regime is activated by a velocity parameter that must be chosen to match observations.

free parameters (1)
  • superflow velocity (or equivalent pinning strength)
    Determines whether and where the superfluid enters the gapless regime; must be set to reproduce the observed cooling delay for the two sources.
axioms (2)
  • domain assumption Quantized vortices in the neutron superfluid can remain pinned to the crustal lattice for the duration of quiescence
    Invoked to justify the existence of a persistent superflow that drives the gapless state.
  • domain assumption The gapless superfluid state has a dramatically higher specific heat than the gapped BCS state
    Taken from prior condensed-matter theory and applied here without re-derivation.

pith-pipeline@v0.9.0 · 5710 in / 1517 out tokens · 42315 ms · 2026-05-24T03:10:36.837234+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 internal anchor

  1. [1]

    A. Y. Potekhin, J. A. Pons, and D. Page, Space Sci. Rev. 191, 239 (2015)

    work page 2015

  2. [2]

    A. B. Migdal, Nucl. Phys. 13, 655 (1959)

    work page 1959

  3. [3]

    Antonopoulou, B

    D. Antonopoulou, B. Haskell, and C. M. Espinoza, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 126901 (2022)

    work page 2022

  4. [4]

    P. W. Anderson and N. Itoh, Nature (London) 256, 25 (1975)

    work page 1975

  5. [5]

    Pines and M

    D. Pines and M. A. Alpar, Nature (London) 316, 27 (1985)

    work page 1985

  6. [6]

    D. K. Galloway, J. in’t Zand, J. Chenevez, H. W¨ orpel, L. Keek, L. Ootes, A. L. Watts, L. Gisler, C. Sanchez- Fernandez, and E. Kuulkers, Astrophys. J. Suppl. S.249, 32 (2020)

    work page 2020

  7. [7]

    Kuulkers, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements 132, 466 (2004)

    E. Kuulkers, Nuclear Physics B Proceedings Supplements 132, 466 (2004)

    work page 2004

  8. [8]

    Cumming and L

    A. Cumming and L. Bildsten, Astrophys. J. Lett. 559, L127 (2001)

    work page 2001

  9. [9]

    T. E. Strohmayer and E. F. Brown, Astrophys. J. 566, 1045 (2002)

    work page 2002

  10. [10]

    Bahramian and N

    A. Bahramian and N. Degenaar, arXiv e-prints arXiv:2206.10053 (2022), 2206.10053

    work page arXiv 2022

  11. [11]

    Meisel, A

    Z. Meisel, A. Deibel, L. Keek, P. Shternin, and J. Elfritz, J. Phys. G: Nucl. Part. Phys. 45, 093001 (2018)

    work page 2018

  12. [12]

    Wijnands, N

    R. Wijnands, N. Degenaar, and D. Page, J. Astro- phys. Astron. 38, 1 (2017)

    work page 2017

  13. [13]

    E. F. Brown and A. Cumming, Astrophys. J. 698, 1020 (2009)

    work page 2009

  14. [14]

    Chamel, A

    N. Chamel, A. F. Fantina, J. L. Zdunik, and P. Haensel, Phys. Rev. C 102, 015804 (2020)

    work page 2020

  15. [15]

    Page and S

    D. Page and S. Reddy, in Neutron Star Crust , edited by C. A. Bertulani and J. Piekarewicz (Nova Science Pub- lishers, New York, 2012), pp. 281–308

    work page 2012

  16. [16]

    E. A. Chaikin, A. D. Kaminker, and D. G. Yakovlev, Astrophys. Space Sci. 363, 209 (2018)

    work page 2018

  17. [17]

    Wijnands, T

    R. Wijnands, T. Strohmayer, and L. M. Franco, Astro- phys. J. 549, L71 (2001)

    work page 2001

  18. [18]

    R. E. Rutledge, L. Bildsten, E. F. Brown, G. G. Pavlov, V. E. Zavlin, and G. Ushomirsky, Astrophys. J. 580, 413 (2002)

    work page 2002

  19. [19]

    Wijnands, M

    R. Wijnands, M. Guainazzi, M. van der Klis, and M. M´ endez, Astrophys. J.573, L45 (2002)

    work page 2002

  20. [20]

    E. M. Cackett, R. Wijnands, M. Linares, J. M. Miller, J. Homan, and W. H. G. Lewin, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 372, 479 (2006)

    work page 2006

  21. [21]

    P. S. Shternin, D. G. Yakovlev, P. Haensel, and A. Y. Potekhin, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 382, L43 (2007)

    work page 2007

  22. [22]

    E. M. Cackett, E. F. Brown, A. Cumming, N. Degenaar, J. M. Miller, and R. Wijnands, Astrophys. J. Lett. 722, L137 (2010)

    work page 2010

  23. [23]

    Wijnands, M

    R. Wijnands, M. Nowak, J. M. Miller, J. Homan, S. Wachter, and W. H. G. Lewin, Astrophys. J. 594, 952 (2003)

    work page 2003

  24. [24]

    Wijnands, J

    R. Wijnands, J. Homan, J. M. Miller, and W. H. G. Lewin, Astrophys. J. Lett. 606, L61 (2004)

    work page 2004

  25. [25]

    E. M. Cackett, R. Wijnands, J. M. Miller, E. F. Brown, and N. Degenaar, Astrophys. J. Lett. 687, L87 (2008)

    work page 2008

  26. [26]

    Cackett, E

    E. Cackett, E. Brown, A. Cumming, N. Degenaar, J. K. Fridriksson, J. Homan, J. Miller, and R. Wijnands, As- trophys. J. 774, 131 (2013)

    work page 2013

  27. [27]

    C. J. Horowitz, D. K. Berry, C. M. Briggs, M. E. Caplan, A. Cumming, and A. S. Schneider, Phys. Rev. Lett. 114, 031102 (2015)

    work page 2015

  28. [28]

    Nandi and S

    R. Nandi and S. Schramm, Astrophys. J.852, 135 (2018)

    work page 2018

  29. [29]

    N., and Pons, J

    Turlione, A., Aguilera, D. N., and Pons, J. A., Astron. Astrophys. 577, A5 (2015)

    work page 2015

  30. [30]

    Sanchez-Fernandez, D

    C. Sanchez-Fernandez, D. Eckert, E. Bozzo, J. Kajava, E. Kuulkers, and J. Chenevez, The Astronomer’s Tele- gram 7946, 1 (2015)

    work page 2015

  31. [31]

    S., Wijnands, R., Ootes, L

    Parikh, A. S., Wijnands, R., Ootes, L. S., Page, D., De- genaar, N., Bahramian, A., Brown, E. F., Cackett, E. M., Cumming, A., Heinke, C., et al., Astron. Astrophys. 624, A84 (2019)

    work page 2019

  32. [32]

    R. L. Merritt, E. M. Cackett, E. F. Brown, D. Page, A. Cumming, N. Degenaar, A. Deibel, J. Homan, J. M. Miller, and R. Wijnands, Astrophys. J. 833, 186 (2016)

    work page 2016

  33. [33]

    Schwenk, B

    A. Schwenk, B. Friman, and G. E. Brown, Nucl. Phys. A 713, 191 (2003)

    work page 2003

  34. [34]

    Deibel, A

    A. Deibel, A. Cumming, E. F. Brown, and S. Reddy, Astrophys. J. 839, 95 (2017)

    work page 2017

  35. [35]

    Gandolfi, A

    S. Gandolfi, A. Y. Illarionov, S. Fantoni, F. Pederiva, and K. E. Schmidt, Phys. Rev. Lett. 101, 132501 (2008)

    work page 2008

  36. [36]

    A. Y. Potekhin and G. Chabrier, Astron. Astrophys.645, A102 (2021). 6

    work page 2021

  37. [37]

    X. Y. Lu, G. L. L¨ u, H. L. Liu, C. H. Zhu, and Z. J. Wang, Res. Astron. Astrophys. 22, 055018 (2022)

    work page 2022

  38. [38]

    A. Y. Potekhin, M. E. Gusakov, and A. I. Chugunov, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 522, 4830 (2023), ISSN 0035- 8711

    work page 2023

  39. [39]

    Gandolfi, G

    S. Gandolfi, G. Palkanoglou, J. Carlson, A. Gezerlis, and K. E. Schmidt, Condensed Matter 7 (2022)

    work page 2022

  40. [40]

    L. G. Cao, U. Lombardo, C. W. Shen, and N. V. Giai, Phys. Rev. C 73, 014313 (2006)

    work page 2006

  41. [41]

    Drissi and A

    M. Drissi and A. Rios, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 90 (2022)

    work page 2022

  42. [42]

    Krotscheck, P

    E. Krotscheck, P. Papakonstantinou, and J. Wang, As- trophys. J. 955, 76 (2023)

    work page 2023

  43. [43]

    [82–86], for additional information about the observational data, our models, our numerical implementation, and full nu- merical results

    See Supplemental Material, which includes Refs. [82–86], for additional information about the observational data, our models, our numerical implementation, and full nu- merical results

    work page

  44. [44]

    Andersson, K

    N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho, and C. M. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241103 (2012)

    work page 2012

  45. [45]

    Chamel, Phys

    N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 011101 (2013)

    work page 2013

  46. [46]

    W. C. G. Ho, C. M. Espinoza, D. Antonopoulou, and N. Andersson, Science Advances 1, e1500578 (2015)

    work page 2015

  47. [47]

    P. M. Pizzochero, M. Antonelli, B. Haskell, and S. Seveso, Nat. Astron. 1, 0134 (2017)

    work page 2017

  48. [48]

    D. K. Galloway, E. H. Morgan, and A. M. Levine, Astro- phys. J. 613, 1164 (2004)

    work page 2004

  49. [49]

    M. M. Serim, S ¸. S ¸ahiner, D. C ¸ erri-Serim, S. C ¸ . Inam, and A. Baykal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 471, 4982 (2017)

    work page 2017

  50. [50]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 108, 015801 (2023)

    work page 2023

  51. [51]

    Haensel and J

    P. Haensel and J. L. Zdunik, Astron. Astrophys. 227, 431 (1990)

    work page 1990

  52. [52]

    Deibel, A

    A. Deibel, A. Cumming, E. F. Brown, and D. Page, As- trophys. J. 809, L31 (2015)

    work page 2015

  53. [53]

    Cumming, E

    A. Cumming, E. F. Brown, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, D. Page, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. C 95, 025806 (2017)

    work page 2017

  54. [54]

    M. E. Gusakov and A. I. Chugunov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 124, 191101 (2020)

    work page 2020

  55. [55]

    M. E. Gusakov and A. I. Chugunov, Phys. Rev. D 103, L101301 (2021)

    work page 2021

  56. [56]

    K. P. Levenfish and D. G. Yakovlev, Astron. Rep. 38, 247 (1994)

    work page 1994

  57. [57]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Universe 7, 470 (2021), ISSN 2218-1997, URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/7/ 12/470

    work page 2021

  58. [58]

    E. F. Brown, A. Cumming, F. J. Fattoyev, C. J. Horowitz, D. Page, and S. Reddy, Phys. Rev. Lett. 120, 182701 (2018)

    work page 2018

  59. [59]

    D. K. Galloway, M. P. Muno, J. M. Hartman, D. Psaltis, and D. Chakrabarty, Astrophys. J. Suppl. S. 179, 360 (2008)

    work page 2008

  60. [60]

    L. S. Ootes, D. Page, R. Wijnands, and N. Degenaar, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 461, 4400 (2016)

    work page 2016

  61. [61]

    T. J. Maccarone, N. Degenaar, B. E. Tetarenko, C. O. Heinke, R. Wijnands, and G. R. Sivakoff, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 512, 2365 (2022), ISSN 0035–8711

    work page 2022

  62. [62]

    M. A. Alpar, A. F. Cheng, M. A. Ruderman, and J. Sha- ham, Nature (London) 300, 728 (1982)

    work page 1982

  63. [63]

    Radhakrishnan and G

    V. Radhakrishnan and G. Srinivasan, Curr. Sci. India 51, 1096 (1982)

    work page 1982

  64. [64]

    Patruno and A

    A. Patruno and A. L. Watts, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, edited by T. M. Belloni, M. M´ endez, and C. Zhang (2021), vol. 461 of Astrophysics and Space Science Library, pp. 143–208, 1206.2727

    work page arXiv 2021

  65. [65]

    T. D. Salvo and A. Sanna, Accretion Powered X-ray Millisecond Pulsars (Springer International Publishing, Cham, 2022), pp. 87–124, ISBN 978-3-030-85198-9

    work page 2022

  66. [66]

    Papitto and D

    A. Papitto and D. de Martino, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, edited by S. Bhattacharyya, A. Papitto, and D. Bhattacharya (2022), vol. 465 ofAstrophysics and Space Science Library, pp. 157–200

    work page 2022

  67. [67]

    D. A. Smith, E. H. Morgan, and H. Bradt, Astrophys. J. 479, L137 (1997)

    work page 1997

  68. [68]

    Burderi, T

    L. Burderi, T. D. Salvo, L. Stella, F. Fiore, N. R. Robba, M. van der Klis, R. Iaria, M. Mendez, M. T. Menna, S. Campana, et al., Astrophys. J. 574, 930 (2002)

    work page 2002

  69. [69]

    P. M. Pizzochero, Astrophys. J. Lett. 743, L20 (2011), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/ L20

    work page doi:10.1088/2041-8205/743/1/ 2011

  70. [70]

    Wlaz lowski, K

    G. Wlaz lowski, K. Sekizawa, P. Magierski, A. Bulgac, and M. M. Forbes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 232701 (2016)

    work page 2016

  71. [71]

    The Astrophysical Journal879(2), 82 (2019) https://doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ ab22b8

    B. Link and Y. Levin, Astrophys. J. 941, 148 (2022), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/1538-4357/ ac9b29

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ 2022

  72. [72]

    D. E. Miller, J. K. Chin, C. A. Stan, Y. Liu, W. Se- tiawan, C. Sanner, and W. Ketterle, Phys. Rev. Lett. 99, 070402 (2007), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/ 10.1103/PhysRevLett.99.070402

    work page doi:10.1103/physrevlett.99.070402 2007

  73. [73]

    Link and R

    B. Link and R. I. Epstein, Astrophys. J. 457, 844 (1996)

    work page 1996

  74. [74]

    Ducci, P

    L. Ducci, P. M. Pizzochero, V. Doroshenko, A. Santan- gelo, S. Mereghetti, and C. Ferrigno, Astron. Astrophys. 578, A52 (2015)

    work page 2015

  75. [75]

    E. M. Kantor and M. E. Gusakov, Astrophys. J. 797, L4 (2014)

    work page 2014

  76. [76]

    Casella, D

    P. Casella, D. Altamirano, A. Patruno, R. Wijnands, and M. van der Klis, Astrophys. J. Lett. 674, L41 (2008)

    work page 2008

  77. [77]

    L. S. Ootes, R. Wijnands, D. Page, and N. Degenaar, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 477, 2900 (2018), ISSN 0035- 8711

    work page 2018

  78. [78]

    A. C. Waterhouse, N. Degenaar, R. Wijnands, E. F. Brown, J. M. Miller, D. Altamirano, and M. Linares, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 456, 4001 (2016), ISSN 0035- 8711

    work page 2016

  79. [79]

    Kaaret, E

    P. Kaaret, E. H. Morgan, R. Vanderspek, and J. A. Tom- sick, Astrophys. J. 638, 963 (2006)

    work page 2006

  80. [80]

    Degenaar, L

    N. Degenaar, L. Ootes, M. Reynolds, R. Wijnands, and D. Page, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 465, L10 (2016), ISSN 1745-3925

    work page 2016

Showing first 80 references.