Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 141 references

Let there be neutrons! Hadronic photoproduction from a large flux of high-energy photons

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Long gamma-ray bursts can manufacture neutrons from photons at the jet head, converting proton-only stellar gas into fuel for heavy-element nucleosynthesis.

desk verdict A genuinely new r-process mechanism for long GRBs, but the one-zone network violates photon number conservation and the neutron yields are likely overestimated by orders of magnitude. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.11831 v3 pith:UISD25NE submitted 2024-11-18 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRnucl-th

Matthew R. Mumpower , Tsung-Shung H. Lee , Nicole Lloyd-Ronning , Brandon L. Barker , Axel Gross , Samuel Cupp , Jonah M. Miller This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRnucl-th
keywords gamma-rayburstshadronicphotoproductionneutronproductionr-processnucleosynthesiscollapsarscocoonphotomesonreactionselectronfraction
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

The paper proposes a new way for heavy elements to be made in long gamma-ray bursts: instead of relying on pre-existing neutrons, the burst's own photon flood creates them. At the jet head, where the relativistic jet plows into stellar material, the estimated flux of roughly $10^{33}$ photons per square centimeter per second per keV at 1 MeV makes the reaction gamma + p -> pi+ + n proceed almost instantly, converting even pure-proton stellar gas into neutron-rich matter. Because neutrons are uncharged, they escape the magnetically confined jet head into the surrounding cocoon, where neutron-capture nucleosynthesis can proceed. The paper shows that the resulting cocoon conditions can produce full r-process patterns, including actinides, as well as intermediate neutron-capture patterns, and that the combined outputs can match solar r-process residuals. If this holds, collapsar GRBs become a new class of r-process site that does not require a neutron-star merger.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing mechanism is the photo-pion transmutation reaction gamma + p -> pi+ + n, balanced against gamma + n -> pi- + p, with cross sections taken from the paper's coupled-channel photon-nucleon reaction model, a unified fit to world photoproduction data. The photon flux is modeled as a piecewise power law of the observed GRB spectral form, normalized to A = $10^{37}$ ph/$cm^{2}$/s/keV at the pivot energy and scaled to the jet head. A single-zone reaction network tracks protons, neutrons, escaped neutrons, and charged pions, competing the neutron-production rate against neutron decay, pion decay, and the ~$10^{-4}$ s neutron escape timescale while protons and pions remain magnetically confined. This interplay sets the electron fraction of the cocoon, the parameter that ultimately controls whether the outflow produces an r-process, an i-process-like pattern, or proton-rich nucleosynthesis.

What would settle it

Compute the actual photon flux at the jet-head interaction radius with a self-consistent sub-photospheric dissipation model; if the flux at $10^{6}$ keV falls below ~$10^{25}$ ph/$cm^{2}$/s/keV, neutron production is slower than the ~$10^{-4}$ s escape timescale and the claimed mechanism fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper's central claim is that hadronic photoproduction can manufacture neutrons in situ in collapsar gamma-ray bursts. Using a coupled-channel photon-nucleon model to compute cross sections and a single-zone reaction network at the jet head, it finds that with the estimated photon flux Phi_gamma ~ $10^{33}$ ph/$cm^{2}$/s/keV at ~$10^{6}$ keV, neutrons and pions are produced nearly instantaneously from a starting composition of pure protons. The charged products stay confined by the jet's magnetic field, while neutrons escape on ~$10^{-4}$ s timescales into the cocoon; the resulting electron fractions can be extremely low, down to Ye ~ 0.0035 in one simulated case. Nucleosynthesis calculations then yield weak and robust r-process patterns, fission recycling with actinide production, and an i-process-like cold pattern, whose summed abundance curve reproduces the full range of solar r-process residuals. The conclusion is that collapsar long GRBs are a viable new site for neutron-capture nucleosynthesis.

Load-bearing premise

The argument stands on the assumed photon flux at the jet head, estimated by scaling an observed GRB spectrum from cosmological distance back to r ~ $10^{10}$ cm; if that flux is even a few orders of magnitude lower than ~$10^{33}$ ph/$cm^{2}$/s/keV at 1 MeV, neutron production cannot keep pace with neutron escape.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Collapsar long GRBs become candidate r-process sites that do not require pre-existing neutrons or a neutron-star merger; even a helium or carbon envelope works because photodissociation first frees nucleons.
  • The cocoon can reach electron fractions far below those of disk outflows, down to Ye ~ 0.03 for Gamma ~ 10 and even lower in the paper's longer-lived scenario, which is the regime that produces actinides and fission recycling.
  • The combined abundance patterns from the paper's three density and temperature evolutions can reproduce the solar r-process residuals across the first, second, third, and lead peaks, giving a specific elemental fingerprint to search for in GRB-associated ejecta.
  • Observable signatures follow from the same reactions: red kilonova light from lanthanide and actinide production, the 2.6 MeV 208Tl decay line, a possible neutron precursor, and high-energy neutrinos from pion decay.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If this is right, the standard division of r-process labor between short GRBs and compact-object mergers is incomplete; galactic chemical evolution models would need a long-GRB channel whose yield is sensitive to jet Lorentz factor and envelope density.
  • Because the same photons that create neutrons also create pions that decay into neutrinos, a stacking search for high-energy neutrinos from long GRBs could independently confirm the jet-head photon flux before any nucleosynthesis signature is observed.
  • The bottleneck is the sub-photospheric non-thermal tail; the mechanism could be tested by radiative-transfer simulations of jet-head dissipation that compute the actual 1 MeV photon flux in the envelope frame, or by measuring the prompt spectrum's high-energy extension across many bursts.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that the intense photon flux at the head of a long-GRB jet can drive hadronic photoproduction, notably gamma + p -> pi+ + n, converting initially proton-only stellar material into neutron-rich material in situ. The authors estimate the jet-head photon spectrum by rescaling observed GRB spectra to the source, compute photohadronic rates using ANL-Osaka cross sections, model the proton/neutron/pion populations with a one-zone reaction network, estimate escape and injection timescales, and then run PRISM nucleosynthesis for three assumed density/temperature/electron-fraction trajectories. They conclude that collapsar long GRBs could be a new site for r-process and i-process nucleosynthesis and discuss several observational signatures.

Significance. If the central mechanism operates as claimed, this paper would add collapsar long GRBs to the list of candidate r-process sites and connect jet physics directly to heavy-element nucleosynthesis. The use of the documented ANL-Osaka partial-wave amplitudes for the photoproduction cross sections and the use of a standard reaction network (PRISM) are strengths, as is the concrete enumeration of observable tests such as a neutron precursor, kilonova signatures, gamma-ray lines, and associated neutrinos. The main reservations concern not the cross-section physics but whether the assumed photon field can actually process the claimed baryon mass, and whether the nucleosynthesis calculations are connected to the photoproduction network by a forward model.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. 4.7, Eq. (10); Sec. 5.4] The homogeneous reaction network implicitly neglects photon depletion, and this is load-bearing for the central claim. With the fiducial values n_b = 10^24 cm^-3 and L ~ 5 x 10^7 cm, the optical depth across the jet head for a ~300 MeV photon is tau ~ n_b sigma L ~ 1.5 x 10^4 for sigma ~ 3 x 10^-28 cm^2. Integrating Eq. (10) over the whole zone therefore asks each incident photon to convert ~10^4 protons, which violates photon number conservation. In reality the photon flux attenuates on a scale lambda ~ 1/(n_b sigma_tot) ~ 10^2-10^3 cm, with Compton and pair-production opacity comparable or larger, so only a thin skin of the jet-head material is processed. The cone-mass estimate M ~ 0.1-1 M_sun in Secs. 5.5-5.6 and the very low initial electron fractions used in Sec. 6 therefore do not follow from the stated jet-head conditions. Please provide an attenuation-corrected estimate of the processed baryon mass and neutron yield, or explicitly reframe the claim as applying to a thin surface layer rather than to the full jet-head cone.
  2. [Sec. 3.2] The estimate Phi_gamma ~ 10^33 ph/cm^2/s/keV at 10^6 keV is an order-of-magnitude extrapolation from Figure 2 of Ahlgren et al. (2019), scaled by (d_l/r_jh)^2 under the assumptions that the sub-photospheric non-thermal tail originates at r_jh ~ 10^10 cm, is isotropic, and is not absorbed before reaching the baryons. Because the proposed mechanism fails for flux below Phi_gamma ~ 10^25 ph/cm^2/s/keV at 10^6 keV (Sec. 4.7), the nominal margin of several orders of magnitude does not remove the need for a sensitivity analysis; the true flux at the interaction region could be much lower if the high-energy tail is produced at larger radii, is beamed, or is attenuated by pair production and scattering. Please state the plausible uncertainty range on Phi_gamma and show explicitly at which flux values the neutron-rich outcome is lost.
  3. [Sec. 6 and Sec. 5.5] The nucleosynthesis simulations are not yet connected to the photoproduction network. The initial electron fractions Ye = 0.334, 0.034, and 0.0035 are imposed from the extreme-conversion formulas in Sec. 5.5, which assume that all baryons in the jet head are converted to neutrons and then mix with envelope protons. Once the photon-attenuation issue of Sec. 4.7 is taken into account, the fraction of converted baryons is far smaller, so the actually attainable Ye will be higher and closer to the quasi-equilibrium range Ye ~ 0.52-0.66 quoted in Sec. 4.8. The statement that the integration of simulations (a)-(c) 'closely aligns with the full range of solar r-process residuals' should be presented as an illustration of possible outcomes for chosen parameters, not as a prediction of the proposed mechanism, unless a forward model linking the jet-head conditions to Ye and the density trajectory is supplied.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Throughout] There are several typographical errors: 'photodisentigration' in Sec. 1, 'copius' in Sec. 3.2, and 'Relativitiy' in Sec. 8; these should be corrected.
  2. [Fig. 3 caption] The caption reads 'Cross section ( -barns)', which appears to have a missing mu symbol; please confirm that the units are microbarns.
  3. [Secs. 4.6-4.7] The adopted neutron escape time tau_esc = 5 x 10^-4 s and the injection time tau_inj = 10^-4 s are not clearly derived from the stated geometry: Sec. 4.6 estimates tau_esc ~ L/v with L = r tan(theta), while Sec. 5.4 gives L ~ 5 x 10^7 cm, for which L/c ~ 0.17 s. Please define a single length scale and velocity and provide corresponding timescales, or present these values explicitly as free parameters in a sensitivity scan.
  4. [Sec. 4.7] The claim that the conclusions are independent of starting composition is not demonstrated, because the network in Eqs. (20)-(23) tracks only protons, neutrons, and charged pions and does not include photodisintegration of 4He or 12C. Please either add the relevant photodisintegration channels or soften the statement.
  5. [Sec. 5.6] Equation (48) treats tau1, tau2, and xi as adjustable parameters; for a work proposing a new mechanism, a brief justification of the adopted values, or a footnote indicating which physical regimes they represent, would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the derivation chain rests on external data and standard rate equations; the nucleosynthesis section is exploratory rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

I followed the derivation chain from the photon flux (Sec. 3.2) through the hadronic reaction network (Sec. 4) to the nucleosynthesis initial conditions (Secs. 5.5 and 6). The photon flux normalization A = 10^37 ph/cm^2/s/keV is obtained by scaling an observed GRB spectrum (Ahlgren et al. 2019) with (d_l/r_jh)^2, an external input rather than a quantity fitted to the paper's own neutron-rich outcome. The cross sections for processes (2)-(5) come from the ANL-Osaka coupled-channel model, which is independently constrained by roughly 50,000 data points and by Jefferson Lab photoproduction measurements; the fact that one author is a developer of that model does not make the cross-section input circular, since the model is not defined in terms of the target neutron-production claim. Equations (10)-(13) and (20)-(23) are standard rate equations whose output (Fig. 4) is a calculation from stated fluxes and cross sections, not a restatement of the conclusion. The low electron fractions used in Sec. 6 are explicitly labeled as extreme cases ('In the most extreme case, all baryons in the jet head are converted to neutrons') and the density timescales are explicitly called 'adjustable parameters'; the resulting r-process-like patterns are therefore conditional demonstrations, not fitted predictions disguised as output. The possible violation of photon number conservation or attenuation of the photon flux in a dense medium is a physical-consistency/correctness concern about the input assumptions, not a circularity of the derivation. The few self-citations (e.g., Lloyd-Ronning et al. 2019 for BZ background; Sprouse et al. 2021 for the PRISM solver) are not load-bearing: removing them does not alter the derivation. No equation in the paper is equivalent by construction to the claimed result.

Assumptions & free parameters 7 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on observationally motivated but hand-chosen photon flux parameters, escape and injection timescales, and mixing efficiencies. The nucleosynthesis simulations further depend on freely adjustable density-trajectory parameters and initial conditions. No new particles or forces are introduced; the only external inputs are the ANL-Osaka cross sections and observed GRB spectra.

free parameters (7)
  • Photon flux normalization A = 10^37 ph/cm^2/s/keV at 10 keV
    Chosen so the source flux matches a typical GRB spectrum scaled to r = 10^10 cm (Sec. 3.2). The neutron production rate is proportional to this value, so an overestimate directly inflates the central claim.
  • Photon spectral indices alpha, beta, break E0 = alpha = -0.1, beta = -1.5, E0 = 300 keV
    Phenomenological Band-function parameters from observed GRB spectra (Sec. 3.1). The quasi-equilibrium electron fraction and the Yn/Yp ratio depend on beta, with a range 0.5-0.85 quoted in Sec. 4.8.
  • Neutron escape timescale tau_esc = 5 x 10^-4 s
    Estimated from geometry L/v at r = 10^8 cm (Sec. 4.6). If true escape is faster, few neutrons leave the jet head and the neutron-rich cocoon is not produced.
  • Photon injection timescale tau_inj = 10^-4 s in the jet head run; 0.1 s for shell interaction
    Chosen conservatively in Sec. 4.7; longer injection favors neutron production and the authors note larger values are more favorable.
  • Mixing efficiency epsilon = 2.0 (scenario a), 28.3 (scenario b), 282.8 (scenario c)
    Parameterizes the density enhancement of the jet head relative to the envelope (Eq. 31). Sets the initial density and electron fraction in the nucleosynthesis runs.
  • Density evolution parameters tau1, tau2, xi = tau1 = tau2 = 3.5e-2 s, xi = 2 (a,b); tau1 = 1e-4 s, tau2 = 1e-1 s, xi = 3.5 (c)
    Explicitly called adjustable parameters in Sec. 5.6; they control the density trajectory and therefore the nucleosynthesis outcome.
  • Initial temperature, density, and electron fraction for nucleosynthesis = T0 = 2 GK, Ye = 0.334 (a); T0 = 2 GK, Ye = 0.034 (b); T0 = 0.1 GK, Ye = 0.0035 (c)
    Hand-selected initial conditions for the three PRISM simulations in Sec. 6; they are not derived from the hadronic model except for the quoted Ye values.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Cross sections from the ANL-Osaka model are reliable for gamma N -> pion N processes in the 200-1500 MeV range.
    The model is fitted to world data, but the paper does not propagate its uncertainties; neutron-production rates inherit this.
  • domain assumption The gamma-ray spectrum observed at Earth, scaled back by (d_l / r_jh)^2, equals the flux at the jet head; the jet is effectively transparent to these photons at r ~ 10^10 cm.
    Sec. 3.2 assumes no absorption or beaming corrections between the emission region and the interaction site.
  • domain assumption Magnetic fields confine protons and charged pions on timescales much longer than neutron escape, allowing neutrons to leave the jet head selectively.
    Sec. 4.6 uses Bohm diffusion with chosen parameters; if confinement fails, charged baryons also escape and the electron fraction does not drop.
  • domain assumption The hadronic population can be described by a homogeneous single-zone network with only protons, neutrons, and charged pions.
    Secs. 4.4-4.5 explicitly take the single-zone approximation and ignore spatial gradients and energy distributions.
  • domain assumption Photoproduced neutrons thermalize rapidly (before neutron capture) so Maxwellian-averaged cross sections apply.
    Sec. 6 states this is 'thought to be fast' without calculation; if neutrons stay fast, the nucleosynthesis network is not valid.
  • domain assumption The cocoon material is eventually ejected into the interstellar medium rather than falling back onto the black hole.
    Sec. 6.1 estimates unbinding on roughly 2000 seconds using an assumed 1% energy coupling; if the cocoon is bound, the produced elements do not leave the system.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Let there be neutrons! Hadronic photoproduction from a large flux of high-energy photons." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UISD25NE

@misc{pith2026241111831,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Let there be neutrons! Hadronic photoproduction from a large flux of high-energy photons},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UISD25NE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.11831}
}
read the original abstract

We propose that neutrons may be generated in high-energy, high-flux photon environments via photo-induced reactions on pre-existing baryons. These photohadronic interactions are expected to occur in astrophysical jets and surrounding material. Historically, these reactions have been attributed to the production of high-energy cosmic rays and neutrinos. We estimate the photoproduction off of protons in the context of gamma-ray bursts, where it is expected there will be sufficient baryonic material that may be encompassing or entrained in the jet. We show that typical stellar baryonic material, even material completely devoid of neutrons, can become inundated with neutrons in situ via hadronic photoproduction. Consequently, this mechanism provides a means for collapsars and other astrophysical sites containing substantial flux of high-energy photons to be favorable for neutron-capture nucleosynthesis.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.11831 by the authors.

Figure 2
Figure 2. shows the range of behavior for β ∈ (−3.0, −0.5) with a normalization constant A = 1, α = −0.1, Epivot = 100.0 (keV) and E0 = 300 (keV). The region of interest for hadronic photoproduction is indicated by the grey hatched region and extends in pho￾ton energy approximately between 105 keV to 2 × 106 keV. We use the normalization constant, A, to explore the photon flux in the regions of interest. When A ̸= 1, we chang… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Hadronic photoproduction cross sections using the ANL-Osaka model. Solid lines indicate cross sections for neutron creation or destruction channels and broken lines indicate scattering cross sections. Group et al. 2022). Proton creation from photons inci￾dent on neutrons dominates from threshold to approx￾imately Eγ ∼ 700 MeV. Higher energy photons, those with Eγ ≳ 700 MeV, favor neutron production. All cross sectio… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. shows the temporal evolution of the hadronic network starting with a population of 100% protons at t = 0 s with a baryonic number density of 1024 cm−3 or mass density of ρb ∼ 1 g/cm3 . The baryon number (sum of the proton and neutron compositions) is conserved, as indicated by the solid black line. Given the high photon flux at Eγ ∼ 106 keV, neutrons and pions are produced nearly instantaneously from the starting co… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density of the stellar envelope and jet Lorentz fac￾tor (Γ) as a function of radius. The effective density (dashed) is a product of these quantities. less dense material. At r = 109 cm, ρenv(r) ∼ 3 × 104 g/cm3 and Γ(r) = 10. At r = 1010 cm, ρenv(r) ∼ 9×102 g/cm3 and Γ(…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Hadronic reaction network showing the interac￾tion between the jet and a shell of previously ejected material outside the start at r = Rd. Neutron production is less effi￾cient in this region. If we consider a 1 M⊙ shell at a distance of r ∼ 1015 cm with a width of Rsh…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Resultant neutron-rich nucleosynthesis simulated with different condition sets (see text for details) at 4 × 108 seconds. Black dots indicate the solar r-process residuals. compared to those typically encountered in explosive r￾process conditions (e.g. surrounding an a…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: (upper left) Averaged spectra associated with the γ + p → π + + n cross section, process (2); (upper right) spectra associated with the γ + n → π − + p cross section, process (3); (bottom left) spectra associated with the γ + n → π 0 + n cross section, process (4); (bo…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

141 extracted references · 23 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T

    Abbott , B. P., Abbott , R., Abbott , T. D., et al. 2017, Physical Review Letters, 119, 161101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101 2017

  2. [2]

    2019, , 880, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab271b

    Ahlgren , B., Larsson , J., Valan , V., et al. 2019, , 880, 76, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab271b

    work page doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab271b 2019

  3. [3]

    2024, , 962, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11df

    Anand , S., Barnes , J., Yang , S., et al. 2024, , 962, 68, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad11df

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ad11df 2024

  4. [4]

    2013, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2013, 008–008, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/09/008

    Asano, K., & Mészáros, P. 2013, Journal of Cosmology and Astroparticle Physics, 2013, 008–008, 10.1088/1475-7516/2013/09/008

    work page doi:10.1088/1475-7516/2013/09/008 2013

  5. [5]

    1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

    Band, D., Matteson, J., Ford, L., et al. 1993, The Astrophysical Journal, 413, 281, 10.1086/172995

    doi:10.1086/172995 1993

  6. [6]

    L., Lund , K

    Barnes , J., Zhu , Y. L., Lund , K. A., et al. 2021, , 918, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aec

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ac0aec 2021

  7. [7]

    2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1082, 10.1093/mnras/stz2158

    Battino, U., Tattersall, A., Lederer-Woods, C., et al. 2019, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 489, 1082, 10.1093/mnras/stz2158

    doi:10.1093/mnras/stz2158 2019

  8. [8]

    Beloborodov , A. M. 2010, , 407, 1033, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.16770.x

    arXiv 2010

Show all 141 references
  1. [9]

    S., & Smirnov , A

    Berezinskii , V. S., & Smirnov , A. I. 1975, , 32, 461, 10.1007/BF00643157

    1975 doi

  2. [10]

    A., & Brown, G

    Bethe, H. A., & Brown, G. E. 1995, Reviews of Modern Physics, 67, 545, 10.1103/RevModPhys.67.545

    1995 doi

  3. [11]

    K., Villar , V

    Blanchard , P. K., Villar , V. A., Chornock , R., et al. 2024, Nature Astronomy, 8, 774, 10.1038/s41550-024-02237-4

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    Blandford , R., & Eichler , D. 1987, , 154, 1, 10.1016/0370-1573(87)90134-7

    1987 doi

  5. [13]

    2019, , 57, 467, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    Blandford , R., Meier , D., & Readhead , A. 2019, , 57, 467, 10.1146/annurev-astro-081817-051948

    2019 doi

  6. [14]

    D., & McKee, C

    Blandford, R. D., & McKee, C. F. 1976, The Physics of Fluids, 19, 1130, 10.1063/1.861619

    1976 doi

  7. [15]

    D., & Znajek , R

    Blandford , R. D., & Znajek , R. L. 1977, , 179, 433, 10.1093/mnras/179.3.433

    1977 doi

  8. [16]

    1949, The Characteristics of Electrical Discharges in Magnetic Fields, ed

    Bohm, D. 1949, The Characteristics of Electrical Discharges in Magnetic Fields, ed. A. Guthrie (McGraw-Hill)

    1949

  9. [17]

    2011, , 733, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/85

    Bromberg , O., Mikolitzky , Z., & Levinson , A. 2011, , 733, 85, 10.1088/0004-637X/733/2/85

    2011 doi

  10. [18]

    2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1739, 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    Bromberg, O., & Tchekhovskoy, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 456, 1739, 10.1093/mnras/stv2591

    2015 doi

  11. [19]

    M., Burbidge, G

    Burbidge, E. M., Burbidge, G. R., Fowler, W. A., & Hoyle, F. 1957, Rev. Mod. Phys., 29, 547, 10.1103/RevModPhys.29.547

    1957 doi

  12. [20]

    F., & Radice , D

    Chi-Kit Cheong , P., Pitik , T., Longo Micchi , L. F., & Radice , D. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2410.10938, 10.48550/arXiv.2410.10938

    2024 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2021, , 648, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040170

    Choplin , A., Siess , L., & Goriely , S. 2021, , 648, A119, 10.1051/0004-6361/202040170

    2021 doi

  14. [22]

    A., & Petschek , A

    Colgate , S. A., & Petschek , A. G. 1980, in Texas Workshop on Type I Supernovae, ed. J. C. Wheeler , 42--52

    1980

  15. [23]

    2018, , 854, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae8

    C \^o t \'e , B., Denissenkov , P., Herwig , F., et al. 2018, , 854, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaaae8

    2018 doi

  16. [24]

    J., Pfeiffer, B., Kratz, K., et al

    Cowan, J. J., Pfeiffer, B., Kratz, K., et al. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 521, 194–205, 10.1086/307512

    1999 doi

  17. [25]

    M., Fr \"o hlich , C., et al

    Curtis , S., Miller , J. M., Fr \"o hlich , C., et al. 2023, , 945, L13, 10.3847/2041-8213/acba16

    2023 doi

  18. [26]

    2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3627, 10.1093/mnras/stac742

    De Colle, F., Kumar, P., & Hoeflich, P. 2022, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 512, 3627, 10.1093/mnras/stac742

    2022 doi

  19. [27]

    2018, , 478, 4553, 10.1093/mnras/sty1282

    De Colle , F., Lu , W., Kumar , P., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Smoot , G. 2018, , 478, 4553, 10.1093/mnras/sty1282

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    B., & Tamborra, I

    Denton, P. B., & Tamborra, I. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 855, 37, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaab4a

    2018 doi

  21. [29]

    C., & Thompson , C

    Duncan , R. C., & Thompson , C. 1992, , 392, L9, 10.1086/186413

    1992 doi

  22. [30]

    , Thielemann, F.-K

    Farouqi, K. , Thielemann, F.-K. , Rosswog, S. , & Kratz, K.-L. 2022, A&A, 663, A70, 10.1051/0004-6361/202141038

    2022 doi

  23. [31]

    P., Belloni , T

    Fender , R. P., Belloni , T. M., & Gallo , E. 2004, , 355, 1105, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2004.08384.x

    2004

  24. [32]

    Freiburghaus , C., Rosswog , S., & Thielemann , F. K. 1999, , 525, L121, 10.1086/312343

    1999 doi

  25. [33]

    2007, , 656, 382, 10.1086/509908

    Fujimoto , S.-i., Hashimoto , M.-a., Kotake , K., & Yamada , S. 2007, , 656, 382, 10.1086/509908

    2007 doi

  26. [34]

    2018, , 476, 1853, 10.1093/mnras/sty369

    Fuller , J., & Ro , S. 2018, , 476, 1853, 10.1093/mnras/sty369

    2018 doi

  27. [35]

    Gehrels , N., Ramirez-Ruiz , E., & Fox , D. B. 2009, , 47, 567, 10.1146/annurev.astro.46.060407.145147

    2009

  28. [37]

    2007 b , , 469, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066739

    ---. 2007 b , , 469, 1, 10.1051/0004-6361:20066739

    2007 doi

  29. [38]

    L., & Syrovatskii , S

    Ginzburg , V. L., & Syrovatskii , S. I. 1964, The Origin of Cosmic Rays

    1964

  30. [39]

    2022, , 510, 4962, 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    Gottlieb , O., Lalakos , A., Bromberg , O., Liska , M., & Tchekhovskoy , A. 2022, , 510, 4962, 10.1093/mnras/stab3784

    2022 doi

  31. [40]

    2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3511–3526, 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    Gottlieb, O., Nakar, E., & Bromberg, O. 2020, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 500, 3511–3526, 10.1093/mnras/staa3501

    2020 doi

  32. [41]

    2004, Astroparticle Physics, 20, 429–455, 10.1016/s0927-6505(03)00211-1

    Guetta, D., Hooper, D., Alvarez-Muñiz, J., Halzen, F., & Reuveni, E. 2004, Astroparticle Physics, 20, 429–455, 10.1016/s0927-6505(03)00211-1

    2004 doi

  33. [42]

    2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 944, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb702

    Halevi, G., Wu, B., Mösta, P., et al. 2023, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 944, L38, 10.3847/2041-8213/acb702

    2023 doi

  34. [43]

    2013, , 772, 101, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/101

    Harrison , R., & Kobayashi , S. 2013, , 772, 101, 10.1088/0004-637X/772/2/101

    2013 doi

  35. [44]

    R., Lin , P.-H., Knox , M., & Fryer , C

    Herwig , F., Woodward , P. R., Lin , P.-H., Knox , M., & Fryer , C. 2014, , 792, L3, 10.1088/2041-8205/792/1/L3

    2014 doi

  36. [45]

    2008, Nucleosynthesis simulations for a wide range of nuclear production sites from NuGrid

    Herwig, F., Bennett, M., Diehl, S., et al. 2008, Nucleosynthesis simulations for a wide range of nuclear production sites from NuGrid. 0811.4653

    2008 arXiv

  37. [46]

    Hillas , A. M. 1984, , 22, 425, 10.1146/annurev.aa.22.090184.002233

    1984

  38. [47]

    2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, 10.1142/S0218271818420051

    Hotokezaka , K., Beniamini , P., & Piran , T. 2018, International Journal of Modern Physics D, 27, 1842005, 10.1142/S0218271818420051

    2018 doi

  39. [48]

    2012, Physical Review Letters, 108, 10.1103/physrevlett.108.231101

    Hümmer, S., Baerwald, P., & Winter, W. 2012, Physical Review Letters, 108, 10.1103/physrevlett.108.231101

    2012 doi

  40. [49]

    2019, , 565, 324, 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    Izzo , L., de Ugarte Postigo , A., Maeda , K., et al. 2019, , 565, 324, 10.1038/s41586-018-0826-3

    2019 doi

  41. [50]

    2023, Galaxies, 11, 105, 10.3390/galaxies11050105

    Jiang , Y.-F. 2023, Galaxies, 11, 105, 10.3390/galaxies11050105

    2023 doi

  42. [51]

    H., Matsuyama, A., & Sato, T

    Juliá-Díaz, B., Lee, T.-S. H., Matsuyama, A., & Sato, T. 2007, Physical Review C, 76, 10.1103/physrevc.76.065201

    2007 doi

  43. [52]

    A., Obergaulinger , M., & Nagataki , S

    Just , O., Aloy , M. A., Obergaulinger , M., & Nagataki , S. 2022, , 934, L30, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac83a1

    2022 doi

  44. [53]

    Kamano, H. 2017, in Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Meson-Nucleon Physics and the Structure of the Nucleon (MENU2016) (Journal of the Physical Society of Japan), 10.7566/jpscp.13.010012

    2017 doi

  45. [54]

    Kamano, H., Lee, T. S. H., Nakamura, S. X., & Sato, T. 2019, The ANL-Osaka Partial-Wave Amplitudes of N and N Reactions. 1909.11935

    2019 arXiv

  46. [55]

    X., Lee, T.-S

    Kamano, H., Nakamura, S. X., Lee, T.-S. H., & Sato, T. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 81, 065207, 10.1103/PhysRevC.81.065207

    2010 doi

  47. [56]

    2013, Phys

    ---. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 88, 035209, 10.1103/PhysRevC.88.035209

    2013 doi

  48. [57]

    2015, , 191, 391, 10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x

    Kargaltsev , O., Cerutti , B., Lyubarsky , Y., & Striani , E. 2015, , 191, 391, 10.1007/s11214-015-0171-x

    2015 doi

  49. [58]

    2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution, 2nd edn

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2012, Stellar Structure and Evolution, 2nd edn. (Berlin Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag)

    2012

  50. [59]

    2018, , 620, A182, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833686

    K \"o lligan , A., & Kuiper , R. 2018, , 620, A182, 10.1051/0004-6361/201833686

    2018 doi

  51. [60]

    M., Fryer , C

    Korobkin , O., Hungerford , A. M., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2020, , 889, 168, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab64d8

    2020 doi

  52. [61]

    2015, , 561, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    Kumar , P., & Zhang , B. 2015, , 561, 1, 10.1016/j.physrep.2014.09.008

    2015 doi

  53. [62]

    M., & Schramm , D

    Lattimer , J. M., & Schramm , D. N. 1974, , 192, L145, 10.1086/181612

    1974 doi

  54. [63]

    J., & L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D

    Lazzati , D., Morsony , B. J., & L \'o pez-C \'a mara , D. 2015, Journal of High Energy Astrophysics, 7, 17, 10.1016/j.jheap.2015.04.001

    2015 doi

  55. [64]

    P., & Levan , A

    Lazzati , D., Perna , R., Gompertz , B. P., & Levan , A. J. 2023, , 950, L20, 10.3847/2041-8213/acd18c

    2023 doi

  56. [65]

    Lee, T.-S. H. 2019. https://www.phy.anl.gov/theory/research/anl-osaka-pwa

    2019

  57. [66]

    2016, , 202, 33, 10.1007/s11214-016-0312-x

    Levan , A., Crowther , P., de Grijs , R., et al. 2016, , 202, 33, 10.1007/s11214-016-0312-x

    2016 doi

  58. [67]

    2010, Compact Stellar X-ray Sources

    Lewin , W., & van der Klis , M. 2010, Compact Stellar X-ray Sources

    2010

  59. [68]

    Lippuner, J., & Roberts, L. F. 2017, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series, 233, 18, 10.3847/1538-4365/aa94cb

    2017 doi

  60. [69]

    2001, , 555, 540, 10.1086/321455

    Lithwick , Y., & Sari , R. 2001, , 555, 540, 10.1086/321455

    2001 doi

  61. [70]

    M., Fryer , C., Miller , J

    Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Fryer , C., Miller , J. M., et al. 2019, , 485, 203, 10.1093/mnras/stz390

    2019 doi

  62. [71]

    J., & Moyer, B

    Longo, M. J., & Moyer, B. J. 1962, Phys. Rev., 125, 701, 10.1103/PhysRev.125.701

    1962 doi

  63. [72]

    MacDonald , D., & Thorne , K. S. 1982, , 198, 345, 10.1093/mnras/198.2.345

    1982 doi

  64. [73]

    I., & Woosley , S

    MacFadyen , A. I., & Woosley , S. E. 1999, , 524, 262, 10.1086/307790

    1999 doi

  65. [74]

    1995, Astroparticle Physics, 3, 295, https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-6505(94)00044-4

    Mannheim, K. 1995, Astroparticle Physics, 3, 295, https://doi.org/10.1016/0927-6505(94)00044-4

    1995 doi

  66. [75]

    2016, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 703, 012003, 10.1088/1742-6596/703/1/012003

    Maria, L. 2016, Journal of Physics: Conference Series, 703, 012003, 10.1088/1742-6596/703/1/012003

    2016 doi

  67. [76]

    2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc952

    Mastichiadis, A., & Petropoulou, M. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal, 906, 131, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc952

    2021 doi

  68. [77]

    2007, Physics Reports, 439, 193–253, 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.12.003

    Matsuyama, A., Sato, T., & Lee, T.-S. 2007, Physics Reports, 439, 193–253, 10.1016/j.physrep.2006.12.003

    2007 doi

  69. [78]

    C., Filippenko , A

    Mauerhan , J. C., Filippenko , A. V., Zheng , W., et al. 2018, , 478, 5050, 10.1093/mnras/sty1307

    2018 doi

  70. [79]

    A., Whalen , D

    Mesler , R. A., Whalen , D. J., Lloyd-Ronning , N. M., Fryer , C. L., & Pihlstr \"o m , Y. M. 2012, , 757, 117, 10.1088/0004-637X/757/2/117

    2012 doi

  71. [80]

    2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01

    M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2006, Reports on Progress in Physics, 69, 2259, 10.1088/0034-4885/69/8/R01

    2006 doi

  72. [81]

    Metzger, B. D. 2019, Living Reviews in Relativity, 23, 10.1007/s41114-019-0024-0

    2019 doi

  73. [82]

    D., Bauswein, A., Goriely, S., & Kasen, D

    Metzger, B. D., Bauswein, A., Goriely, S., & Kasen, D. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 446, 1115–1120, 10.1093/mnras/stu2225

    2014 doi

  74. [83]

    S., Krishnan , T

    Meyer , B. S., Krishnan , T. D., & Clayton , D. D. 1998, , 498, 808, 10.1086/305562

    1998 doi

  75. [84]

    M., Sprouse , T

    Miller , J. M., Sprouse , T. M., Fryer , C. L., et al. 2020, , 902, 66, 10.3847/1538-4357/abb4e3

    2020 doi

  76. [85]

    J., Yoon , S.-C., Gr \"a fener , G., & Blinnikov , S

    Moriya , T. J., Yoon , S.-C., Gr \"a fener , G., & Blinnikov , S. I. 2017, , 469, L108, 10.1093/mnrasl/slx056

    2017 doi

  77. [86]

    L., & Valenti , S

    Morozova , V., Piro , A. L., & Valenti , S. 2018, , 858, 15, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab9a6

    2018 doi

  78. [87]

    J., Lazzati , D., & Begelman , M

    Morsony , B. J., Lazzati , D., & Begelman , M. C. 2010, , 723, 267, 10.1088/0004-637X/723/1/267

    2010 doi

  79. [88]

    P., Engel , R., Protheroe , R

    M \"u cke , A., Rachen , J. P., Engel , R., Protheroe , R. J., & Stanev , T. 1999, , 16, 160, 10.1071/AS99160

    1999 doi

  80. [89]

    2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86–126, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001

    Mumpower, M., Surman, R., McLaughlin, G., & Aprahamian, A. 2016, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 86, 86–126, 10.1016/j.ppnp.2015.09.001

    2016 doi

  81. [90]

    R., Sprouse , T

    Mumpower , M. R., Sprouse , T. M., Miller , J. M., et al. 2024, , 970, 173, 10.3847/1538-4357/ad5afc

    2024 doi

  82. [91]

    2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 10.1103/physrevlett.111.121102

    Murase, K., & Ioka, K. 2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 10.1103/physrevlett.111.121102

    2013 doi

  83. [92]

    2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 10.1103/physrevlett.111.131102

    Murase, K., Kashiyama, K., & Mészáros, P. 2013, Physical Review Letters, 111, 10.1103/physrevlett.111.131102

    2013 doi

  84. [93]

    2001, Physical Review Letters, 87, 10.1103/physrevlett.87.171102

    Mészáros, P., & Waxman, E. 2001, Physical Review Letters, 87, 10.1103/physrevlett.87.171102

    2001 doi

  85. [94]

    X., Kamano, H., Lee, T

    Nakamura, S. X., Kamano, H., Lee, T. S. H., & Sato, T. 2018, Nuclear applications of ANL-Osaka amplitudes: pion photo-productions on deuteron. 1804.04757

    2018 arXiv

  86. [95]

    2017, , 834, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28

    Nakar , E., & Piran , T. 2017, , 834, 28, 10.3847/1538-4357/834/1/28

    2017 doi

  87. [96]

    2024, Maximum Energy of Particles in Plasmas

    Oka, M., Makishima, K., & Terasawa, T. 2024, Maximum Energy of Particles in Plasmas. 2412.00564

    2024 arXiv

  88. [97]

    R., & Volkoff, G

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Physical Review, 55, 374, 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374

    1939 doi

  89. [98]

    L., Burkert, V

    Particle Data Group , Workman, R. L., Burkert, V. D., et al. 2022, Progress of Theoretical and Experimental Physics, 2022, 083C01, 10.1093/ptep/ptac097

    2022 doi

  90. [99]

    Pe'er , A., M \'e sz \'a ros , P., & Rees , M. J. 2006, , 642, 995, 10.1086/501424

    2006 doi

  91. [100]

    1999, Physics Reports, 314, 575, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    Piran, T. 1999, Physics Reports, 314, 575, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0370-1573(98)00127-6

    1999 doi

  92. [101]

    2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    Piran , T. 2004, Reviews of Modern Physics, 76, 1143, 10.1103/RevModPhys.76.1143

    2004 doi

  93. [102]

    2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    Piran , T. 2005, in American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 784, Magnetic Fields in the Universe: From Laboratory and Stars to Primordial Structures., ed. E. M. de Gouveia dal Pino , G. Lugones , & A. Lazarian (AIP), 164--174, 10.1063/1.2077181

    2005 doi

  94. [103]

    Ramirez-Ruiz , E., Celotti , A., & Rees , M. J. 2002, , 337, 1349, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2002.05995.x

    2002

  95. [104]

    C., Gompertz , B

    Rastinejad , J. C., Gompertz , B. P., Levan , A. J., et al. 2022, , 612, 223, 10.1038/s41586-022-05390-w

    2022 doi

  96. [105]

    P., & Ferreira , J

    Ray , T. P., & Ferreira , J. 2021, , 93, 101615, 10.1016/j.newar.2021.101615

    2021

  97. [106]

    2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 1072–1078, 10.1086/423166

    Razzaque, S., Meszaros, P., & Zhang, B. 2004, The Astrophysical Journal, 613, 1072–1078, 10.1086/423166

    2004 doi

  98. [107]

    U., Vassh , N., Holmbeck , E

    Roederer , I. U., Vassh , N., Holmbeck , E. M., et al. 2023, Science, 382, 1177, 10.1126/science.adf1341

    2023 doi

  99. [108]

    2018, , 615, A132, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732117

    Rosswog , S., Sollerman , J., Feindt , U., et al. 2018, , 615, A132, 10.1051/0004-6361/201732117

    2018 doi

  100. [109]

    M., Placco , V

    Sakari , C. M., Placco , V. M., Farrell , E. M., et al. 2018, , 868, 110, 10.3847/1538-4357/aae9df

    2018 doi

  101. [110]

    S., Barbieri , C., Ascenzi , S., & Toffano , M

    Salafia , O. S., Barbieri , C., Ascenzi , S., & Toffano , M. 2020, , 636, A105, 10.1051/0004-6361/201936335

    2020 doi

  102. [111]

    Sato, T., & Lee, T.-S. H. 1996, Phys. Rev. C, 54, 2660, 10.1103/PhysRevC.54.2660

    1996 doi

  103. [112]

    2001, Phys

    Schatz, H., Aprahamian, A., Barnard, V., et al. 2001, Phys. Rev. Lett., 86, 3471, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.86.3471

    2001 doi

  104. [113]

    2016, Physical Review D, 93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.083003

    Senno, N., Murase, K., & Mészáros, P. 2016, Physical Review D, 93, 10.1103/physrevd.93.083003

    2016 doi

  105. [114]

    2011, Physics Procedia, 17, 199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.06.037

    Serebrov, A., & Fomin, A. 2011, Physics Procedia, 17, 199, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phpro.2011.06.037

    2011 doi

  106. [115]

    M., Barnes , J., & Metzger , B

    Siegel , D. M., Barnes , J., & Metzger , B. D. 2019, , 569, 241, 10.1038/s41586-019-1136-0

    2019 doi

  107. [116]

    Smith , N., & Owocki , S. P. 2006, , 645, L45, 10.1086/506523

    2006 doi

  108. [117]

    1960, The Physics of Fluids, 3, 659, 10.1063/1.1706104

    Spitzer, Lyman, J. 1960, The Physics of Fluids, 3, 659, 10.1063/1.1706104

    1960 doi

  109. [118]

    M., Mumpower , M

    Sprouse , T. M., Mumpower , M. R., & Surman , R. 2020, in European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, Vol. 242, European Physical Journal Web of Conferences, 04001, 10.1051/epjconf/202024204001

    2020

  110. [119]

    M., Mumpower , M

    Sprouse , T. M., Mumpower , M. R., & Surman , R. 2021, , 104, 015803, 10.1103/PhysRevC.104.015803

    2021 doi

  111. [120]

    2022, , 925, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d8d

    Suzuki , A., & Maeda , K. 2022, , 925, 148, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac3d8d

    2022 doi

  112. [121]

    Suzuki, N., Sato, T., & Lee, T.-S. H. 2010, Phys. Rev. C, 82, 045206, 10.1103/PhysRevC.82.045206

    2010 doi

  113. [122]

    Taub, A. H. 1948, Phys. Rev., 74, 328, 10.1103/PhysRev.74.328

    1948 doi

  114. [123]

    Usov , V. V. 1992, , 357, 472, 10.1038/357472a0

    1992 doi

  115. [124]

    B., Bustamante, M., & Glaser, C

    Valera, V. B., Bustamante, M., & Glaser, C. 2022, Journal of High Energy Physics, 2022, 10.1007/jhep06(2022)105

    2022 doi

  116. [125]

    2024, , 132, 052701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.052701

    Vassh , N., Wang , X., Larivi \`e re , M., et al. 2024, , 132, 052701, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.132.052701

    2024 doi

  117. [126]

    M., & Poutanen , J

    Vurm , I., Beloborodov , A. M., & Poutanen , J. 2011, , 738, 77, 10.1088/0004-637X/738/1/77

    2011 doi

  118. [127]

    2003, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 50, 615, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6410(03)00057-7

    Wambach, J. 2003, Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics, 50, 615, https://doi.org/10.1016/S0146-6410(03)00057-7

    2003 doi

  119. [128]

    2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, L77–L80, 10.1086/521724

    Wanajo, S. 2007, The Astrophysical Journal, 666, L77–L80, 10.1086/521724

    2007 doi

  120. [129]

    2020, , 903, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbe18

    Wang , X., N3AS Collaboration , Vassh , N., et al. 2020, , 903, L3, 10.3847/2041-8213/abbe18

    2020 doi

  121. [130]

    1997, Phys

    Waxman, E., & Bahcall, J. 1997, Phys. Rev. Lett., 78, 2292, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.78.2292

    1997 doi

  122. [131]

    1998, Physical Review D, 59, 10.1103/physrevd.59.023002

    ---. 1998, Physical Review D, 59, 10.1103/physrevd.59.023002

    1998 doi

  123. [132]

    J., G \"o rres , J., Gula , A., & Liu , Q

    Wiescher , M., deBoer , R. J., G \"o rres , J., Gula , A., & Liu , Q. 2020, Acta Physica Polonica B, 51, 631, 10.5506/APhysPolB.51.631

    2020 doi

  124. [133]

    E., & Greene, G

    Wietfeldt, F. E., & Greene, G. L. 2011, Rev. Mod. Phys., 83, 1173, 10.1103/RevModPhys.83.1173

    2011 doi

  125. [134]

    Woosley , S. E. 1993, , 405, 273, 10.1086/172359

    1993 doi

  126. [135]

    E., & Heger , A

    Woosley , S. E., & Heger , A. 2006, , 637, 914, 10.1086/498500

    2006 doi

  127. [136]

    E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T

    Woosley, S. E., Heger, A., & Weaver, T. A. 2002, Rev. Mod. Phys., 74, 1015, 10.1103/RevModPhys.74.1015

    2002 doi

  128. [137]

    2018, , 615, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730908

    Yang , R.-z., Kafexhiu , E., & Aharonian , F. 2018, , 615, A108, 10.1051/0004-6361/201730908

    2018 doi

  129. [138]

    2024, , 626, 742, 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    Yang , Y.-H., Troja , E., O'Connor , B., et al. 2024, , 626, 742, 10.1038/s41586-023-06979-5

    2024 doi

  130. [139]

    2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385, 10.1142/S0217751X0401746X

    Zhang , B., & M \'e sz \'a ros , P. 2004, International Journal of Modern Physics A, 19, 2385, 10.1142/S0217751X0401746X

    2004 doi

  131. [140]

    2011, , 726, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    Zhang , B., & Yan , H. 2011, , 726, 90, 10.1088/0004-637X/726/2/90

    2011 doi

  132. [141]

    T., Vassh , N., et al

    Zhu , Y., Wollaeger , R. T., Vassh , N., et al. 2018, , 863, L23, 10.3847/2041-8213/aad5de

    2018 doi

  133. [142]

    L., Lund , K

    Zhu , Y. L., Lund , K. A., Barnes , J., et al. 2021, , 906, 94, 10.3847/1538-4357/abc69e

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.