Zeeman effect in oscillations of magnetars with toroidal magnetic fields

D. G. Yakovlev; I. E. Fedorov

REVIEW 1 major objections 7 minor 57 references

Zeeman effect in oscillations of magnetars with toroidal magnetic fields

T0 review · 1 major / 7 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 A purely toroidal crustal magnetic field splits each magnetar oscillation mode into m-dependent Zeeman frequencies.

desk verdict Clean analytic result for Zeeman splitting in toroidal-field magnetars, honest about its toy-model status; the QPO fits lean on perturbation theory beyond its validity, but the core formula deserves serious referee time. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.18282 v2 pith:2VIFGBNS submitted 2024-11-27 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

D. G. Yakovlev , I. E. Fedorov This is my paper · ORCID

classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 97.60.Jd04.40.Dg98.70.Rz32.60.+i

keywords magnetarsquasi-periodicoscillationsmagneto-elasticZeemansplittingtoroidalmagneticfieldneutronstarcrustsoftgammarepeaterstorsional

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 establishes that a purely toroidal magnetic field confined to the crust of a magnetar splits each torsional oscillation mode into a Zeeman family of $\ell+1$ frequencies labeled by azimuthal number $m$, with the magnetic correction growing as $m^2$. For fundamental (nodeless) modes the whole spectrum is compressed into a two-number formula, $\nu^2_{0\ell m} = \frac14(\ell+2)(\ell-1)\nu^2_{\mu0} + m^2\nu^2_{B0*}\,B_*^2$, with $\nu_{\mu0} = 23.06$ Hz and $\nu_{B0*} = 4.192$ Hz for a $1.4\,M_\odot$ BSk21 star. The $m$-dependent splitting, the authors argue, makes the theoretical QPO spectrum much richer than the axisymmetric $m=0$ case and changes how observed quasi-periodic oscillations from magnetar flares should be matched to stellar models. The result matters because low-frequency QPOs are the main observable window into magnetar crusts and magnetic fields.

What carries the argument

The central object is the first-order perturbation matrix $T_{m'm}$ built from the zero-order torsional eigenfunctions of Eqs. (6)$-$ (7); for axially symmetric fields it is diagonal in $m$, which converts the problem into the sum rule $\omega^2 = \omega_\mu^2 + \omega_B^2$ and reduces the magnetic correction to a ratio of radial integrals. For a toroidal field $B_\phi = B_0\sin\theta\,\psi(x)$ that vanishes at both crust boundaries, the angular integrals eliminate the Legendre structure and leave $\omega_B^2 = (1-x_g)\, m^2B_0^2 \int \psi^2 |Y|^2 r^2\,dr \,/\, (4\pi \int \rho_H |Y|^2 r^4\,dr)$, so the Zeeman term is exactly proportional to $m^2$ and to the crustal magnetic energy. The formula's power is that all angular dependence disappears: for fundamental modes the whole spectrum is set by two auxiliary frequencies, $\nu_{\mu0}$ and $\nu_{B0*}$, and for $n>0$ by three constants per radial-node family, with self-similar mass scalings from a companion study carrying the results across $M=1$ $-$ $2.2\,M_\odot$.

What would settle it

Compute the full non-axisymmetric magneto-elastic spectrum of a crust-confined toroidal field at $B_0 \approx 2\times10^{15}$ G in full general relativity without first-order perturbation theory; if any low-$\ell$ mode frequency deviates from Eq. (31) by more than the variational spread shown in the paper's Fig. 5, the sum rule fails. Observationally, a clean Zeeman multiplet from one flare must obey the $m^2$ progression $\nu^2_{0,2,2}-\nu^2_{0,2,0}=4\nu^2_{B0*}\,B_*^2$ and $\nu^2_{0,2,1}-\nu^2_{0,2,0}=\nu^2_{B0*}\,B_*^2$; an observed spacing pattern inconsistent with these ratios would rule out the model.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

According to the paper, when the magnetic field is purely toroidal and vanishes at both crust boundaries, the first-order perturbation result is exact in the restricted problem: the squared frequency of any fundamental magneto-elastic mode is the sum of a pure shear term and a magnetic term, $\omega^2 = \omega_\mu^2 + m^2\omega_{B0*}^2\,B_*^2$. For $B_\phi = B_0\sin\theta\,\psi(x)$ with $\psi(x)=16x^2(1-x)^2$, this yields the closed form Eq. (31), and the same structure extends to ordinary modes with radial nodes, where the zero-field fine structure $\nu^2_{\mu n\ell} = \nu^2_{\mu n} + (\ell+2)(\ell-1)\delta\nu^2_{\mu n}$ acquires an added $m^2\nu^2_{Bn*}\,B_*^2$ term. Because the perturbation matrix is diagonal in $m$ for axially symmetric fields, the quantum numbers $(n,\ell,m)$ remain good labels, and modes with opposite signs of $m$ stay degenerate. The authors show that at $B_0$ of a few times $10^{15}$ G the Zeeman families of different $\ell$ overlap and cross, producing dense frequency regions where QPO identification becomes ambiguous, and they use this to interpret observed QPOs from SGR 1900+14 and SGR 1806$-$20.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the toroidal field drops to zero at both the outer surface and the crust-core interface, locking all magnetic energy in the solid crust; if real magnetars have fields that thread the core or carry boundary currents, the calculated frequencies, the absence of Alfvén leakage, and the QPO identifications would all change.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

For a crust-confined toroidal field, every fundamental mode frequency is set by just two constants, $\nu_{\mu0}$ and $\nu_{B0*}$, through Eq. (31), so measuring one member of a multiplet predicts the others.
The $m=0$ frequencies are independent of $B_0$, while $m>0$ frequencies grow as $m^2B_0^2$; at $B_0 \gtrsim 10^{15}$ G the bunches for different $\ell$ overlap and cross, creating dense allowed frequency regions.
High-frequency QPOs ($\nu \gtrsim 150$ Hz) fall into densely covered Zeeman domains even at lower fields, so identifying them with specific $(n,\ell,m)$ modes becomes highly ambiguous.
Low-frequency QPOs from SGR 1900+14 can be matched with a $1.4\,M_\odot$ model at $B_0 \approx (1.7$ $-$ $1.9)\times10^{15}$ G, while the SGR 1806$-$20 hyperflare requires a more massive ($\approx 2.2\,M_\odot$) star with $B_0 \approx (2.7\pm0.12)\times10^{15}$ G.

Reading between the lines

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

The $m^2$ scaling offers an observational lever to separate toroidal from poloidal fields: for poloidal crustal fields the magnetic frequency depends on $\ell$ and does not vanish at $m=0$, whereas a purely toroidal field forces $\omega_B=0$ at $m=0$, so a detected $m=0$ mode that shifts with field strength would point to a poloidal component.
If a future flare reveals a full Zeeman multiplet from a single $\ell$, the derived product $\nu_{B0*}\,B_*$ could be combined with an independent crust mass and radius estimate to constrain the crustal magnetic energy and the radial profile $\psi(x)$ through the coefficient $\kappa$.
The analogy with the Paschen$-$Back effect suggests that at $B_0 \gtrsim 10^{15}$ G the high-frequency fine structure reorganizes from ordering by $\ell$ to ordering by $m$; searching observed QPO catalogues for this reordering would be a direct test, though the paper leaves this step to future work.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Here's my take on Yakovlev & Fedorov, arXiv:2411.18282. The genuinely new thing is the m^2 Zeeman-splitting formula for torsional crustal modes when the field is purely toroidal and confined to the crust. They reduce the spectrum to two constants per stellar model, and the result — m=0 unsplit, magnetic frequency independent of ell for fundamentals — is not in the cited dipole-field papers. The algebra in Sec. III is consistent; I checked the theta integration and the reduction to the radial integral (Eqs. 22-23) is right. They are also honest about the toy model: toroidal field vanishing at both boundaries, no Alfven leakage, and they say it plainly. The self-similarity fits for 1-2.2 solar masses are a practical add-on.

The soft spots are exactly where the reader and stress-test put them. First, Eq. (31) is used at B0 ~ 2-3 x 10^15 G, where m^2 nu_B0*^2 B*^2 is comparable to or larger than the elastic term. First-order perturbation theory is not certified there. The variational check in Sec. III E is a restricted family (one parameter, no angular coupling) and gives only an upper bound; the gap between FOPT and variational values is not a rigorous error bar. The paper acknowledges quasi-crossings, which is the same regime problem showing up in another place. So the m^2 structure is probably robust, but the specific predicted frequencies in the QPO-fitting regime are not quantitatively established.

Second, the confinement of the field to the crust is an assumption designed to avoid Alfven leakage. Real magnetars will have core fields and non-zero boundary currents; that will change frequencies and introduce damping/leakage. The authors say this too, in Sec. V, but it means the QPO identifications in Figs. 8-9 are illustrative, not constraints. They pick B0 ranges by hand and leave some QPOs unexplained. That's fine as a demonstration, but it shouldn't be read as a measurement.

Who's this for? Anyone working on magnetar QPOs or crustal oscillations. The paper gives a compact parametrization that observers can test against better data. It deserves a serious referee: the core derivation is clean, the limitations are disclosed, and the m^2 Zeeman effect is a real addition to the dipole-field results. I'd send it to peer review with a request to either soften the strong-field claims or add a better validity test, and to keep the toy-model framing in the abstract.

Referee Report

1 major / 7 minor

Summary. The paper develops a first-order perturbation theory (FOPT) treatment of non-axisymmetric magneto-elastic oscillations of magnetar crusts containing a purely toroidal magnetic field confined to the crust. For fundamental modes (n=0) the authors derive the simple Zeeman-type formula Eq. (31), ν^2_{0ℓm} = (1/4)(ℓ+2)(ℓ−1)ν^2_{µ0} + m^2 ν^2_{B0*} B_*^2, with ν_{µ0}=23.06 Hz and ν_{B0*}=4.192 Hz for a 1.4 M_sun BSk21 model, and an analogous expression Eq. (35) for ordinary modes with radial nodes. They provide self-similarity fits over stellar masses, variational checks, and illustrative comparisons with QPOs from SGR 1900+14 and SGR 1806–20. The central qualitative claim is that the m^2 Zeeman term greatly enriches the oscillation spectrum and affects QPO interpretation.

Significance. The derivation of Eqs. (22)–(23) is algebraically consistent and transparent: the angular integral eliminates the Legendre dependence and leaves a simple radial integral. The m^2 dependence of the magnetic frequency is a clean, falsifiable prediction, and the paper is commendably explicit about the toy-model nature of the assumed field geometry. The self-similarity fits and the small set of auxiliary frequencies in Tables I and II are useful practical tools. If the FOPT result were quantitatively valid at the fields used for QPO fitting, the paper would give a very economical description of a large portion of the magneto-elastic spectrum. However, the quantitative accuracy of Eq. (31) in the regime B_0 ∼ 2–3×10^15 G, where the magnetic term is comparable to or larger than the elastic term, is not established by the checks presented in the manuscript.

major comments (1)

[§III A, Eq. (21), and §IV] The paper itself acknowledges in §III D that mode crossings at sufficiently high B_0 become quasi-crossings that are 'not described by our FOPT approach.' Since the illustrative fits in §IV use B_0 = (1.7–1.9)×10^15 G and B_0 = (2.7±0.12)×10^15 G, where many such crossings occur in Figs. 1 and 2, the specific ℓ,m identifications and B_0 constraints in Figs. 8–9 are not reliable within the stated approximations. In addition, the claim in §II E that 'under the formulated assumptions the sum rule (12) is exact' is misleading: Eq. (12) is derived by evaluating a Rayleigh quotient with unperturbed (zero-order) eigenfunctions, which gives only the first-order correction in B^2, not an exact result for the full problem. Clarifying the status of Eq. (12) is important because the paper explicitly extends it to fields where ω_B is comparable to ω_µ.

minor comments (7)

[§II D] Typo: 'nimber of radial nodes' should read 'number of radial nodes.'
[§II C] Typo: 'with minis sign' should read 'with minus sign.'
[§III F] Typo: 'These can can be numbered' should read 'These can be numbered.'
[Fig. 6 caption] The frequency '8.38.6' should read '838.6'.
[§IV] The name 'SGR 1860–20' appears twice in §IV; this should be 'SGR 1806–20' as used elsewhere.
[§II E, Eq. (13)] The denominator notation '|u2|' is unclear; it should be the modulus squared of the vector displacement, e.g., |u|².
[§III D and Figs. 8–9] The QPO frequencies are shown as dotted lines on the figures, but the individual frequencies are not labeled on the plots; the text is clear, but labels would improve readability.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (31) follows from microphysical integrals for shear and magnetic energy, while the QPO comparisons in Sec. IV openly fit B0 in a labeled toy model.

full rationale

The central spectrum formula, Eq. (31), is derived from two independent microphysical ingredients: the elastic frequency nu_mu0 comes from the shear-modulus integral (Eq. 25) using the BSk21 crust model, and the magnetic frequency nu_B0star comes from the magnetic-energy integral (Eqs. 26-28) for the assumed toroidal field profile. Neither constant is calibrated to observed QPO frequencies. The field profile psi(x) and the crust-confined geometry are explicit model assumptions, not retrofitted outputs. The QPO comparisons in Sec. IV do fit B0 (and, in one figure, the stellar mass) to the observed frequencies, but the paper explicitly labels these as illustrative toy-model exercises and even suggests treating nu_mu0 and the product nu_B0star Bstar as free fit parameters, so no fitted quantity is being relabeled as a prediction. Self-citations to Refs. [25, 26, 49, 50] provide the standard torsional-oscillation formalism, shear-microphysics fits, and previous Zeeman calculations; these are external, parameter-free inputs with stated assumptions and do not presuppose the paper's new toroidal-field result. The FOPT validity limitation at B0 greater than about 10^15 G and the neglect of Alfven-wave leakage are genuine physical-robustness concerns, but they are not circularity: they concern whether the approximate calculation is accurate, not whether the claimed output is identical to an input by construction.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central spectrum rests on a standard perturbation formalism plus several model choices: a specific equation of state, a chosen magnetic profile psi(x), the crustal confinement of the field, and an extrapolation of perturbation theory to strong fields. None of these are independently verified in the paper, and the paper itself labels the field geometry a toy model.

free parameters (3)

B0, maximum toroidal field in crust = 1.7-1.9 x 10^15 G (SGR 1900+14), 2.7 +/- 0.12 x 10^15 G (SGR 1806-20)
Not derived; chosen by hand in Sec. IV to make computed frequencies match observed QPOs. The same parameter family appears in the theoretical spectrum, so the QPO 'explanation' is a fit.
psi(x), radial profile of B_phi = psi0 = 16 x^2 (1-x)^2, plus variants 1-3
The dimensionless depth profile is chosen ad hoc. It sets the coefficient kappa in Eq. (28) and thereby nu_Bstar, so the predicted magnetic splitting depends on an unconstrained functional input.
Neutron star mass M = 1.4 solar masses; 2.2 solar masses in the SGR 1806-20 comparison
The stellar mass is an input model parameter; different masses produce different frequencies via redshift and structure. The paper uses a massive model specifically to accommodate the low-frequency SGR 1806-20 QPOs.

assumptions (5)

domain assumption Oscillations are linear, non-dissipative, and incompressible, with displacements tangent to spherical shells.
Sec. II A: the paper assumes small perturbations, frozen-in field, and no pressure or gravitational-wave perturbations. This excludes radial modes and dissipation.
domain assumption The magnetic field is axially symmetric and mirror-symmetric about the magnetic equator.
Sec. II E, Eq. (10): this makes the perturbation matrix diagonal in m and forces +m and -m frequencies to coincide.
ad hoc to paper Toroidal field is confined to the solid crust with B_phi vanishing at both boundaries.
Sec. III A: introduced to avoid Alfven wave leakage; the paper calls the configuration a toy model and says the step is artificial.
ad hoc to paper First-order perturbation theory remains valid for B0 up to about 4 x 10^15 G, including cases where omega_B is comparable to omega_mu.
Sec. III E: the sum rule (12) is extended beyond its formal range; only a restricted variational estimate supports this, and quasi-crossings are not captured.
domain assumption BSk21 equation of state and standard crust microphysics (Coulomb crystal shear modulus) are used.
Sec. III B: all numerical constants depend on the equation of state and shear modulus; different choices change the auxiliary frequencies.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Zeeman effect in oscillations of magnetars with toroidal magnetic fields." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/2VIFGBNS

@misc{pith2026241118282,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Zeeman effect in oscillations of magnetars with toroidal magnetic fields},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/2VIFGBNS}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.18282}
}

read the original abstract

Magnetars are neutron stars with superstrong magnetic fields. Some of them (soft-gamma repeaters, SGRs) demonstrate gigantic flares which nature is still unclear. At decay phase of such flares one often observes quasi-periodic oscillations (QPOs) which are treated as stellar oscillations triggered by the flares. We study, for the first time, magneto-elastic oscillations of magnetars possessing toroidal magnetic fields confined in the stellar crust, without imposing axial symmetry of perturbations. We show that the Zeeman effect makes the oscillation spectrum much richer than for axially symmetric oscillations. The main properties of theoretical QPO spectra are discussed as well as their potential to interpret observations and explore magnetar physics.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.18282 by the authors.

**Figure 4.** For clarity, we plot only two oscillation bunches, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** FIG. 3. Four versions of the function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: FIG. 4. Sensitivity of magneto-elastic oscillation frequencies [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_4.png]

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: FIG. 7. Same as in Fig. 6 but for a wider range of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_7.png]

**Figure 8.** Figure 8: FIG. 8. Calculated frequencies of magneto-elastic oscillations [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 37 canonical work pages

[1]

S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact ob- jects (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1983)

work page 1983
[2]

Haensel, A

P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev, Neutron Stars. 1. Equation of State and Structure (Springer, New York, 2007)

work page 2007
[3]

V. M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Magne- tars, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 261 (2017), arXiv:1703.00068 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2017
[4]

R. C. Duncan, Global Seismic Oscillations in Soft Gamma Repeaters, Astrophys. J. Lett. 498, L45 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9803060 [astro-ph]

arXiv 1998
[5]

G. L. Israel, T. Belloni, L. Stella, Y. Rephaeli, D. E. Gru- ber, P. Casella, S. Dall’Osso, N. Rea, M. Persic, and R. E. Rothschild, The Discovery of Rapid X-Ray Oscillations in the Tail of the SGR 1806-20 Hyperflare, Astrophys. J. Lett. 628, L53 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505255 [astro- ph]

arXiv 2005
[6]

T. E. Strohmayer and A. L. Watts, Discovery of Fast X-Ray Oscillations during the 1998 Giant Flare from SGR 1900+14, Astrophys. J. Lett. 632, L111 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508206 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2005
[7]

A. L. Watts and T. E. Strohmayer, Detection with RHESSI of High-Frequency X-Ray Oscillations in the Tailof the 2004 Hyperflare from SGR 1806-20, Astrophys. J. Lett. 637, L117 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512630 [astro- ph]

arXiv 2006
[8]

Bayesian timing analysis of giant flare of SGR 1806-20 by RXTE PCA

V. Hambaryan, R. Neuh¨ auser, and K. D. Kokkotas, Bayesian timing analysis of giant flare of SGR 180620 by RXTE PCA, Astron. Astrophys. 528, A45 (2011), 14 arXiv:1012.5654 [astro-ph.SR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011

Show all 57 references

[9]

Huppenkothen, L

D. Huppenkothen, L. M. Heil, A. L. Watts, and E. G¨ o˘ g¨ us,, Quasi-periodic Oscillations in Short Recurring Bursts of Magnetars SGR 1806-20 and SGR 1900+14 Ob- served with RXTE, Astrophys. J. 795, 114 (2014), arXiv:1409.7642 [astro-ph.HE]

2014 arXiv
[10]

Huppenkothen, C

D. Huppenkothen, C. D’Angelo, A. L. Watts, L. Heil, M. van der Klis, A. J. van der Horst, C. Kouveliotou, M. G. Baring, E. G¨ o˘ g¨ us,, J. Granot, Y. Kaneko, L. Lin, A. von Kienlin, and G. Younes, Quasi-periodic Oscil- lations in Short Recurring Bursts of the Soft Gamma Repea...

2014 arXiv
[11]

Pumpe, M

D. Pumpe, M. Gabler, T. Steininger, and T. A. Enßlin, Search for quasi-periodic signals in magnetar giant flares. Bayesian inspection of SGR 1806-20 and SGR 1900+14, Astron. Astrophys. 610, A61 (2018), arXiv:1708.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[12]

C. J. Hansen and D. F. Cioffi, Torsional oscillations in neutron star crusts, Astrophys. J. 238, 740 (1980)

1980
[13]

B. L. Schumaker and K. S. Thorne, Torsional oscillations of neutron stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 203, 457 (1983)

1983
[14]

P. N. McDermott, H. M. van Horn, and C. J. Hansen, Nonradial Oscillations of Neutron Stars, Astrophys. J. 325, 725 (1988)

1988
[15]

Samuelsson and N

L. Samuelsson and N. Andersson, Neutron star astero- seismology. Axial crust oscillations in the Cowling ap- proximation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 374, 256 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0609265 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[16]

Andersson, K

N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, and L. Samuelsson, Su- perfluid signatures in magnetar seismology, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 396, 894 (2009), arXiv:0812.2417 [astro-ph]

2009 arXiv
[17]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Nakazato, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Prob- ing the Equation of State of Nuclear Matter via Neu- tron Star Asteroseismology, Phys. Rev. Lett.108, 201101 (2012), arXiv:1202.6242 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[18]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Nakazato, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Effect of superfluidity on neutron star oscillations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 428, L21 (2013), arXiv:1210.0955 [astro- ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[19]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Nakazato, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Pos- sible constraints on the density dependence of the nuclear symmetry energy from quasi-periodic oscillations in soft gamma repeaters, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 434, 2060 (2013), arXiv:1303.4500 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[20]

Sotani, Empirical formula of crustal torsional oscilla- tions, Phys

H. Sotani, Empirical formula of crustal torsional oscilla- tions, Phys. Rev. D 93, 044059 (2016), arXiv:1602.04558 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[21]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Probing nuclear bubble structure via neutron star asteroseismology, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 464, 3101 (2017), arXiv:1609.01802 [astro-ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[22]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Probing crustal structures from neutron star compactness, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 470, 4397 (2017), arXiv:1706.04736 [astro- ph.HE]

2017 arXiv
[23]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Constraints on the nuclear equation of state and the neutron star structure from crustal torsional oscillations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 479, 4735 (2018), arXiv:1807.00528 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[24]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. Iida, and K. Oyamatsu, Astrophysical im- plications of double-layer torsional oscillations in a neu- tron star crust as a lasagna sandwich, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 489, 3022 (2019), arXiv:1906.06999 [astro- ph.HE]

2019 arXiv
[25]

A. A. Kozhberov and D. G. Yakovlev, Deformed crys- tals and torsional oscillations of neutron star crust, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 498, 5149 (2020), arXiv:2009.04952 [astro-ph.HE]

2020 arXiv
[26]

D. G. Yakovlev, Self-similarity relations for torsional os- cillations of neutron stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 518, 1148 (2023), arXiv:2210.02931 [astro-ph.SR]

2023 arXiv
[27]

Levin, QPOs during magnetar flares are not driven by mechanical normal modes of the crust, Mon

Y. Levin, QPOs during magnetar flares are not driven by mechanical normal modes of the crust, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 368, L35 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0601020 [astro-ph]

2006 arXiv
[28]

Glampedakis, L

K. Glampedakis, L. Samuelsson, and N. Andersson, Elas- tic or magnetic? A toy model for global magnetar os- cillations with implications for quasi-periodic oscillations during flares, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 371, L74 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0605461 [astro-ph]

2006 arXiv
[29]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. D. Kokkotas, and N. Stergioulas, Tor- sional oscillations of relativistic stars with dipole mag- netic fields, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 375, 261 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0608626 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[30]

Levin, On the theory of magnetar QPOs, Mon

Y. Levin, On the theory of magnetar QPOs, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 377, 159 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0612725 [astro-ph]

2007 arXiv
[31]

Sotani, K

H. Sotani, K. D. Kokkotas, and N. Stergioulas, Alfv´ en quasi-periodic oscillations in magnetars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 385, L5 (2008), arXiv:0710.1113 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[32]

Lee, Axisymmetric toroidal modes of magnetized neu- tron stars, Mon

U. Lee, Axisymmetric toroidal modes of magnetized neu- tron stars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 385, 2069 (2008), arXiv:0710.4986 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[33]

Colaiuda, H

A. Colaiuda, H. Beyer, and K. D. Kokkotas, On the quasi-periodic oscillations in magnetars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 396, 1441 (2009), arXiv:0902.1401 [astro- ph.HE]

2009 arXiv
[34]

Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N

P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Stergioulas, and J. A. Font, Alfv´ en QPOs in magnetars in the anelastic approximation, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 397, 1607 (2009), arXiv:0902.1472 [astro-ph.HE]

2009 arXiv
[35]

Gabler, P

M. Gabler, P. Cerd´ a Dur´ an, J. A. Font, E. M¨ uller, and N. Stergioulas, Magneto-elastic oscillations and the damping of crustal shear modes in magnetars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410, L37 (2011), arXiv:1007.0856 [astro- ph.HE]

2011 arXiv
[36]

van Hoven and Y

M. van Hoven and Y. Levin, Magnetar oscillations - I. Strongly coupled dynamics of the crust and the core, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 410, 1036 (2011), arXiv:1006.0348 [astro-ph.HE]

2011 arXiv
[37]

Colaiuda and K

A. Colaiuda and K. D. Kokkotas, Magnetar oscillations in the presence of a crust, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc.414, 3014 (2011), arXiv:1012.3103 [gr-qc]

2011 arXiv
[38]

van Hoven and Y

M. van Hoven and Y. Levin, Magnetar oscillations - II. Spectral method, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 420, 3035 (2012), arXiv:1110.2107 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[39]

Gabler, P

M. Gabler, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Stergioulas, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, Magnetoelastic oscillations of neutron stars with dipolar magnetic fields, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 421, 2054 (2012), arXiv:1109.6233 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[40]

Colaiuda and K

A. Colaiuda and K. D. Kokkotas, Coupled polar-axial magnetar oscillations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 423, 811 (2012), arXiv:1112.3561 [astro-ph.HE]

2012 arXiv
[41]

Gabler, P

M. Gabler, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, J. A. Font, E. M¨ uller, and N. Stergioulas, Magneto-elastic oscillations of neu- tron stars: exploring different magnetic field configu- 15 rations, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 430, 1811 (2013), arXiv:1208.6443 [astro-ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[42]

Gabler, P

M. Gabler, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Stergioulas, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, Imprints of Superfluidity on Magne- toelastic Quasiperiodic Oscillations of Soft Gamma- Ray Repeaters, Phys. Rev. Lett. 111, 211102 (2013), arXiv:1304.3566 [astro-ph.HE]

2013 arXiv
[43]

Passamonti and S

A. Passamonti and S. K. Lander, Quasi-periodic oscilla- tions in superfluid magnetars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 438, 156 (2014), arXiv:1307.3210 [astro-ph.SR]

2014 arXiv
[44]

Link and C

B. Link and C. A. van Eysden, Torsional Oscillations of a Magnetar with a Tangled Magnetic Field, Astrophys. J. Lett. 823, L1 (2016), arXiv:1604.02372 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[45]

Gabler, P

M. Gabler, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Stergioulas, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, Coherent magneto-elastic oscillations in superfluid magnetars, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 460, 4242 (2016), arXiv:1605.07638 [astro-ph.HE]

2016 arXiv
[46]

Gabler, P

M. Gabler, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, N. Stergioulas, J. A. Font, and E. M¨ uller, Constraining properties of high-density matter in neutron stars with magneto-elastic oscilla- tions, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 476, 4199 (2018), arXiv:1710.02334 [astro-ph.HE]

2018 arXiv
[47]

Cheung, L.-M

L. Cheung, L.-M. Lin, and N. Chamel, Torsional oscilla- tions of magnetized neutron stars: Impacts of Landau- Rabi quantization of electron motion, Phys. Rev. D 110, 083021 (2024), arXiv:2312.05676 [astro-ph.HE]

2024 arXiv
[48]

Shaisultanov and D

R. Shaisultanov and D. Eichler, What Magnetar Seismol- ogy Can Teach Us About Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J. Lett. 702, L23 (2009), arXiv:0903.3319 [astro-ph.HE]

2009 arXiv
[49]

Yakovlev, Zeeman Splitting of Torsional Oscilla- tion Frequencies of Magnetars, Universe 9, 504 (2023), arXiv:2312.10022 [astro-ph.HE]

D. Yakovlev, Zeeman Splitting of Torsional Oscilla- tion Frequencies of Magnetars, Universe 9, 504 (2023), arXiv:2312.10022 [astro-ph.HE]

2023 arXiv
[50]

D. G. Yakovlev, Powerful flares and magneto-elastic oscil- lations of magnetars, Zh. Exp. Teor. Fiz.166, 121 (2024), arXiv:2409.11178 [astro-ph]

2024 arXiv
[51]

Arfken, Mathematical Methods for Physicists (Aca- demic Press, New York, 1966)

G. Arfken, Mathematical Methods for Physicists (Aca- demic Press, New York, 1966)

1966
[52]

L. D. Landau and E. M. Lifshitz, Quantum Mechanics (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1976)

1976
[53]

D. N. Aguilera, J. A. Pons, and J. A. Miralles, 2D Cooling of magnetized neutron stars, Astron. Astrophys.486, 255 (2008), arXiv:0710.0854 [astro-ph]

2008 arXiv
[54]

A. Y. Potekhin, A. F. Fantina, N. Chamel, J. M. Pear- son, and S. Goriely, Analytical representations of unified equations of state for neutron-star matter, Astron. Astro- phys. 560, A48 (2013), arXiv:1310.0049 [astro-ph.SR]

2013 arXiv
[55]

Ogata and S

S. Ogata and S. Ichimaru, First-principles calculations of shear moduli for Monte Carlo-simulated Coulomb solids, Phys. Rev. A 42, 4867 (1990)

1990
[56]

L. D. Landau, To the Stars theory, Phys. Zs. Sowjet 1, 285 (1932)

1932
[57]

D. G. Yakovlev, P. Haensel, G. Baym, and C. Pethick, Lev Landau and the concept of neutron stars, Physics Us- pekhi 56, 289-295 (2013), arXiv:1210.0682 [physics.hist- ph]

2013 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black holes, white dwarfs, and neutron stars: The physics of compact ob- jects (Wiley-Interscience, New York, 1983)

work page 1983

[2] [2]

Haensel, A

P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev, Neutron Stars. 1. Equation of State and Structure (Springer, New York, 2007)

work page 2007

[3] [3]

V. M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Magne- tars, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 261 (2017), arXiv:1703.00068 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2017

[4] [4]

R. C. Duncan, Global Seismic Oscillations in Soft Gamma Repeaters, Astrophys. J. Lett. 498, L45 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9803060 [astro-ph]

arXiv 1998

[5] [5]

G. L. Israel, T. Belloni, L. Stella, Y. Rephaeli, D. E. Gru- ber, P. Casella, S. Dall’Osso, N. Rea, M. Persic, and R. E. Rothschild, The Discovery of Rapid X-Ray Oscillations in the Tail of the SGR 1806-20 Hyperflare, Astrophys. J. Lett. 628, L53 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0505255 [astro- ph]

arXiv 2005

[6] [6]

T. E. Strohmayer and A. L. Watts, Discovery of Fast X-Ray Oscillations during the 1998 Giant Flare from SGR 1900+14, Astrophys. J. Lett. 632, L111 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0508206 [astro-ph]

arXiv 2005

[7] [7]

A. L. Watts and T. E. Strohmayer, Detection with RHESSI of High-Frequency X-Ray Oscillations in the Tailof the 2004 Hyperflare from SGR 1806-20, Astrophys. J. Lett. 637, L117 (2006), arXiv:astro-ph/0512630 [astro- ph]

arXiv 2006

[8] [8]

Bayesian timing analysis of giant flare of SGR 1806-20 by RXTE PCA

V. Hambaryan, R. Neuh¨ auser, and K. D. Kokkotas, Bayesian timing analysis of giant flare of SGR 180620 by RXTE PCA, Astron. Astrophys. 528, A45 (2011), 14 arXiv:1012.5654 [astro-ph.SR]

work page Pith review arXiv 2011