Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 5 minor 1 cited by

Non-purely transverse Magnus force in superconducting neutron stars

T0 review · 1 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The Magnus force on a proton vortex gains a longitudinal component.

desk verdict A careful, self-contained derivation of the longitudinal Magnus-force mechanism in the extreme type-II limit; the physics is convincing within the model, but the authors correctly admit it does not directly apply to real neutron-star matter with ξ/λ ~ 0.6. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.05628 v1 pith:FPD7R7SX submitted 2025-05-08 astro-ph.HE cond-mat.supr-connucl-th

Oleg A. Goglichidze , Mikhail E. Gusakov This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEcond-mat.supr-connucl-th PACS 97.60.Jd
keywords superconductingneutronstarsprotonvorticesMagnusforcelongitudinalvortextype-IIsuperconductivityelectronscatteringdynamicsstarmagneticfields
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper studies how a current of electrons scattering off a proton vortex in cold superconducting neutron-star matter transfers momentum down to the vortex core, and it claims to resolve a paradox: the force measured across a large cylinder surrounding the vortex has a component parallel to the incident current, while the usual Magnus force on the core is strictly transverse. The resolution is that the core feels the Magnus force of the local superconducting proton current, not the transport current measured far away. Electron scattering perturbs that local current by a correction $\delta\mathbf{j}_p(0)$ which is perpendicular to the incident current, and a perpendicular current correction produces a longitudinal component of the Magnus force. If correct, the standard force formula $\mathbf{F}_{m\to v}=-m_p\kappa\,\mathbf{e}_z\times\mathbf{j}_p(0)$, evaluated with the on-axis current, carries both the transverse and the longitudinal force without any new dissipative mechanism.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the correction to the superconducting proton current produced by electron scattering off the vortex magnetic field. The electron distribution function is solved from the collisionless Boltzmann-Vlasov equation at every distance from the vortex; the resulting electron current correction feeds a screened London equation, $(\Delta-\lambda^{-2})\delta\mathbf{j}_p=-\lambda^{-2}\delta\mathbf{j}_e$, whose Green's-function solution yields $\delta\mathbf{j}_p$ in Eq. (91). Near the vortex axis this correction is finite and perpendicular to the transport current, $\delta\mathbf{j}_p(0)=(m_p\kappa\,3\pi/8p_{Fe})\,L_e^{-1}\,\mathbf{e}_z\times\mathbf{j}_{p0}$, with $L_e^{-1}=1/8\lambda$ for the standard vortex-field profile. Substituting this local current into the Magnus formula, Eq. (110), reproduces the longitudinal force of Eq. (108) and matches the momentum-flux integration through a large cylinder, which is the mechanism by which longitudinal momentum reaches the core.

What would settle it

A finite-core calculation for npe matter with realistic $\xi/\lambda\approx0.6$ at zero temperature, including electron scattering off bound core quasiparticles, would settle the claim: if the longitudinal drag is not equal to $-(m_p\kappa)^2(3\pi/8p_{Fe})\,L_e^{-1}$ or the on-axis correction $\delta\mathbf{j}_p(0)$ fails to appear in a self-consistent solution, the central result is wrong. A laboratory check would measure the drag-versus-orientation response of a pinned flux line in a clean type-II superconductor; a purely transverse force would contradict the paper's prediction.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that, in the low-temperature, extreme type-II limit with an electron mean free path much longer than every microscopic scale, the only force applied directly to an infinitely thin vortex core is the Magnus force exerted by superconducting protons, and the correct argument uses the proton current evaluated on the vortex axis: $\mathbf{F}_{m\to v}=-m_p\kappa\,\mathbf{e}_z\times\mathbf{j}_p(0)$, where $\mathbf{j}_p(0)=\mathbf{j}_{p0}+\delta\mathbf{j}_p(0)$. The correction $\delta\mathbf{j}_p(0)$, given by Eq. (94), is perpendicular to the transport current $\mathbf{j}_{p0}$; as a result the Magnus force, although perpendicular to the local current, acquires a component parallel to the incident current that earlier treatments overlooked. The paper verifies this by two independent calculations: integrating the momentum flux through a cylinder of arbitrary radius and substituting the local current into the Magnus expression, obtaining the same force in both cases and showing explicitly how momentum carried by electrons at large distances is handed to protons near the core.

Load-bearing premise

The derivation assumes the vortex core is infinitely thin, meaning the coherence length (the core radius) is much smaller than the London penetration depth, whereas in real neutron-star matter the ratio is only about 0.6; with a finite core, electrons can scatter off bound quasiparticles inside the core and add forces beyond the Magnus force, so the conclusions cannot be applied directly to most of the neutron-star bulk.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The total force on a proton vortex is independent of the chosen integration surface; the large-cylinder electron-scattering calculation and the near-core Magnus calculation are two equivalent descriptions of the same transfer.
  • The longitudinal force is present at zero temperature and in the ideal extreme type-II limit, so it is not a thermal or finite-core effect but a backreaction of the proton current alone.
  • After averaging over a dilute vortex array, the longitudinal component acts dissipatively and can convert mechanical or magnetic energy into heat, so the Magnus force can be responsible for dissipation.
  • The minimal correction to existing vortex-force formulas is to replace the transport current $\mathbf{j}_{p0}$ by the on-axis current $\mathbf{j}_p(0)$ in the Magnus term; muons and entrainment leave this structure unchanged.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A finite core with $\xi/\lambda\sim0.6$ will introduce electron scattering off bound core quasiparticles, so the strictly Magnus-only conclusion is an ideal limiting case; the paper's own discussion implies the real-star force contains an additional longitudinal contribution not captured here.
  • If the mechanism is right, the magnitude of the on-axis current correction sets the size of the longitudinal drag in realistic matter, so computing $\delta\mathbf{j}_p(0)$ in a finite-core model is a direct way to estimate the missing force.
  • In clean terrestrial type-II superconductors, where the extreme type-II limit is realistic, the same mechanism predicts an orientation-dependent, not purely transverse, drag on a pinned flux line; a null measurement would count against it.
  • The equivalence of the two force definitions invites rewriting neutron-star vortex-force models with only the proton coefficients $D'_p$ and $D_p$ non-zero, which may simplify the equations coupling field evolution to superfluid flow.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper studies the force acting on a single proton vortex in zero-temperature npe-matter neutron-star cores, working in the extreme type-II limit where the coherence length is much smaller than the London penetration depth (ξ≪λ). The authors derive the electron distribution function at arbitrary distance from the vortex, compute the self-consistent correction δjp to the proton supercurrent, and calculate the vortex force by two independent methods: momentum flux through a large cylinder and the Magnus force integrated at the core. Their central claim is that the only force transmitted directly to the vortex core is the Magnus force, but with the local proton current jp(0)=jp0+δjp(0) replacing the transport current jp0; because δjp(0) is perpendicular to jp0, this generates a longitudinal (dissipative) force component. The two calculation methods agree, and the longitudinal coefficient reproduces the earlier result of Ref. [11] in the appropriate limit.

Significance. If the result holds, it resolves a long-standing paradox in neutron-star vortex dynamics: how longitudinal momentum from electron scattering at scales ~λ is transferred to the vortex core. The demonstration that the Magnus force, with a corrected local current, can produce a longitudinal force is conceptually important and may apply to other superconducting systems. The paper is self-contained, parameter-free, and internally consistent, with a clear hierarchy of approximations and multiple cross-checks: agreement between the momentum-flux and Magnus-force methods, independence of the cylinder radius (Appendix E), and reproduction of the known coefficient from Ref. [11]. The appendices add useful discussion of entrainment and backflow corrections. The main caveat is that the derivation is valid only in the extreme type-II limit, which the authors acknowledge is not realistic for most of the neutron-star bulk.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. VII and Abstract] The headline claim that 'the only relevant force applied directly to the vortex core is the Magnus force' is established only under the extreme type-II assumption ξ≪λ, as the authors explicitly state in Sec. VII. Realistic neutron-star vortices have ξ/λ≈0.6, so the result cannot be directly applied to most of the neutron-star bulk. Because the abstract and title present the result as pertaining to superconducting neutron stars without this qualification, the abstract overstates the domain of validity. The authors should either provide a quantitative estimate of finite-core corrections (for example, extending the estimate of electron scattering off core quasiparticles) or explicitly reframe the paper as a proof-of-principle demonstration in the extreme type-II limit.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. VI B, Eqs. (43) and (111)] The treatment of the divergent vortex current jpv in the Magnus-force integral uses an azimuthal-averaging prescription that the authors describe as 'not entirely rigorous.' Since the final force is cross-checked by Method I and Appendix E, the result is robust, but the paper should state explicitly that the jpv contribution vanishes by axial symmetry, so that the prescription is a symmetry consequence rather than an ad-hoc assumption.
  2. [Abstract and Sec. I] Please add a brief qualification in the abstract, e.g., 'in the extreme type-II limit (ξ≪λ),' so that the domain of validity is clear to readers who do not reach Sec. VII.
  3. [Sec. V A, Eq. (63)] The notation ep and ep⊥ appears in Eq. (63) but is defined only later around Eq. (65); please define these unit vectors immediately before their first use.
  4. [Fig. 2] The two panels show current corrections, but the arrow lengths and any color scale are not described; please add a note in the caption explaining how the vector magnitude is represented.
  5. [Sec. VI A, Eq. (106)] When matching to Ref. [11], the asymptotic G(λ/ξ)≈πξ/8λ is used without specifying its regime; adding 'for ξ/λ≪1' in the same sentence would improve clarity.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

Self-contained derivation; no fitted inputs, no load-bearing self-citations, and the central force result is an explicitly conditional model calculation rather than a circular one.

full rationale

The paper's derivation is self-contained. The electron distribution function is obtained by solving the Boltzmann-Vlasov equation (33) with the vortex magnetic field, giving delta_je through Eqs. (62)-(70). The proton current correction delta_jp is then obtained from the Maxwell-London equations (86)-(91), with no free parameters and no use of the final force as an input. The force is computed by two independent methods - momentum flux through a distant cylinder (Method I, Sec. VI A) and the Magnus-force formula with the local current (Method II, Sec. VI B) - and the two results are shown to agree, including the consistency check in Appendix E for arbitrary cylinder radius. The longitudinal coefficient L_e^{-1} is an explicit integral over the London profile P'(rho), and the reproduction of the coefficient from Ref. [11] is presented as an external check, not as a premise. The vortex profile P(rho) itself is a standard London limit result cited to de Gennes and Ref. [11], and the paper does not invoke any uniqueness theorem from the authors' previous work. The only self-citations are used for checks or for standard results, and none is load-bearing. The statement that the Magnus force is the only force acting directly on the vortex core is a consequence of the explicitly stated infinitely-thin-core model, and the paper candidly states in Sec. VII that for realistic xi/lambda ~ 0.6 the conclusions cannot be directly applied to most of the neutron star bulk. This is a well-flagged limitation, not a disguised circularity. No predicted quantity reduces to an input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No fitted constants appear in the derivation. All inputs are physical parameters (mp, kappa, pFe, lambda, densities) or analytically evaluated integrals such as L_e^-1 = 1/(8 lambda). The assumptions are all stated explicitly in the paper, with the infinite-thin-core limit being the most restrictive.

assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption Vortex core is infinitely thin, so coherence length xi is much smaller than London penetration depth lambda (extreme type-II regime).
    Introduced in Sec. III and used throughout; enables treating the core as a line and ignoring electron scattering off core-bound quasiparticles. Sec. VII acknowledges this is overly idealized for neutron star interiors.
  • domain assumption Electron mean free path is large, so the electron collision integral is omitted in the Boltzmann-Vlasov equation.
    Sec. III, Eq. (33) and following text; needed for the collisionless treatment of electron scattering off the vortex magnetic field.
  • domain assumption Temperature is zero, so there are no thermal Bogoliubov excitations of neutrons or protons.
    Sec. III; restricts the matter to neutron and proton condensates plus electrons.
  • domain assumption Incident fluxes are small, allowing linearization in Qp0/pFp and Ve/vFe and an expansion in the small parameter epsilon.
    Sec. V, Eqs. (47), (49), (50), (77); needed for the perturbative solution of kinetic and London equations.
  • domain assumption Neutron-proton entrainment is neglected in the main text; Appendix G argues it only redefines the London penetration depth.
    Sec. III and App. G; central results are stated to remain unchanged after the lambda redefinition.
  • domain assumption The vortex is straight, isolated, and at rest in the chosen frame, with vortex spacing dB much larger than the cylinder radius.
    Secs. II and III; reduces the problem to a single vortex and allows cylindrical symmetry.
  • domain assumption Far from the vortex, the total electric current vanishes due to the Meissner effect, giving screening condition jp0 = je0.
    Sec. III, Eq. (34); used throughout to relate electron and proton transport currents.
  • standard math The singular phase field satisfies the distributional identity curl grad chi_p = 2 pi delta^(2)(rho) e_z via Stokes' theorem.
    Sec. III, Eq. (19); standard distributional handling of the vortex phase singularity.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Non-purely transverse Magnus force in superconducting neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/FPD7R7SX

@misc{pith2026250505628,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Non-purely transverse Magnus force in superconducting neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/FPD7R7SX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.05628}
}
read the original abstract

The force acting on a proton vortex in extreme type-II superconducting neutron star matter is studied in the limit of vanishing temperature. A detailed analysis is presented on how momentum is transferred from length scales on the order of the London penetration depth to the vortex core. To examine the momentum flux, expressions for proton and electron currents are derived for arbitrary distances from the vortex line. It is shown that, in the regime of a large electron mean free path, the only force acting directly on the vortex core is the Magnus force. Notably, the correction to the proton current near the vortex core generates a component of the Magnus force aligned with the incident current measured far from the vortex. This contribution, responsible for longitudinal force, is usually overlooked in the literature. The results obtained in this work for a relatively simple problem concerning the force on a vortex in cold matter of neutron stars may also be relevant to other superconducting systems.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.05628 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Sketch of the vortex and integration volumes. The vortex flow [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. The electron (left panel) and proton (right panel) particle current density corrections. The coordinates, measured [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The coordinates and angles used in this paper. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_3.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

  1. Neutron contribution to the force on a proton vortex in superconducting neutron-star matter

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 conditional novelty 7.0 of 10

    Normal neutrons scatter off proton vortices via the spatially varying condensate momentum, producing a purely longitudinal force proportional to relative neutron-vortex velocity that vanishes without neutron-proton Fe...

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

43 extracted references · 38 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [11]

    M. E. Gusakov, E. M. Kantor, and D. D. Ofengeim, Magnetic field evolution time-scales in superconducting neutron stars, MNRAS 499, 4561 (2020), arXiv:2010.07673 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2020

  2. [1]

    bf” stands for “backflow

    Substituting Eq. (C4) into (53) and performing the integration, we obtain: ge2 = (mpκ)2 4π2 1 p⊥    1 2 ep⊥ Ve   yZ −∞ dy1 P′ (ρ1) ρ1   2 + ep⊥ (ez× Ve)x yZ −∞ dy1y1 P′ (ρ1) ρ1 y1Z −∞ dy2 y2 2 P′ (ρ2) ρ2    , (C5) where ρ2 = p x2 +y2 2 and we used the fact that for a given function S(y) the following identity is fulfilled: Z y −∞ dy1S(y1) Z ...

    work page

  3. [2]

    Glampedakis, N

    K. Glampedakis, N. Andersson, and L. Samuelsson, Magnetohydrodynamics of superfluid and superconducting neutron star cores, MNRAS 410, 805 (2011), arXiv:1001.4046 [astro-ph.SR]. 29

    arXiv 2011

  4. [3]

    M. A. Alpar, S. A. Langer, and J. A. Sauls, Rapid postglitch spin-up of the superfluid core in pulsars, ApJ 282, 533 (1984)

    work page 1984

  5. [4]

    P. B. Jones, Neutron superfluid spin-down and magnetic field decay in pulsars., MNRAS 253, 279 (1991)

    work page 1991

  6. [5]

    P. B. Jones, Type II superconductivity and magnetic flux transport in neutron stars, MNRAS 365, 339 (2006), arXiv:astro- ph/0510396 [astro-ph]

    work page arXiv 2006

  7. [6]

    P. B. Jones, Fermion zero-mode influence on neutron-star magnetic field evolution, MNRAS 397, 1027 (2009), arXiv:0902.0478 [astro-ph.HE]

    work page Pith review arXiv 2009

  8. [7]

    M. G. Alford and A. Sedrakian, Color-magnetic flux tubes in quark matter cores of neutron stars, Journal of Physics G Nuclear Physics 37, 075202 (2010), arXiv:1001.3346 [astro-ph.SR]

    arXiv 2010

Show all 43 references
  1. [9]

    Bransgrove, Y

    A. Bransgrove, Y. Levin, and A. Beloborodov, Magnetic field evolution of neutron stars - I. Basic formalism, numerical techniques and first results, MNRAS 473, 2771 (2018), arXiv:1709.09167 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Sourie and N

    A. Sourie and N. Chamel, Force on a neutron quantized vortex pinned to proton fluxoids in the superfluid core of cold neutron stars, MNRAS 493, 382 (2020), arXiv:2001.08964 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  3. [12]

    M. E. Gusakov, Force on proton vortices in superfluid neutron stars, MNRAS 485, 4936 (2019), arXiv:1904.01363 [astro- ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  4. [13]

    ´E. B. Sonin, Friction between the normal component and vortices in rotating superfluid helium, Soviet Journal of Experi- mental and Theoretical Physics 42, 469 (1975)

    1975

  5. [14]

    A. J. Hillel, Calculation of the mutual friction parameters in liquid helium II and the nature of the vortex core, Journal of Physics C Solid State Physics 14, 4027 (1981)

    1981

  6. [15]

    A. J. Hillel and W. F. Vinen, The mutual friction parameters in liquid helium II: A revised calculation, Journal of Physics C Solid State Physics 16, 3267 (1983)

    1983

  7. [16]

    G. E. Volovik, V. B. Eltsov, and M. Krusius, Vortices in Unconventional Superconductors and Superfluids, edited by R. P. Huebener, N. Schopohl, and G. E. Volovik (Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, 2002) pp. 21–45

    2002

  8. [17]

    de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys , Frontiers in physics (W.A

    P. de Gennes, Superconductivity of Metals and Alloys , Frontiers in physics (W.A. Benjamin, 1966)

    1966

  9. [18]

    Shternin and D

    P. Shternin and D. Ofengeim, Transport coefficients of magnetized neutron star cores, European Physical Journal A 58, 42 (2022), arXiv:2202.05794 [nucl-th]

    2022 arXiv

  10. [19]

    P. S. Shternin, Transport coefficients of leptons in superconducting neutron star cores, Phys. Rev. D 98, 063015 (2018), arXiv:1805.06000 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  11. [20]

    A. F. Andreev and E. P. Bashkin, Three-velocity hydrodynamics of superfluid solutions, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 42, 164 (1975)

    1975

  12. [21]

    N. B. Kopnin and V. E. Kravtsov, Conductivity and Hall effect of pure type-II superconductors at low temperatures, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics Letters 23, 578 (1976)

    1976

  13. [22]

    Sonin, Dynamics of Quantised Vortices in Superfluids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016)

    E. Sonin, Dynamics of Quantised Vortices in Superfluids (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2016)

    2016

  14. [23]

    A. G. Aronov, Y. M. Gal’Perin, V. L. Gurevich, and V. I. Kozub, The Boltzmann-equation description of transport in superconductors, Advances in Physics 30, 539 (1981)

    1981

  15. [24]

    M. E. Gusakov, Transport equations and linear response of superfluid Fermi mixtures in neutron stars, Phys. Rev. C 81, 025804 (2010), arXiv:1001.4452 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [25]

    O. A. Goglichidze and M. E. Gusakov, Diffusion in superfluid Fermi mixtures: General formalism, Phys. Rev. C 108, 025814 (2023), arXiv:2309.03313 [astro-ph.HE]

    2023 arXiv

  17. [26]

    M. E. Gusakov and E. M. Kantor, Velocity-dependent energy gaps and dynamics of superfluid neutron stars, MNRAS 428, L26 (2013), arXiv:1206.6580 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  18. [27]

    L. B. Leinson, Non-linear approach to the entrainment matrix of superfluid nucleon mixture at zero temperature, MNRAS 470, 3374 (2017), arXiv:1706.01272 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  19. [28]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, 1S0 Pairing Gaps, Chemical Potentials and Entrainment Matrix in Superfluid Neutron-Star Cores for the Brussels–Montreal Functionals, Universe 7, 470 (2021), arXiv:2203.08778 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  20. [29]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Gapless superfluidity in neutron stars: Normal-fluid fraction, Phys. Rev. C 108, 045801 (2023)

    2023

  21. [30]

    E. B. Sonin, Magnus force in superfluids and superconductors, Phys. Rev. B 55, 485 (1997), arXiv:cond-mat/9606099 [cond-mat]

    1997 arXiv

  22. [31]

    Khalatnikov, An Introduction To The Theory Of Superfluidity , Advanced Book Classics (Westview Press, 2000)

    I. Khalatnikov, An Introduction To The Theory Of Superfluidity , Advanced Book Classics (Westview Press, 2000)

    2000

  23. [32]

    P. B. Jones, Rotation of the neutron-drip superfluid in pulsars - The interaction and pinning of vortices, ApJ 373, 208 (1991)

    1991

  24. [33]

    M. E. Gusakov and V. A. Dommes, Relativistic dynamics of superfluid-superconducting mixtures in the presence of topolog- ical defects and an electromagnetic field with application to neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D94, 083006 (2016), arXiv:1607.01629 [gr-qc]

    2016 arXiv

  25. [34]

    R. J. Donnelly, Quantized Vortices in Helium II (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2005)

    2005

  26. [35]

    V. A. Dommes and M. E. Gusakov, Vortex buoyancy in superfluid and superconducting neutron stars, MNRAS 467, L115 (2017), arXiv:1701.06870 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  27. [36]

    Alexandrov, Theory of Superconductivity: From Weak to Strong Coupling , Condensed Matter Physics (CRC Press, 2003)

    A. Alexandrov, Theory of Superconductivity: From Weak to Strong Coupling , Condensed Matter Physics (CRC Press, 2003)

    2003

  28. [37]

    Nozi` eres and W

    P. Nozi` eres and W. F. Vinen, The motion of flux lines in type II superconductors, Philosophical Magazine 14, 667 (1966). 30

    1966

  29. [38]

    J. A. Sauls, D. L. Stein, and J. W. Serene, Magnetic vortices in a rotating 3P2 neutron superfluid, Phys. Rev. D 25, 967 (1982)

    1982

  30. [39]

    Graber, N

    V. Graber, N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, and S. K. Lander, Magnetic field evolution in superconducting neutron stars, MNRAS 453, 671 (2015), arXiv:1505.00124 [astro-ph.SR]

    2015 arXiv

  31. [40]

    Landau and E

    L. Landau and E. Lifshits, The Classical Theory of Fields: Volume 2 , Course of theoretical physics (Elsevier Science, 1975)

    1975

  32. [41]

    M. E. Gusakov, E. M. Kantor, and P. Haensel, Relativistic entrainment matrix of a superfluid nucleon-hyperon mixture: The zero temperature limit, Phys. Rev. C 79, 055806 (2009), arXiv:0904.3467 [astro-ph.HE]

    2009 arXiv

  33. [42]

    M. E. Gusakov, E. M. Kantor, and P. Haensel, Relativistic entrainment matrix of a superfluid nucleon-hyperon mixture. II. Effect of finite temperatures, Phys. Rev. C 80, 015803 (2009), arXiv:0907.0010 [astro-ph.SR]

    2009 arXiv

  34. [43]

    E. M. Kantor and M. E. Gusakov, Temperature effects in pulsating superfluid neutron stars, Phys. Rev. D 83, 103008 (2011), arXiv:1105.4040 [astro-ph.SR]

    2011 arXiv

  35. [44]

    Mendell, Superfluid hydrodynamics in rotating neutron stars

    G. Mendell, Superfluid hydrodynamics in rotating neutron stars. I - Nondissipative equations., ApJ 380, 515 (1991)

    1991

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.