Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 6 minor 92 references

An energy approach to pulsar-disc interaction: disc stability and implications for transitional millisecond pulsars

T0 review · 5 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper claims that a millisecond pulsar's tilted magnetic field destroys an accretion disc whose inner radius lies far beyond the light cylinder, unless the spin and magnetic axes are exactly aligned, and that modest inner-radius…

desk verdict First SPH-MHD survey of outer pulsar-disc interaction with a plausible qualitative stability map, but the x_d>=10 boundary is overreached and the once-flashed averaged-field setup limits the inference. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.23407 v1 pith:7VY7FOHT submitted 2025-05-29 astro-ph.HE

Eda Vurgun , Domingo García-Senz , Manuel Linares , K. Yavuz Eksi This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsar-discinteractiontransitionalmillisecondpulsarsaccretiondiscstabilitymagnetohydrodynamicsimulationssmoothedparticlehydrodynamicslightcylindermagneticobliquityDeutschsolution
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 uses axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamic simulations to ask when an accretion disc around a millisecond pulsar survives the pulsar's magnetic field. Modelling the field with the time-averaged vacuum Deutsch solution, the authors find that a disc whose inner edge sits well beyond the light cylinder ($R_{\rm in} \gtrsim 10\,R_{\rm LC}$) is always heavily disrupted unless the magnetic and spin axes are exactly aligned. At smaller radii the disc is stable up to a magnetic inclination that depends on distance, and the simulation-based stability map matches the analytical boundary of earlier energy arguments. The authors conclude that transitional millisecond pulsars can switch between disc and pulsar states through modest changes of the inner disc radius, provided their magnetic obliquity is at least about 20 degrees.

What carries the argument

The central object is the time-averaged magnetic field of the Deutsch solution, the analytical vacuum field of an obliquely rotating, perfectly conducting sphere: each component is replaced by its period-averaged square root, $\langle B_i^2\rangle^{1/2}$, which removes the rapid pulsar rotation while retaining the spatial variation of the field's strength. This averaged field is flashed onto a relaxed thin-disc model built from the Shakura–Sunyaev solution and evolved with an axisymmetric smoothed-particle MHD code in which ohmic dissipation converts magnetic energy into heat, driving ablation of the disc's surface. The outcome is mapped in the $(\xi, x_{\rm d})$ plane and compared with the analytical stability line obtained by equating the electromagnetic energy density (which changes slope from $r^{-6}$ to $r^{-2}$ across the light cylinder) with the energy density of the orbiting gas.

What would settle it

Measure the magnetic obliquity of a transitional millisecond pulsar such as PSR J1023+0038 from its pulse profile while it is in the disc state; if the angle comes out below about 10 degrees and the source still undergoes disc-to-pulsar transitions, the claim that sizeable obliquity is required for transitions would be contradicted. Alternatively, a 3D MHD run with the full time-dependent rotating field acting continuously could show whether discs at $x_{\rm d} \geq 10$ with $\xi > 0$ survive, which would overturn the energy-averaged stability map.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper claims that the fate of an accretion disc around a millisecond pulsar is set, in an energy sense, by two parameters: where the disc's inner edge sits relative to the light-cylinder radius, $x_{\rm d} = R_{\rm in}/R_{\rm LC}$, and the angle $\xi$ between the magnetic and spin axes. When $x_{\rm d} \gtrsim 10$, the time-averaged electromagnetic field of the pulsar heats and evaporates the inner disc within a couple of orbital periods for every non-zero $\xi$, while the exactly aligned case leaves the disc essentially intact. For smaller $x_{\rm d}$ the disc grows more robust, with stability requiring $\xi$ below roughly 10–20 degrees depending on radius; at $x_{\rm d} \approx 0.5$, even $\xi = 30^\circ$ leaves the disc unaltered. The simulation outcomes, classified by a density-decay criterion, sit on the same side of the analytical stability boundary of Ekşi & Alpar (2005) as the theory predicts.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations replace the real, time-dependent rotating pulsar field with a sign-undefined time-averaged field that illuminates the disc once at $t=0$ and then decouples, and they impose axial symmetry, so a continuously rotating three-dimensional field could in principle lead to a different stability classification.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Discs truncated near the corotation radius ($x_{\rm d} \approx 0.5$) remain stable up to the largest obliquity tested, $\xi = 30^\circ$, so the persistent X-ray (accretor) state of a millisecond pulsar is confined to roughly $0.5\,R_{\rm LC} \lesssim R_{\rm in} \lesssim R_{\rm LC}$.
  • At $x_{\rm d} \gtrsim 10$ the disc is always unstable for any non-zero obliquity, so a slightly oblique pulsar whose inner disc is pushed well beyond the light cylinder will quickly evaporate or eject its innermost region.
  • A factor of 3–4 inward-to-outward change in $R_{\rm in}$ (e.g. from $x_{\rm d} \approx 2$ to $x_{\rm d} \approx 6$) is enough to move a disc with $\xi \gtrsim 20^\circ$ from the stable to the unstable region, enabling a disc-to-pulsar state transition.
  • Because the spin–magnetic angle cannot change on transition timescales, the authors attribute tMSP state transitions to fluctuations of the inner radius and infer that tMSPs must have sizeable obliquities, $\xi \gtrsim 20^\circ$.
  • Low-mass X-ray binaries that show strong X-ray variability in quiescence are inferred to have nearly aligned axes, $\xi \lesssim 10^\circ$, since their discs remain stable over wide changes of $R_{\rm in}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the same stability criterion holds for transient supernova fallback discs, discs around young neutron stars with circularization radii above $x_{\rm d} \approx 10$ should be short-lived unless the newborn pulsar's obliquity is tiny, which would select for aligned rotators in the fallback-disc population.
  • The axisymmetry assumption excludes non-axisymmetric modes such as the magneto-rotational instability; including them could shift the quantitative boundary, but the qualitative conclusion that obliquity dramatically lowers the threshold for disc destruction remains a direct consequence of the energy balance.
  • The factor-3-4 prediction for $R_{\rm in}$ fluctuations in high-obliquity tMSPs is directly testable: archival X-ray/optical monitoring of the double-peaked emission lines in PSR J1023+0038 could be searched for systematic changes in line separation that track the inner disc edge during the months before a state transition.
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

5 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper presents axisymmetric SPMHD simulations of a thin accretion disc around a millisecond pulsar, using the time-averaged RMS components of the Deutsch vacuum solution as the external magnetic field. The disc inner radius is varied from x_d = R_in/R_LC = 0.5 to 25 and the magnetic inclination from ξ = 0° to 30°. Stability is assessed by the evolution of tracer particle groups, with a 20% relative density decline criterion. The main result is that discs with x_d ≳ 10 and ξ > 0° are severely altered and classified as unstable, while discs with x_d ≲ 1 remain stable; this is compared with the analytical stability line of Ekşi & Alpar (2005). The authors further argue that tMSP state transitions can be triggered by inner-radius fluctuations by a factor of 3–4 for ξ ≳ 20°, and discuss implications for LMXBs and supernova fallback discs.

Significance. If the stability map is correct, the paper provides a first simulation-based test of the Ekşi–Alpar energy-density criterion and offers a plausible, falsifiable mechanism for tMSP state transitions through inner-radius variability. The paper includes genuine strengths: the numerical code is public; resolution convergence (Sec. 5.1.2) and resistivity sensitivity (Sec. 5.1.1) are explicitly tested; and the central claim is crisply stated. The main limitation is that the external magnetic field is represented by unsigned RMS components flashed once at t=0, so the simulations test the energy-model assumptions rather than the full time-dependent pulsar magnetosphere; the agreement with Ekşi & Alpar is therefore a consistency check of that shared energy model, not an independent validation.

major comments (5)
  1. [§3, Eqs. (8)–(10), (19)] The initial condition B_i(t=0)=⟨B_i^2⟩^{1/2} with 'undefined sign' is not equivalent to a period-averaged Deutsch magnetic field for the MHD equations being solved. The Lorentz-force terms and the stress tensor in Eqs. (8)–(12) involve products such as B_r B_φ, whose sign depends on the relative signs of the components; the period average of such a product is not the product of the RMS values. With all components assigned positive signs by construction, the azimuthal torque in Eq. (10) acquires a convention-dependent sign, which directly affects angular-momentum transport and hence the stability classification. The manuscript must specify a sign convention for each component and show that the Fig. 11 stability map is invariant under admissible sign choices, or justify why an energy-only treatment is consistent with solving vector MHD equations.
  2. [§3, Eq. (19); §5.1; §7] The statement that 'the averaged pulsar radiation flashes the disc at t=0 and subsequently deactivates' means that the external Deutsch field is not maintained; after the initial flash, only the gas-advected field evolves. A real pulsar continuously supplies a rotating electromagnetic field and a Poynting/wind flux, so the simulated response is to an impulse rather than to persistent irradiation. The integration times are only a few inner orbital periods (P_out ≈ 6.7 s for x_d=25 in Table 2), far shorter than the day-to-year timescales of tMSP transitions, and the density traces in Fig. 7 oscillate. Therefore the §7 statement that 'at sufficiently large values of the inner radius, x_d ≥ 10, the disc is always unstable' needs additional support that the observed 20% density declines are secular rather than transient post-flash oscillations; a continuous-field run or an analytic persistence argument would address this.
  3. [§6, Fig. 11; Table 2] The simulation grid has x_d = 0.5, 1, 2, 6, 25, but no run at x_d = 10 or at any radius between 6 and 25. The quantitative claim in §7 that the unstable region begins at 'x_d ≳ 10' is an extrapolation from a single far-out run at x_d=25; the location of the boundary is therefore not determined by the simulations. Adding at least one run at x_d ≈ 10, and preferably at x_d ≈ 8–15, is needed to support the claimed location of the stability boundary in Fig. 11.
  4. [§3, axisymmetry assumption; §7] The paper itself acknowledges in §3 that the reduction to axial symmetry is 'an ad hoc artificial constraint' and that hydromagnetic instabilities are better represented in 3D. Because the central claim is a global stability statement for discs ('the disc is always unstable' for x_d ≥ 10), the axisymmetric setup excludes non-axisymmetric modes that could either destabilize the stable cases or saturate the unstable ones. The scope of the conclusion should be restricted to axisymmetric perturbations unless a 3D test (or a linear stability argument for the relevant modes) is provided.
  5. [§6, stability criterion; §4] The classification into stable and unstable in §6 uses a 20% relative density decline in the 'middle' or 'far' tracer groups, with no significance level or error bar. The B=0 control checks in §4 already show density fluctuations at the ~10% level, so the threshold is only a factor of two above the numerical noise floor, and the time series in Fig. 7 show oscillatory rather than monotonic behavior. The robustness of the Fig. 11 classification to the threshold value and to the choice of tracer regions should be quantified.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3, Eq. (19)] In Eq. (19), the integrand is written as r_{ij} B_i dt, but Eq. (15) has dB_i/dt = Σ_j r_{ij} B_j; the index in the integrand should be B_j.
  2. [§6.1] There is a stray word 'radius' immediately after the paragraph ending '...not a plausible mechanism to drive the tMSP state transitions.' It appears to be a leftover fragment and should be removed.
  3. [References] Papitto & de Martino (2022a) and (2022b) are listed as two separate references with identical titles and identical article pages; if they are distinct chapters or versions they should be distinguished, otherwise the duplicate should be merged.
  4. [Fig. 8] The caption of Fig. 8 states that resistivity values are shown 'from bottom to top' but the main text lists them as (0.2, 1, 5); please make the ordering of panels consistent with the caption.
  5. [Fig. 11] The axes of Fig. 11 are not labeled; the text refers to the ξ–x_d diagram but the figure should show the parameters and units on both axes.
  6. [Data availability] The data availability statement says the code is available at 'Axis-SPHYNX download i'; the hyperlink appears to be missing or malformed.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The stability map is a numerical realization of the same time-averaged Deutsch-field ansatz from Ekşi & Alpar (2005), so the claimed agreement is a consistency check of a shared model rather than an independent confirmation.

  1. ansatz smuggled in via citation [Section 2, simulation-setup bullet; implemented in Section 3]
    "Following Ekşi & Alpar (2005) the time-dependent magnetic field is replaced by its time-averaged value on a period P so that B depends only on the spatial coordinates B(r)=⟨B2r⟩1/2 r̂+⟨B2θ⟩1/2 θ̂+⟨B2φ⟩1/2 φ̂, where (r̂,θ̂,φ̂) are unit vectors in spherical coordinates and ⟨B2i⟩(r)=1/P ∫0P B2i(r). This is justified because the period of the pulsar is so small that the disc reacts to the average field of many pulsar rotations."

    Ekşi & Alpar (2005), with co-author overlap (K. Y. Ekşi), introduced the energy-density comparison using the period-averaged Deutsch field. The present paper adopts that same time-averaged, sign-undefined field as its MHD input, and Section 3 states the components 'have an undefined sign. Therefore, this choice of magnetic field is energetically orientated and the calculations work on an energy basis.' The central stability result (Fig. 11) is thus not an independent test of the Ekşi & Alpar line: both approaches feed on the same ⟨B²⟩^{1/2} energy input, and the simulation's 'instability' is the response to that prescribed energy deposit, flashed once at t=0 and thereafter advected.

full rationale

The paper does not fit any parameter to reproduce the Ekşi & Alpar stability line, and the MHD simulations are genuine numerical experiments with their own resolution and resistivity checks. However, the central input of those simulations—the time-averaged, sign-undefined Deutsch field components—is inherited from Ekşi & Alpar (2005), a paper by one of the present authors. The simulations are therefore not an independent verification of the analytical energy model; they are a different computational realization of the same energy-based ansatz. Section 3 explicitly acknowledges that the 'calculations work on an energy basis.' Consequently, the agreement highlighted in Section 6 and Fig. 11 is partly circular: the numerical stability map and the analytical boundary share the same electromagnetic energy input. The result is not forced by construction in the sense of a fitted parameter, but the claimed confirmation is weakened because the modeling framework is the same. This warrants a moderate circularity score rather than a high one; the central claim still contains independent dynamical content (the MHD response, density tracers, and convergence tests), but the key ansatz is load-bearing and self-cited.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on the time-averaged Deutsch field as the driver, the axisymmetric SPH-MHD evolution with numerical resistivity, and the analytic thin-disc initial model. None of these is derived in the paper; the first two are imported from prior work or chosen for tractability. The only hand-adjusted classification is the 20% stability criterion, and the only explored numerical parameter is resistivity; viscosity, accretion rate, and 3D structure are fixed or omitted.

free parameters (4)
  • Shakura-Sunyaev viscosity parameter alpha = 0.5
    Used to build all initial thin disc models (Table 2). The stability outcome could depend on alpha, but no variation is explored.
  • Numerical resistivity coefficient alpha_r = 1 (default; tested 0.2 to 5)
    Controls the rate of ohmic heating that drives disc evaporation. It is a resolution-dependent numerical parameter, not a measured plasma resistivity.
  • Stability classification threshold = 20% density decline in middle/far tracer groups
    Adopted in Section 6 to label a simulation stable or unstable; the 'close' group is excluded. This threshold is chosen by hand and directly determines which squares in Fig. 11 are red or blue.
  • Mass accretion rate Mdot = 10^13 g/s
    Assumed for all initial discs; only one accretion rate is simulated, so the stability map may shift with Mdot.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The vacuum Deutsch solution gives a valid approximation to the pulsar's electromagnetic field near and beyond the light cylinder
    Invoked in Section 2 and used to set B(t=0); the paper states there is no better analytical solution continuous across the light cylinder and that a real pulsar would have a plasma-filled field.
  • domain assumption Time-averaged squared field components are sufficient to describe the pulsar-disc interaction
    Section 2 bullet: 'Following Ekşi and Alpar (2005) the time-dependent magnetic field is replaced by its time-averaged value on a period P'. This removes all time variation and the pulsar wind.
  • domain assumption Axisymmetry is a valid restriction of the disc and averaged field
    Section 3: the code restricts to the (r,z) plane and adds hoop stress terms; the paper calls axisymmetry 'an ad hoc artificial constraint'.
  • domain assumption Newtonian gravity is accurate enough in the regime studied
    Section 3 argues GR effects are less prominent when the inner disc is near or beyond the light cylinder; no relativistic correction is included.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic field is flashed at t=0 and then evolves only by advection and induction with the gas
    Section 3: 'the averaged pulsar radiation flashes the disc at t=0 and subsequently deactivates'; no ongoing source maintains the rotating field.
  • ad hoc to paper Stability can be judged by density evolution of tracer groups with a 20% threshold
    Section 6 defines the criterion after the simulations; it excludes the 'close' group and classifies red and blue squares in Fig. 11.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of An energy approach to pulsar-disc interaction: disc stability and implications for transitional millisecond pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/7VY7FOHT

@misc{pith2026250523407,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: An energy approach to pulsar-disc interaction: disc stability and implications for transitional millisecond pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/7VY7FOHT}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.23407}
}
read the original abstract

The stability of an accretion disc surrounding a millisecond pulsar is analysed from an energetic point of view, using magnetohydrodynamic simulations that consider realistic disc structures and a variety of magnetic field inclination angles. The time-averaged components of the magnetic field interact with the disc through ohmic dissipation, which causes heating and partial evaporation of its innermost region. The stability of the disc right after the magnetic field is turned on is analysed as a function of the location of the inner radius of the disc and the magnetic inclination angle. Our results show that the disc is severely altered in those cases where its inner radius lies well beyond the light cylinder and the magnetic axis is not totally aligned with the neutron star spin axis. Overall, the results of the simulations agree with those obtained in previous works where analytical or semi-analytical energy models were also used to discuss the stability of the disc. The implications for the understanding of the transitional millisecond pulsars are discussed. We briefly mention implications of our results for low-mass X-ray binaries and supernova fallback discs.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.23407 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Components of the magnetic field vector (in units of 𝐵0, the magnetic field strength at the neutron star equator) for tilt angles, from left to right, 𝜉 = 0° (aligned rotator) and 𝜉 = 10°, 20°, 30° (oblique rotators) as function of normalized time (𝑃 is the spin period of the pulsar) at four distances from the pulsar (from top to bottom and in units of the light cylinder radius) 𝑥 = 𝑟/𝑅LC = 0.5, 1, 5, 20 respectivel… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Accretion versus magnetic energy density for different accretion rates, 𝑀¤ , and tilt angles, 𝜉, as a function of the distance to the neutron star. The head of the yellow arrow points to the accretion radius taken as one-half of the Alfvén radius 𝑅A. The vertical lines indicate the neutron star radius, the co-rotation radius, and the light cylinder radius respectively. steeply than the gravitational potential energy… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Density distribution of the disc with inner point at 𝑅in = 2000 km from the pulsar without the magnetic field. Upper panel shows the disc before relaxation. Lower panel shows the disc after relaxation. The 𝑧-component of gravity and gradient of pressure forces along the dotted line at 𝑟 = 4000 km and 𝑟 = 2500 km are shown in the sub-figures. combine these two parameters and analyse their impact on the sta￾bility of … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Averaged components of the magnetic field at t=0 and in a small region around 𝑅in when 𝜉 = 20◦ and for cases 𝑥𝑑 = 1 (upper panel) and 𝑥𝑑 = 25 (bottom panel) in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Density distribution (top panel) across the disc at the beginning of the simulation time and for the 𝑥d = 25 model. Evolution of averaged density and temperature (middle and bottom panels respectively) of the, 𝑧 ≃ 0, “close”, “middle” and “far” particle groups when B =…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Temperature colour-map of all calculated models around the final time 𝜏 = 𝑡f/𝑃in shown in each panel. Axis coordinates have been normalized to 𝑟𝐿𝐶. The big dot indicates the position of the NS. 𝑥d = 25, the disc is severely altered in any 𝜉 > 0°, as suggested by the be…
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Evolution of Δ𝜌 𝜌0 of the calculated models. Continuum lines are for the three groups of particles located along the disc’s axis but at different distances from the NS. The “close”, “middle” and “far” groups of particles are located at 𝑧 = 0 and 𝑟-coordinates (2500, 40…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: The left column of panels shows the colour-map of the magnitude √ 𝜉𝑟 |J| giving the heat power when squared, for three values of the resistivity parameter, 𝛼𝑟 = 0.2, 1, 5 (from bottom to top) at the normalised time t/Pin = 0.7. The right column shows the time evolution…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Model 𝑥d = 25 calculated with a factor two improved resolution. The top row of panels depicts the evolution of the 𝜉 = 0 0 aligned rotator while the second row is for the angle 𝜉 = 100 at times 𝜏 = 𝑡/𝑃in. The first column of panels shows the density colour- map and the…
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Disc stability in the 𝜉 − 𝑥𝑑 diagram. The thick line in magenta is the theoretical line by Ekşi & Alpar (2005) separating stable (below the line) from unstable (above the line) discs. The squares represent the results from direct numerical simulations in this work. Bl…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Circularization radius (normalized to 𝑅LC) of matter in the super￾nova fallback disc scenario as a function of the rotation period of the neutron star. The circularization radius is given for four choices of the specific angular momentum 𝑗 of the falling matter. The b…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

92 extracted references · 21 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION fin.entry write newline FUNCTION new.block output.state before.all = 'skip after.block 'output.state := if FUNCTION new.sentence output.state after.block = 'skip output.state before.all = 'skip after.sentence 'output.state := if if FUNCTION not #0 #1 if FUNCTION and 'skip pop #0 if FUNCTION or pop #1...

  2. [2]

    B., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12010007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12....7A 12, 7

    Abolmasov P., Biryukov A., Popov S. B., 2024, @doi [Galaxies] 10.3390/galaxies12010007 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024Galax..12....7A 12, 7

    doi:10.3390/galaxies12010007 2024

  3. [3]

    L., Linares M., Homan J., Chakrabarty D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801...10A 801, 10

    Allen J. L., Linares M., Homan J., Chakrabarty D., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/801/1/10 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015ApJ...801...10A 801, 10

    work page doi:10.1088/0004-637x/801/1/10 2015

  4. [4]

    A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554.1245A 554, 1245

    Alpar M. A., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/321393 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554.1245A 554, 1245

    doi:10.1086/321393 2001

  5. [5]

    A., Cheng A

    Alpar M. A., Cheng A. F., Ruderman M. A., Shaham J., 1982, @doi [ ] 10.1038/300728a0 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1982Natur.300..728A 300, 728

    doi:10.1038/300728a0 1982

  6. [6]

    A., Ankay A., Yazgan E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323140 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...557L..61A 557, L61

    Alpar M. A., Ankay A., Yazgan E., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/323140 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...557L..61A 557, L61

    work page doi:10.1086/323140 2001

  7. [7]

    J., Kuijpers J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...227..473A 227, 473

    Aly J. J., Kuijpers J., 1990, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1990A&A...227..473A 227, 473

    1990

  8. [8]

    M., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1172740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...324.1411A 324, 1411

    Archibald A. M., et al., 2009, @doi [Science] 10.1126/science.1172740 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009Sci...324.1411A 324, 1411

    doi:10.1126/science.1172740 2009

Show all 92 references
  1. [9]

    A., Hawley J

    Balbus S. A., Hawley J. F., 1991, @doi [ ] 10.1086/170270 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1991ApJ...376..214B 376, 214

    1991 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Hawley J

    Balbus S. A., Hawley J. F., 1998, @doi [Reviews of Modern Physics] 10.1103/RevModPhys.70.1 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998RvMP...70....1B 70, 1

    1998 doi

  3. [11]

    T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A..79B 668, A79

    Barr \`e re P., Guilet J., Reboul-Salze A., Raynaud R., Janka H. T., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202244172 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022A&A...668A..79B 668, A79

    2022 doi

  4. [12]

    M., Brown E

    Bernardini F., Cackett E. M., Brown E. F., D'Angelo C., Degenaar N., Miller J. M., Reynolds M., Wijnands R., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1741 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.436.2465B 436, 2465

    2013 doi

  5. [13]

    G., Perna R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381802 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601L..71B 601, L71

    Blackman E. G., Perna R., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/381802 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...601L..71B 601, L71

    2004 doi

  6. [14]

    Campana S., Colpi M., Mereghetti S., Stella L., Tavani M., 1998, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s001590050012 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1998A&ARv...8..279C 8, 279

    1998 doi

  7. [15]

    F., Baglio M

    Campana S., Coti Zelati F., Papitto A., Rea N., Torres D. F., Baglio M. C., D'Avanzo P., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201629035 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016A&A...594A..31C 594, A31

    2016 doi

  8. [16]

    M., Grabarczyk M., Ciorba F

    Cavelan A., Cabez \'o n R. M., Grabarczyk M., Ciorba F. M., 2020, in PASC '20: Proceedings of the Platform for Advanced Scientific Computing ConferenceJune 2020. p. 11 ( @eprint arXiv 2005.02656 ), @doi 10.1145/3394277.3401855

    2020 arXiv

  9. [17]

    A., Spitkovsky A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.2401C 457, 2401

    Cerutti B., Philippov A. A., Spitkovsky A., 2016, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stw124 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016MNRAS.457.2401C 457, 2401

    2016 doi

  10. [18]

    A., Dubus G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.204C 642, A204

    Cerutti B., Philippov A. A., Dubus G., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/202038618 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...642A.204C 642, A204

    2020 doi

  11. [19]

    Chatterjee P., Hernquist L., Narayan R., 2000, @doi [ ] 10.1086/308748 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2000ApJ...534..373C 534, 373

    2000 doi

  12. [20]

    A., Zyuzin D

    Danilenko A. A., Zyuzin D. A., Shibanov Y. A., Zharikov S. V., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18753.x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011MNRAS.415..867D 415, 867

    2011

  13. [21]

    Das P., Porth O., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad151f , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...960L..12D 960, L12

    2024 doi

  14. [22]

    L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.3144D 515, 3144

    Das P., Porth O., Watts A. L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac1817 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.515.3144D 515, 3144

    2022 doi

  15. [23]

    P., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179..585D 179, 585

    Davidson K., Ostriker J. P., 1973, @doi [ ] 10.1086/151897 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973ApJ...179..585D 179, 585

    1973 doi

  16. [24]

    J., 1955, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955AnAp...18....1D 18, 1

    Deutsch A. J., 1955, Annales d'Astrophysique, https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1955AnAp...18....1D 18, 1

    1955

  17. [25]

    Y., Alpar M

    Ek s i K. Y., Alpar M. A., 2005, @doi [ ] 10.1086/425959 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2005ApJ...620..390E 620, 390

    2005 doi

  18. [26]

    H., Ek s i K

    Ertan \"U ., Erkut M. H., Ek s i K. Y., Alpar M. A., 2007, @doi [ ] 10.1086/510303 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2007ApJ...657..441E 657, 441

    2007 doi

  19. [27]

    J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition

    Frank J., King A., Raine D. J., 2002, Accretion Power in Astrophysics: Third Edition . Cambridge University Press

    2002

  20. [28]

    M., Blanco-Iglesias J

    Garc \' a-Senz D., Cabez \'o n R. M., Blanco-Iglesias J. M., Lor \'e n-Aguilar P., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936837 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...637A..61G 637, A61

    2020 doi

  21. [29]

    M., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2206.05324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220605324G p

    Garc \' a-Senz D., Wissing R., Cabez \'o n R. M., 2022, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2206.05324 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022arXiv220605324G p. arXiv:2206.05324

    2022 doi arXiv

  22. [30]

    M., Vurgun E., Linares M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4115G 518, 4115

    Garc \' a-Senz D., Wissing R., Cabez \'o n R. M., Vurgun E., Linares M., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac3328 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.518.4115G 518, 4115

    2023 doi

  23. [31]

    A., Ertan \"U ., Alpar M

    Gen c ali A. A., Ertan \"U ., Alpar M. A., 2023, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnrasl/slac164 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023MNRAS.520L..11G 520, L11

    2023 doi

  24. [32]

    K., 1979a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157285 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232..259G 232, 259

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157285 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...232..259G 232, 259

    doi

  25. [33]

    K., 1979b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    Ghosh P., Lamb F. K., 1979b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/157498 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1979ApJ...234..296G 234, 296

    doi

  26. [34]

    H., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...157..869G 157, 869

    Goldreich P., Julian W. H., 1969, @doi [ ] 10.1086/150119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1969ApJ...157..869G 157, 869

    1969 doi

  27. [35]

    arXiv:2407.14842

    Guerra C., Meliani Z., Voisin G., 2024, @doi [arXiv e-prints] 10.48550/arXiv.2407.14842 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024arXiv240714842G p. arXiv:2407.14842

    2024 doi arXiv

  28. [36]

    R., Shibata K., Matsumoto R., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...468L..37H 468, L37

    Hayashi M. R., Shibata K., Matsumoto R., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310222 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...468L..37H 468, L37

    1996 doi

  29. [37]

    Hurley-Walker N., et al., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1038/s41586-021-04272-x , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022Natur.601..526H 601, 526

    2022 doi

  30. [38]

    F., Sunyaev R

    Illarionov A. F., Sunyaev R. A., 1975, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1975A&A....39..185I 39, 185

    1975

  31. [39]

    Janka H.-T., Wongwathanarat A., Kramer M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac403c , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...926....9J 926, 9

    2022 doi

  32. [40]

    M., Davis S

    Jiang Y.-F., Blaes O., Stone J. M., Davis S. W., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab4a00 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...885..144J 885, 144

    2019 doi

  33. [41]

    Kadowaki L. H. S., De Gouveia Dal Pino E. M., Stone J. M., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aad4ff , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...864...52K 864, 52

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Linares M., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/795/1/72 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...795...72L 795, 72

    2014 doi

  35. [43]

    Linares M., et al., 2013, @doi [Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society] 10.1093/mnras/stt2167 , 438, 251

    2013 doi

  36. [44]

    Linares M., De Marco B., Wijnands R., van der Klis M., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac720 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.512.5269L 512, 5269

    2022 doi

  37. [45]

    M., 1992, Astrophysics of Neutron Stars

    Lipunov V. M., 1992, Astrophysics of Neutron Stars . Springer

    1992

  38. [46]

    Lovelace R. V. E., Romanova M. M., Bisnovatyi-Kogan G. S., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/306945 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...514..368L 514, 368

    1999 doi

  39. [47]

    Menou K., Perna R., Hernquist L., 2001, @doi [ ] 10.1086/320927 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2001ApJ...554L..63M 554, L63

    2001 doi

  40. [48]

    C., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333644a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..644M 333, 644

    Michel F. C., 1988, @doi [ ] 10.1038/333644a0 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1988Natur.333..644M 333, 644

    1988 doi

  41. [49]

    C., Dessler A

    Michel F. C., Dessler A. J., 1981, @doi [ ] 10.1086/159511 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1981ApJ...251..654M 251, 654

    1981 doi

  42. [50]

    C., Li H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00002-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhR...318..227M 318, 227

    Michel F. C., Li H., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1016/S0370-1573(99)00002-2 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999PhR...318..227M 318, 227

    1999 doi

  43. [51]

    A., Stone J

    Miller K. A., Stone J. M., 1997, @doi [ ] 10.1086/304825 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1997ApJ...489..890M 489, 890

    1997 doi

  44. [52]

    E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...573..764M 573, 764

    Misra R., Taam R. E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/340764 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...573..764M 573, 764

    2002 doi

  45. [53]

    Murguia-Berthier A., Parfrey K., Tchekhovskoy A., Jacquemin-Ide J., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/ad16eb , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...961L..20M 961, L20

    2024 doi

  46. [54]

    T., Nagataki S., Naito T., Kawachi A., Hayasaki K., Owocki S

    Okazaki A. T., Nagataki S., Naito T., Kawachi A., Hayasaki K., Owocki S. P., Takata J., 2011, @doi [ ] 10.1093/pasj/63.4.893 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2011PASJ...63..893O 63, 893

    2011 doi

  47. [55]

    O zs \"u kan G., Ek s i K. Y., Hambaryan V., Neuh \

    \"O zs \"u kan G., Ek s i K. Y., Hambaryan V., Neuh \"a user R., Hohle M. M., Ginski C., Werner K., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/796/1/46 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...796...46O 796, 46

    2014 doi

  48. [57]

    465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library

    Papitto A., de Martino D., 2022b, in Bhattacharyya S., Papitto A., Bhattacharya D., eds, Astrophysics and Space Science Library Vol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library. pp 157--200 ( @eprint arXiv 2010.09060 ), @doi 10.1007/978-3-030-85198-9_6

    2010 arXiv

  49. [58]

    Parfrey K., Tchekhovskoy A., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.3847/2041-8213/aa9c85 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017ApJ...851L..34P 851, L34

    2017 doi

  50. [59]

    Parfrey K., Tchekhovskoy A., 2024, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ad737b , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2024ApJ...975...57P 975, 57

    2024 doi

  51. [60]

    M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.3656P 469, 3656

    Parfrey K., Spitkovsky A., Beloborodov A. M., 2017, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stx950 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2017MNRAS.469.3656P 469, 3656

    2017 doi

  52. [61]

    G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1879P 441, 1879

    Philippov A., Tchekhovskoy A., Li J. G., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stu591 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014MNRAS.441.1879P 441, 1879

    2014 doi

  53. [62]

    J., 2012, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCoPh.231..759P 231, 759

    Price D. J., 2012, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.12.011 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2012JCoPh.231..759P 231, 759

    2012 doi

  54. [63]

    J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2018.25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASA...35...31P 35, e031

    Price D. J., et al., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1017/pasa.2018.25 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018PASA...35...31P 35, e031

    2018 doi

  55. [64]

    E., Rees M

    Pringle J. E., Rees M. J., 1972, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1972A&A....21....1P 21, 1

    1972

  56. [65]

    Psaltis D., Chakrabarty D., 1999, @doi [ ] 10.1086/307525 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1999ApJ...521..332P 521, 332

    1999 doi

  57. [66]

    M., Owocki S

    Romanova M. M., Owocki S. P., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1007/s11214-015-0200-9 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015SSRv..191..339R 191, 339

    2015 doi

  58. [67]

    M., Ustyugova G

    Romanova M. M., Ustyugova G. V., Koldoba A. V., Lovelace R. V. E., 2002, @doi [ ] 10.1086/342464 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2002ApJ...578..420R 578, 420

    2002 doi

  59. [68]

    M., Toropina O

    Romanova M. M., Toropina O. D., Toropin Y. M., Lovelace R. V. E., 2003a, @doi [ ] 10.1086/373990 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...588..400R 588, 400

    doi

  60. [69]

    M., Ustyugova G

    Romanova M. M., Ustyugova G. V., Koldoba A. V., Wick J. V., Lovelace R. V. E., 2003b, @doi [ ] 10.1086/377514 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2003ApJ...595.1009R 595, 1009

    doi

  61. [70]

    M., Ustyugova G

    Romanova M. M., Ustyugova G. V., Koldoba A. V., Lovelace R. V. E., 2004, @doi [ ] 10.1086/426586 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004ApJ...616L.151R 616, L151

    2004 doi

  62. [71]

    M., Kulkarni A

    Romanova M. M., Kulkarni A. K., Lovelace R. V. E., 2008, @doi [ ] 10.1086/527298 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2008ApJ...673L.171R 673, L171

    2008 doi

  63. [72]

    M., Blinova A

    Romanova M. M., Blinova A. A., Ustyugova G. V., Koldoba A. V., Lovelace R. V. E., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.1016/j.newast.2018.01.011 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018NewA...62...94R 62, 94

    2018 doi

  64. [73]

    M., Koldoba A

    Romanova M. M., Koldoba A. V., Ustyugova G. V., Blinova A. A., Lai D., Lovelace R. V. E., 2021, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stab1724 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2021MNRAS.506..372R 506, 372

    2021 doi

  65. [74]

    Ronchi M., Rea N., Graber V., Hurley-Walker N., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ac7cec , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022ApJ...934..184R 934, 184

    2022 doi

  66. [75]

    Rosswog S., 2010, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2010.08.002 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2010JCoPh.229.8591R 229, 8591

    2010 doi

  67. [76]

    Shahbaz T., Linares M., Rodr \' guez-Gil P., Casares J., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stz1652 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019MNRAS.488..198S 488, 198

    2019 doi

  68. [77]

    I., Sunyaev R

    Shakura N. I., Sunyaev R. A., 1973, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1973A&A....24..337S 24, 337

    1973

  69. [78]

    F., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970SvA....14..527S 14, 527

    Shvartsman V. F., 1970, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1970SvA....14..527S 14, 527

    1970

  70. [79]

    F., 1971, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971SvA....15..342S 15, 342

    Shvartsman V. F., 1971, , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1971SvA....15..342S 15, 342

    1971

  71. [80]

    W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...39S 790, 39

    Stappers B. W., et al., 2014, @doi [ ] 10.1088/0004-637X/790/1/39 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2014ApJ...790...39S 790, 39

    2014 doi

  72. [81]

    K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab5b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857....4T 857, 4

    Takasao S., Tomida K., Iwasaki K., Suzuki T. K., 2018, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/aab5b3 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2018ApJ...857....4T 857, 4

    2018 doi

  73. [82]

    S., 2023, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2023.1288219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FrASS..1088219T 10, 1288219

    Tricco T. S., 2023, @doi [Frontiers in Astronomy and Space Sciences] 10.3389/fspas.2023.1288219 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2023FrASS..1088219T 10, 1288219

    2023

  74. [83]

    S., Price D

    Tricco T. S., Price D. J., Bate M. R., 2016, @doi [Journal of Computational Physics] 10.1016/j.jcp.2016.06.053 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2016JCoPh.322..326T 322, 326

    2016 doi

  75. [84]

    a ttil \

    Veledina A., N \"a ttil \"a J., Beloborodov A. M., 2019, @doi [ ] 10.3847/1538-4357/ab44c6 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019ApJ...884..144V 884, 144

    2019 doi

  76. [85]

    M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465L.111W 465, L111

    Wang Y. M., 1996, @doi [ ] 10.1086/310150 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1996ApJ...465L.111W 465, L111

    1996 doi

  77. [86]

    L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04669 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.440..772W 440, 772

    Wang Z., Chakrabarty D., Kaplan D. L., 2006, @doi [ ] 10.1038/nature04669 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2006Natur.440..772W 440, 772

    2006 doi

  78. [87]

    Wijnands R., Degenaar N., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt1119 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.434.1599W 434, 1599

    2013 doi

  79. [88]

    O., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1974 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1371W 454, 1371

    Wijnands R., Degenaar N., Armas Padilla M., Altamirano D., Cavecchi Y., Linares M., Bahramian A., Heinke C. O., 2015, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stv1974 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2015MNRAS.454.1371W 454, 1371

    2015 doi

  80. [89]

    Wissing R., Shen S., 2020, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201936739 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2020A&A...638A.140W 638, A140

    2020 doi

  81. [90]

    Zanni C., Ferreira J., 2009, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/200912879 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2009A&A...508.1117Z 508, 1117

    2009 doi

  82. [91]

    Zanni C., Ferreira J., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1051/0004-6361/201220168 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013A&A...550A..99Z 550, A99

    2013 doi

  83. [92]

    U ., Alpar M. A., Tr \

    C al s kan S ., Ertan \"U ., Alpar M. A., Tr \"u mper J. E., Kylafis N. D., 2013, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stt234 , http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2013MNRAS.431.1136C 431, 1136

    2013 doi

  84. [93]

    Y., Rezzolla L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3212C 517, 3212

    C k nto g lu S., Ek s i K. Y., Rezzolla L., 2022, @doi [ ] 10.1093/mnras/stac2510 , https://ui.adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2022MNRAS.517.3212C 517, 3212

    2022 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.