Pith. sign in

REVIEW 6 minor 73 references

A small-scale dynamo can amplify a buried 10^12 G seed field to roughly 3–7×10^13 G within milliseconds in the hot, liquid layer left by hypercritical fallback, offering a new source of hidden magnetic energy before the neutron-star crust c

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

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

A forced small-scale turbulent dynamo in the liquid post-hypercritical accretion layer of a newborn neutron star amplifies a 10^12 G seed to 3-7 x 10^13 G in milliseconds.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-01 challenge →

load-bearing objection A carefully scoped local MHD viability test — the first dedicated 3D SSD study in the liquid post-hypercritical layer — showing a forced dynamo can amplify a buried 1e12 G seed to 3–7e13 G; honest about its idealizations, with sustained forcing as the real gap to the astrophysical story.

arxiv 2607.21990 v1 pith:ZKG3YAGE submitted 2026-07-24 astro-ph.HE

A post-hypercritical accretion small-scale dynamo in newborn neutron stars

David F. Bambague , Cristian G. Bernal , J. A. Rueda This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords small-scale dynamoneutron starfallback accretionmagnetic field amplificationMHD simulationmagnetic Prandtl numbercentral compact objectshypercritical accretion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

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 asks whether turbulent magnetic amplification can continue between two well-studied phases: field generation inside the proto-neutron star and long-term Hall-Ohmic evolution in the solid crust. After hypercritical fallback advects (buries) the surface field, the deposited outer material is briefly hot, dense, and liquid before crystallizing. Using local 3D resistive-MHD simulations with externally forced subsonic turbulence, the authors find exponential growth from a 10^12 G seed to roughly 3–7×10^13 G in milliseconds for magnetic Reynolds numbers ~700–3700. The saturated magnetic energy stays at about 20–30% of kinetic energy, matching small-scale-dynamo action at magnetic Prandtl number ~1. If this operates in reality, it offers a mechanism for re-amplifying buried fields and supporting hidden-field interpretations of central compact objects and low-field magnetars.

Core claim

Under the thermodynamic conditions of the liquid post-hypercritical accretion layer (ρ = 10^10 g cm^-3, T = 2×10^9 K, well above the melting temperature), six local resistive-MHD runs show that a small-scale dynamo is active for Rm ~ 700–3700. The magnetic field grows exponentially from B0 = 10^12 G and saturates at B_sat ~ 3–7×10^13 G on millisecond timescales, with amplification factors of 35–70. Saturation is sub-equipartition (f_sat = E_mag/E_kin ≈ 0.2–0.3), and the final field strength follows B_sat = v_rms sqrt(4π f_sat ρ0), so it is set by the turbulent kinetic-energy reservoir and density, independent of the seed amplitude. Control runs show neutrino cooling has no effect over the si

What carries the argument

The small-scale dynamo (SSD): random, three-dimensional turbulent motions stretch and fold magnetic field lines into intermittent sheets and filaments, producing exponential growth of magnetic energy once the magnetic Reynolds number exceeds a threshold. Here it is driven by an externally forced, purely solenoidal subsonic turbulence in a periodic (100 m)^3 box, with an explicit magnetic resistivity that puts the simulations at effective magnetic Prandtl number ~1. The dynamo is diagnosed through the Kazantsev k^3/2 growth spectrum, the Kolmogorov kinetic cascade, and the saturated magnetic-to-kinetic energy ratio f_sat ≈ 0.2–0.3.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations assume turbulence is continuously forced, purely solenoidal, and subsonic with an effective magnetic Prandtl number near unity; if real post-fallback flow is decaying, partly compressive, or has Pm >> 1, the kinetic-energy reservoir may not be sustained long enough for the simulated 3–7×10^13 G saturation to be reached.

What would settle it

Take the same local box, let the forced turbulence reach steady state, then switch off the forcing and track B_rms. If the field does not reach about 3×10^13 G before the turbulent kinetic energy decays (within a few eddy turnover times), the claim that a real post-fallback SSD can reach these amplitudes fails. A complementary check: a microphysical evaluation of the magnetic Prandtl number in the liquid layer—if Pm >> 1 at the resistivity expected from degenerate-electron conductivity suppresses the dynamo, the extrapolation breaks.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • A local SSD can amplify a buried 10^12 G seed to 3–7×10^13 G in about a millisecond, before the layer crystallizes.
  • The saturated field strength is determined by the turbulent kinetic energy and density, not by the seed field's amplitude; a weaker seed only delays saturation.
  • Neutrino cooling does not alter the short-timescale dynamo, and the equation of state has only weak effects in this subsonic regime, so the result is robust to microphysical uncertainties on these points.
  • The 256^3 reference run agrees with the 128^3 run within a few percent for field amplification, f_sat, and rms velocity, though the measured growth rate differs by about 7%.
  • This provides a plausible pre-Hall-Ohmic source of hidden small-scale magnetic energy relevant to the internal fields inferred in central compact objects and low-field magnetars.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

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

  • Because the paper's forcing is continuous and purely solenoidal, a real post-fallback flow (likely decaying and partly compressive) could reach lower saturation levels; a decaying-turbulence simulation is the natural next test.
  • If the same scaling holds in a stratified layer, the amplification is local and small-scale: much of the energy may be in multipolar structure that must then survive crystallization and reorganize into an observable dipole—this connection is left for future Hall-Ohmic evolution calculations.
  • The seed-independence of saturation suggests that even extremely weak initial buried fields would be amplified to the same level as long as the turbulent kinetic energy is sustained, strengthening the case that SSD action is a robust late-time amplifier.
  • The weak equation-of-state dependence implies that in nearly incompressible subsonic flows, thermodynamic microphysics matters less than the flow's Reynolds number, so simpler ideal-gas models may suffice for exploring neighboring parameter regimes (e.g., different densities or accretion rates).
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

0 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper investigates whether a small-scale dynamo (SSD) can operate in the liquid post-hypercritical accretion layer of a newborn neutron star. Using FLASH 4.7, the authors run six local 3D resistive MHD simulations in a 100 m periodic box with externally forced subsonic turbulence at magnetic Reynolds numbers Rm ~ 670–3700, starting from a uniform 10^12 G seed. They report exponential growth and saturation at B ~ 3–7 × 10^13 G on millisecond timescales, with magnetic-to-kinetic energy ratios f_sat ~ 0.13–0.35, increasing with Rm. Control runs isolate the effect of neutrino cooling and the equation of state, and a 256^3 run checks resolution sensitivity. The paper is unusually explicit about its limitations, including sustained vs decaying turbulence, purely solenoidal forcing, effective magnetic Prandtl number ~1, periodic unstratified geometry, and the uniform seed field. The authors conclude that a forced local SSD can operate efficiently and may provide an additional source of internal magnetic energy before crust crystallization, while calling for decaying-turbulence and Hall–Ohmic follow-up studies.

Significance. The problem is well motivated and the numerical experiment is carefully designed. Concrete strengths are the explicit run matrix (Table 1), the two physics control runs, the 256^3 resolution check, and the spectral diagnostics: the Kazantsev k^{3/2} kinematic slope and Kolmogorov k^{-5/3} inertial-range slope are the expected SSD signatures. The saturated-field scaling in Eq. (17) is a useful energy-budget consistency check. If the mechanism operates in the real accretion layer, it offers a plausible source of hidden internal magnetic energy relevant to central compact objects and low-field magnetars; the paper is appropriately cautious, however, about the gaps between the local forced experiment and the global post-fallback flow, and about subsequent crustal Hall–Ohmic evolution. These are not hidden flaws; they are stated limitations.

minor comments (6)
  1. [Eq. (2)] The melting-temperature formula has a scaling error. As written, T_melt = 7.1e6 (Z/2)^2 (4/A)(rho/rho0)^(1/3) K gives, for Fe56, about 8.6e7 K, which contradicts the statement in the text that Fe56 has T_melt ~ 5e8 K. The correct derivation requires (4/A)^(1/3) instead of (4/A). The conclusion of Sec. 2 is unaffected, but Eq. (2) should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. 3.2 / Abstract / Sec. 6] The quantitative saturation values (B_sat ~ 3–7e13 G and the millisecond timescale) are obtained under continuous stochastic forcing. The paper states this in Sec. 5 ('Sustained versus decaying turbulence'), but the abstract's closing sentence and Sec. 6 item 2 could be misread as direct astrophysical predictions. Please add 'forced' or 'in the sustained-forcing experiment' to those sentences, e.g., 'a forced local SSD can amplify...' The existing Sec. 5 limitation is adequate; this is a clarity request, not a request for new runs.
  3. [Sec. 3.2 / Appendix A] The cross-reference 'discussed further in Sec. Appendix A' should be 'Appendix A' or a proper section number. Also, in Sec. 3.1 the constant gravitational acceleration g is introduced to estimate the pressure scale height but does not appear in Eqs. (6)–(12); state explicitly that g is only used for the H_P estimate and is not part of the dynamical equations, to avoid confusion.
  4. [Sec. 4, Eq. (17)] Eq. (17) uses f_sat and v_rms measured from the same simulation, so it is a consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The text already calls it an 'energy argument,' but it would be useful to state in one sentence that the agreement is expected by construction and that the predictive content is the insensitivity to the seed amplitude, not the numerical value of B_sat.
  5. [Appendix A / Abstract] The abstract says the 128^3 and 256^3 runs 'agree within a few percent.' The growth rate difference is 7.0% (Table A.2), which is slightly more than 'a few percent.' Please change to 'within about 7%' or 'to within a few percent for the saturation quantities and within 7% for the growth rate.'
  6. [Fig. 4] The Kazantsev k^{3/2} and Kolmogorov k^{-5/3} slopes are identified by visual comparison with dotted lines. A quantitative fit or a residual plot would make the spectral claim more robust, but this is not essential for the paper's conclusion.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the simulated amplification factors are measured outputs of the MHD runs, and Eq. (17) is a consistency check, not an independent prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central result is a measured simulation outcome: six FLASH runs with externally forced subsonic turbulence produce exponential growth from B0=1e12 G and saturated rms fields of 3-7e13 G (Figs. 2-4, Table 1). The target claim is that a forced local SSD can operate under the stated post-hypercritical thermodynamic conditions; that claim is not defined in terms of the conclusion, and it is explicitly scoped by the limitations in Sec. 5 (sustained vs. decaying turbulence, solenoidal forcing, numerical Pm~1, uniform seed, periodic geometry). Those are stated assumptions, not circular inputs. Eq. (17) uses the measured f_sat and v_rms to reproduce B_sat; the paper presents it as an energy-consistency scaling, not as a derivation of the saturation field from first principles, so it is not a fitted-input-called-prediction step. The SSD identification is anchored externally: the kinematic spectrum matches the Kazantsev k^{3/2} slope, the saturation f_sat ~0.2-0.3 is compared with previous SSD literature (Haugen, Schekochihin, Federrath, Seta), and the growth rate is compared to published numerical SSD studies. No load-bearing self-citation or imported uniqueness theorem is used; self-citations such as Bernal et al. (2013) and Rueda-related references appear only as background for field burial and cooling context. The abstract and conclusions honestly state that further simulations of decaying turbulence and Hall-Ohmic survival are needed before claiming global reemergence. In short, the paper is a controlled numerical experiment whose outputs are measured, not derived from the conclusion by construction.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

3 free parameters · 5 axioms · 0 invented entities

No free parameters are fitted to external data; the listed quantities are simulation control parameters (forcing amplitude, resistivity, autocorrelation time). The central physical assumptions are the sustained solenoidal forcing and the Pm~1 regime, both explicitly acknowledged in Sec. 5. No new physical entities are introduced; the liquid post-hypercritical layer is a phase stage, not a new force, particle, or conserved quantity.

free parameters (3)
  • stochastic forcing normalization ε_st = 10^17, 10^19, 10^20 (cgs) for P-A1, P-A2/P-B/P-C, P-A3
    Chosen by hand to set the turbulent velocity and hence the magnetic Reynolds number; not fitted to physical data.
  • magnetic resistivity η = 10^9 cm^2/s
    Numerical choice to keep the resistive scale marginally resolved and place the runs in a dynamo-active regime; not a physical transport coefficient.
  • forcing autocorrelation time τ_corr = 10^-4 s
    Chosen comparable to the expected eddy turnover time; affects the temporal coherence of the injected turbulence.
axioms (5)
  • ad hoc to paper The OU-forced, purely solenoidal acceleration approximates the post-fallback turbulent driving.
    Used to control Rm and isolate SSD; real fallback turbulence is unlikely to be purely solenoidal (Sec. 3.2 and Sec. 5).
  • ad hoc to paper Effective magnetic Prandtl number ~1 (numerical viscosity comparable to explicit resistivity) captures SSD behavior.
    Microscopic Pm in the layer is expected to be much larger; this regime is not numerically reachable and the authors restrict conclusions accordingly (Sec. 3.3 and Sec. 5).
  • domain assumption The fiducial state (rho0=1e10 g/cm3, T0=2e9 K) is liquid and neutrino-transparent for the relevant timescale.
    Coulomb coupling Gamma~0.62 and t_cool~86 d versus t_dyn~1 ms support this (Sec. 2).
  • ad hoc to paper A local periodic box with L~1.9 pressure scale heights captures the relevant dynamo dynamics without stratification.
    Stratification, buoyancy, vertical transport, and a moving crystallization front are omitted; the authors note this could be significant (Sec. 3.1 and Sec. 5).
  • standard math Kazantsev k^{3/2} growth and Kolmogorov k^{-5/3} inertial-range scaling are the standard signatures for interpreting the SSD.
    Standard turbulence/dynamo theory used to identify the mechanism from spectral slopes (Sec. 4, refs [29,31,34]).

reviewed 2026-08-01 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A post-hypercritical accretion small-scale dynamo in newborn neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/ZKG3YAGE

@misc{pith2026260721990,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A post-hypercritical accretion small-scale dynamo in newborn neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/ZKG3YAGE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.21990}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Hypercritical fallback accretion can advect the surface magnetic field of a newborn neutron star into the newly accreted outer layers. Before this material joins the solid crust and enters the Hall-Ohmic regime, part of it may remain hot, dense, and liquid, allowing turbulent magnetic amplification. We investigate whether a small-scale dynamo (SSD) can operate under these conditions using six local 3D resistive MHD simulations performed with FLASH 4.7 in a periodic domain with externally forced subsonic turbulence. We explore magnetic Reynolds numbers from about 700 to 3700 and examine the effects of the equation of state, neutrino cooling, and numerical resolution. The magnetic field grows exponentially from an initial strength of 1e12 G and saturates at about (3-7)e13 G within milliseconds. The saturated magnetic energy remains below equipartition, with magnetic-to-kinetic energy ratios of about 0.2-0.3, consistent with SSD behavior for magnetic Prandtl number near unity. The reference simulations at 128^3 and 256^3 resolution agree within a few percent. Neutrino cooling has little effect over the simulated times, while the equation of state only weakly modifies the dynamo properties. These results indicate that a local SSD can efficiently amplify magnetic fields in the liquid post-hypercritical accretion layer and support scenarios for magnetic field reemergence in newborn neutron stars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.21990 by Cristian G. Bernal, David F. Bambague, J. A. Rueda.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: ρ–T phase diagram for the local post-hypercritical accretion condi￾tions considered in this work. Curves show the melting temperature Tmelt(ρ) from Eq. (2) for representative compositions. The shaded regions mark the solid phase (Γ > 175) and the strongly coupled liquid regime (1 < Γ < 175) for He4 . The star marks the fiducial simulation point, ρ0 = 1010 g cm−3 and T0 = 2 × 109 K, for which Γ ≃ 0.62. The … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: Global evolution of the six simulations. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: Morphological evolution of the reference run P-A2, shown as two-dimensional slices through the box midplane ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectral signature of the SSD in run P-A2. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

73 extracted references · 2 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    R. A. Chevalier, ApJ 346 (1989) 847

    1989

  2. [2]

    J. C. Houck, R. A. Chevalier, ApJ 376 (1991) 234

    1991

  3. [3]

    Muslimov, D

    A. Muslimov, D. Page, ApJ 440 (1995) L77

    1995

  4. [4]

    C. L. Fryer, W. Benz, M. Herant, The Dynamics and Outcomes of Rapid Infall onto Neutron Stars, ApJ460 (1996) 801.arXiv:astro-ph/9509144,doi:10. 1086/177011

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 1996

  5. [5]

    Geppert, D

    U. Geppert, D. Page, T. Zannias, A&A 345 (1999) 847

    1999

  6. [6]

    C. G. Bernal, D. Page, W. H. Lee, ApJ 770 (2013) 106

    2013

  7. [7]

    Torres-Forné, P

    A. Torres-Forné, P. Cerdá-Durán, J. A. Pons, J. A. Font, MNRAS 456 (2016) 3813

    2016

  8. [8]

    C. G. Bernal, N. Fraija, MNRAS 462 (2016) 3646

    2016

  9. [9]

    Fraija, C

    N. Fraija, C. G. Bernal, A. M. Hidalgo-Gámez, MNRAS 442 (2014) 239

    2014

  10. [10]

    Fraija, C

    N. Fraija, C. G. Bernal, MNRAS 451 (2015) 455

    2015

  11. [11]

    Fraija, C

    N. Fraija, C. G. Bernal, G. Morales, R. Negreiros, JCAP 12 (2018) 023

    2018

  12. [12]

    Fraija, C

    N. Fraija, C. G. Bernal, MNRAS 484 (2019) 3262

    2019

  13. [13]

    R. C. Duncan, C. Thompson, ApJ 392 (1992) L9

    1992

  14. [14]

    Thompson, R

    C. Thompson, R. C. Duncan, ApJ 408 (1993) 194

    1993

  15. [15]

    Akiyama, J

    S. Akiyama, J. C. Wheeler, D. L. Meier, I. Lichtenstadt, ApJ 584 (2003) 954

    2003

  16. [16]

    Obergaulinger, P

    M. Obergaulinger, P. Cerdá-Durán, E. Müller, M. A. Aloy, A&A 498 (2009) 241

    2009

  17. [17]

    Mösta, C

    P. Mösta, C. D. Ott, D. Radice, et al., Nature 528 (2015) 376

    2015

  18. [18]

    Raynaud, J

    R. Raynaud, J. Guilet, H.-T. Janka, T. Gastine, Sci. Adv. 6 (2020) eaay2732

    2020

  19. [19]

    Reboul-Salze, J

    A. Reboul-Salze, J. Guilet, R. Raynaud, M. Bugli, A&A 645 (2021) A109

    2021

  20. [20]

    Goldreich, A

    P. Goldreich, A. Reisenegger, ApJ 395 (1992) 250

    1992

  21. [21]

    Cumming, P

    A. Cumming, P. Arras, E. Zweibel, ApJ 609 (2004) 999

    2004

  22. [22]

    J. A. Pons, U. Geppert, A&A 470 (2007) 303

    2007

  23. [23]

    J. A. Pons, J. A. Miralles, U. Geppert, A&A 496 (2009) 207. 8

    2009

  24. [24]

    Viganò, N

    D. Viganò, N. Rea, J. A. Pons, et al., MNRAS 434 (2013) 123

    2013

  25. [25]

    K. N. Gourgouliatos, A. Cumming, MNRAS 438 (2014) 1618

    2014

  26. [26]

    K. N. Gourgouliatos, T. S. Wood, R. Hollerbach, Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. 113 (2016) 3944

    2016

  27. [27]

    J. A. Pons, D. Viganò, Liv. Rev. Comput. Astrophys. 5 (2019) 3

    2019

  28. [28]

    A. P. Igoshev, S. B. Popov, R. Hollerbach, Universe 7 (2021) 351

    2021

  29. [29]

    A. P. Kazantsev, Soviet Phys. JETP 26 (1968) 1031

    1968

  30. [30]

    Brandenburg, K

    A. Brandenburg, K. Subramanian, Phys. Rep. 417 (2005) 1

    2005

  31. [31]

    A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, S. F. Taylor, J. L. Maron, J. C. McWilliams, ApJ 612 (2004) 276

    2004

  32. [32]

    A. A. Schekochihin, S. C. Cowley, J. L. Maron, J. C. McWilliams, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92 (2004) 054502

    2004

  33. [33]

    N. E. L. Haugen, A. Brandenburg, W. Dobler, Phys. Rev. E 70 (2004) 016308

    2004

  34. [34]

    Federrath, G

    C. Federrath, G. Chabrier, J. Schober, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett. 107 (2011) 114504

    2011

  35. [35]

    Schober, D

    J. Schober, D. Schleicher, C. Federrath, R. Klessen, R. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. E 85 (2012) 026303

    2012

  36. [36]

    A. Seta, C. Federrath, MNRAS 499 (2020) 2076

    2020

  37. [37]

    A. Seta, C. Federrath, MNRAS 502 (2021) 2220

    2021

  38. [38]

    A. Seta, C. Federrath, MNRAS 514 (2022) 957

    2022

  39. [39]

    Kriel, J

    N. Kriel, J. R. Beattie, A. Seta, C. Federrath, MNRAS 513 (2022) 2457

    2022

  40. [40]

    De Luca, in: AIP Conf

    A. De Luca, in: AIP Conf. Ser., V ol. 983, 2008, p. 311

    2008

  41. [41]

    E. V . Gotthelf, J. P. Halpern, ApJ 632 (2005) 1075

    2005

  42. [42]

    J. P. Halpern, E. V . Gotthelf, ApJ 709 (2010) 436

    2010

  43. [43]

    E. V . Gotthelf, J. P. Halpern, J. Alford, ApJ 765 (2013) 58

    2013

  44. [44]

    Shabaltas, D

    N. Shabaltas, D. Lai, ApJ 748 (2012) 148

    2012

  45. [45]

    Bogdanov, ApJ 790 (2014) 94

    S. Bogdanov, ApJ 790 (2014) 94

    2014

  46. [46]

    Luo, C.-Y

    J. Luo, C.-Y . Ng, W. C. G. Ho, et al., ApJ 808 (2015) 130

    2015

  47. [47]

    A. P. Igoshev, K. N. Gourgouliatos, R. Hollerbach, T. S. Wood, ApJ 909 (2021) 101

    2021

  48. [48]

    N. Rea, P. Esposito, R. Turolla, et al., Science 330 (2010) 944

    2010

  49. [49]

    N. Rea, G. L. Israel, P. Esposito, et al., ApJ 754 (2012) 27

    2012

  50. [50]

    N. Rea, D. Viganò, G. L. Israel, J. A. Pons, D. F. Torres, ApJ 781 (2014) L17

    2014

  51. [51]

    Fryxell, K

    B. Fryxell, K. Olson, P. Ricker, F. X. Timmes, M. Zin- gale, D. Q. Lamb, P. MacNeice, R. Rosner, J. W. Truran, H. Tufo, Flash: An adaptive mesh hydrodynamics code for modeling astrophysical thermonuclear flashes, Astro- physical Journal Supplement Series 131 (2000) 273–334

    2000

  52. [52]

    Burrows, J

    A. Burrows, J. M. Lattimer, ApJ 307 (1986) 178

    1986

  53. [53]

    J. A. Pons, S. Reddy, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, J. A. Miralles, ApJ 513 (1999) 780

    1999

  54. [54]

    Negreiros, R

    R. Negreiros, R. Ruffini, C. L. Bianco, J. A. Rueda, A&A 540 (2012) A12

    2012

  55. [55]

    Negreiros, L

    R. Negreiros, L. Tolos, M. Centelles, A. Ramos, C. Providência, ApJ 895 (2020) 112

    2020

  56. [56]

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

    2015

  57. [57]

    S. L. Shapiro, S. A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Ob- jects, Wiley, New York, 1983

    1983

  58. [58]

    R. T. Farouki, S. Hamaguchi, Phys. Rev. E 47 (1993) 4330

    1993

  59. [59]

    A. Y . Potekhin, G. Chabrier, Phys. Rev. E 62 (2000) 8554

    2000

  60. [60]

    M. Haft, G. Raffelt, A. Weiss, ApJ 425 (1994) 222

    1994

  61. [61]

    N. Itoh, H. Hayashi, A. Nishikawa, Y . Kohyama, ApJS 102 (1996) 411

    1996

  62. [62]

    Becerra, C

    L. Becerra, C. L. Bianco, C. L. Fryer, J. A. Rueda, R. Ruffini, On the Induced Gravitational Collapse Sce- nario of Gamma-ray Bursts Associated with Supernovae, ApJ833 (1) (2016) 107.arXiv:1606.02523,doi:10. 3847/1538-4357/833/1/107

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2016

  63. [63]

    D. G. Yakovlev, A. D. Kaminker, O. Y . Gnedin, P. Haensel, Phys. Rep. 354 (2001) 1

    2001

  64. [64]

    Haensel, J

    P. Haensel, J. L. Zdunik, A&A 480 (2008) 459

    2008

  65. [65]

    D. Lee, A. E. Deane, J. Comput. Phys. 228 (2009) 952

    2009

  66. [66]

    D. Lee, J. Comput. Phys. 243 (2013) 269

    2013

  67. [67]

    F. X. Timmes, F. D. Swesty, ApJS 126 (2000) 501

    2000

  68. [68]

    Miyoshi, K

    T. Miyoshi, K. Kusano, J. Comput. Phys. 208 (2005) 315

    2005

  69. [69]

    Eswaran, S

    V . Eswaran, S. B. Pope, Comput. Fluids 16 (1988) 257

    1988

  70. [70]

    Schmidt, C

    W. Schmidt, C. Federrath, M. Hupp, S. Kern, J. C. Niemeyer, A&A 494 (2009) 127

    2009

  71. [71]

    Federrath, J

    C. Federrath, J. Roman-Duval, R. S. Klessen, W. Schmidt, M.-M. Mac Low, A&A 512 (2010) A81. 9

    2010

  72. [72]

    Achikanath Chirakkara, C

    R. Achikanath Chirakkara, C. Federrath, P. Trivedi, R. Banerjee, Phys. Rev. Lett. 126 (2021) 091103

    2021

  73. [73]

    Federrath, J

    C. Federrath, J. Schober, S. Bovino, D. R. G. Schleicher, ApJ 797 (2014) L19. Appendix A. Resolution and microphysical checks We simulate the reference case P-A2 at 256 3 cells to assess the sensitivity of the main simulation parameters to resolution. The comparison with the 1283 run is shown in Table A.2. Table A.2: Resolution check for the reference mod...

    2014

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 1, 2026.