Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 105 references

A Criterion for Magnetars Producing Giant Flares

T0 review · 3 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 A single dimensionless ratio, $\eta = GM m/(R^4 B_0^2) < 0.48$, decides whether a magnetar can produce a giant flare.

desk verdict A useful necessary condition for giant-flare capability, but the P–Pdot line is calibrated to one of the three events it claims to explain, so the observational consistency is illustrative rather than independent. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.24128 v1 pith:B5QX6RJX submitted 2025-05-30 astro-ph.HE astro-ph.SRhep-th

Y. Meng , Q.-S. Zhang , J. Lin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-th
keywords magnetarsgiantflaressoftgammarepeatersfluxropelossofequilibriumcatastrophemodelP-Pdotdiagrammagnetosphere
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 claims that a magnetar can produce a giant flare only if a single dimensionless ratio, $\eta = GM m/(R^4 B_0^2)$, is smaller than $0.48$, where $m$ is the mass of the erupting flux rope and $B_0$ the surface magnetic field strength. For a canonical neutron star and the ejecta mass inferred for SGR 1806-20, that translates to $B_0 > 3.6 \times 10^{13}$ G, or $P\dot{P} > 1.1 \times 10^{-12}$ s, drawing a dividing line across the pulsar period-derivative diagram. The argument replaces the straight flux rope of an earlier model with a curved rope anchored to the spherical star, so that curvature force and magnetic compression act to expel the rope while gravity holds it down. If the criterion is right, it gives observers a simple way to rank which magnetars are giant-flare candidates and which are not, consistent with the three giant flares seen so far.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing element is the dimensionless parameter $\eta = GM m/(R^4 B_0^2)$, introduced by non-dimensionalizing the force balance on a partially circular flux rope whose ends are anchored to the stellar surface. The rope's equilibrium is governed by four forces: magnetic tension, magnetic pressure, curvature force, and gravity; the outward curvature force and magnetic compression both scale with the square of the rope current, and the frozen-flux condition ties that current to the background dipole field. Solving the equilibrium and frozen-flux equations for a slowly decaying background field produces equilibrium curves whose shape divides into those with and without a critical point, and $\eta$ is the single parameter that selects between the two behaviors.

What would settle it

A giant flare from a magnetar whose spin-down-inferred surface field is below $3.6 \times 10^{13}$ G (equivalently $P\dot{P} < 1.1 \times 10^{-12}$ s for $m = 10^{24.5}$ g) would falsify the criterion, since the model predicts such a source can never reach the loss-of-equilibrium point.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that loss of equilibrium in a magnetar's magnetosphere occurs only when the gravitational confinement of the flux rope is weak enough relative to the magnetic forces driving it outward. Quantitatively, the equilibrium curves of flux-rope height versus background field develop a critical turning point only for $\eta < 0.48$; above that value the rope simply rises slowly as the field decays and never reaches a catastrophe. With $M = 3 \times 10^{33}$ g, $R = 10^6$ cm and $m = 10^{24.5}$ g, the condition becomes $B_0 > 3.6 \times 10^{13}$ G and, via spin-down, $P\dot{P} > 1.1 \times 10^{-12}$ s. The three magnetars with observed giant flares all sit above this line, while most radio pulsars lie below it.

Load-bearing premise

The whole criterion shifts with the assumed flux-rope mass $m$, which the model takes as a tunable input calibrated to the ejecta of one event rather than deriving from first principles.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Magnetars with surface fields below about $3.6 \times 10^{13}$ G (for the reference ejecta mass) should never reach the equilibrium-loss threshold, so they are not giant-flare candidates.
  • In the $P$-$\dot{P}$ diagram, a line at $P\dot{P} > 1.1 \times 10^{-12}$ s separates potentially flaring magnetars from non-flaring pulsars, and the three known giant-flare sources lie above it.
  • The same criterion, applied to the Sun, bounds the maximum solar CME mass near $10^{17}$ g, consistent with observations.
  • The curved-rope geometry removes the need for axial symmetry, so the criterion applies to realistic anchored footpoint configurations rather than only global torus loops.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the criterion holds, the absence of giant flares from many high-field magnetars could be read as a statement about their flux-rope masses: sources below the line simply cannot assemble a rope heavy enough to be ejected, rather than lacking stored energy.
  • The linear scaling of the threshold with $m$ suggests that the same $P\dot{P}$ line should not be treated as universal; a giant flare with much lighter ejecta would require a proportionally weaker field, so the line is a lower limit tied to observed ejecta masses.
  • The model's prediction that $\eta < 0.48$ is a necessary condition could be tested statistically by checking whether all future giant flares fall above the fiducial line while persistent emitters below it never flare.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The manuscript extends the straight-flux-rope model of magnetar giant flares by Meng et al. (2014) to a curved flux rope whose two footpoints are anchored on the spherical stellar surface. The model includes magnetic tension, magnetic pressure, curvature force, and gravity, and treats the evolution as a quasi-static sequence of equilibria driven by a slowly decaying background dipole field. The central result is that a critical point, corresponding to catastrophic loss of equilibrium, exists only when η = GMm/(R^4 B0^2) < 0.48. For M = 3×10^33 g, R = 10^6 cm, and m = 10^24.5 g, this is converted to B0 > 3.6×10^13 G and P\dot{P} > 1.1×10^-12 s, which is drawn as a boundary in the P–\dot{P} diagram. The three known giant-flare magnetars lie above this boundary. The paper also checks the criterion against solar CME masses and argues that the maximum CME mass consistent with the condition agrees with observations.

Significance. If the result holds, the paper provides a simple, physically motivated necessary condition for magnetar giant flares and a way to translate a flux-rope mass and surface magnetic field into a P–\dot{P} threshold. The analytical derivation is detailed and the classification of equilibrium curves into those with and without critical points is the central calculation. The reported robustness of the threshold to a0 and c2 is valuable, and the solar CME mass check is a welcome, independent falsifiable application. The main weakness is that the flux-rope mass m is not predicted by the model; the P–\dot{P} boundary therefore inherits the uncertainty in m, and the paper's language goes beyond what the model alone can support.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3, Eq. (33)] The numerical coefficient in Eq. (33) is incorrect by four orders of magnitude. Combining Eqs. (31) and (32) with M = 3×10^33 g and R = 10^6 cm gives (P\dot{P}/s) > 3.4×10^-37 (m/g), not 3.3×10^-33 (m/g). The quoted value P\dot{P} > 1.1×10^-12 s for m = 10^24.5 g follows only from the corrected coefficient; as printed, Eq. (33) and the following sentence are mutually inconsistent. Please correct the coefficient and verify all numbers that use it.
  2. [§4.2, §4.3, and §5] The predictive content of the P–\dot{P} boundary depends entirely on the assumed flux-rope mass m. The paper adopts m = 10^24.5 g, the lower-limit baryonic ejecta mass of SGR 1806-20 (§3), while §4.3 describes m as a tunable parameter. Since η ∝ m, the boundary shifts to B0 > 6.5×10^13 G for m = 10^25 g and to B0 > 2×10^14 G for m = 10^26 g. The three giant-flare magnetars have spin-down-inferred fields around 7×10^14 G, so the qualitative conclusion that they satisfy the criterion is robust; nevertheless, the criterion cannot be applied to a magnetar of unknown m. The statements that the model 'distinguishes pulsars that can produce giant flares' (§5) and provides a criterion to identify such magnetars (abstract) overstate the result. Please either provide a model-based estimate of m or clearly frame the line as a lower-limit reference for an assumed mass, and revise the abstract and conclusions accordingly.
  3. [§3, mass identification] The identification of the model's flux-rope mass with the observed baryonic ejecta mass of SGR 1806-20 needs further discussion. The flux rope in the model carries electric current and may contain pair plasma, whereas the ATCA/VLA observations constrain the baryonic mass of the radio ejecta. The relation between these two masses is not established, and an uncertainty in this mapping propagates directly into the threshold B0 > sqrt(417 m). Please clarify the mapping and state how uncertainties in m affect the quantitative criterion.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3, after Eq. (33)] The sentence 'where g is gram and G is Gauss' uses the same letter G for the gravitational constant and for the magnetic-field unit; please disambiguate (for example, write the threshold as B0 > 3.6×10^13 G and avoid 'G' as a unit symbol in equations).
  2. [Abstract and §2.1] There are several typographical errors, including 'flue rope' in the abstract and 'cowed flux rope' in §2.1; the manuscript should be proofread for such errors.
  3. [§4.1 and §3] The term 'nosepoints' should be 'nose points' (or 'turning points') consistently throughout.
  4. [Figs. 4 and 5] Please state explicitly that logη is base 10, and consider providing the numerical data or a table of ac(η) so that the location of the threshold η < 0.48 can be checked by readers.
  5. [References] The reference entry 'Parker, H. E. 1964, ApJS, 8, 177 MHD Theory and Applications (New York: Springer)' appears garbled and does not correspond to the in-text citation 'Petschek 1964'; please correct this reference.
  6. [§2.3] The text says that the stellar mass is set to unity and later uses M = 3×10^33 g for numerical evaluation; the non-dimensionalization should be stated more clearly so that the reintroduction of physical units in Eqs. (31)–(33) is unambiguous.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the η < 0.48 threshold is an independent force-balance result, and the flux-rope mass m is an acknowledged external input rather than a fitted prediction.

full rationale

The central criterion η = GMm/(R^4 B0^2) < 0.48 is an emergent output of the force-balance and frozen-flux calculation in Sections 2–3: whether equilibrium curves acquire a nose point is determined by varying η and is read off from Fig. 5, with no giant-flare magnetar data entering that step. The later conversion to a B0 or P–Pdot threshold (Eqs. 31–33) uses the flux-rope mass m, which Section 3 adopts from the SGR 1806-20 radio ejecta lower limit, and Section 4.3 explicitly states that 'the total mass is used as a tunable parameter in the related studies.' This makes the drawn boundary parameter-dependent and the Fig. 6 check a weak necessary-condition test, but it is not circular: m is an external observational input, the scaling B0 > sqrt(417 m) is not obtained by fitting the three green stars, and the three flare magnetars lie far above the line even when m is varied by orders of magnitude to 10^26 g. Citations to the authors' earlier Meng et al. (2014) light-curve model support the plausibility of the mass range but do not carry the derivation of the η criterion. A separate numerical typo in Eq. (33) (coefficient should be about 3.4×10^-37 rather than 3.3×10^-33) is a correctness issue, not a circularity.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The model requires several physical inputs: the flux rope mass m (the most consequential, as it sets the observable threshold), the initial height a0, and the internal equilibrium constant c2. The core derivation of the criterion eta < 0.48 is a numerical output with these inputs, and the authors show weak sensitivity to a0 and c2. No new physical entities are introduced; the flux rope is a standard MHD construct.

free parameters (4)
  • m (flux rope mass) = 10^24.5 g (input from observations)
    Taken from the observed baryonic ejecta mass of SGR 1806-20; enters eta linearly and sets the B0 threshold, but is not predicted by the model.
  • a0 (initial flux rope height) = 1.02
    Chosen slightly above unity; authors find no significant difference for 1.01 to 1.10.
  • c2 (internal equilibrium constant) = 1e-5
    Sets r0 I = c2; authors claim no significant change for two orders of magnitude variation.
  • c1 (frozen-flux constant) = determined from initial state
    Fixed by the initial height a0 and u = 1; influences the current-height relation.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The magnetar is a perfect sphere.
    Stated in Sec 2.2 as a zeroth approximation.
  • ad hoc to paper The flux rope is a thin circular arc whose full circle passes through the stellar center.
    Geometry chosen for analytical tractability; determines the curvature force and the threshold eta < 0.48.
  • domain assumption The background field is a dipole and the most favorable orientation has the dipole axis perpendicular to the rope plane (k' = j).
    Sec 2.3; used to derive the necessary condition for instability.
  • domain assumption The flux rope is a line current with internal equilibrium r0 I = c2 (Lundquist force-free profile).
    Sec 2.3 and Sec 4.3; different current distributions could alter the internal equilibrium.
  • domain assumption Frozen-flux condition: the vector potential at the rope surface is conserved.
    Sec 2.3, Eq. (29); standard in solar CME catastrophe models.
  • domain assumption Quasi-static evolution driven by slow decay of the background dipole strength u.
    Sec 2.1; the driver of the catastrophe.
  • domain assumption Newtonian gravity acts on a homogeneous rope of total mass m; centrifugal force is negligible.
    Sec 2.3; justified by the spin period being much longer than the breakup period.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A Criterion for Magnetars Producing Giant Flares." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/B5QX6RJX

@misc{pith2026250524128,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A Criterion for Magnetars Producing Giant Flares},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/B5QX6RJX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.24128}
}
abstract

In this work, the straight flux rope in the model of giant flares on magnetars (Meng et al. 2014) was replaced with a curved one and the equilibrium behavior of the flux rope was investigated. Two footpoints of the flux rope are anchored to the spherical surface of magnetar. The forces acting on the flux rope include magnetic tension, magnetic pressure, curvature force, gravity. The equilibrium in the flux rope, so as in the global configuration, is achieved as these forces offset each other. Changes in the background environment drive the configuration to evolve through a set of equilibria in a quasi-static fashion until the critical point is reached and the loss of equilibrium in the configuration occurs, invoking a giant flare. We establish a criterion to identify magnetars capable of producing giant flares. Among the four forces, the curvature force as well as the magnetic compression tend to expel the flue rope outward. In a given magnetic configuration, the curvature force and magnetic compression are proportional to the square of the current intensity of the flux rope, which is determined by the frozen-flux condition and background magnetic field strength. We find that only when $\eta = G M m / ({{{R^4}{B_0}^2}})< 0.48 $ is satisfied, the system reaches a critical point and potentially undergoes catastrophe. Here, $G, M, m, R$, and $B_{0}$ are the gravitational constant, the mass of neutron star, the mass of flux rope, the radius of neutron star, and the surface magnetic field strength of neutron star, respectively. The physical meaning of this criterion is that when $\eta \propto m / B_{0}^{2}$ is small enough, the curvature force and magnetic pressure can be sufficiently large to overcome gravitational confinement. This criterion establishes a basis for identifying magnetars capable of producing giant flares.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.24128 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. A sketch of the configuration of the flux rope. The star is the circle O with radius OA defined as unity. The flux rope is the r > 1 part (green arc BED) of a circle (red) P passing the stellar center O. | OP | = a/2, θ = ∠AOE. The plane is the φ = 0 plane in the spherical coordinates or the X-O-Z plane in the corresponding Cartesian coordinate system. OA is the pole or the Z-axis. The blue line BD is the effective … view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The magnetic field lines at z = 0 plane for the case of k ′ = j, which means the magnetic axes is upward. In panel a, a = 2 and i = 0.1. In panel b, a = 2 and i = −0.1. The dimensionless current i is i = I/(B0c). A positive i means that the direct of current at the top of the flux rope (i.e., x = a = 2 and y = 0) is passing through the paper from the line of sight. Panel a corresponds to the panel a of Fig.2. (x, y … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The magnetic field lines near the stellar surface for two special cases. In panel a, the magnetic axes is k ′ = j, a = 2 and i = 0.1. In panel b, the magnet axes is k ′ = k, a = 3 and i = 0.05. The dimensionless current i is i = I/(B0c). The magnetic axes of the magnetar shown as the cyan lines, yellow curves are for the magnetic field outside the flux rope, black curves are for the field lines near the surface of t… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (2 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: The height of the flux rope equilibrium locations as a function of the relative strength of the background dipole u for different parameter η. The values of log η take 0.2, 0, −0.2, −0.32, −0.4, −0.6, −1.0 and −2.0 for each line, they are represented by purple, dark gr…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The P −P˙ distribution of neutron stars. Magnetars that have produced giant flares are denoted as green stars, the other magnetars are denoted as the red dots, the normal neutron stars are denoted as the black dots. The data of magnetars are avail￾able from McGill Onli…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

105 extracted references · 78 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]

    Aly, J. J. 1984, , 283, 349

    1984

  3. [3]

    Aly, J. J. 1991, , 375, L61

    1991

  4. [4]

    B., Chandra, P., Ray, A., Kulkarni, S

    Cameron, P. B., Chandra, P., Ray, A., Kulkarni, S. R., Frail, D. A., Wieringa, M. H., Nakar, E., Phinney, E. S., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1112

    2005

  5. [5]

    Carrasc\` o , F.,Vigano, D., Palenzuela, C.,& Pons, J. A. 2019, , 484, L124

    2019

  6. [6]

    F., Giordano, S., Raymond, J

    Ciaravella, A.,Webb, D. F., Giordano, S., Raymond, J. C. 2013, , 766, 65

    2013

  7. [7]

    Corbel, S., & Eikenberry, S. S. 2004, , 419, 191

    2004

  8. [8]

    C., & Thompson, C

    Duncan, R. C., & Thompson, C. 1992, , 392, L9

    1992

Show all 105 references
  1. [9]

    G., & Isenberg, P

    Forbes, T. G., & Isenberg, P. A. 1991, , 373, 294

    1991

  2. [10]

    Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 23153

    2000

  3. [11]

    Forbes, T. G. 2003, Adv. Space Res., 32, 1043

    2003

  4. [12]

    G., & Lin, J

    Forbes, T. G., & Lin, J. 2000, J. Atmos. Sol. Terr. Phys., 62, 1499

    2000

  5. [13]

    G., & Priest, E

    Forbes, T. G., & Priest, E. R. 1995, , 446, 377

    1995

  6. [14]

    G., Priest, E

    Forbes, T. G., Priest, E. R., & Isenberg, P. A. 1994, Sol. Phys., 150, 245

    1994

  7. [15]

    G.; Linker, J

    Forbes, T. G.; Linker, J. A., Chen, J., Cid, C., K\' o ta, J., Lee, M. A., Mann, G., Miki\' c , Z., et al. 2006, Space Sci. Rev., 123, 251

    2006

  8. [16]

    M., Kouveliotou, C., Gelfand, J

    Gaensler, B. M., Kouveliotou, C., Gelfand, J. D., Taylor, G. B., Eichler, D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Granot, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1104

    2005

  9. [17]

    Gill, R., & Heyl, J. S. 2010, , 407, 1926

    2010

  10. [18]

    2007, ApSS, 308, 51

    G\" o tz, D., Mereghetti, S., & Hurley, K. 2007, ApSS, 308, 51

    2007

  11. [19]

    B., Eichler, D., Lyubarsky, Y

    Granot, J., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Taylor, G. B., Eichler, D., Lyubarsky, Y. E., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Gaensler, B. M., Gelfand, J. D., et al. 2006, , 638, 391

    2006

  12. [20]

    K., & Lai, D

    Harding, A. K., & Lai, D. 2006, Rep. Prog. Phys., 69, 2631

    2006

  13. [21]

    2013, Mathematical Physics: A Modern Introduction to Its Foundations, 2nd ed

    Hassani, S. 2013, Mathematical Physics: A Modern Introduction to Its Foundations, 2nd ed. (Springer, Cham)

    2013

  14. [22]

    A., Sheeley, Jr., N

    Howard, R. A., Sheeley, Jr., N. R., Koomen, M. J., & Michels, D. J. 1985, J. Geophys. Res. 90, 1356

    1985

  15. [23]

    2014a, , 784, 163

    Huang, L., & Yu, C. 2014a, , 784, 163

  16. [24]

    2014b, , 796, 3

    Huang, L., & Yu, C. 2014b, , 796, 3

  17. [25]

    1999, Nature, 397, 41

    Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E., Barthelmy, S., Butterworth, P., Marshall, F., Palmer, D., Aptekar, R., et al. 1999, Nature, 397, 41

    1999

  18. [26]

    E., Smith, D

    Hurley, K., Boggs, S. E., Smith, D. M., Duncan, R. C., Lin, R., Zoglauer, A., Krucker, S., Hurford, G., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1098

    2005

  19. [27]

    A., Forbes, T

    Isenberg, P. A., Forbes, T. G., & D\' e moulin, P. 1993, , 417, 368

    1993

  20. [28]

    A., & Forbes, T

    Isenberg, P. A., & Forbes, T. G. 2007, , 670, 1453

    2007

  21. [29]

    2011, , 738, 179

    Jiang, Y., Yang, J., Hong, J., Bi, Y., & Zheng, R. 2011, , 738, 179

    2011

  22. [30]

    2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126

    Jiang, C., Feng, X., Liu, R., et al. 2021, Nature Astronomy, 5, 1126

    2021

  23. [31]

    Klimchuk, J. A. 2001, in Space Weather, ed. P. Song, H. J. Singer & G. Siscoe (Washington, DC: AGU), 143

    2001

  24. [32]

    J., Meegan, C

    Kouveliotou, C., Dieters, S., Strohmayer, T., van Paradijs, J., Fishman, G. J., Meegan, C. A., Hurley, K., Kommers, J., et al. 1998, Nature, 393, 235

    1998

  25. [33]

    H., Dieters, S., Woods, P., Thompson, C., 1999, , 510, L115

    Kouveliotou, C., Strohmayer, T., Hurley, K., van Paradijs, J., Finger, M. H., Dieters, S., Woods, P., Thompson, C., 1999, , 510, L115

    1999

  26. [34]

    2012, MNRAS, 427, 1574

    Levin, Y., & Lyutikov, M. 2012, MNRAS, 427, 1574

    2012

  27. [35]

    2014, MNRAS, 441, 2676

    Link, B. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2676

    2014

  28. [36]

    Lin, J., & Forbes, T. G. 2000, J. Geophys. Res., 105, 2375

    2000

  29. [37]

    2002, ChJAA, 2, 539

    Lin, J. 2002, ChJAA, 2, 539

    2002

  30. [38]

    2004, Sol

    Lin, J. 2004, Sol. Phys., 219, 169

    2004

  31. [39]

    G., & D\' e moulin, P

    Lin, J., Forbes, T. G., & D\' e moulin, P. 1998, , 504, 1006

    1998

  32. [40]

    C., Stenborg, G

    Lin, J., Ko, Y.-K., Sui, L., Raymond, J. C., Stenborg, G. A., Jiang, Y., Zhao, S., Mancuso, S. 2005, , 622, 1251

    2005

  33. [41]

    2006, , 649, 1110

    Lin, J., Mancuso, S., & Vourlidas, A. 2006, , 649, 1110

    2006

  34. [42]

    G., Ko, Y.-K., Raymond, J

    Lin, J., Li, J., Forbes, T. G., Ko, Y.-K., Raymond, J. C., Vourlidas, A. 2007, , 658, L123

    2007

  35. [43]

    2004, NewA, 9, 611

    Lin, J., & Soon, W. 2004, NewA, 9, 611

    2004

  36. [44]

    A., & Forbes, T

    Lin, J., van Ballegooijen, A. A., & Forbes, T. G. 2002, J. Geophys. Res., 107, 1438

    2002

  37. [45]

    Lin, J., Soon, W., & Baliunas, S. L. 2003, NewA Rev., 47, 53

    2003

  38. [46]

    C., & van Ballegooijen, A

    Lin, J., Raymond, J. C., & van Ballegooijen, A. A. 2004, , 602, 422

    2004

  39. [47]

    -J., Qiu, J., Longcope, D

    Liu, W. -J., Qiu, J., Longcope, D. W., Caspi, A. 2013, , 770, 111

    2013

  40. [48]

    2003, , 346, 540

    Lyutikov, M. 2003, , 346, 540

    2003

  41. [49]

    2006, , 367, 1594

    Lyutikov, M. 2006, , 367, 1594

    2006

  42. [50]

    F., Akg\" u n, T., Pons, J

    Mahlmann, J. F., Akg\" u n, T., Pons, J. A., Aloy, M. A., & Cerd\' a -Dur\' a n, P. 2019, , 490, 4858

    2019

  43. [51]

    F., Philippov, A

    Mahlmann, J. F., Philippov, A. A., Mewes, V., Ripperda, B., Most, E.R., & Sironi, L. 2023, , 947,L34

    2023

  44. [52]

    N., Hobbs, G

    Manchester, R. N., Hobbs, G. B., Teoh, A. & Hobbs, M. 2005, , 129, 1993

    2005

  45. [53]

    2010, PASJ, 62, 1093

    Masada, Y., Nagataki S., Shibata, K., & Terasawa, T. 2010, PASJ, 62, 1093

    2010

  46. [54]

    P., Golentskii, S

    Mazets, E. P., Golentskii, S. V., Ilinskii, V. N., Aptekar, R. L., Guryan, Iu. A. 1979, Nature, 282, 587

    1979

  47. [55]

    M., & Gaensler, B

    McClure-Griffiths, N. M., & Gaensler, B. M. 2005, , 630, L161

    2005

  48. [56]

    2008, A&AR, 15, 225

    Mereghetti, S. 2008, A&AR, 15, 225

    2008

  49. [57]

    L., Rea, N., Zane, S., & Oosterbroek, T

    Mereghetti, S., Tiengo, A., Stella, L., Israel, G. L., Rea, N., Zane, S., & Oosterbroek, T. 2004, , 608, 427

    2004

  50. [58]

    2014, , 785, 62

    Meng, Y., Lin, J., Zhang, L., et al. 2014, , 785, 62

    2014

  51. [59]

    & Linker, J.A

    Mikic, Z. & Linker, J.A. 1994, , 430, 898

    1994

  52. [60]

    & Kaspi, V

    Olausen, A. & Kaspi, V. M. 2014, , 212, 6

    2014

  53. [61]

    M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., Kippen, R

    Palmer, D. M., Barthelmy, S., Gehrels, N., Kippen, R. M., Cayton, T., Kouveliotou, C., Eichler, D., Wijers, R. A. M. J., Woods, P. M., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1107

    2005

  54. [62]

    M., & Hui, L

    Parfrey, K., Beloborodov, A. M., & Hui, L. 2012a, , 423, 1416

  55. [63]

    M., & Hui, L

    Parfrey, K., Beloborodov, A. M., & Hui, L. 2012b, , 754, L12

  56. [64]

    M., & Hui, L

    Parfrey, K., Beloborodov, A. M., & Hui, L. 2013, , 774, 92

    2013

  57. [65]

    Parker, E. N. 1963, in The Physics of Solar Flares, ed. W. N. Hess (Washingdon, D. C.: NASA) 425

    1963

  58. [66]

    Parker, H. E. 1964, , 8, 177

    1964

  59. [67]

    R., 1982, Solar Magnetohydrodynamics (Boston: Reidel)

    Priest, E. R., 1982, Solar Magnetohydrodynamics (Boston: Reidel)

    1982

  60. [68]

    R., & Forbes, T

    Priest, E. R., & Forbes, T. G. 2000, Magnetic Reconnection: MHD Theory and Applications (New York: Cambridge Univ. Press)

    2000

  61. [69]

    R., & Forbes, T

    Priest, E. R., & Forbes, T. G. 2002, A & ARv, 10, 313

    2002

  62. [70]

    -J., Longcope, D

    Qiu, J., Liu, W. -J., Longcope, D. W. 2012, , 752, 124

    2012

  63. [71]

    2011, High-Energy Emission from Pulsars and their Systems, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings (Berlin: Springer), 247

    Rea, N., & Esposito, P. 2011, High-Energy Emission from Pulsars and their Systems, Astrophysics and Space Science Proceedings (Berlin: Springer), 247

    2011

  64. [72]

    K., & Forbes, T

    Reeves, K. K., & Forbes, T. G. 2005, , 630, 1133

    2005

  65. [73]

    Reeves, K. K. 2006, Ph.D. thesis, Univ. New Hampshire

    2006

  66. [74]

    K., Warren, H

    Reeves, K. K., Warren, H. P., & Forbes, T. G. 2007, , 668, 1210

    2007

  67. [75]

    K., Linker, J

    Reeves, K. K., Linker, J. A., Mikic, Z., & Forbes, T. G. 2010, , 721, 1547

    2010

  68. [76]

    1991a, , 366, 261

    Ruderman, M. 1991a, , 366, 261

  69. [77]

    1991b, , 382, 576

    Ruderman, M. 1991b, , 382, 576

  70. [78]

    1991c, , 382, 587

    Ruderman, M. 1991c, , 382, 587

  71. [79]

    F., & Spitkovsky, A

    Rugg, N., Mahlmann, J. F., & Spitkovsky, A. 2024, , 966, 173

    2024

  72. [80]

    Shafranov, V.D., 1966, Rev.Plasma Phys., 2, 103

    1966

  73. [81]

    V., & Lyutikov, M

    Sharma, P., Barkov, M. V., & Lyutikov, M. 2023, , 524, 6024

    2023

  74. [82]

    Shen, Y., Liu, Y. & Su, J. 2012, , 750, 12

    2012

  75. [83]

    1999, , 526, L49

    Shibata, K., & Yokoyama, T. 1999, , 526, L49

    1999

  76. [84]

    A., & Cerd\' a -Dur\' a n, P

    Stefanou, P., Pons, J. A., & Cerd\' a -Dur\' a n, P. 2023, , 518, 6390

    2023

  77. [85]

    Sturrock, P. A. 1991, , 380, 655

    1991

  78. [86]

    2013, , 777, 93

    Susino, R., Bemporad, A., Krucker, S. 2013, , 777, 93

    2013

  79. [87]

    1976, Solar Flares: Geophys

    S vestka, Z. 1976, Solar Flares: Geophys. Astrophys. Monogrs. (Dordrecht: Reidel)

    1976

  80. [88]

    B., Gelfand, J

    Taylor, G. B., Gelfand, J. D., Gaensler, B. M., Granot, J., Kouveliotou, C., Fender, R. P., Ramirez-Ruiz, E., Eichler, D., et al. 2005, , 634, L93

    2005

  81. [89]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1995, , 275, 255

    1995

  82. [90]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 1996, , 473, 322

    1996

  83. [91]

    Thompson, C., & Duncan, R. C. 2001, , 561, 980

    2001

  84. [92]

    Thompson, C., Lyutikov, M., & Kulkarni, S. R. 2002, , 574, 332

    2002

  85. [93]

    Thompson, C., & Murray, N. W. 2001, , 560, 339

    2001

  86. [94]

    A., Luginbuhl, C

    Vrba, F., Henden, A. A., Luginbuhl, C. B., Guetter, H. H., Hartmann, D. H., Klose, S. 2000, , 533, L17

    2000

  87. [95]

    D., Martens, P., & Reeves, K

    Winter, H. D., Martens, P., & Reeves, K. K. 2011, , 735, 103

    2011

  88. [96]

    M., & Thompson, C

    Woods, P. M., & Thompson, C. 2006, in Compact Stellar X-Ray Sources, ed. W. H. G. Lewin & van der Klis (Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press), 547

    2006

  89. [97]

    C., Pan, G

    Yan, X.L., Wang, J. C., Pan, G. M., et al. 2018, , 856, 79

    2018

  90. [98]

    D., Murphy, N

    Yan, L., Winter, H. D., Murphy, N. A., Jun, L., Ning, W. 2013, PASJ, 65, 101

    2013

  91. [99]

    2001, , 546, L69

    Yokoyama, T., Akita, K., Morimoto, T., Inoue, K., Newmark, J. 2001, , 546, L69

    2001

  92. [100]

    2011, , 738, 75

    Yu, C. 2011, , 738, 75

    2011

  93. [101]

    2012, , 757, 67

    Yu, C. 2012, , 757, 67

    2012

  94. [102]

    2013, , 771, L46

    Yu, C., & Huang, L. 2013, , 771, L46

    2013

  95. [103]

    M., Chen, A.Y., Levin, Y., Most E

    Yuan, J., Beloborodov, A. M., Chen, A.Y., Levin, Y., Most E. R., Philippov, A. A. 2022, , 933, 174

    2022

  96. [104]

    Yuan, F., Lin, J., Wu, K., & Ho, L. C. 2009, , 395, 2183

    2009

  97. [105]

    V., Arzner, K., Benz, A

    Zharkova, V. V., Arzner, K., Benz, A. O., Browning, P., Dauphin, C., Emslie, A. G., Fletcher, L., Kontar, E. P., et al. 2011, Space Sci. Rev., 159, 357

    2011

Pith tools

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