Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 6 minor 1 cited by

Magnetothermal evolution of neutron star cores in the `weak-coupling' regime: implications of ambipolar diffusion for the quiescent X-ray luminosity of magnetars

T0 review · 1 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that ambipolar diffusion, the slow drift of charged particles through neutrons in a neutron star core, cannot by itself power the persistent X-ray luminosity of magnetars, and shows this with two-fluid axisymmetric…

desk verdict Solid axisymmetric two-fluid simulations that quantify ambipolar heating and show it falls short for magnetars, but the 3D stability caveat means the headline conclusion should be softer. read the letter →

arxiv 2505.18733 v1 pith:D4XGWZLE submitted 2025-05-24 astro-ph.HE physics.plasm-ph

N. A. Moraga , F. Castillo , D. D. Ofengeim , A. Reisenegger , J. A. Valdivia , M. E. Gusakov , E. M. Kantor , A. Y. Potekhin This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEphysics.plasm-ph
keywords magnetarsambipolardiffusionneutronstarcoresmagnetothermalevolutionquiescentX-rayluminosityGrad-Shafranovequilibriumtwo-fluidmagnetohydrodynamicsmagneticfielddecay
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper asks whether ambipolar diffusion—the slow drift of charged particles through neutrons in a neutron star core—can convert enough magnetic energy into heat to sustain the X-rays observed from magnetars. The authors simulate the long-term magnetic and thermal evolution of a normal, non-superfluid core in axial symmetry, treating it as two coupled fluids and using a time-reparametrization to follow the temperature as it changes. They find that only very strong fields, $B \gtrsim 5 \times 10^{15}\,\mathrm{G}$, can briefly balance ambipolar heating against neutrino cooling, holding the core hot for about $10^3$ years. Even then, the predicted surface X-ray luminosity stays below the brightest observed magnetars, so the paper concludes that ambipolar diffusion on its own cannot explain their persistent emission.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the two-fluid weak-coupling model, in which a neutron fluid and a single charged-particle fluid (protons and electrons) are coupled by collisions while the magnetic field is frozen into the charged fluid; the ambipolar velocity is $v_\mathrm{ad} = \mu \nabla \chi_n / (\gamma_{np} n_c)$, with $\chi_n$ the neutron chemical-potential perturbation. An artificial friction force filters out fast Alfvén waves and enforces non-penetration at the crust–core boundary, and a time-reparametrization $dt = [\gamma_{np}(t)/\gamma'_{np}]\,dt'$ maps constant-temperature simulations onto an evolving temperature because the collision coefficient scales as $\gamma_{np} \propto T^2$. This combination lets one simulation at fixed temperature be rescaled to any field strength and thermal history, which is what allows the paper to scan magnetar parameters and compare with observations.

What would settle it

Run the same two-fluid model in three dimensions starting from the paper's initial configurations; if the Grad–Shafranov state is destroyed by non-axisymmetric instabilities within $\sim10^3$ yr and the extra dissipation raises the surface luminosity above roughly $6.7\times10^{34}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$ for $B=5\times10^{15}$ G, the conclusion that ambipolar heating alone is insufficient would be overturned.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On its own terms, the paper establishes that in the weak-coupling regime ambipolar diffusion drives a neutron star core toward a Grad–Shafranov equilibrium in which neutrons are in diffusive equilibrium and the Lorentz force is balanced by chemical-potential gradients in the charged-particle fluid. When the thermal evolution is included, the same evolution implies a heating–cooling balance only for $B \gtrsim 5 \times 10^{15}\,\mathrm{G}$, lasting roughly $10^3\,[B/(5\times10^{15}\,\mathrm{G})]^{-6/5}\,\mathrm{yr}$, with a corresponding surface luminosity $L_\mathrm{s}^\infty \sim 6.7\times10^{34}\,(B/5\times10^{15}\,\mathrm{G})^{0.75}\,\mathrm{erg\,s^{-1}}$. Comparing these tracks with a sample of observed cooling neutron stars and magnetars, the paper finds that the brightest quiescent X-ray luminosities cannot be reproduced by ambipolar heating alone.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the axisymmetric magnetic equilibrium reached in the simulations is stable in three dimensions; if that equilibrium breaks apart, dissipation would be stronger and the conclusion could flip.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the paper is right, ambipolar diffusion in a normal core cannot be the main heating source for magnetar quiescent X-ray emission.
  • For $B \gtrsim 5\times10^{15}\,\mathrm{G}$, ambipolar heating delays cooling for about a thousand years before the field settles into Grad–Shafranov equilibrium and heating fades.
  • Two-fluid models that let neutrons move evolve faster than one-fluid models with fixed neutrons, so published timescales based on the one-fluid assumption need revision.
  • The neglect of non-equilibrium Urca reactions is justified only up to $B \sim 5\times10^{15}\,\mathrm{G}$; stronger fields would require a coupled treatment.
  • Observed luminous magnetars would need crustal dissipation, three-dimensional instabilities, or superfluid and superconducting effects to supply the missing luminosity.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the Grad–Shafranov equilibrium is unstable to non-axisymmetric perturbations, as purely poloidal and toroidal fields are known to be, magnetic dissipation would be stronger and shorter-lived, so the paper's negative conclusion hinges on that stability.
  • The same time-reparametrization strategy could be extended to cores with muons, where the charged component is non-barotropic and the final equilibrium is not a Grad–Shafranov state, possibly changing the heating luminosity.
  • Coupling the core to a realistic crust with finite conductivity would slow the core's magnetic evolution relative to the vacuum-boundary case, making it even harder for ambipolar diffusion alone to match observed luminosities.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

1 major / 6 minor

Summary. This paper studies the long-term magnetothermal evolution of a neutron star core in the weak-coupling regime of ambipolar diffusion. The authors use an axisymmetric two-fluid model (neutrons and a combined charged fluid) with an artificial friction method, solve for the velocity and chemical-potential perturbations, evolve the magnetic field via the induction equation, and treat the thermal evolution through a time reparametrization that accounts for the temperature dependence of the neutron-proton drag. They find relaxation to a Grad–Shafranov equilibrium at constant temperature; with cooling included, only fields B ≳ 5×10^15 G produce a heating-cooling balance, lasting ~10^3 yr, and the corresponding surface luminosities are insufficient to explain the brightest magnetars.

Significance. If the axisymmetric evolution is representative, this is an important quantitative step in modeling core ambipolar diffusion with a two-fluid, GR-informed thermal treatment. The numerical scheme is validated against semi-analytical results in Ref. [44], and energy conservation is explicitly checked (Fig. 5). The scaling relations (91)–(93) provide compact, falsifiable predictions for how the balance temperature, surface luminosity, and equilibration time depend on field strength and length scales. The conclusion—that ambipolar diffusion alone cannot explain magnetar quiescent X-ray luminosities—is a concrete, testable statement that will inform both cooling calculations and future 3D models. The main caveat is the unverified stability of the axisymmetric GS equilibrium, which the authors explicitly acknowledge.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. VI.3, Sec. V.C, Eq. (92)] The central conclusion that ambipolar diffusion heating is insufficient to explain magnetar quiescent luminosities rests on the assumption that the axisymmetric Grad–Shafranov equilibrium reached in the simulations is the true terminal state. The paper acknowledges in Sec. VI.3 that purely poloidal and purely toroidal fields are unstable in 3D and that barotropic stars may not support stable equilibria, but it does not test the stability of the specific equilibria found here. This is load-bearing because Eq. (92) predicts L_s ≈ 6.7×10^34 erg/s at B = 5×10^15 G, only a factor of a few below the brightest sources such as SGR 1806-20 (L_s ≈ 1–3×10^35 erg/s); additional dissipation from non-axisymmetric instabilities could close this gap and invalidate the claim that ambipolar heating alone cannot explain the observed luminosities. The authors should either provide at least a linear stability analysis of their GS solutions or explicitly qualify the abstract and Sec. V.C conclusion as applying only to stable axisymmetric equilibria.
minor comments (6)
  1. [Sec. II.G, Eq. (65)] The numerical prefactor 5.6×10^3 yr in Eq. (65) appears inconsistent with the code units of Table I and with the later Eq. (93). Using the stated parameters (B = 10^15 G, T = 10^9 K, ℓ_B = 2 km, ℓ_c = 10 km) and the formula t_B ≈ 4πγ_np n_n n_c ℓ_B^4/(ℓ_c^2 B^2) gives ≈1.4×10^5 yr, not 5.6×10^3 yr. The scaling in Eq. (93) is consistent with the simulations, so Eq. (65) seems to contain a typographical or unit error that should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. V.B, Fig. 7(b)] The thermal reparametrization is valid for ξ ≲ 1, and Fig. 7(b) shows that ξ approaches unity at late times for B = 5×10^15 G. Please state explicitly the maximum value of ξ during the heating-cooling balance phase for the cases used in Fig. 9 and confirm that the derived L_s is unaffected by the incipient breakdown of the ξ ≲ 1 condition.
  3. [Sec. V.B] The initial temperature T∞_init = 10^9 K is above the nominal strong-to-weak coupling transition T_trans ≈ 5×10^8 K. The text justifies this by the negligible field evolution in the strong-coupling regime, but a sentence clarifying the time from which the weak-coupling evolution is applied would help avoid confusion.
  4. [Appendix B, Table IV] Several entries in Table IV are upper limits (e.g., PSR J0007+7303, Swift J1818–1607); the plotting convention for these limits in Fig. 9 and the treatment of the associated statistical errors should be described.
  5. [Abstract and Sec. I] The term 'weak-coupling' may be misread as referring to weak interactions; a brief definition at first use (reduced collisional coupling between particles) would improve clarity.
  6. [Captions of Figs. 4 and 5] The phrase 'indicates, form left to right' should read 'indicates, from left to right'.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the simulated ambipolar-diffusion evolution is a forward calculation with microphysical inputs, and the resulting surface luminosities are compared with observations rather than fitted to them.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that ambipolar diffusion alone cannot fully explain magnetar quiescent X-ray luminosities. This claim is produced by a forward simulation: the magnetic field is evolved with a two-fluid ambipolar-diffusion model, the thermal evolution is driven by the resulting ambipolar heating and modified-Urca neutrino cooling, and the surface luminosity is obtained by mapping the core temperature to the surface through envelope heat-blanket calculations (Appendix A). The envelope relations in Eqs. (A11)-(A13) are linear fits to an independent microphysical envelope-integration code, not fits to magnetar observations; they are an intermediate theoretical mapping, so using them to predict L_s and then comparing with observed magnetars is not a fitted-input-called-prediction step. No parameter is calibrated to the magnetar luminosities in Table IV. The paper does rely heavily on the authors' prior work for the numerical method and for the artificial-friction scheme (Refs. [30, 40, 42, 44]), and the validation of that scheme is partly against semi-analytic solutions by the same group (Ref. [34]). However, that validation is an independent cross-check of the method against a stated analytic solution that does not assume the target result, so the self-citations are methodological rather than circular. The paper also explicitly lists important caveats: Sec. VI.3 notes that 3D instabilities may render the Grad-Shafranov equilibrium unstable, which could strengthen dissipation and heating; the vacuum crust boundary condition is acknowledged to overestimate the evolution speed; superfluidity, muons, and the isothermal approximation are all flagged as limitations. These are correctness risks and honest uncertainties, not self-referential reductions. No equation in the paper is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the target observable, and no significant circularity is found.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's model is heavily microphysical, with many domain assumptions and a handful of hand-chosen parameters (Binit, field geometry, zeta, Tinit). No new particles or forces are introduced. The central claim rests on the validity of the two-fluid, weak-coupling, axisymmetric approximation and the time-rescaling trick.

free parameters (6)
  • Initial rms magnetic field strength Binit = 10^14, 10^15, 5e15 G
    Chosen by hand to explore the parameter space; the conclusion that ambipolar heating cannot explain magnetars is specific to this range.
  • Initial magnetic field configuration (model C0 and variants) = 70% quadrupole + 30% dipole poloidal; toroidal energy fractions 0, 0.4, 0.6, 0.8
    Chosen by hand; the evolution toward GS equilibrium and the heating rate depend on the initial geometry.
  • Artificial friction coefficient zeta/(nc0*gamma_np0) = 1e-4
    Chosen so t_zeta_B : t_ad = 1:10000; artificial friction dissipates energy during the initial relaxation, which is not physical heating.
  • Initial core temperature T_inf_init = 10^9 K
    Chosen as representative for young magnetars; affects the coupling and the balance condition.
  • Magnetic length scales l_B and l_c = l_B ~ Rcore/4 ~ 2.8 km; l_c ~ 10 km
    l_B is set by hand for timescale normalization; l_c comes from the EoS density profile. These enter the scaling estimates.
  • Envelope heat-blanket luminosity fits (Eqs. A11-A13) = slope and intercept per B field
    Linear fits to the computed L_s(T_b) tables; they set the surface luminosity boundary condition in Eq. (38).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The core is composed only of neutrons, protons, and electrons, with no muons or exotic species.
    Used throughout Sec. II; muons would make the charged fluid non-barotropic and change the equilibrium (Sec. VI.5).
  • domain assumption Core matter is normal, i.e., not superfluid or superconducting.
    Stated in Sec. I; superfluidity changes ambipolar diffusion dramatically (Sec. VI.2).
  • domain assumption Urca reactions are negligible in the weak-coupling regime, so the fluid conservation laws are separate.
    Sec. II.F; valid only when xi <= 1, verified post hoc.
  • domain assumption Magnetic evolution is Newtonian; thermal evolution uses GR redshift factors.
    Sec. II.E, hybrid scheme justified by weak GR effect on magnetic evolution.
  • domain assumption The crust-core boundary is a vacuum (non-conducting), so Poynting flux can leave the core.
    Sec. II.C; the paper argues this gives the fastest possible evolution and thus an upper limit on heating.
  • domain assumption The core is isothermal, with no temperature gradients, in the thermal evolution.
    Sec. V.A; limitation 4 estimates heat redistribution up to 1e37 erg/s and argues results remain qualitatively valid.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetic evolution at constant temperature can be rescaled via dt = (gamma_np(t)/gamma_np') dt' to account for cooling.
    Sec. V.A; this is the key decoupling strategy. It relies on a single temperature-dependent process and is valid for xi <= 1.
  • domain assumption The envelope is modeled with BSk24 composition and modified Schwarzschild criterion, yielding the L_s(T_b) fits.
    Appendix A; these fits set L_cb in the heat balance equation.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Magnetothermal evolution of neutron star cores in the `weak-coupling' regime: implications of ambipolar diffusion for the quiescent X-ray luminosity of magnetars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/D4XGWZLE

@misc{pith2026250518733,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Magnetothermal evolution of neutron star cores in the `weak-coupling' regime: implications of ambipolar diffusion for the quiescent X-ray luminosity of magnetars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/D4XGWZLE}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2505.18733}
}
abstract

The high quiescent X-ray luminosity observed in some magnetars is widely attributed to the decay and evolution of their ultra-strong magnetic fields. Several dissipation mechanisms have been proposed, each operating with different efficiencies depending on the region of the star. In this context, ambipolar diffusion, i.e., the relative motion of charged particles with respect to neutrons in the neutron star core, has been proposed as a promising candidate due to its strong dependence on magnetic field strength and its capacity to convert magnetic energy into heat. We perform axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamic simulations to study the long-term magnetic evolution of a NS core composed of normal (non-Cooper paired) matter under the influence of ambipolar diffusion. The core is modeled as a two-fluid system consisting of neutrons and a charged-particle fluid (protons and electrons), coupled to the magnetic field. Simulations are performed both at constant and variable temperatures. In the latter case, a strategy that decouples the magnetic and thermal evolution is employed, enabling efficient thermal modeling across a range of initial magnetic field strengths. At constant temperature, we obtained the expected result where neutrons reach diffusive equilibrium, the Lorentz force is balanced by chemical potential gradients of charged particles, and the magnetic field satisfies a non-linear Grad-Shafranov equation. When thermal evolution is included, fields $B \gtrsim 5 \times 10^{15} \,\text{G}$ can balance ambipolar heating and neutrino cooling, delaying the evolution over $\sim 10^{3} \,[B/(5 \times 10^{15}\,\text{G})]^{-6/5}$ yr. Although the surface luminosity is enhanced compared to passive cooling, the heating from ambipolar diffusion alone is insufficient to fully explain the persistent X-ray emission observed in magnetars.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2505.18733 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Radial functions derived from the HHJ EoS for an NS [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Initial magnetic field configurations given by the potentials listed in Tables [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Magnetic evolution at constant temperature for [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (8 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Ratios of the root mean square (rms) values of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Evolution at constant temperature for the different initial magnetic field configurations corresponding to models C0, [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Magneto-thermal time evolution of two relevant vari [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Magneto-thermal evolution of the relevant luminosi [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: FIG. 9. The set of observed cooling NSs (colored boxes) con [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: FIG. 10. Interpolated heat-blanket calculation results for the HHJ EOS at a fixed angle [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: FIG. 11. Magnetic field model C0 and its effects on the surface properties of the neutron star. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_11.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: FIG. 12. Total surface photon luminosity (Eq. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_12.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 1 Pith paper

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

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

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

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

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

114 extracted references · 76 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [44]

    Reisenegger, A & A 499, 557 (2009)

    A. Reisenegger, A & A 499, 557 (2009)

    work page 2009

  2. [1]

    We run simulations that evolve the system of equa- tions (46)–(48), (72), and (50)–(52) using the artifi- cial friction method at constant temperature (thus time-independent γ′ np(r) and ζ ′), calling the time variable t′

  3. [2]

    (38)] as a function of t′, which reads as d ¯T dt′ = 1 C ′T ′∞ L∞ ′ ad ¯T − L∞ ′ ν ¯T 9 − L∞ ′ cb ¯T 4δ+1

    Then, using these results, we solve the equation for the temperature [Eq. (38)] as a function of t′, which reads as d ¯T dt′ = 1 C ′T ′∞ L∞ ′ ad ¯T − L∞ ′ ν ¯T 9 − L∞ ′ cb ¯T 4δ+1 . (90) Here, we used ¯T ≡ T∞/T ′ ∞, where T ′ ∞ is a refer- ence temperature. We also used γnp/γ′ np = ¯T 2 and used the scaling in Eqs. (86)–(89). As a result, the equilibrium ...

  4. [3]

    Finally, we obtain the physical time variable that includes the effects of the temperature evolution by integrating Eq. (86). Thus, we can plot any variable of interest as a function of t, the real physical time. B. Simulation results and discussion In this subsection, we analyze the magnetothermal evolution in the weak-coupling regime by applying the tim...

  5. [4]

    [40], where the long-term magnetic evolution driven by ambipolar diffusion led the NS core to an equi- librium state

    In the constant-temperature simulations, we con- firmed the previous results reported by Ref. [40], where the long-term magnetic evolution driven by ambipolar diffusion led the NS core to an equi- librium state. This state is characterized by the neutron fluid reaching diffusive equilibrium, χn = constant, while the Lorentz force balances the pres- sure a...

  6. [5]

    strong magnetic fields ( B ≳ 5 × 1015 G) and for a very short duration ( ≲ 1 kyr)

    When the core temperature evolves, ambipolar heat- ing can effectively counterbalance the immense en- ergy losses due to neutrino emission, but only for 3 Extending this approach to cases where ∆ µ ≳ T would be simi- larly infeasible for the same reasons. strong magnetic fields ( B ≳ 5 × 1015 G) and for a very short duration ( ≲ 1 kyr). The resulting sur-...

  7. [6]

    The latter was achieved by imposing a vacuum bound- ary condition on the magnetic field at the crust-core interface

    We modeled the magnetothermal evolution of a NS core under the influence of ambipolar diffusion, aiming to explain the surface luminosity of magne- tars while neglecting the effects of the crust. The latter was achieved by imposing a vacuum bound- ary condition on the magnetic field at the crust-core interface. In this approach, the crust is assumed to ha...

  8. [7]

    The NS core is expected to become both superfluid and superconducting (for not too strong magnetic fields) relatively early in its evolution (see e. g., Ref. [20] for a review). This suppresses the inter- particle collisions [69], an effect that could lead to a larger ambipolar velocity, and thus potentially 18 stronger heating during a shorter period. Ho...

Show all 114 references
  1. [8]

    On one side, it has been theoretically proven that both purely poloidal and purely toroidal fields are inherently unstable in 3D [73–75]

    3D MHD simulations show that magnetic fields are influenced by various types of dynamical instabili- ties. On one side, it has been theoretically proven that both purely poloidal and purely toroidal fields are inherently unstable in 3D [73–75]. In addition, numerical simulatio...

  2. [9]

    In this work, we adopted the isothermal approx- imation, which holds in the absence of internal heating sources, as the core’s high thermal con- ductivity allows temperature gradients to relax on a timescale ∼ 100 yr. When heating sources are present, we can estimate the maxim...

  3. [10]

    As a result, the equi- librium configurations become less constrained and do not necessarily correspond to the GS equilib- rium

    Including additional particle species, such as muons (µ), introduces an additional Euler and continu- ity equation, along with extra collisional couplings (γµj with j = n, p, e), making the charged-particle component non-barotropic. As a result, the equi- librium configuration...

  4. [11]

    We adopted the drag coefficient γnp from Ref. [81]. This was shown to be overestimated by a factor of about 3 by Dommes et al. [53]. A weaker interac- tion implies that the same amount of energy will be dissipated in a shorter time. This difference does not affect our main con...

  5. [12]

    Mereghetti, J

    S. Mereghetti, J. A. Pons, and A. Melatos, SSRv 191, 315 (2015)

    2015

  6. [13]

    V. M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Annu. Rev. As- tron. Astrophys. 55, 261 (2017)

    2017

  7. [14]

    Thompson and R

    C. Thompson and R. C. Duncan, MNRAS 275, 255 (1995)

    1995

  8. [15]

    Thompson and R

    C. Thompson and R. C. Duncan, ApJ 473, 322 (1996)

    1996

  9. [16]

    A. M. Beloborodov and X. Li, ApJ 833, 261 (2016)

    2016

  10. [17]

    Goldreich and A

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

    1992

  11. [18]

    Vigan` o, N

    D. Vigan` o, N. Rea, J. A. Pons, R. Perna, D. N. Aguilera, and J. A. Miralles, MNRAS 434, 123 (2013)

    2013

  12. [19]

    Dehman, D

    C. Dehman, D. Vigan` o, J. A. Pons, and N. Rea, MNRAS 518, 1222 (2023)

    2023

  13. [20]

    Ascenzi, D

    S. Ascenzi, D. Vigan` o, C. Dehman, J. A. Pons, N. Rea, and R. Perna, MNRAS 533, 201 (2024)

    2024

  14. [21]

    A. P. Igoshev, R. Hollerbach, T. Wood, and K. N. Gour- gouliatos, Nat. Astron. 5, 145 (2021)

    2021

  15. [22]

    Lander, MNRAS 535, 2449 (2024)

    S. Lander, MNRAS 535, 2449 (2024)

    2024

  16. [23]

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

    2009

  17. [24]

    De Grandis, R

    D. De Grandis, R. Turolla, T. S. Wood, S. Zane, R. Tav- erna, and K. N. Gourgouliatos, ApJ 903, 40 (2020)

    2020

  18. [25]

    De Grandis, R

    D. De Grandis, R. Taverna, R. Turolla, A. Gnarini, S. B. Popov, S. Zane, and T. S. Wood, ApJ 914, 118 (2021)

    2021

  19. [26]

    Vigan` o, A

    D. Vigan` o, A. Garcia-Garcia, J. A. Pons, C. Dehman, and V. Graber, Comput. Phys. Commun. 265, 108001 22 Name log Bp [G] log t [yr] log L∞ s [erg/s] Source CXOU J2323+5848 — 2 .51...2.53 33 .79...33.97 [97] XMMU J1720+3726 — 2 .78...2.85 34 .03...34.11 [97] CXOU J1601+5133 — ...

    2021

  20. [27]

    K. N. Gourgouliatos, D. De Grandis, and A. Igoshev, Symmetry 14, 130 (2022)

    2022

  21. [28]

    A. P. Igoshev, R. Hollerbach, and T. Wood, MNRAS 525, 3354 (2023)

    2023

  22. [29]

    Igoshev, P

    A. Igoshev, P. Barr` ere, R. Raynaud, J. Guilet, T. Wood, and R. Hollerbach, Nat. Astron. (2025)

    2025

  23. [30]

    Migdal, Nuclear Physics 13, 655 (1959)

    A. Migdal, Nuclear Physics 13, 655 (1959)

    1959

  24. [31]

    D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, Stellar superfluids, in Novel Superfluids, vol. 2, , Vol. 157, edited by K. H. Bennemann and J. B. Ketterson (International Series of Monographs on Physics, vol. 157, 505, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2015) pp. 505–579

    2015

  25. [32]

    Glampedakis, N

    K. Glampedakis, N. Andersson, and L. Samuelsson, MNRAS 410, 805 (2011)

    2011

  26. [33]

    M. E. Gusakov and V. A. Dommes, Phys. Rev. D 94, 083006 (2016)

    2016

  27. [34]

    Gusakov, E

    M. Gusakov, E. Kantor, and D. Ofengeim, MNRAS 499, 4561 (2020)

    2020

  28. [35]

    Bransgrove, Y

    A. Bransgrove, Y. Levin, and A. M. Beloborodov, As- trophys. J. 979, 144 (2025)

    2025

  29. [36]

    Braithwaite and H

    J. Braithwaite and H. C. Spruit, Nature 431, 819 (2004)

    2004

  30. [37]

    Becerra, A

    L. Becerra, A. Reisenegger, J. A. Valdivia, and M. E. Gusakov, MNRAS 511, 732 (2022)

    2022

  31. [38]

    C. J. Pethick, in Structure and Evolution of Neutron Stars (1992) p. 115

    1992

  32. [39]

    Reisenegger and P

    A. Reisenegger and P. Goldreich, Astrophys. J.395, 240 (1992)

    1992

  33. [40]

    R. D. Blandford and K. S. Thorne, lecture notes, Cali- fornia Institute of Technology , 12 (2008)

    2008

  34. [41]

    N. A. Moraga, F. Castillo, A. Reisenegger, J. A. Val- divia, and M. E. Gusakov, MNRAS 527, 9431 (2024)

    2024

  35. [42]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, New York: John Wiley &Sons (1983). 23

    1983

  36. [43]

    Reisenegger, J

    A. Reisenegger, J. P. Prieto, R. Benguria, D. Lai, and P. A. Araya, in Magnetic Fields in the Universe: From Laboratory and Stars to Primordial Structures. , American Institute of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 784, edited by E. M. de Gouveia dal Pino, G. Lu- gones, and A. La...

    2005

  37. [45]

    D. D. Ofengeim and M. E. Gusakov, Phys. Rev. D 98, 043007 (2018)

    2018

  38. [46]

    Hoyos, A

    J. Hoyos, A. Reisenegger, and J. A. Valdivia, A&A 487, 789 (2008)

    2008

  39. [47]

    Passamonti, T

    A. Passamonti, T. Akg¨ un, J. A. Pons, and J. A. Miralles, MNRAS 465, 3416 (2017)

    2017

  40. [48]

    A. P. Igoshev and R. Hollerbach, MNRAS 518, 821 (2023)

    2023

  41. [49]

    Skiathas and K

    D. Skiathas and K. N. Gourgouliatos, MNRAS 528, 5178 (2024)

    2024

  42. [50]

    Gusakov, E

    M. Gusakov, E. Kantor, and D. Ofengeim, Phys. Rev. D 96, 103012 (2017)

    2017

  43. [51]

    Castillo, A

    F. Castillo, A. Reisenegger, and J. A. Valdivia, MNRAS 498, 3000 (2020)

    2020

  44. [52]

    J. H. Hoyos, A. Reisenegger, and J. A. Valdivia, MN- RAS 408, 1730 (2010)

    2010

  45. [53]

    Castillo, A

    F. Castillo, A. Reisenegger, and J. A. Valdivia, MNRAS 471, 507 (2017)

    2017

  46. [54]

    Tsuruta, M

    S. Tsuruta, M. J. Kelly, K. Nomoto, K. Mori, M. Teter, and A. C. Liebmann, Astrophys. J. 945, 151 (2023)

    2023

  47. [55]

    Castillo, N

    F. Castillo, N. A. Moraga, M. E. Gusakov, J. A. Valdivia, and A. Reisenegger, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2503.11530 (2025), arXiv:2503.11530 [astro- ph.HE]

    2025 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Chodura and A

    R. Chodura and A. Schlueter, J. Comput. Phys. 41, 68 (1981)

    1981

  49. [57]

    W. H. Yang, P. A. Sturrock, and S. K. Antiochos, As- trophys. J. 309, 383 (1986)

    1986

  50. [58]

    Roumeliotis, P

    G. Roumeliotis, P. A. Sturrock, and S. K. Antiochos, Astrophys. J. 423, 847 (1994)

    1994

  51. [59]

    Vigan` o, J

    D. Vigan` o, J. A. Pons, and J. A. Miralles, Astron. As- trophys. 533, A125 (2011)

    2011

  52. [60]

    R. C. Tolman, Physical Review 55, 364 (1939)

    1939

  53. [61]

    J. R. Oppenheimer and G. M. Volkoff, Phys. Rev. 55, 374 (1939)

    1939

  54. [62]

    Heiselberg and M

    H. Heiselberg and M. Hjorth-Jensen, ApJ 525, L45 (1999)

    1999

  55. [63]

    D. A. Shalybkov and V. A. Urpin, MNRAS 273, 643 (1995)

    1995

  56. [64]

    V. A. Dommes, M. E. Gusakov, and P. S. Shternin, Phys. Rev. D 101, 103020 (2020)

    2020

  57. [65]

    D. G. Yakovlev and D. A. Shalybkov, Astrophys. Space Sci. 176, 191 (1991)

    1991

  58. [66]

    K. S. Thorne, Astrophys. J. 144, 201 (1966)

    1966

  59. [67]

    K. S. Thorne, ApJ 212, 825 (1977)

    1977

  60. [68]

    Glen and P

    G. Glen and P. Sutherland, Astrophys. J. 239, 671 (1980)

    1980

  61. [69]

    D. G. Yakovlev and C. Pethick, ARA & A 42, https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.astro.42.053102.134013 (2004)

    2004

  62. [70]

    D. D. Ofengeim, M. Fortin, P. Haensel, D. G. Yakovlev, and J. L. Zdunik, Phys. Rev. D 96, 043002 (2017)

    2017

  63. [71]

    Passamonti, T

    A. Passamonti, T. Akg¨ un, J. A. Pons, and J. A. Miralles, MNRAS 469, 4979 (2017)

    2017

  64. [72]

    Akg¨ un, A

    T. Akg¨ un, A. Reisenegger, A. Mastrano, and P. Marchant, MNRAS 433, 2445 (2013)

    2013

  65. [73]

    Armaza, A

    C. Armaza, A. Reisenegger, and J. A. Valdivia, ApJ 802, 121 (2015)

    2015

  66. [74]

    K. H. Prendergast, ApJ 123, 498 (1956)

    1956

  67. [75]

    Grad and H

    H. Grad and H. Rubin, J. Nucl. Phys. 7, 284 (1958)

    1958

  68. [76]

    V. D. Shafranov, Reviews of Plasma Physics 2, 103 (1966)

    1966

  69. [77]

    Reisenegger, ApJ 442, 749 (1995)

    A. Reisenegger, ApJ 442, 749 (1995)

    1995

  70. [78]

    Fern´ andez and A

    R. Fern´ andez and A. Reisenegger, ApJ625, 291 (2005)

    2005

  71. [79]

    Cumming, P

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

    2004

  72. [80]

    Baiko, P

    D. Baiko, P. Haensel, and D. Yakovlev, A&A 374, 151 (2001)

    2001

  73. [81]

    E. M. Kantor and M. E. Gusakov, MNRAS 473, 4272 (2018)

    2018

  74. [82]

    Bransgrove, Y

    A. Bransgrove, Y. Levin, and A. Beloborodov, MNRAS 473, 2771 (2018)

    2018

  75. [83]

    M. E. Gusakov, MNRAS 485, 4936 (2019)

    2019

  76. [84]

    R. J. Tayler, MNRAS 161, 365 (1973)

    1973

  77. [85]

    Markey and R

    P. Markey and R. J. Tayler, MNRAS 163, 77 (1973)

    1973

  78. [86]

    Flowers and M

    E. Flowers and M. A. Ruderman, Astrophys. J. 215, 302 (1977)

    1977

  79. [87]

    Braithwaite, MNRAS 397, 763 (2009)

    J. Braithwaite, MNRAS 397, 763 (2009)

    2009

  80. [88]

    S. K. Lander and D. I. Jones, MNRAS 424, 482 (2012)

    2012

  81. [89]

    J. P. Mitchell, J. Braithwaite, A. Reisenegger, H. Spruit, J. A. Valdivia, and N. Langer, MNRAS 447, 1213 (2015)

    2015

  82. [90]

    Becerra, A

    L. Becerra, A. Reisenegger, J. A. Valdivia, and M. E. Gusakov, MNRAS 517, 560 (2022)

    2022

  83. [91]

    Shternin and D

    P. Shternin and D. Ofengeim, Eur. Phys. J. A 58, 42 (2022)

    2022

  84. [92]

    Yakovlev and D

    D. Yakovlev and D. Shalybkov, SvA Lett 16, 86 (1990)

    1990

  85. [93]

    Beznogov, A

    M. Beznogov, A. Potekhin, and D. Yakovlev, Phys. Rep. 919, 1 (2021)

    2021

  86. [94]

    A. Y. Potekhin and G. Chabrier, Astron. Astrophys. 609, A74 (2018)

    2018

  87. [95]

    D. G. Yakovlev, A. D. Kaminker, A. Y. Potekhin, and P. Haensel, MNRAS 500, 4491 (2021)

    2021

  88. [96]

    A. D. Kaminker, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev, Astron. Lett. 49, 824 (2023)

    2023

  89. [97]

    E. H. Gudmundsson, C. Pethick, and R. I. Epstein, ApJ 272, 286 (1983)

    1983

  90. [98]

    O. Y. Gnedin, D. G. Yakovlev, and A. Y. Potekhin, MNRAS 324, 725 (2001)

    2001

  91. [99]

    A. Y. Potekhin and D. G. Yakovlev, Astron. Astrophys. 374, 213 (2001)

    2001

  92. [100]

    A. Y. Potekhin, G. Chabrier, and D. G. Yakovlev, As- trophys. Space Sci. 308, 353 (2007)

    2007

  93. [101]

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

    2015

  94. [102]

    A. Y. Potekhin and G. Chabrier, Astron. Astrophys. 550, A43 (2013)

    2013

  95. [103]

    J. M. Pearson, N. Chamel, A. Y. Potekhin, A. F. Fantina, C. Ducoin, A. K. Dutta, and S. Goriely, MN- RAS 481, 2994 (2018)

    2018

  96. [104]

    A. Y. Potekhin, D. G. Yakovlev, G. Chabrier, and O. Y. Gnedin, Astrophys. J. 594, 404 (2003)

    2003

  97. [105]

    A. Y. Potekhin, G. Chabrier, and D. G. Yakovlev, As- tron. Astrophys. 323, 415 (1997)

    1997

  98. [106]

    D. O. Gough and R. J. Tayler, MNRAS 133, 85 (1966)

    1966

  99. [107]

    Greenstein and G

    G. Greenstein and G. J. Hartke, Astrophys. J. 271, 283 (1983)

    1983

  100. [108]

    A. Y. Potekhin, D. A. Zyuzin, D. G. Yakovlev, M. V. Beznogov, Y. A. Shibanov, and et al., MNRAS 496, 5052 (2020). 24

    2020

  101. [109]

    C.-P. Hu, B. Begi¸ carslan, T. G¨ uver, T. Enoto, G. Younes, and et al., Astrophys. J. 902, 1 (2020)

    2020

  102. [110]

    K. M. Rajwade, B. W. Stappers, A. G. Lyne, B. Shaw, M. B. Mickaliger, and et al., MNRAS 512, 1687 (2022)

    2022

  103. [111]

    C.-P. Hu, C. Y. Ng, and W. C. G. Ho, MNRAS 485, 4274 (2019)

    2019

  104. [112]

    Coti Zelati, N

    F. Coti Zelati, N. Rea, R. Turolla, J. A. Pons, A. Pa- pitto, and et al., MNRAS 471, 1819 (2017)

    2017

  105. [113]

    Enoto, M

    T. Enoto, M. Ng, C.-P. Hu, T. G¨ uver, G. K. Jaisawal, and et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 920, L4 (2021)

    2021

  106. [114]

    S. Park, J. Bhalerao, O. Kargaltsev, and P. O. Slane, Astrophys. J. 894, 17 (2020)

    2020

Pith tools

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