Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 53 references

Spin-polarized neutron matter, the maximum mass of neutron stars, and GW170817

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A phase transition to spin-polarized neutron matter would cap neutron-star masses below 2.6-2.9 solar masses.

desk verdict A physically motivated cap on the neutron-star maximum mass from spin-polarized matter, with new AFDMC results, though the bound is only as strong as the extrapolated polarized EOS. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.02638 v2 pith:GGVGW4AJ submitted 2019-08-07 nucl-th astro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ph

I. Tews , A. Schwenk This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HEastro-ph.SRhep-ph PACS 26.60.-c97.60.Jd
keywords neutronstarsequationofstatespin-polarizedmattermaximummassGW170817chiraleffectivefieldtheoryquantumMonteCarlophasetransition
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 sets out to show that dense neutron-star matter, if it switches into a spin-polarized phase at high density, cannot support neutron stars heavier than about 2.6-2.9 solar masses. This matters because most general extrapolations of the nuclear equation of state permit masses up to 3-4 solar masses, while the new transition removes those extreme stars and lands naturally in the mass range inferred from the gravitational-wave and electromagnetic observations of GW170817. The argument combines microscopic many-body calculations of spin-polarized neutron matter with a Maxwell construction that joins the ordinary and polarized phases at equal pressure and chemical potential. The authors find that the transition softens the equation of state so strongly that the maximum neutron-star mass is set by the onset of the polarized phase, not by other extension schemes.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the equation of state of spin-polarized neutron matter (SPM), neutron matter in which all spins are aligned so that a single spin state is occupied and Pauli blocking makes interactions weak. The paper computes SPM with three independent methods: auxiliary-field diffusion Monte Carlo with local chiral forces, many-body perturbation theory with chiral $N^3$LO interactions, and Brueckner-Hartree-Fock with phenomenological potentials. Each result is extended to higher density with the functional form $E_{\rm pol}/N = a(n/n_{\rm sat})^\alpha + b(n/n_{\rm sat})^\beta$, and for every allowed unpolarized neutron-star equation of state from a causal speed-of-sound extension, a Maxwell construction transitions to SPM at the crossing pressure. The crossing of the two equations of state is what sets the end of the stable branch and therefore the maximum mass.

What would settle it

A clean falsification would be a neutron star with a precisely measured mass above about 2.9 solar masses, or a measurement showing that the fully polarized phase is stiffer at high density than the near-free-Fermi-gas behavior assumed here.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a phase transition from unpolarized neutron-star matter to fully spin-polarized neutron matter in the core limits the maximum mass of neutron stars to $M_{\rm max}\lesssim 2.6$-$2.9\,M_\odot$, depending on which microscopic nuclear force is used in the spin-polarized calculation. Without the transition, the same general speed-of-sound extension of the equation of state allows $M_{\rm max}$ up to about $3$-$4\,M_\odot$. The mechanism is that interactions in spin-polarized neutron matter are weak, close to a free Fermi gas, so the pressure rises only slowly once that phase is thermodynamically preferred, and the stable branch of the mass-radius relation ends near the crossing point. The paper further finds that the masses thus obtained agree with the upper limits inferred from the kilonova and gravitational-wave signal of GW170817, and that neutron stars containing a large spin-polarized core are ruled out by the radius constraint from the same event.

Load-bearing premise

The bound depends on the spin-polarized neutron-matter equation of state being reliable at the density where the phase transition happens, and for stiff unpolarized equations of state that density lies beyond the range of the microscopic calculations and is reached by a simple two-term power-law extrapolation.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the transition exists, no isolated neutron star can exceed about $2.9\,M_\odot$; the heaviest measured neutron stars must sit near or below that ceiling.
  • General equation-of-state extension schemes that allow arbitrarily stiff pressure at high density overestimate the maximum mass unless the spin-polarized phase is absent or much stiffer than current calculations indicate.
  • Neutron stars with a substantial spin-polarized core are effectively excluded: the mass in the polarized phase is at most about $0.02\,M_\odot$ once GW170817 radius constraints are applied.
  • The theoretical upper bound and the independent upper limits from GW170817 reinforce each other, because the theoretical bound is derived without using any merger information.

Reading between the lines

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

  • A testable extension: a precise measurement of a neutron star above roughly $2.9\,M_\odot$ would contradict the predicted ceiling, while a star near $2.5\,M_\odot$ with a small radius would sharpen the crossing density.
  • The same Maxwell-construction machinery could be applied to other candidate high-density phases; the paper notes quark matter cannot yet give a firm bound, but a future first-principles quark-matter equation of state would provide a natural point of comparison.
  • If the spin-polarized phase is realized, radius measurements near the maximum mass should show a kink or flattening as mass approaches the ceiling, distinguishing this transition from smoother equations of state.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. This manuscript argues that a first-order phase transition from unpolarized neutron-star matter to fully spin-polarized neutron matter (SPM) generically cuts off the high-pressure branch of the neutron-star equation of state, limiting the maximum mass Mmax to approximately 2.6-2.9 Msun. The authors combine a general ensemble of low-density EOSs from chiral EFT/Quantum Monte Carlo with three microscopic calculations of the SPM energy (AFDMC with local chiral N2LO interactions, MBPT with chiral N3LO interactions, and BHF with phenomenological potentials), fit the SPM energies with the two-power-law form of Eq. (1), and construct hybrid EOSs via a Maxwell construction. They then solve the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations and compare the resulting mass-radius relations and Mmax values with constraints inferred from GW170817. The central, observation-independent conclusion is that an EOS that would otherwise support Mmax above about 2.6-2.9 Msun is viable only if the SPM transition is absent; once the transition is included, the stable branch ends earlier and the maximum mass is lowered.

Significance. If the calculation is correct, this is an important observation-independent theoretical bound: it is more restrictive than generic speed-of-sound extensions of the EOS and complementary to the empirical GW170817 limits. The paper's strengths are that the SPM EOS is computed from several independent many-body methods with explicit uncertainty bands; the Maxwell construction is varied, and smearing the transition only lowers Mmax, so the bound is conservative with respect to the transition width; and the GW170817 comparison is used after the fact rather than as input. The data in Table 1 and the enumeration of EOS variants make the calculation transparent. The main weakness is the reliance on Eq. (1) outside the density range where the microscopic SPM calculations are actually constrained.

major comments (2)
  1. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] The headline upper bound (Mmax about 2.9 Msun) is set by the extrapolated SPM energy above 2 nsat. For the stiff unpolarized EOSs that would otherwise give the largest masses, the crossing between the unpolarized and SPM branches can occur above 2 nsat, i.e., beyond the density range of the AFDMC and MBPT calculations. The fit-quality check described in Section 3 (fit to n <= nsat and compare with data up to 2 nsat) validates the functional form only inside the fitted density range; it does not certify the two-power-law behavior beyond 2 nsat. If the true SPM energy rises slightly more steeply than the extrapolated upper band, the transition density moves upward and Mmax can exceed the quoted limit. Please either restrict the claim to a value robust against this extrapolation (about 2.6 Msun from the MBPT/BHF results) or provide a quantitative estimate of the extrapolation error above 2 nsat.
  2. [Section 3, AFDMC upper bound] The upper end of the reported range comes from the AFDMC upper uncertainty band, which the authors themselves describe as 'most likely overestimated' by local regulator artifacts. Quoting 2.6-2.9 Msun as the limit therefore mixes a robust result with a source explicitly identified as unreliable. The authors should either quantify the regulator contribution to that band or report the 2.9 Msun value only as an unvalidated extreme, with the firm theoretical bound given by the MBPT/BHF results (around 2.6 Msun).
minor comments (5)
  1. [Abstract] The rendering '2.6$-$$2.9' should be corrected to a proper en-dash range.
  2. [Section 1] The text contains 'many many follow-up observations'; this should be edited to a single 'many'.
  3. [Section 3] The statement that the mass of the SPM domain is '<= 0.005 Msun, largely a result of numerical discretization artifacts' is confusing; please clarify whether these are stars with essentially no physical SPM core and explain how the discretization affects the quoted bound.
  4. [Section 3, Eq. (1)] For reproducibility, please provide the fitted parameter values (a, alpha, b, beta) for each SPM EOS variant, or at least specify the fit ranges and weighting used for the upper/lower bounds.
  5. [Figure 1 caption] The caption should state explicitly that the gray areas are the baseline EOS band without the SPM transition, while the hatched areas are the SPM-inclusive bands; the meaning of the solid red line in panel (a) (the centroid) is clear but should be stated for all panels.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the Mmax bound is an output of the TOV calculation from microscopic SPM EOSs, not an input; GW170817 is compared only after the fact.

full rationale

The paper's derivation chain is: (1) build an unpolarized EOS band from chiral-EFT nuclear-matter calculations plus a speed-of-sound extension; (2) compute the spin-polarized neutron matter (SPM) EOS from AFDMC, MBPT, and BHF calculations; (3) fit the two-term power law of Eq. (1) to the SPM energies; (4) construct phase-transition EOSs by a Maxwell construction; (5) solve the Tolman-Oppenheimer-Volkoff equations to obtain Mmax; and (6) only afterwards compare with GW170817-based constraints. The maximum-mass limits 2.6-2.9 Msun are outputs of this calculation, not inputs. The parameters a, alpha, b, beta in Eq. (1) are fitted to microscopic SPM results, not to Mmax or to GW170817; therefore the central claim is not a fitted quantity renamed as a prediction. The paper does rely on the authors' earlier EOS extension scheme (Tews et al. 2018a,b), but that scheme is a general sampling method for causal, stable EOSs and does not itself assume the SPM transition or the Mmax bound; it is not a uniqueness theorem invoked to forbid alternatives. The in-paper check of the Eq. (1) extrapolation against AFDMC data between nsat and 2nsat is an internal validation, and the concern that the extrapolation may be unreliable beyond 2nsat is a robustness limitation, explicitly acknowledged by the authors, not a circularity. Likewise, the statements that chiral interactions become less reliable at high density and that the stiffest AFDMC case is likely overestimated are uncertainty caveats, not evidence that the derivation assumes its conclusion. No specific equation or fitted parameter reduces to the claimed result by construction, so there is no circular step to report.

Assumptions & free parameters 1 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claim rests on the assumed validity of two imported ingredients: the general EOS extension band from the authors' prior work, and the microscopic SPM EOS, which is partly new (AFDMC) and partly from earlier MBPT and BHF calculations. The only newly fitted numbers are the coefficients of Eq. (1), which calibrate the extrapolation of the SPM EOS. No new particles or forces are introduced.

free parameters (1)
  • a, alpha, b, beta (Eq. 1)
    Four coefficients of the power-law fit to the SPM energy. They are fitted separately to each SPM calculation (AFDMC centroid and bounds, MBPT bounds, BHF results) and used to extrapolate to high density. These are the only parameters introduced in this paper; Mmax is an output, not a fit.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The EOS extension scheme of Tews et al. 2018a,b, combining chiral EFT at nuclear densities with a speed-of-sound extension, spans all possible EOSs consistent with nuclear-physics constraints.
    Section 2 states the extension scheme is independent of the high-density degrees of freedom and explores all allowed density dependencies that are causal and stable.
  • domain assumption The microscopic calculations of spin-polarized neutron matter (AFDMC, MBPT, BHF) correctly describe the fully polarized phase in the density range where the phase transition is evaluated.
    Section 3 and Fig. 3 provide uncertainty bands; the authors note chiral interactions become less reliable with density and local regulator artifacts are a concern.
  • domain assumption The Maxwell construction (or smeared Gibbs variant) appropriately connects the unpolarized and polarized phases.
    Section 3: 'We then identify the phase transition between unpolarized matter and SPM by a Maxwell construction', and the smeared variant is tested via Delta P.
  • domain assumption Neglecting proton corrections, magnetic fields, and gradual polarization does not invalidate the upper bound on Mmax.
    Section 3: proton corrections are expected at about 10%, and a gradual polarization would soften the EOS earlier, lowering Mmax, so the investigated case is an upper limit.
  • domain assumption The extrapolation form Eq. (1) is valid beyond the fitted range.
    Section 3 fits the power law to results up to nsat and tests the AFDMC fit against data between nsat and 2nsat; beyond that it is an assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Spin-polarized neutron matter, the maximum mass of neutron stars, and GW170817." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/GGVGW4AJ

@misc{pith2026190802638,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Spin-polarized neutron matter, the maximum mass of neutron stars, and GW170817},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/GGVGW4AJ}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.02638}
}
abstract

We investigate how a phase transition from neutron-star matter to spin-polarized neutron matter affects the equation of state and mass-radius relation of neutron stars. While general extension schemes for the equation of state allow for high pressures inside neutron stars, we find that a phase transition to spin-polarized neutron matter excludes extreme regimes. Hence, such a transition limits the maximum mass of neutron stars to lie below 2.6$-$$2.9 \, M_{\odot}$, depending on the microscopic nuclear forces used, while significantly larger masses could be reached without these constraints. These limits are in good agreement with recent constraints extracted from the neutron-star merger GW170817 and its electromagnetic counterpart. Assuming the description in terms of spin-polarized neutron matter to be valid in the center of neutron stars, we find that stars with a large spin-polarized domain in their core are ruled out by GW170817.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.02638 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Example EOS for unpolarized neutron-star matter (red solid line) and SPM (red dashed-dotted line), and the EOS that results from a strong first-order phase transition between the two phases in the Maxwell construction (blue dashed line with ∆P = 0), as well as an EOS that results when smearing out the phase transition as in a Gibbs construction (blue dotted lines with finite ∆P). Inset: Mmax for one representative E… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Energy per particle for SPM as a function of density obtained from the three calculations discussed in the text. For comparison, the free spin-polarized gas is shown. For the AFDMC calculations, we give results for two 3N-force parameterizations at N2LO (TPE and VE1), with the centroid as solid lines and uncertainty bands following Epelbaum et al. (2015). In the middle panel, the band is obtained by exploring differ… view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 8 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P., et al

    Abbott, B. P., et al. 2017a, Phys. Rev. Lett., 119, 161101, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.119.161101 —. 2017b, Astrophys. J., 848, L12, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa91c9 —. 2017c, Astrophys. J., 848, L13, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa920c —. 2019, Phys. Rev., X9, 011001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevX.9.011001

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.119.161101

  2. [2]

    G., Han, S., & Prakash, M

    Alford, M. G., Han, S., & Prakash, M. 2013, Phys. Rev. D, 88, 083013, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.88.083013

    doi:10.1103/physrevd.88.083013 2013

  3. [3]

    2018, Phys

    Annala, E., Gorda, T., Kurkela, A., & Vuorinen, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 172703, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.172703

    doi:10.1103/physrevlett.120.172703 2018

  4. [4]

    2013, Science, 340, 6131, doi: 10.1126/science.1233232

    Antoniadis, J., et al. 2013, Science, 340, 6131, doi: 10.1126/science.1233232

    doi:10.1126/science.1233232 2013

  5. [5]

    N., & Greiner, W

    Bhattacharyya, A., Mishustin, I. N., & Greiner, W. 2010, J. Phys. G, 37, 025201, doi: 10.1088/0954-3899/37/2/025201

    doi:10.1088/0954-3899/37/2/025201 2010

  6. [6]

    2015, Rev

    Carlson, J., Gandolfi, S., Pederiva, F., et al. 2015, Rev. Mod. Phys., 87, 1067, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.87.1067

    doi:10.1103/revmodphys.87.1067 2015

  7. [7]

    T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S

    Cromartie, H. T., Fonseca, E., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2020, Nature Astronomy, 4, 72, doi: 10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2

    doi:10.1038/s41550-019-0880-2 2020

  8. [8]

    Danielewicz, P., Lacey, R., & Lynch, W. G. 2002, Science, 298, 1592, doi: 10.1126/science.1078070

    doi:10.1126/science.1078070 2002

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    2010, Nature, 467, 1081, doi: 10.1038/nature09466

    Demorest, P., Pennucci, T., Ransom, S., Roberts, M., & Hessels, J. 2010, Nature, 467, 1081, doi: 10.1038/nature09466

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    2016, Phys

    Tews, I. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 94, 034001, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.94.034001

    2016 doi

  3. [11]

    2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 1773, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773

    Epelbaum, E., Hammer, H.-W., & Meißner, U.-G. 2009, Reviews of Modern Physics, 81, 1773, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.81.1773

    2009 doi

  4. [12]

    Epelbaum, E., Krebs, H., & Meißner, U. G. 2015, Eur. Phys. J. A, 51, 53, doi: 10.1140/epja/i2015-15053-8

    2015 doi

  5. [13]

    2016, Astrophys

    Fonseca, E., et al. 2016, Astrophys. J., 832, 167, doi: 10.3847/0004-637X/832/2/167 Gandolfi, S., Illarionov, A. Yu., Schmidt, K. E.,

    2016 doi

  6. [14]

    2009, Phys

    Pederiva, F., & Fantoni, S. 2009, Phys. Rev. C, 79, 054005, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.79.054005 Gandolfi, S., Lippuner, J., Steiner, A. W., et al. 2019, J. Phys., G46, 103001, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ab29b3

    2009 doi

  7. [15]

    2012, Proc

    Gendreau, K., Arzoumanian, Z., & Okaajima, T. 2012, Proc. SPIE, 8443, 844313, doi: 10.1117/12.926396

    2012 doi

  8. [16]

    2014, Phys

    Gezerlis, A., Tews, I., Epelbaum, E., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. C, 90, 054323, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.90.054323 —. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 111, 032501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.111.032501

    2014 doi

  9. [17]

    Glendenning, N. K. 1992, Phys. Rev. D, 46, 1274, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.46.1274

    1992 doi

  10. [18]

    Schwenk, A., & Watts, A. L. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 485, 5363, doi: 10.1093/mnras/stz654

    2019 doi

  11. [19]

    2013, Rev

    Hammer, H.-W., Nogga, A., & Schwenk, A. 2013, Rev. Mod. Phys., 85, 197, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.85.197

    2013 doi

  12. [20]

    D., Men´ endez, J., & Schwenk, A

    Hebeler, K., Holt, J. D., Men´ endez, J., & Schwenk, A. 2015, Annu. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 65, 457, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102313-025446 10 Tews and Schwenk

    2015 doi

  13. [21]

    2013, Astrophys

    Schwenk, A. 2013, Astrophys. J., 773, 11, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/773/1/11

    2013 doi

  14. [22]

    J., & Staubo, E

    Heiselberg, H., Pethick, C. J., & Staubo, E. F. 1993, Phys. Rev. Lett., 70, 1355, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.70.1355

    1993 doi

  15. [23]

    E., & Schwenk, A

    Huth, L., Tews, I., Lynn, J. E., & Schwenk, A. 2017, Phys. Rev. C, 96, 054003, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.96.054003

    2017 doi

  16. [24]

    1996, Astrophys

    Kalogera, V., & Baym, G. 1996, Astrophys. J., 470, L61, doi: 10.1086/310296 Kr¨ uger, T., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2015, Phys. Lett. B, 744, 18, doi: 10.1016/j.physletb.2015.03.027 Kr¨ uger, T., Tews, I., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2013, Phys. Rev. C, 88, 025802, doi: 10.110...

    1996 doi

  17. [25]

    Lattimer, J. M. 2012, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 62, 485, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-102711-095018

    2012 doi

  18. [26]

    M., & Prakash, M

    Lattimer, J. M., & Prakash, M. 2016, Phys. Rept., 621, 127, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2015.12.005

    2016 doi

  19. [27]

    E., Tews, I., Carlson, J., et al

    Lynn, J. E., Tews, I., Carlson, J., et al. 2016, Phys. Rev. Lett., 116, 062501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.116.062501

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    E., Tews, I., Gandolfi, S., & Lovato, A

    Lynn, J. E., Tews, I., Gandolfi, S., & Lovato, A. 2019, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci., 69, 279, doi: 10.1146/annurev-nucl-101918-023600

    2019 doi

  21. [29]

    Machleidt, R., & Entem, D. R. 2011, Phys. Rept., 503, 1, doi: 10.1016/j.physrep.2011.02.001

    2011 doi

  22. [30]

    Margalit, B., & Metzger, B. D. 2017, Astrophys. J., 850, L19, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aa991c

    2017 doi

  23. [31]

    C., et al

    Miller, M. C., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L24. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.05705

    2019 arXiv

  24. [32]

    R., Weih, L

    Most, E. R., Weih, L. R., Rezzolla, L., & Schaffner-Bielich, J. 2018, Phys. Rev. Lett., 120, 261103, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.120.261103

    2018 doi

  25. [33]

    1973, Astrophys

    Nauenberg, M., & Chapline, Jr., G. 1973, Astrophys. J., 179, 277, doi: 10.1086/151868

    1973 doi

  26. [34]

    R., & Volkoff, G

    Oppenheimer, J. R., & Volkoff, G. M. 1939, Phys. Rev., 55, 374, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.374 ¨Ozel, F., & Freire, P. 2016, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys., 54, 401, doi: 10.1146/annurev-astro-081915-023322

    1939 doi

  27. [35]

    2019a, Astrophys

    Raaijmakers, G., et al. 2019a, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L22, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab451a —. 2019b. https://arxiv.org/abs/1912.11031

    1912 arXiv

  28. [36]

    R., & Weih, L

    Rezzolla, L., Most, E. R., & Weih, L. R. 2018, Astrophys. J., 852, L25, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/aaa401

    2018 doi

  29. [37]

    E., & Ruffini, R

    Rhoades, Jr., C. E., & Ruffini, R. 1974, Phys. Rev. Lett., 32, 324, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.32.324

    1974 doi

  30. [38]

    E., et al

    Riley, T. E., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L21, doi: 10.3847/2041-8213/ab481c

    2019 doi

  31. [39]

    Riz, L., Pederiva, F., & Gandolfi, S. 2020, J. Phys., G47, 045106, doi: 10.1088/1361-6471/ab6520

    2020 doi

  32. [40]

    L., & Tsokaros, A

    Ruiz, M., Shapiro, S. L., & Tsokaros, A. 2018, Phys. Rev. D, 97, 021501, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.97.021501

    2018 doi

  33. [41]

    E., & Fantoni, S

    Schmidt, K. E., & Fantoni, S. 1999, Phys. Lett. B, 446, 99, doi: 10.1016/S0370-2693(98)01522-6

    1999 doi

  34. [42]

    2017, Phys

    Shibata, M., Fujibayashi, S., Hotokezaka, K., et al. 2017, Phys. Rev. D, 96, 123012, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.96.123012

    2017 doi

  35. [43]

    2019, Phys

    Shibata, M., Zhou, E., Kiuchi, K., & Fujibayashi, S. 2019, Phys. Rev., D100, 023015, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevD.100.023015

    2019 doi

  36. [44]

    W., Lattimer, J

    Steiner, A. W., Lattimer, J. M., & Brown, E. F. 2010, Astrophys. J., 722, 33, doi: 10.1088/0004-637X/722/1/33

    2010 doi

  37. [45]

    Stoks, V. G. J., Klomp, R. A. M., Terheggen, C. P. F., & de Swart, J. J. 1994, Phys. Rev. C, 49, 2950, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.49.2950

    1994 doi

  38. [46]

    2018a, Astrophys

    Tews, I., Carlson, J., Gandolfi, S., & Reddy, S. 2018a, Astrophys. J., 860, 149, doi: 10.3847/1538-4357/aac267

    doi

  39. [47]

    2016, Phys

    Tews, I., Gandolfi, S., Gezerlis, A., & Schwenk, A. 2016, Phys. Rev. C, 93, 024305, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.93.024305

    2016 doi

  40. [48]

    2013, Phys

    Tews, I., Kr¨ uger, T., Hebeler, K., & Schwenk, A. 2013, Phys. Rev. Lett., 110, 032504, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevLett.110.032504

    2013 doi

  41. [49]

    2018b, Phys

    Tews, I., Margueron, J., & Reddy, S. 2018b, Phys. Rev. C, 98, 045804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.98.045804

    doi

  42. [50]

    Tolman, R. C. 1939, Phys. Rev., 55, 364, doi: 10.1103/PhysRev.55.364

    1939 doi

  43. [51]

    2002, Phys

    Vidana, I., Polls, A., & Ramos, A. 2002, Phys. Rev. C, 65, 035804, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.65.035804

    2002 doi

  44. [52]

    L., et al

    Watts, A. L., et al. 2016, Rev. Mod. Phys., 88, 021001, doi: 10.1103/RevModPhys.88.021001 —. 2019, Sci. China Phys. Mech. Astron., 62, 29503, doi: 10.1007/s11433-017-9188-4

    2016 doi

  45. [53]

    H., & Shen, H

    Wu, X. H., & Shen, H. 2019, Phys. Rev. C, 99, 065802, doi: 10.1103/PhysRevC.99.065802

    2019 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 14, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.