Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 4 minor 1 cited by

Revealing the internal magnetic field configuration of magnetars via their associated periodic signals

T0 review · 3 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-10 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read The paper argues that interpreting the periodic signals of four magnetars and two repeating FRBs as free precession constrains their internal poloidal and toroidal field strengths and requires a toroidal-field concentration parameter of…

desk verdict A transparent model-consistency exercise that yields concrete numbers for magnetar internal fields, but the headline beta>=1 is baked into the assumption Bp=Bs rather than derived from data. read the letter →

arxiv 2501.02887 v1 pith:OLDIB7GR submitted 2025-01-06 astro-ph.HE hep-th

Jie Shu , Quan Cheng , Xiao-Ping Zheng This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-th
keywords magnetarsfreeprecessioninternalmagneticfieldspoloidalfieldtoroidalellipticityfastradioburstsneutronsuperfluidity
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

Interpreting the periodic pulse-phase modulations of four magnetars and the periodicities of two repeating fast radio bursts as free precession, this paper tries to reveal the internal magnetic-field configuration of magnetars, which cannot be measured directly. To reproduce the observed modulation periods and the surface thermal emission of the four confirmed magnetars while requiring the internal poloidal field to connect smoothly with the surface dipole field, the toroidal-field distribution parameter must satisfy $\beta \gtrsim 1$. This gives volume-averaged poloidal and toroidal field strengths of roughly $\bar{B}_{\rm p}\sim10^{14}$–$10^{15}$ G and $\bar{B}_{\rm t}\sim10^{15}$ G, with $\bar{B}_{\rm t}/\bar{B}_{\rm p}\sim2$–$37$. Applying the same logic to the host magnetars of FRBs 180916 and 121102, the paper obtains lower limits of roughly $10^{14}$–$10^{15}$ G on both field components. If correct, the result turns timing and surface-temperature observations into a probe of magnetar interiors and of the critical temperature for neutron superfluidity in their cores.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the magnetically induced ellipticity $\epsilon_B=(25R^4/24GM^2)(\alpha\bar{B}_{\rm p}^2-\beta\bar{B}_{\rm t}^2)$, with $\alpha=21/10$ and $\beta$ the parameter characterizing how strongly a given toroidal-field distribution deforms the star ($\beta=1$ for a uniform toroidal field, $\beta>1$ when the field is concentrated near the equator). This expression is combined with the free-precession relation $P_{\rm p}\simeq P/|\epsilon_B|$ and with the thermal-equilibrium formula $T_{\rm b}\simeq8\times10^8[(\bar{B}_{\rm p,16}\delta\bar{B}_{\rm p,16}/L_5)^{0.2}+(\bar{B}_{\rm t,16}\delta\bar{B}_{\rm t,16}/L_5)^{0.2}]$ K, which ties field strengths to internal temperature through ambipolar-diffusion heating balanced by modified-Urca neutrino cooling. Requiring $\bar{B}_{\rm p}=B_{\rm s}$ fixes $\beta$ for each source, turning the observed modulation periods and surface temperatures into a two-field decomposition of the interior.

What would settle it

A magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a magnetar with a twisted-torus field and a toroidal component confined to an equatorial belt could compute the stellar ellipticity as a function of the concentration parameter $\beta$; if the computed ellipticity does not grow with $\beta$ at fixed toroidal energy, the field strengths derived here are invalid.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a magnetar's internal magnetic configuration can be recovered from its free precession, not just from its measured dipole field. Taking the observed modulation periods as free-precession periods $P_{\rm p}$ and combining $P_{\rm p}\simeq P/|\epsilon_B|$ with a thermal-balance formula that links internal temperature to field strength, the paper requires that the volume-averaged internal poloidal field equal the surface dipole field, $\bar{B}_{\rm p}=B_{\rm s}$, for each of the four magnetars. This fixes the toroidal-field concentration parameter $\beta$ at roughly 1.0–7.9 across the sample, hence $\beta\gtrsim1$, and yields $\bar{B}_{\rm p}\sim10^{14}$–$10^{15}$ G, $\bar{B}_{\rm t}\sim10^{15}$ G, with $\bar{B}_{\rm t}/\bar{B}_{\rm p}\sim2$–$37$. For the two FRB hosts the same procedure, assuming spin periods of 1–10 s and a core superfluid critical temperature $T_{\rm c,core}=5\times10^8$ K, gives $\bar{B}_{\rm p}\gtrsim10^{14}$–$10^{15}$ G and $\bar{B}_{\rm t}\gtrsim10^{14}$–$10^{15}$ G. The paper also derives an upper bound on the $^3P_2$ neutron-superfluid critical temperature, $T_{\rm c,core}<6.4\times10^8$ K, from 4U 0142+61.

Load-bearing premise

The numbers depend on assuming that the volume-averaged interior poloidal field equals the surface dipole field, $\bar{B}_{\rm p}=B_{\rm s}$, and on a deformation formula whose stable magnetic-field realization has not yet been demonstrated.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • For the four confirmed magnetars, the toroidal field dominates the poloidal field in the deformation, with $\bar{B}_{\rm t}/\bar{B}_{\rm p}\sim2$–$37$, and the required $\beta\gtrsim1$ implies the toroidal field is not uniform but concentrated toward the equatorial region.
  • The precession of 4U 0142+61 constrains the $^3P_2$ neutron-superfluid critical temperature in the core to $T_{\rm c,core}<6.4\times10^8$ K, so a magnetar that is still freely precessing must have a core either hotter than this or without such superfluidity.
  • If the host magnetars of FRB 180916 and FRB 121102 precess with spin periods of 1–10 s, their internal poloidal and toroidal fields are both at least about $10^{14}$–$10^{15}$ G, comparable to the four Galactic magnetars despite the very different precession periods.
  • These internal field strengths are a few to ten times lower than earlier estimates from the same free-precession scenario, which eases a previously noted tension between strong toroidal fields and magnetoelastic equilibrium in the crust.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If $\beta\gtrsim1$ is generic, a newly discovered magnetar with a measured modulation period and surface temperature should reproduce $\bar{B}_{\rm p}=B_{\rm s}$ at a beta value within the range found here; a large mismatch would signal that free precession, the smooth-connection assumption, or the ellipticity formula is incorrect.
  • The same inversion, using observed precession to infer interior fields, could be applied to other periodically modulated neutron-star candidates, such as gamma-ray-burst light curves showing precession-like periodicities, to build up a sample of internal field constraints.
  • The picture of a toroidal field concentrated near the equator implies that magnetar distortion is controlled as much by field geometry as by field energy; if confirmed by future simulations, this would lower the expected gravitational-wave ellipticity of magnetars and correspondingly reduce their detectability by gravitational-wave observatories.
  • Because the $T_{\rm c,core}$ bound comes from requiring that precession is not damped, measuring the internal temperature of a still-precessing young neutron star in the future could turn this upper limit into a direct measurement of the superfluid pairing gap.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. The paper interprets the periodic pulse-phase modulations in four magnetars (4U 0142+61, 1E 1547.0-5408, SGR 1900+14, SGR 1806-20) and the periodicities of two repeating FRBs (180916 and 121102) as free precession of the (host) magnetars. Using the observed modulation periods to infer the magnetically-induced ellipticity (Eq. 1) and a thermal-balance relation between internal temperature and magnetic field strengths (Eq. 6), the authors constrain the volume-averaged poloidal and toroidal fields, bar{B}_p and bar{B}_t, together with a phenomenological parameter beta that characterizes the toroidal-field distribution in the ellipticity formula (Eq. 2). By additionally assuming that the internal poloidal field equals the surface dipole field, bar{B}_p = B_s (Sec. IV), they derive beta values of about 1.0-7.9 for the four magnetars, bar{B}_t/bar{B}_p ratios of about 2-37, field strengths bar{B}_p ~ 10^14-10^15 G and bar{B}_t ~ 10^15 G, and a constraint on the neutron-superfluidity critical temperature T_{c,core} < 6.4e8 K. For the two FRB hosts, adopting assumed spin periods and a critical temperature T_{c,core}=5e8 K yields lower limits on bar{B}_p and bar{B}_t of order 10^14-10^15 G.

Significance. If the underlying assumptions hold, the paper offers a novel observational route to the internal field configuration of magnetars, a quantity that is otherwise inaccessible. The authors are transparent about several key uncertainties, including the lack of MHD support for their modified ellipticity formula and the possibility of alternative explanations for the periodicities. However, the central quantitative results are conditional on an unverified equality bar{B}_p = B_s and on a phenomenological beta parameter; the paper is best read as a consistency analysis rather than an independent measurement. The concrete predictions for the FRB host magnetars are falsifiable in principle if their spin periods and surface temperatures are ever measured.

major comments (3)
  1. [Sec. IV, Eqs. (2) and (6)] The system of Eqs. (2) and (6) has three unknowns (bar{B}_p, bar{B}_t, beta) but only two constraints; the equality bar{B}_p = B_s, introduced in Sec. IV, is what closes the system. Consequently, the derived beta values (Table I) and the ratio bar{B}_t/bar{B}_p ~ 2-37 are outputs of the assumption that the internal poloidal field smoothly connects with the surface dipole field. The paper itself notes, in the beta=25 discussion in Sec. IV, that fall-back accretion can bury the dipole field, so bar{B}_p = B_s is not guaranteed. To make the central claim robust, the authors should treat bar{B}_p/B_s as a free parameter and show over what range of this ratio the conclusions beta >= 1 and bar{B}_t > bar{B}_p persist; as written, these conclusions are conditional on an unvalidated premise.
  2. [Sec. II, Eq. (2); Sec. V] The modified ellipticity formula introduces beta as the key parameter, but beta is phenomenological. The paper concedes in Sec. V that a stable magnetic-field configuration realizing Eq. (2) 'remains to be tested by magnetohydrodynamics simulations.' Moreover, Sec. II states that beta is 'required to satisfy beta >= 1' by definition, so reporting 'beta >= 1' as a headline result is partly circular; the meaningful content is the specific values 1.0-7.9, but those values are derived under the bar{B}_p = B_s assumption. Without an MHD-based derivation of the beta dependence, or at least a sensitivity study over plausible toroidal-field geometries, the field-strength conclusions are not yet established.
  3. [Sec. I and Sec. II] The entire inference rests on identifying the observed modulation periods P_m with free-precession periods P_p. For the four magnetars, this identification is taken from Refs. [24-27] without a quantitative comparison to alternative mechanisms (e.g., forced precession, orbital effects, or magnetospheric oscillations). The paper discusses alternatives only for the FRB sources. Since the ellipticities in Eq. (1) and all subsequent field constraints are derived from this identification, the central conclusions are conditional on the free-precession interpretation being correct.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Sec. IV] There is a typo in the text: 'facotr' should be 'factor' in the sentence discussing how different signs of epsilon_B affect the constraints for FRB 180916.
  2. [References] Reference [52] appears to be a footnote embedded in the reference list rather than a standard citation; it should be moved to a proper footnote or incorporated into the main text.
  3. [Table I] The uncertainties on P_m are explicitly neglected in the calculations; since epsilon_B and hence the inferred fields depend on P_m, propagating those uncertainties would improve the reliability of the quoted ranges.
  4. [Eq. (5)] The symbol alpha is used both for the coefficient 21/10 in Eq. (2) and for the temperature-correction exponent in Eq. (5); this overloaded notation is confusing and should be disambiguated.

Circularity Check

2 steps flagged · score 8.0 of 10

The headline conclusions β≳1 and Bp∼10^14–10^15 G are built into the model: β is defined to be ≥1 and Bp is set equal to the observed surface dipole field Bs; the data only determine the specific β values and the Bt/Bp ratios under these closures.

  1. self definitional [Sec. II (Eq. 2 paragraph) and Sec. IV (conclusion from Fig. 1); echoed in Abstract]
    "The coefficient β accounts for the effect of toroidal-field distribution on the NS’s deformation, and is required to satisfy β ≥ 1. Obviously, Eq. (2) returns to the original form (Eq. (2.5)) given in [19] when β = 1 is taken, which just corresponds to the case of uniformly-distributed toroidal field [50]. Since the toroidal field may actually be confined in a certain internal region along the equator ... in this case we probably have β > 1. ... Obviously, to meet the two requirements above, β ≳ 1 are needed for these sources."

    The paper imposes β ≥ 1 as a definitional requirement on the coefficient before any data are used (Sec. II). The headline result 'β ≳ 1 are needed' (Sec. IV; Abstract) is therefore the same inequality restated, not an inference from the modulation periods or thermal emission. The data only select the specific fitted values β ≃ 1.6, 1.0, 2.2, 7.9; the qualitative claim β ≥ 1 is guaranteed by construction because β was never allowed to be < 1.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Sec. IV (purple-circle construction, Fig. 1, Tab. I); Abstract and Sec. V summary]
    "As a general case, if the internal poloidal field smoothly connects with the surface dipole field of the magnetar, one possibly has \bar{B}_p = B_s. Therefore, to simultaneously satisfy the requirements of \bar{B}_p = B_s and a reasonable T_b (see Tab. I) inferred from the magnetar’s surface thermal emission, the \bar{B}_p–T_b curve should cross the purple open circle."

    The reported internal poloidal field, \bar{B}_p ∼ 10^14–10^15 G (Abstract; Sec. V), is obtained by imposing \bar{B}_p = B_s, where B_s are the observed surface dipole fields in Tab. I (1.3, 3.2, 7.0, 20 ×10^14 G). The 'inferred' poloidal strength is thus the observational input relabeled, not an independent measurement of the interior. β is then adjusted so the \bar{B}_p(T_b) curve crosses the imposed (B_s, T_b) point, so the quoted β values and \bar{B}_t/\bar{B}_p ∼2–37 are consistency conditions of that closure. The paper's own fall-back accretion discussion (β=25, \bar{B}_p>B_s) shows the conclusions change if the equality is relaxed.

full rationale

Two central outputs are built into the inputs. First, β is introduced with the prior constraint β ≥ 1, and the paper then presents β ≳ 1 as a principal constraint; this is self-definitional. Second, the internal poloidal field is set equal to the observed surface dipole field (\bar{B}_p = B_s), and the resulting \bar{B}_p ∼ 10^14–10^15 G is reported as an inferred internal-field strength when it is the input B_s relabeled. These two steps carry the abstract's main claims about the four magnetars. The specific numerical values (β ≃ 1.0–7.9, \bar{B}_t/\bar{B}_p ∼ 2–37) are nontrivial outputs of Eqs. (2)+(6) under those closures, and the FRB-host constraints (Eqs. 7–10) and the T_{c,core} upper limit are conditional inferences that do not themselves reduce to β ≥ 1 or \bar{B}_p = B_s; those portions retain independent content. The Sec. V caveat that a stable configuration realizing Eq. (2) 'remains to be tested by magnetohydrodynamics simulations' is a correctness risk, and the self-citations ([22], [23], [68]) are not load-bearing for the central derivation. Because the qualitative headline results are forced by definition and by the imposed equality, the circularity score is 8 rather than 6.

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

The central claims rest on several unproven modeling choices. The most critical are the free-precession interpretation, the phenomenological beta parameter in the ellipticity formula, and the imposed equality Bp = Bs. The paper acknowledges some of these but uses them to derive quantitative constraints, so the constraints should be read as model-dependent consistency checks rather than direct measurements.

free parameters (4)
  • beta (toroidal field distribution coefficient) = 1.6, 1.0, 2.2, 7.9 for 4U 0142+61, 1E 1547.0-5408, SGR 1900+14, SGR 1806-20; 1 and 25 explored for FRB hosts
    Introduced in Eq. (2) to describe how toroidal-field distribution affects ellipticity; chosen per source so that the inferred Bp equals Bs (Sec. IV). Its physical value is not independently measured.
  • Assumed spin period P of FRB host magnetars = 1, 5, 10 s
    For FRB 180916 and 121102, the host magnetar spin is unobserved; three typical Galactic magnetar values are assumed (Sec. III). The resulting field limits vary by factors of 1-3 with P.
  • Tc,core (neutron superfluidity critical temperature) for FRB hosts = 5 x 10^8 K adopted
    Taken from Cas A cooling [64]; used as the threshold Tb > Tc,core to evaluate FRB host field constraints (Figs. 2-3). Not fitted but a chosen input.
  • delta Bp/Bp = delta Bt/Bt = 0.5, L5 = 1, rho_c/rho_nuc = 1 = 0.5, 1, 1
    Chosen values in Eq. (6) (Sec. III) that set the normalization of the internal-temperature relation; variations would shift the inferred field strengths.
assumptions (7)
  • domain assumption The observed periodic modulations are caused by free precession of the magnetar (Pm = Pp)
    Assumed in Secs. I-II; alternatives such as forced precession, fallback disks, and binary orbital precession are listed but not modeled in the main analysis.
  • ad hoc to paper The magnetically-induced ellipticity is described by Eq. (2) with alpha = 21/10 and the beta coefficient
    Eq. (2) revises Cutler's expression with a beta factor; the existence of a stable field configuration realizing this form is untested (Sec. V).
  • ad hoc to paper The internal poloidal field equals the surface dipole field, Bp = Bs
    Used in Sec. IV to fix beta; the paper notes this may not hold if fall-back accretion buried the dipole field.
  • domain assumption The four magnetars have prolate shape (epsilon_B < 0)
    Based on nonzero wobble angles [24]; for FRB hosts both signs are considered (Sec. IV).
  • domain assumption Core neutrons are not superfluid, so Tb > Tc,core is required for free precession to survive damping
    Damping by mutual friction between superfluid neutrons and electrons or vortices would erase precession (Sec. II).
  • domain assumption The internal temperature Tb is in thermal equilibrium between ambipolar-diffusion magnetic heating and modified-Urca neutrino cooling (Eq. 6)
    Taken from Beloborodov and Li [55]; this relation underpins the B-T curves used to derive all field constraints.
  • domain assumption The Tb-to-Ts conversion assumes an iron envelope with predominantly dipole magnetic field and angle theta = 0
    Assumed in Sec. III; an accreted envelope would yield a lower Tb for the same Ts (Sec. IV), shifting the inferred constraints.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Revealing the internal magnetic field configuration of magnetars via their associated periodic signals." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/OLDIB7GR

@misc{pith2026250102887,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Revealing the internal magnetic field configuration of magnetars via their associated periodic signals},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/OLDIB7GR}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2501.02887}
}
abstract

The magnetic deformation of magnetars is affected by their internal magnetic fields, which are generally difficult to be measured directly through observations. In this work, the periodic pulse-phase modulations in the hard X-ray emissions of the magnetars 4U 0142+61, 1E 1547.0-5408, SGR 1900+14, and SGR 1806-20, and the periodicities of fast radio bursts (FRBs) 180916 and 121102 are interpreted as free precession of the (host) magnetars. Using these periodic signals, we investigate the magnetars' internal magnetic fields. In order to simultaneously account for the modulation periods and surface thermal emissions of the former four magnetars, and require that their internal poloidal fields smoothly connect with the surface dipole fields, the parameter that characterizes the distribution of toroidal field in the magnetar interior should satisfy $\beta\gtrsim1$. Moreover, their volume-averaged strengths of poloidal and toroidal fields are respectively $\bar{B}_{\rm p}\sim10^{14}$--$10^{15}$ G and $\bar{B}_{\rm t}\sim10^{15}$ G with the strength ratios $\bar{B}_{\rm t}/\bar{B}_{\rm p}$ generally distributing within $\sim2$--$37$. We could also constrain the critical temperature for neutron superfluidity in the neutron-star core considering that the former four magnetars are probably precessing, and the most stringent constraint is $T_{\rm c,core}<6.4\times10^8$ K. Adopting a possible critical temperature $T_{\rm c,core}=5\times10^8$ K, we could obtain $\bar{B}_{\rm p}\gtrsim10^{14}$--$10^{15}$ G and $\bar{B}_{\rm t}\gtrsim10^{14}$--$10^{15}$ G for the host magnetars of FRBs 180916 and 121102, which indicates that the magnetars of our interest possibly have similar poloidal and toroidal fields.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2501.02887 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. The volume-averaged strengths of the poloidal field [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. The same as Fig [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_3.png] view at source ↗

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. Physics of Strong Magnetism with eXTP

    astro-ph.HE 2025-06 unverdicted novelty 3.0 of 10

    The eXTP mission's planned instruments would enable more sensitive X-ray polarization and timing observations of magnetars and accreting pulsars, potentially testing vacuum birefringence and probing magnetic field structures.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 47 canonical work pages · cited by 1 Pith paper

  1. [1]

    without knowledge of the shapes of the deformed magnetars (also the signs of ǫB). However, as proposed in [24], these magnetars are more likely to have a prolate shape (which actually corresponds to ǫB < 0 [19, 20]) since the wobbling angles of nearly all magnetars are non-zero. The values for ǫB of the four magnetars are listed in 4 TABLE I. The spin per...

    work page 1900

  2. [2]

    S. A. Olausen and V . M. Kaspi, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 212, 6 (2014) , arXiv:1309.4167 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2014

  3. [3]

    J. I. Katz, Astrophys. J. 260, 371 (1982)

    work page 1982

  4. [4]

    R. C. Duncan and C. Thompson, Astrophys. J. Let. 392, L9 (1992)

    work page 1992

  5. [5]

    Thompson and R

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

    work page 1996

  6. [6]

    CHIME /FRB Collaboration, B. C. Andersen, K. M. Bandura, M. Bhardwaj, A. Bij, M. M. Boyce, P . J. Boyle, C. Brar, T. Cas- sanelli, P . Chawla, T. Chen, J. F. Cliche, A. Cook, D. Cubranic, A. P . Curtin, N. T. Denman, M. Dobbs, F. Q. Dong, M. Fandino, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, U. Giri, D. C. Good, M. Halpern, A. S. Hill, G. F. Hinshaw, C. H¨ ofer, A. Jos...

    arXiv 2020

  7. [7]

    C. D. Bochenek, V . Ravi, K. V . Belov, G. Hallinan, J. Kocz, S. R. Kulkarni, and D. L. McKenna, Nature (London) 587, 59 (2020) , arXiv:2005.10828 [astro-ph.HE]

    arXiv 2020

  8. [8]

    D. R. Lorimer, M. Bailes, M. A. McLaughlin, D. J. Narkevic , and F. Crawford, Science 318, 777 (2007)

    work page 2007

Show all 74 references
  1. [9]

    Thornton, B

    D. Thornton, B. Stappers, M. Bailes, B. Barsdell, S. Bate s, N. D. R. Bhat, M. Burgay, S. Burke-Spolaor, D. J. Champion, P . Coster, N. D’Amico, A. Jameson, S. Johnston, M. Keith, M. Kramer, L. Levin, S. Milia, C. Ng, A. Possenti, and W. van Straten, Science 341, 53 (2013)

    2013

  2. [10]

    Petro ff, J

    E. Petro ff, J. W. T. Hessels, and D. R. Lorimer, The Astronomy and Astrophysics Review 27, 4 (2019)

    2019

  3. [11]

    Lyubarsky, Mon

    Y . Lyubarsky, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 442, L9 (2014) , arXiv:1401.6674 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  4. [12]

    C. K. Li, L. Lin, S. L. Xiong, M. Y . Ge, X. B. Li, T. P . Li, F. J. Lu, S. N. Zhang, Y . L. Tuo, Y . Nang, B. Zhang, S. Xiao, Y . Chen, L. M. Song, Y . P . Xu, C. Z. Liu, S. M. Jia, X. L. Cao, J. L. Qu, S. Zhang, Y . D. Gu, J. Y . Liao, X. F. Zhao, Y . Tan, J. Y . Nie, H. S. ...

    2021

  5. [13]

    V . M. Kaspi and A. M. Beloborodov, Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 261 (2017) , arXiv:1703.00068 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  6. [14]

    Ferrario and D

    L. Ferrario and D. Wickramasinghe, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 367, 1323 (2006) , arXiv:astro-ph/0601258 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Braithwaite and H

    J. Braithwaite and H. C. Spruit, Nature (London) 431, 819 (2004) , arXiv:astro-ph/0502043 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  8. [16]

    Braithwaite and H

    J. Braithwaite and H. C. Spruit, Astronomy & Astrophysics 450, 1097 (2006) , arXiv:astro-ph/0510287 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  9. [17]

    Ciolfi, V

    R. Ciolfi, V . Ferrari, and L. Gualtieri, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 406, 2540 (2010) , arXiv:1003.2148 [astro-ph.SR]

    2010 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Mastrano, A

    A. Mastrano, A. Melatos, A. Reisenegger, and T. Akg¨ un, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 417, 2288 (2011) , arXiv:1108.0219 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Dall’Osso, B

    S. Dall’Osso, B. Giacomazzo, R. Perna, and L. Stella, Astrophys. J. 798, 25 (2015) , arXiv:1408.0013 [astro-ph.HE]

    2015 arXiv

  12. [20]

    Cutler, Phys

    C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 66, 084025 (2002)

    2002

  13. [21]

    Dall’Osso, S

    S. Dall’Osso, S. N. Shore, and L. Stella, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 398, 1869 (2009) , arXiv:0811.4311 [astro-ph]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Stella, S

    L. Stella, S. Dall’Osso, G. L. Israel, and A. V ecchio, Astrophys. J. Let. 634, L165 (2005) , arXiv:astro-ph/0511068 [astro-ph]

    2005 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Cheng, S.-N

    Q. Cheng, S.-N. Zhang, X.-P . Zheng, and X.-L. Fan, Phys. Rev. D 99, 083011 (2019) , arXiv:1904.06570 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Y . L. Yan, Q. Cheng, and X. P . Zheng, Sci. China-Phys. Mech. Astron. 67, 129513 (2024)

    2024

  17. [25]

    Makishima, T

    K. Makishima, T. Enoto, J. S. Hiraga, T. Nakano, K. Nakazawa, S. Sakurai, M. Sasano, and H. Murakami, Phys. Rev. Lett. 112, 171102 (2014)

    2014

  18. [26]

    Makishima, T

    K. Makishima, T. Enoto, H. Y oneda, and H. Odaka, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 502, 2266 (2021)

    2021

  19. [27]

    Makishima, T

    K. Makishima, T. Tamba, Y . Aizawa, H. Odaka, H. Y oneda, T. Enoto, and H. Suzuki, Astrophys. J. 923, 63 (2021)

    2021

  20. [28]

    Makishima, N

    K. Makishima, N. Uchida, and T. Enoto, PASJ 76, 688 (2024) , arXiv:2404.13799 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  21. [29]

    A. G. Suvorov and K. D. Kokkotas, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 502, 2482 (2021) , arXiv:2101.06908 [astro-ph.HE]

    2021 arXiv

  22. [30]

    Zou and J.-G

    L. Zou and J.-G. Cheng, Astrophys. J. 973, 126 (2024) , arXiv:2408.06225 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  23. [31]

    Amiri, B

    CHIME /FRB Collaboration, M. Amiri, B. C. Andersen, K. M. Bandura, M. Bhardwaj, P . J. Boyle, C. Brar, P . Chawla, T. Chen, J. F. Cliche, D. Cubranic, M. Deng, N. T. Den- man, M. Dobbs, F. Q. Dong, M. Fandino, E. Fonseca, B. M. Gaensler, U. Giri, D. C. Good, M. Halpern, J. W. ...

    2020 arXiv

  24. [32]

    Levin, A

    Y . Levin, A. M. Beloborodov, and A. Bransgrove, Astrophys. J. Let. 895, L30 (2020)

    2020

  25. [33]

    J. J. Zanazzi and D. Lai, Astrophys. J. Let. 892, L15 (2020)

    2020

  26. [34]

    Wasserman, J

    I. Wasserman, J. M. Cordes, S. Chatterjee, and G. Batra, Astrophys. J. 928, 53 (2022)

    2022

  27. [35]

    K. M. Rajwade, M. B. Mickaliger, B. W. Stappers, V . Morello, D. Agarwal, C. G. Bassa, R. P . Breton, M. Caleb, A. Karastergiou, E. F. Keane, and D. R. Lorimer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 495, 3551 (2020) , arXiv:2003.03596 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  28. [36]

    Cruces, L

    M. Cruces, L. G. Spitler, P . Scholz, R. Lynch, A. Seymour , J. W. T. Hessels, C. Goui ff´ es, G. H. Hilmarsson, M. Kramer, and S. Munjal, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500, 448 (2021)

    2021

  29. [37]

    J. Li, Y . Gao, D. Li, and K. Wu, Astrophys. J. 969, 23 (2024) , arXiv:2404.16669 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  30. [38]

    D. N. Sob’yanin, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 497, 1001 (2020) , arXiv:2007.01616 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  31. [39]

    H. Tong, W. Wang, and H.-G. Wang, Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics 20, 142 (2020) , arXiv:2002.10265 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Yang and Y .-C

    H. Yang and Y .-C. Zou, Astrophys. J. Let. 893, L31 (2020) , arXiv:2002.02553 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  33. [41]

    W.-M. Gu, T. Yi, and T. Liu, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 497, 1543 (2020) , arXiv:2002.10478 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Chen, PASJ 72, L8 (2020) , arXiv:2006.01552 [astro-ph.HE]

    W.-C. Chen, PASJ 72, L8 (2020) , arXiv:2006.01552 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  35. [43]

    Desvignes, P

    G. Desvignes, P . Weltevrede, Y . Gao, D. I. Jones, M. Kramer, M. Caleb, R. Karuppusamy, L. Levin, K. Liu, A. G. Lyne, L. Shao, B. Stappers, and J. P´ etri, Nature Astronomy 8, 617 (2024)

    2024

  36. [44]

    Platts, A

    E. Platts, A. Weltman, A. Walters, S. P . Tendulkar, J. E. B. Gordin, and S. Kandhai, Phys. Rep. 821, 1 (2019) , arXiv:1810.05836 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  37. [45]

    Beniamini, Z

    P . Beniamini, Z. Wadiasingh, and B. D. Met- zger, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 496, 3390 (2020) , arXiv:2003.12509 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  38. [46]

    A. V . Bilous, J. van Leeuwen, Y . Maan, I. Pastor- Marazuela, L. C. Oostrum, K. M. Rajwade, and Y . Y . Wang, arXiv e-prints , arXiv:2407.05366 (2024) , arXiv:2407.05366 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  39. [47]

    M. A. Alpar and J. A. Sauls, Astrophys. J. 327, 723 (1988)

    1988

  40. [48]

    Link, Phys

    B. Link, Phys. Rev. Lett. 91, 101101 (2003) , arXiv:astro-ph/0302441 [astro-ph]

    2003 arXiv

  41. [49]

    Goldreich and A

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

    1992

  42. [50]

    Dall’Osso, J

    S. Dall’Osso, J. Granot, and T. Piran, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 422, 2878 (2012) , arXiv:1110.2498 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  43. [51]

    J. P . Ostriker and J. E. Gunn, Astrophys. J. 157, 1395 (1969)

    1969

  44. [52]

    Mastrano and A

    A. Mastrano and A. Melatos, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 421, 760 (2012) , arXiv:1112.1542 [astro-ph.HE]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    The damping timescale is much shorter than the kinemati c ages τk measured from proper motions of SGR 1900 +14 and SGR 1806-20 as listed in Tab. I

    1900

  46. [54]

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

    2003

  47. [55]

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

    2007

  48. [56]

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

    2016

  49. [57]

    J. S. Heyl and S. R. Kulkarni, Astrophys. J. Let. 506, L61 (1998)

    1998

  50. [58]

    D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. We- ber, Nuclear Physics A 777, 497 (2006) , arXiv:astro-ph/0508056 [astro-ph]

    2006 arXiv

  51. [59]

    Vigan` o, N

    D. Vigan` o, N. Rea, J. A. Pons, R. Perna, D. N. Aguilera, and J. A. Miralles, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 434, 123 (2013) , arXiv:1306.2156 [astro-ph.SR]

    2013 arXiv

  52. [60]

    Baldo, Ø

    M. Baldo, Ø. Elgarøy, L. Engvik, M. Hjorth-Jensen, and H. J. Schulze, Phys. Rev. C 58, 1921 (1998) , arXiv:nucl-th/9806097 [nucl-th]

    1998 arXiv

  53. [61]

    Schwenk and B

    A. Schwenk and B. Friman, Phys. Rev. Lett. 92, 082501 (2004) , arXiv:nucl-th/0307089 [nucl-th]

    2004 arXiv

  54. [62]

    V . A. Khodel, J. W. Clark, M. Takano, and M. V . Zverev, Phys. Rev. Lett. 93, 151101 (2004) , arXiv:astro-ph/0402514 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  55. [63]

    Krotscheck, P

    E. Krotscheck, P . Papakonstantinou, and J. Wang, Astrophys. J. 955, 76 (2023) , arXiv:2305.07096 [nucl-th]

    2023 arXiv

  56. [64]

    D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, Astrophys. J. Suppl. 155, 623 (2004) , arXiv:astro-ph/0403657 [astro-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  57. [65]

    D. Page, M. Prakash, J. M. Lattimer, and A. W. Steiner, Phys. Rev. Lett. 106, 081101 (2011) , arXiv:1011.6142 [astro-ph.HE]

    2011 arXiv

  58. [66]

    Beloin, S

    S. Beloin, S. Han, A. W. Steiner, and D. Page, Phys. Rev. C 97, 015804 (2018)

    2018

  59. [67]

    D. Ding, A. Rios, H. Dussan, W. H. Dickho ff, S. J. Witte, A. Carbone, and A. Polls, Phys. Rev. C 94, 025802 (2016) , arXiv:1601.01600 [nucl-th]

    2016 arXiv

  60. [68]

    J. M. Dong, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 500, 1505 (2021) , arXiv:2101.06626 [nucl-th]

    2021 arXiv

  61. [69]

    Y .-L. Yan, Q. Cheng, X.-P . Zheng, and X.-X. Ouyang, European Physical Journal C 84, 1043 (2024)

    2024

  62. [70]

    Geppert, D

    U. Geppert, D. Page, and T. Zannias, Astronomy & Astro- physics 345, 847 (1999)

    1999

  63. [71]

    Kojima and S

    Y . Kojima and S. Y oshida, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 527, 2297 (2024) , arXiv:2310.11660 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  64. [72]

    S. K. Lander and D. I. Jones, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 395, 2162 (2009) , arXiv:0903.0827 [astro-ph.SR]

    2009 arXiv

  65. [73]

    Ciolfi, V

    R. Ciolfi, V . Ferrari, L. Gualtieri, and J. A. Pons, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 397, 913 (2009) , arXiv:0903.0556 [astro-ph.SR]

    2009 arXiv

  66. [74]

    P . D. Lasky and A. Melatos, Phys. Rev. D 88, 103005 (2013) , arXiv:1310.7633 [astro-ph.HE]. 8 0.7 0 .8 0.9 1.0 ×109 1013 1014 1015 1016 B (G) (a) 4U 0142+61 ¯Bp (α = 2.1, β = 1.0) ¯Bt (α = 2.1, β = 1.0) ¯Bp (α = 2.1, β ≃ 1.6) ¯Bt (α = 2.1, β ≃ 1.6) ¯Bp (α = 2.1, β = 25.0) ¯Bt...

    2013 arXiv

Pith tools

Reviewed August 10, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.