Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 60 references

Pulsar Rockets and Gaia Neutron Star Binaries

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper proves that a pulsar's electromagnetic rocket force vanishes exactly in a force-free magnetosphere filled with pair plasma, overturning the vacuum-based recoil estimates behind the Gaia eccentricity debate.

desk verdict A genuinely new zero-force theorem for FFE pulsars, but it is conditional on an unproven topology assumption and directly contradicts the published simulation of Pétri 2021; the Gaia population synthesis is solid and worth reading. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.05602 v1 pith:TDY56MBN submitted 2025-07-08 astro-ph.HE gr-qc

Vishal Baibhav , Andrei Gruzinov , Yuri Levin This is my paper
classification astro-ph.HEgr-qc
keywords pulsarrocketselectromagneticrecoilforceforce-freeelectrodynamicsGaianeutronstarbinarieseccentricitydistributionnatalkickscommonenvelopeweakpulsars
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

This paper tries to establish two linked results about the 'pulsar rocket' — the electromagnetic recoil that an asymmetric pulsar wind was thought to exert along the neutron star's spin axis. First, it proves that in Force-Free Electrodynamics, the standard model for a pulsar magnetosphere filled with pair plasma, this spin-aligned recoil force is identically zero, so the earlier vacuum-based estimates giving terminal velocities of hundreds of km/s are wrong for real, plasma-filled pulsars. Second, it asks whether the Gaia neutron star binaries still need rockets to explain their wide orbits with low eccentricities, and finds the data can go either way: rockets of order 30 km/s are required for a broad class of pre-supernova configurations, but wide initial orbits combined with low-velocity Paczyński-type kicks reproduce the eccentricities without rockets. What survives is a rocket acting only on 'weak' pulsars — magnetospheres where pair production near the light cylinder fails and the electric field has a component along the magnetic field — with a rough estimate tying the rocket speed to the pulsar's radiative efficiency. A reader should care because the proof overturns a five-decade-old mechanism and turns the Gaia binaries into a discriminating probe of natal kicks, common-envelope evolution, and pulsar electrodynamics.

What carries the argument

The identity that carries the argument is $E + V\times B = \nabla\chi$, valid for a magnetosphere stationary in the rotating frame, with $V = \Omega\times r$. In FFE, $E\cdot B = 0$ converts this into $B\cdot\nabla\chi = 0$, meaning $\chi$ is constant along every field line; the boundary value $\chi = 0$ on the star, together with the premise that every field line is anchored to the star at at least one point, forces $\chi = 0$ everywhere, so the electric field is exactly $E = -V\times B$. At the light cylinder $\rho = 1/\Omega$ this makes the $z\rho$ component of the Maxwell stress, $\sigma_{z\rho} = E_z E_\rho + B_z B_\rho$, vanish identically, removing the $z$-momentum flux and with it the time-averaged spin-aligned force. The same identity, with the right-hand side replaced by $B\cdot\nabla\chi = E\cdot B$, generates the dissipative estimate: a nonzero parallel electric field near the light cylinder, characterized by the radiative efficiency $\epsilon$, yields $F \sim c^{-5}\,\epsilon\,\Omega^5\mu q$, with $q$ the magnetic quadrupole pseudo-tensor.

What would settle it

A numerical force-free experiment that drives a dipole-plus-quadrupole rotator to a stationary state and measures the time-averaged $z\rho$ Maxwell stress directly at the light cylinder would settle the theorem: the proof predicts exactly zero, while the contested numerical study of Pétri (2021) predicts a nonzero value. A complementary test searches for persistent detached field-line pockets in stationary force-free solutions, since finding one would break the anchoring premise that the zero-force conclusion depends on.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim, stated on its own terms, is that the spin-aligned electromagnetic recoil force on a pulsar vanishes identically in Force-Free Electrodynamics (FFE). For a magnetosphere stationary in the rotating frame, the advection condition combined with Faraday's law gives $E + V\times B = \nabla\chi$ with $V = \Omega\times r$. The FFE condition $E\cdot B = 0$ makes $\chi$ constant along magnetic field lines; $\chi = 0$ at the stellar surface; and with every field line anchored to the star at least once, $\chi = 0$ everywhere outside the star. Then $E = -V\times B$ exactly, and at the light cylinder the $z\rho$ Maxwell stress $\sigma_{z\rho} = E_z E_\rho + B_z B_\rho$ vanishes, so there is no $z$-momentum flux and the time-averaged force along the spin axis is zero. The paper is explicit that the anchoring premise is asserted on physical grounds rather than proven, and that the result contradicts the numerical FFE study of Pétri (2021), where it suspects an error in using a Poynting-flux integral over a light-cylinder sphere as a force proxy. In a dissipative magnetosphere with $E\cdot B \neq 0$, the force is instead proportional to the radiative efficiency; the paper's order-of-magnitude estimate is $v_r \sim 30\,\epsilon\,\epsilon_q\,\nu_{0,716}^3$ km/s, which is substantial only for old, initially fast-spinning, weakly magnetized neutron stars with a strong quadrupole field.

Load-bearing premise

The proof rests on the premise that every magnetic field line in a stationary force-free magnetosphere is anchored to the star at at least one point; the paper states this is likely on physical grounds and supported by simulations, but if detached closed field lines or persistent plasmoids exist, the zero-force conclusion can fail.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Strong pulsars, whose magnetospheres are pair-filled and approximately force-free, cannot accelerate by the electromagnetic rocket at all; the vacuum-derived terminal velocities of hundreds of km/s are ruled out.
  • For a broad range of pre-supernova initial conditions and natal kick distributions, the Gaia eccentricities still favor rocket velocities of order $v_r \gtrsim 30$ km/s, so the rocket survives only in weak-pulsar form.
  • If rockets are eventually shown to be required, the Gaia neutron stars must be older than about a megayear, born spinning at several hundred hertz, with dipole fields $\lesssim 10^{10}$ G and a relatively strong quadrupole component.
  • Without rockets, the observed eccentricity distribution can be matched only if the pre-supernova orbits stayed wide (no strong common-envelope shrinkage) and the kicks have substantial low-velocity support, as in the Paczyński distribution, or are misaligned from the polar direction with a wide opening angle.
  • The Monte Carlo analysis, folded through the Gaia selection function, also shows that polar kicks with initially circular orbits require extremely small supernova mass loss; reproducing the lowest-eccentricity system would need a progenitor of only about $2.2\,M_\odot$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • The fault line of the proof is the anchoring premise: if a stationary force-free magnetosphere can contain a detached closed field-line pocket or a persistent plasmoid, $\chi$ need not vanish there and the light-cylinder stress could be nonzero; a targeted numerical search for such persistent structures would determine whether the theorem survives contact with time-dependent force-free solutions.
  • The estimate $v_r \sim 30\,\epsilon\,\epsilon_q\,\nu_{0,716}^3$ km/s is an order-of-magnitude scaling rather than a prediction; a natural next step is a dissipative or particle-in-cell simulation of a weak pulsar that measures the $E\cdot B$ structure near the light cylinder and converts the scaling into a quantitative force.
  • Because the rocket speed scales with gamma-ray radiative efficiency, the most promising observational candidates would be old, radio-quiet but gamma-ray-bright neutron stars in wide binaries, a selection that future Gaia and gamma-ray catalogs could test.
  • The paper notes that Gaia white-dwarf binaries also appear anomalously wide, which suggests that common-envelope orbital shrinkage may be weaker than current prescriptions assume; if so, the no-rocket scenario for the Gaia eccentricities becomes the default and the weak-pulsar rocket would only be needed if future data forces it.
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

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper addresses the role of the electromagnetic rocket effect in explaining the Gaia sample of 21 neutron star binaries. In the first part, the authors build Monte-Carlo populations over two pre-supernova separation ranges, two initial-eccentricity prescriptions, two natal-kick distributions, and two kick geometries, and fold in a fit to the Gaia DR3 selection function. They find that some no-rocket models (wide initial orbits with low-velocity Paczynski kicks, or sufficiently misaligned kicks) match the observed eccentricity CDF, while reduced-orbit/Hobbs scenarios require a rocket velocity dispersion σr ≳ 30 km/s. In the second part, they argue from stationarity in the rotating frame and E·B=0 that a force-free pulsar magnetosphere with all field lines anchored to the star has χ=0, so the zρ Maxwell stress at the light cylinder vanishes and the spin-aligned rocket force is identically zero. They then give an order-of-magnitude dissipative estimate F ~ ε f Lγ/c, yielding terminal velocities vr ~ 30 ε εq ν0,716^3 km/s, and derive conditions under which weak pulsars can be effective rockets.

Significance. If the zero-force theorem is accepted, the paper overturns a long-standing estimate and redirects the Gaia eccentricity interpretation toward weak, old, weakly magnetized neutron stars. The proof is elegant and unusually transparent, and the assumptions behind each step are mostly stated. The Monte-Carlo infrastructure, the Gaia selection-function fit, and the per-source inference are useful and reproducible in spirit. The main caveat is that the theorem's global step rests on an unproven topological premise, and the contradiction with Pétri (2021) is not diagnosed; as written, the abstract overstates the result as unconditional. These issues are fixable within the manuscript's scope by presenting the theorem as conditional and testing the assumptions numerically.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3.2, paragraph after Eq. (18)] The conclusion that χ=0 everywhere uses the premise that every magnetic field line intersects the stellar surface. The manuscript justifies this as 'seems likely on physical grounds' plus a citation to FFE simulations; it is not a theorem. If a stationary FFE solution contains a detached closed flux tube or a persistent plasmoid, then B·∇χ=0 on that flux surface only makes χ constant, not zero, and the light-cylinder cancellation σ_zρ=0 in Eq. (21) need not hold. Because this is the only step separating the proof from the numerical counterexample of Pétri (2021), the abstract's claim to have 'proved' an identically zero rocket force is too strong. Please either prove the anchored-field property from the FFE equations plus boundary/regularity conditions, or state the theorem as conditional on it throughout (abstract, Section 3.2, Section 4).
  2. [§3.2, Eq. (10)] Stationarity in the rotating frame is assumed at the outset. Real pair-filled pulsar magnetospheres are time dependent (plasmoid ejections, reconnection events), and if ∂tB is not equal to ∇×(V×B), Eq. (14) fails and the χ-based argument collapses. The later remark in Section 3.3 that magnetospheres are only 'at least statistically' stationary shows that this is not a harmless idealization for real pulsars. The theorem should explicitly name stationary rotating-frame solutions as part of its hypotheses, and the discussion should state how far real pulsars are expected to depart from this condition.
  3. [§3.2, final paragraph] The manuscript asserts that the numerical result of Pétri (2021) is in error, but admits 'it is hard for us to say exactly where the error is' and offers only a 'potential weak point' about the Poynting-flux proxy. For a headline theorem that directly contradicts a published simulation, this leaves the central claim vulnerable: the discrepancy could instead arise from the unproven anchored-field premise or from non-stationarity in Pétri's solution. Please diagnose the contradiction concretely, for example by checking field-line topology and time dependence in the rotating frame in that simulation, or by explicitly restricting the theorem and leaving the numerical counterexample unresolved as a limitation.
  4. [§2.2.1 and Fig. 5] The statement that Bayes factors 'decisively favor' the rocket model in all scenarios is not backed by reported marginal-likelihood values, and the prior p(σr) ∝ f_surv,det(σr) is constructed from the same simulated populations whose orbits depend on σr. This prior choice can strongly affect the σr=0 comparison, especially for reduced orbits where survivability changes with rocket strength. Please report actual Bayes factors and demonstrate that the 'vr ≳ 30 km/s required' conclusion is robust to alternative priors (e.g., flat in σr or flat in log σr).
minor comments (5)
  1. [§3.2, first paragraph] There are duplicated words in 'As we will shall see' and 'this this equation'; please proofread the passage.
  2. [§2.2] 'in turm' should be 'in turn'.
  3. [§3.3, after Eq. (42)] ϵq is used in Eq. (42) before its definition; define it before the equation. Also, 'teble 14' should be 'Table 14', and in Eq. (30) 'I amd M' should be 'I and M'.
  4. [App. B] In the description of the selection-function fit, 'pdet(Porb,e, e)' has a doubled e, and the reference 'El-Badry et al. (2024a) (2023)' is redundant; the parametric fit does not fully reproduce the multiple local maxima at P_orb > 365 d for e=0, which should be noted as a limitation in the main text where p_det is used.
  5. [App. D] Several typographical errors ('In Fig. 9 shows', 'eccentrcities', 'minimium', 'witin') appear in Appendix D; these do not affect the analysis but should be corrected.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the zero-force theorem is a self-contained FFE derivation, and the Gaia rocket constraints are explicitly presented as fitted/conditional inferences rather than predictions.

full rationale

The central zero-force result in Section 3.2 is derived from Maxwell's equations, stationarity in the rotating frame (Eq. 10), the FFE condition E·B=0 (Eq. 16), and the surface boundary condition χ|_rs=0 (Eq. 18). Equations (15)-(21) then imply χ=0 and the vanishing of the zρ Maxwell stress at the light cylinder, so the conclusion is not taken as an input. The only soft point is the explicit assumption that all field lines are anchored to the star 'at least at one point'; the paper labels this as physically plausible rather than proved, and it is an unproven premise rather than a circular step. The Gaia analysis fits σr to the observed eccentricities and does not disguise this as a prediction; indeed Section 2 states that for some plausible initial-condition and kick choices 'currently the data does not require rockets', while the '30 km/s required' statement is a conditional inference from the fitted models. The weak-pulsar rocket estimate in Section 3.3 is explicitly 'a very rough estimate' and is not presented as an independent first-principles prediction. Self-citations (e.g., Gruzinov 2006, 2013a, 2023) support parts of the discussion, but the main proof is reproduced in the paper and does not reduce to those citations. No circularity pattern is present.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The paper's two central bodies of work sit at different circularity levels. The FFE zero-force theorem uses three stated assumptions: stationarity in the rotating frame, E·B=0, and anchored field lines; none of these is itself the conclusion. The population-synthesis conclusions, by contrast, are inferences from fitting σr and ai,min to the Gaia data, so the '30 km/s rocket required' statement should be read as a conditional fit under specific binary-evolution priors, not as a forward prediction. No new particles, forces, or entities are introduced; the 'weak pulsar' is a pre-existing category from Gruzinov (2015).

free parameters (5)
  • σr (rocket velocity dispersion) = Posterior favors σr ≥ 30 km/s for reduced orbits; σr = 50 km/s used in Figure 4
    Free parameter in the population synthesis; Bayesian inference in Section 2.2.1 constrains it from the Gaia eccentricity data. The 'rockets required' conclusion is this fit, not a prediction.
  • ai,min (minimum pre-supernova separation) = Posterior peaks near 1 AU, 90% credible interval [0.5, 3] AU
    Inferred in Section 2.1.1 from the eccentricity distribution; the conclusion that wide orbits are needed depends on this fit and on the log-uniform separation prior.
  • Detection probability fit parameters A1, σ1, A2, σ2, α, c = Given in Eqs. (B9)-(B14)
    MCMC fit to the El-Badry et al. forward-model detection rates; the fit does not reproduce the detection landscape for circular binaries at Porb > 365 days, and this limitation propagates into all Monte-Carlo and Bayesian results.
  • ε (radiative efficiency) = ~0.2 from gamma-ray pulsar data (Smith et al. 2023)
    Used in Eq. (42) for the weak-pulsar rocket force; taken from independent observations, not fitted to Gaia data.
  • εq (quadrupole-to-dipole field ratio) = Order several, from NICER observations of PSR J0030+0451
    Used in Eq. (42); the paper assumes εεq could be of order 1 to make rockets substantial, a hand-chosen factor for the order-of-magnitude estimate.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The pulsar magnetosphere is well described by Force-Free Electrodynamics with E·B=0 for strong pulsars
    Invoked in Section 3.2 as the basis of the zero-force proof; if dissipative or pair-production effects are important, the proof does not directly apply.
  • ad hoc to paper All magnetic field lines are anchored to the star at at least one point
    Stated in Section 3.2 after Eq. (18) as likely on physical grounds; required for χ=0 everywhere. This is the load-bearing assumption of the zero-force proof.
  • domain assumption The magnetosphere is stationary in the rotating frame
    Assumed in Eq. (10) and used throughout Section 3.2; standard for uniformly rotating star FFE models but unproven for oblique rotators with time-dependent current sheets.
  • ad hoc to paper Pre-supernova separation distributions are log-uniform in the chosen ranges, with either circular or thermal eccentricities
    Used in the Monte-Carlo simulations in Section 2; the authors state they have 'no particular basis' for the thermal eccentricity distribution.
  • domain assumption Hobbs and Paczynski kick distributions bracket the true natal kick distribution
    Assumed in Section 2 and Appendix A; the paper shows the observed transverse velocities lie between the two models.
  • domain assumption Gruzinov (2023) weak-pulsar condition and Spitkovsky (2006) spin-down luminosity apply
    Used in Section 3.3 to derive the weak-pulsar criterion (Eq. 48) and the rocket velocity estimate (Eq. 42); these are prior results taken as input.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Pulsar Rockets and Gaia Neutron Star Binaries." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TDY56MBN

@misc{pith2026250705602,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Pulsar Rockets and Gaia Neutron Star Binaries},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TDY56MBN}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.05602}
}
abstract

We prove that the spin-aligned electromagnetic recoil force acting on a pulsar vanishes identically in Force-Free Electrodynamics. This contrasts with Hirai et al.'s recent argument that the rocket effect was important for explaining the eccentricity distribution of wide neutron star binaries found by Gaia. Our detailed analysis confirms that for a broad range of initial conditions and natal kick distributions, the rocket velocities of $v_r \gtrsim 30\, \mathrm{km/s}$ are required to account for the observed eccentricities. However, we find that in scenarios where the common envelope phase does not significantly shrink the initial orbit, and the natal kicks are drawn from Paczynski-type distribution, these eccentricities may arise without the influence of an EM rocket. If the natal kicks are perpendicular to the initial orbits, then explaining the Gaia neutron star eccentricities without invoking rockets additionally requires that the pre-supernova binaries avoid significant circularization, and that the mass loss during the supernova is minimal. The rocket effect can only be substantial in "weak" pulsars, where pair production near the light cylinder is suppressed and ${\bf E}\cdot{\bf B} \neq 0$ in the outer magnetosphere. We derive a rough estimate for a rocket force in a weak pulsar and relate it to the pulsar's radiative efficiency; simulations are needed to obtain numerically reliable expressions. If future observations prove that rockets are required to explain the data, this would imply that Gaia neutron stars are $\gtrsim $ Myr old, were previously rapidly spinning and are weakly magnetized, with a dipole field $\lesssim 10^{10}$ G and a relatively strong quadrupole component.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.05602 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Cumulative eccentricity distributions of neutron star binaries without rockets compared with Gaia observations. Each panel corresponds to a combination of initial orbital eccentricity (circular vs. thermal) and separation (reduced vs. wide), organized by kick distribution: Hobbs (top row) and Paczyński (bottom row). The red and blue shaded bands represent the 99% confidence intervals for model populations with isotr… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Gaia detection probability pdet(Porb, e) as a func￾tion of orbital period and eccentricity. some neutron stars with small kick velocities, possibly due to Electron-Capture Supernovae. Because of these issues and the potential biases towards high velocities, we also consider an alternative distribution. - Paczyński Kick Distribution: As an alternative that allows for a greater proportion of lower velocity kicks, we c… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Posterior probability density functions of the minimum initial binary separation, ai,min (AU). Each panel corresponds to a different assumed initial eccentricity dis￾tribution for the progenitor binary: initially circular orbits (top panel) and initially thermal eccentricity distributions (bottom panel). Within each panel, four distinct curves il￾lustrate different combinations of natal kick distributions (Hobbs or … view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Cumulative eccentricity distributions of neutron star binaries with rocket σr = 50 km/s assuming isotropic kicks, compared with Gaia observations. Each panel corresponds to a combination of initial orbital eccentricity (circular vs. thermal) and separation (reduced vs.…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Likelihood for the rocket magnitude σr inferred from fitting observed orbital parameters {afobs, efobs} using the Hobbs kick distribution and circular initial eccentricity. Solid lines show results for progenitor mass m∗ = 2 mNS, while dashed lines correspond to m∗ = 1…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The fraction of the maximal rocket velocity achiev￾able for a pulsar as a function of its dipole magnetic field. We now estimate what fraction η of the maximum rocket velocity given by Eq. (42) the pulsar can achieve: η = ν 3 0 − ν(B, T) 3 (716Hz) 3 . (51) The ratio η …
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Comparison of the observed cumulative distribution of pulsar transverse velocities with predictions from two natal kick models. The solid black lines enclose the 95% confidence interval derived from the pulsar data. The shaded blue and orange regions show the correspon…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Comparison of the fitted detection probability pdet(Porb, e) (solid lines) with empirical estimates pˆdet (points with error bars) computed from 1000 realizations per parameter set. Error bars represent binomial standard errors, p ∆pˆdet = pˆdet(1 − pˆdet)/n. Our goal …
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Left: CDFs of final orbital eccentricities (ef ) assuming misaligned kicks comparing synthetic neutron star binary populations with Gaia DR3 observations. All models assume initially circular orbits (ei = 0) with initial semi-major axes ai log-uniformly distributed fro…
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Posterior probability distributions of rocket velocity (vr) for individual Gaia neutron star–stellar binaries. Each panel corresponds to one binary. Solid violin plots assume compact pre-supernova orbits (reduced orbit), while dashed, semi-transparent violins represen…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

60 extracted references · 13 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Baibhav, V., & Kalogera, V. 2024. 2412.03461

    arXiv 2024

  2. [2]

    1961, , 15, 265

    Blaauw , A. 1961, , 15, 265

    1961

  3. [3]

    M., & Levin , Y

    Bransgrove , A., Beloborodov , A. M., & Levin , Y. 2023, , 958, L9, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad0556

    doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ad0556 2023

  4. [4]

    F., Benson, J

    Brisken, W. F., Benson, J. M., Goss, W. M., & Thorsett, S. E. 2002, Astrophys. J., 571, 906, 10.1086/340098

    doi:10.1086/340098 2002

  5. [5]

    F., Vlemmings, W

    Chatterjee, S., Brisken, W. F., Vlemmings, W. H. T., et al. 2009, Astrophys. J., 698, 250, 10.1088/0004-637X/698/1/250

    doi:10.1088/0004-637x/698/1/250 2009

  6. [6]

    Y., & Beloborodov , A

    Chen , A. Y., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2014, , 795, L22, 10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/L22

    doi:10.1088/2041-8205/795/1/l22 2014

  7. [7]

    Y., Cruz , F., & Spitkovsky , A

    Chen , A. Y., Cruz , F., & Spitkovsky , A. 2020, , 889, 69, 10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c20

    doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ab5c20 2020

  8. [8]

    1993, , 402, 264, 10.1086/172129

    Chen , K., & Ruderman , M. 1993, , 402, 264, 10.1086/172129

    doi:10.1086/172129 1993

Show all 60 references
  1. [9]

    Chevalier , R. A. 1989, , 346, 847, 10.1086/168066

    1989 doi

  2. [10]

    1999, , 511, 351, 10.1086/306652

    Contopoulos , I., Kazanas , D., & Fendt , C. 1999, , 511, 351, 10.1086/306652

    1999 doi

  3. [11]

    2024, , 690, A229, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347926

    Cruz , F., Grismayer , T., Torres , R., et al. 2024, , 690, A229, 10.1051/0004-6361/202347926

    2024 doi

  4. [12]

    2017, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol

    De Luca , A. 2017, in Journal of Physics Conference Series, Vol. 932, Journal of Physics Conference Series (IOP), 012006, 10.1088/1742-6596/932/1/012006

    2017 doi

  5. [13]

    Disberg, P., & Mandel, I. 2025. 2505.22102

    2025 arXiv

  6. [14]

    2024 a , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, 10.33232/001c.125461

    El-Badry , K., Lam , C., Holl , B., et al. 2024 a , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 100, 10.33232/001c.125461

    2024 doi

  7. [15]

    W., et al

    El-Badry , K., Rix , H.-W., Latham , D. W., et al. 2024 b , The Open Journal of Astrophysics, 7, 58, 10.33232/001c.121261

    2024 doi

  8. [16]

    Faucher-Giguere, C.-A., & Kaspi, V. M. 2006, Astrophys. J., 643, 332, 10.1086/501516

    2006 doi

  9. [17]

    1999, , 345, 847

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

    1999

  10. [18]

    Goldreich , P., & Julian , W. H. 1969, , 157, 869, 10.1086/150119

    1969 doi

  11. [19]

    V., & Halpern , J

    Gotthelf , E. V., & Halpern , J. P. 2009, , 695, L35, 10.1088/0004-637X/695/1/L35

    2009 doi

  12. [20]

    1999, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902288

    Gruzinov , A. 1999, arXiv e-prints, astro, 10.48550/arXiv.astro-ph/9902288

    1999 doi arXiv

  13. [21]

    2005, , 94, 021101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.021101

    ---. 2005, , 94, 021101, 10.1103/PhysRevLett.94.021101

    2005 doi

  14. [22]

    2006, , 647, L119, 10.1086/506590

    ---. 2006, , 647, L119, 10.1086/506590

    2006 doi

  15. [23]

    2013 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.4094, 10.48550/arXiv.1303.4094

    ---. 2013 a , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1303.4094, 10.48550/arXiv.1303.4094

    2013 doi arXiv

  16. [24]

    2013 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1310.5382, 10.48550/arXiv.1310.5382

    ---. 2013 b , arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1310.5382, 10.48550/arXiv.1310.5382

    2013 doi arXiv

  17. [25]

    2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.05158, 10.48550/arXiv.1503.05158

    ---. 2015, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:1503.05158, 10.48550/arXiv.1503.05158

    2015 doi arXiv

  18. [26]

    2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.13638, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.13638

    ---. 2023, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2310.13638, 10.48550/arXiv.2310.13638

    2023 doi arXiv

  19. [27]

    2023, , 943, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    Hakobyan , H., Philippov , A., & Spitkovsky , A. 2023, , 943, 105, 10.3847/1538-4357/acab05

    2023 doi

  20. [28]

    R., & Tademaru , E

    Harrison , E. R., & Tademaru , E. 1975, , 201, 447, 10.1086/153907

    1975 doi

  21. [29]

    Hessels , J. W. T., Ransom , S. M., Stairs , I. H., et al. 2006, Science, 311, 1901, 10.1126/science.1123430

    2006 doi

  22. [30]

    2024, Astrophys

    Hirai, R., Podsiadlowski, P., Heger, A., & Nagakura, H. 2024, Astrophys. J. Lett., 972, L18, 10.3847/2041-8213/ad6e77

    2024 doi

  23. [33]

    Hu , R., & Beloborodov , A. M. 2022, , 939, 42, 10.3847/1538-4357/ac961d

    2022 doi

  24. [34]

    Igoshev, A. P. 2020, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 494, 3663, 10.1093/mnras/staa958

    2020 doi

  25. [35]

    P., Hollerbach, R., & Wood, T

    Igoshev, A. P., Hollerbach, R., & Wood, T. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 525, 3354, 10.1093/mnras/stad2404

    2023 doi

  26. [36]

    2005, Mon

    Johnston, S., Hobbs, G., Vigeland, S., et al. 2005, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 364, 1397, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09669.x

    2005

  27. [37]

    2007, Mon

    Johnston, S., Kramer, M., Karastergiou, A., et al. 2007, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 381, 1625, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2007.12352.x

    2007

  28. [38]

    2023, Mon

    Kapil, V., Mandel, I., Berti, E., & M\"uller, B. 2023, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 519, 5893, 10.1093/mnras/stad019

    2023 doi

  29. [39]

    Kojima, Y., & Kato, Y. E. 2011, Astrophys. J., 728, 75, 10.1088/0004-637X/728/2/75

    2011 doi

  30. [40]

    G., Hobbs, G., et al

    Kramer, M., Lyne, A. G., Hobbs, G., et al. 2003, Astrophys. J. Lett., 593, L31, 10.1086/378082

    2003 doi

  31. [41]

    F., & Cordes, J

    Lai, D., Chernoff, D. F., & Cordes, J. M. 2001, Astrophys. J., 549, 1111, 10.1086/319455

    2001 doi

  32. [42]

    D., & Lifshitz , E

    Landau , L. D., & Lifshitz , E. M. 1975, The classical theory of fields

    1975

  33. [43]

    Mandel, I., & Igoshev, A. P. 2023, Astrophys. J., 944, 153, 10.3847/1538-4357/acb3c3

    2023 doi

  34. [44]

    C., et al

    Miller, M. C., et al. 2019, Astrophys. J. Lett., 887, L24, 10.3847/2041-8213/ab50c5

    2019 doi

  35. [45]

    1995, , 440, L77, 10.1086/187765

    Muslimov , A., & Page , D. 1995, , 440, L77, 10.1086/187765

    1995 doi

  36. [46]

    W., Brisken, W

    Ng, C.-Y., Romani, R. W., Brisken, W. F., Chatterjee, S., & Kramer, M. 2006, Astrophys. J., 654, 487, 10.1086/510576

    2006 doi

  37. [47]

    2012, Mon

    Noutsos, A., Kramer, M., Carr, P., & Johnston, S. 2012, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 423, 2736, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2012.21083.x

    2012

  38. [48]

    Noutsos , A., Schnitzeler , D. H. F. M., Keane , E. F., Kramer , M., & Johnston , S. 2013, , 430, 2281, 10.1093/mnras/stt047

    2013 doi

  39. [49]

    1990, , 348, 485, 10.1086/168257

    Paczynski , B. 1990, , 348, 485, 10.1086/168257

    1990 doi

  40. [50]

    2017, Mon

    P\'etri, J. 2017, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 466, L73, 10.1093/mnrasl/slw234

    2017 doi

  41. [51]

    2019, Mon

    ---. 2019, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc., 488, 4161, 10.1093/mnras/stz2021

    2019 doi

  42. [52]

    2021, , 501, 4479, 10.1093/mnras/staa3909

    P \'e tri , J. 2021, , 501, 4479, 10.1093/mnras/staa3909

    2021 doi

  43. [53]

    2022, , 60, 495, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

    Philippov , A., & Kramer , M. 2022, , 60, 495, 10.1146/annurev-astro-052920-112338

    2022 doi

  44. [54]

    A., Spitkovsky , A., & Cerutti , B

    Philippov , A. A., Spitkovsky , A., & Cerutti , B. 2015, , 801, L19, 10.1088/2041-8205/801/1/L19

    2015 doi

  45. [55]

    E., et al

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

    2019 doi

  46. [56]

    A., & Sutherland , P

    Ruderman , M. A., & Sutherland , P. G. 1975, , 196, 51, 10.1086/153393

    1975 doi

  47. [57]

    A., Abdollahi , S., Ajello , M., et al

    Smith , D. A., Abdollahi , S., Ajello , M., et al. 2023, , 958, 191, 10.3847/1538-4357/acee67

    2023 doi

  48. [58]

    2006, , 648, L51, 10.1086/507518

    Spitkovsky , A. 2006, , 648, L51, 10.1086/507518

    2006 doi

  49. [59]

    E., Justham, S., et al

    Valli, R., de Mink, S. E., Justham, S., et al. 2025. 2505.08857

    2025 arXiv

  50. [60]

    2017, Astron

    Verbunt, F., Igoshev, A., & Cator, E. 2017, Astron. Astrophys., 608, A57, 10.1051/0004-6361/201731518

    2017 doi

  51. [61]

    2006, Astrophys

    Wang, C., Lai, D., & Han, J. 2006, Astrophys. J., 639, 1007, 10.1086/499397

    2006 doi

  52. [62]

    2021, Astrophys

    Willcox, R., Mandel, I., Thrane, E., et al. 2021, Astrophys. J. Lett., 920, L37, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2cc8

    2021 doi

Pith tools

Reviewed August 6, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.