Interlinking internal and external magnetic fields of relativistically rotating neutron stars

D. Ntotsikas; K.N. Gourgouliatos

REVIEW 2 major objections 6 minor 74 references

Interlinking internal and external magnetic fields of relativistically rotating neutron stars

T0 review · 2 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read This paper reports global solutions linking a neutron star's interior field to its relativistic magnetosphere, with twist currents on closed field lines raising spin-down luminosity by up to about 16 times.

desk verdict A credible coupled interior-magnetosphere solver for twisted neutron star fields, but the quantitative spin-down claims are underdetermined as written. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.04198 v1 pith:TW5DUSCP submitted 2025-06-04 astro-ph.HE

D. Ntotsikas , K.N. Gourgouliatos This is my paper

classification astro-ph.HE

keywords neutronstarsmagneticfieldsmagnetospherespulsarspin-downmagnetarsforce-freeelectrodynamicsGrad-Shafranovequationtwistedmagnetosphere

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 addresses the long-standing separation between treatments of a neutron star's internal magnetic field and its relativistic magnetosphere. It reports global axisymmetric equilibrium solutions in which the interior field obeys a barotropic MHD equilibrium and the exterior field obeys the relativistic force-free pulsar equation, matched continuously across the stellar surface. The central finding is that twisting the interior field changes the exterior magnetosphere: it opens more field lines, moves the equatorial current sheet inward, and raises the spin-down luminosity. In the configuration studied (light cylinder at ten stellar radii, about 500 Hz), the increase is up to a factor of about 4 when the twist current closes inside the star, and about 16 when the same current also flows through the closed magnetospheric field lines. By connecting internal magnetic structure to spin-down, polar-cap size, and possible transient switching between global and internal twist, the calculation offers a concrete mechanism for observed pulsar and magnetar timing and emission changes.

What carries the argument

The central machinery is the pair of Grad–Shafranov equations: outside the star it is the relativistic axisymmetric pulsar equation $\Delta^*\Psi = -I I'$, and inside it is the barotropic equilibrium $\Delta^*\Psi + I I' + R^2\rho S' = 0$. The two are solved simultaneously by relaxation and matched by continuity of the flux function $\Psi$ and the poloidal current $I$ at the stellar surface. The control parameter is the twist current $I_{\rm tw} = \alpha(\Psi-\Psi_0)$, either confined inside the star or extended to closed magnetospheric field lines; it determines how far the equatorial current sheet retreats toward the star, which sets the fraction of open flux and hence the spin-down luminosity.

What would settle it

Observe a magnetar through a phase in which an independent diagnostic (for example X-ray spectral hardening or a changing pulse profile) indicates twist, while timing monitors the spin-down rate; the global-twist model predicts a large spin-down increase plus a wider polar cap, and a sharp drop when the twist dissipates, so a source with no correlated spin-down change would falsify it. A complementary check is a particle-in-cell simulation with finite plasma injection, which can test whether the imposed closed-field-line current $I_{\rm tw}=\alpha(\Psi-\Psi_0)$ can be sustained at all.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

On the paper's own terms, the discovery is a set of self-consistent, axisymmetric equilibria in which one flux function $\Psi$ describes the magnetic field continuously from the stellar center through the light cylinder. Inside the star the field obeys the barotropic equilibrium equation $\Delta^*\Psi + I I' + R^2 \rho S' = 0$; outside it obeys the relativistic pulsar equation $\Delta^*\Psi = -I I'$; the two are matched by continuity of $\Psi$ and $I$ at the surface and by smooth crossing of the light cylinder. Within this coupled system, an imposed twist current $I_{\rm tw} = \alpha(\Psi-\Psi_0)$ on field lines that close inside the light cylinder substantially changes the solution: the last closed field line moves to higher flux, the equatorial current sheet moves inward, the polar cap widens, and the spin-down luminosity, $L = 2\int_0^{\Psi_0} I\,d\Psi$, rises by up to about a factor of 16 relative to the untwisted case when the twist populates the closed magnetosphere, versus about a factor of 4 when the twist is confined inside the star. The paper also finds that magnetospheric twist saturates near $\pi/2$, so the configuration approaches a split monopole after a finite twist, and that a globally twisted magnetosphere spreads the internal toroidal field through a larger stellar volume.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing assumption is that the closed magnetic field lines outside the star can really carry the electric current the model assigns to them, with enough charged particles to keep it flowing; if a real magnetosphere cannot, the global-twist branch and its roughly 16-fold spin-down enhancement disappear, leaving only the milder internal-twist branch.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

A twisted neutron star spins down faster even when the same poloidal flux crosses the surface: in the calculated setup the spin-down luminosity rises by up to about 4 times for internal twist and about 16 times for global twist.
Twisting the closed magnetospheric field lines pulls the inner edge of the equatorial current sheet toward the star and widens the polar cap, eventually producing a field close to a split monopole inside the light cylinder.
Magnetospheric twist saturates near $\pi/2$, so the closed-field region cannot wind up without limit; further twist pushes the configuration toward split-monopole structure.
If the external twist current dissipates or the charge supply drops, the system can switch from global to internal twist, producing transient behavior in spin-down and emission.
A globally twisted magnetosphere spreads the internal toroidal field through a much larger stellar volume, which increases the toroidal contribution to magnetic energy and can affect the star's ellipticity.

Reading between the lines

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

Editorial inference: because the global-twist branch requires a dense supply of magnetospheric charges to sustain $I_{\rm tw}$ on closed field lines, the model implies a natural observational split: high-multiplicity sources such as magnetars during active phases should show large spin-down enhancements and wide polar caps, while low-density magnetospheres should show only the milder internal-twis
Editorial inference: the same coupled solver could be run time-dependently; if twist saturates near $\pi/2$ and then dissipates, the predicted observable signature is a sudden spin-down jump coincident with a pulse-profile or mode change, linking the model to nulling and moding statistics.
Editorial inference: for slower rotators the light cylinder sits far outside the star, so the twisted closed-field region covers a smaller fraction of the magnetosphere; the factor-of-16 enhancement should shrink, and runs with larger $R_{\rm LC}/r_{\rm ns}$ would quantify how the spin-down boost depends on spin period.

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.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Quick take: this is a genuine new bit of numerical work — a self-consistent solution of the internal barotropic Grad-Shafranov equation and the external relativistic force-free pulsar equation, with the light cylinder at 10 stellar radii. The comparison of internal-only twist vs global twist (current in closed magnetospheric field lines) is the real deliverable. The equations are standard, the five-region matching is clear, and the authors include a resolution check (<0.5% change at 1600x1600). The qualitative result — global twist opens more flux and boosts spin-down more than internal twist — is plausible and likely robust.

The soft spots are real but not fatal. The stress-test concern about rho_0 is correct: the density term R^2 rho S' in Eq. (8) sets the absolute scale, and rho_0 is never stated. The tables normalize Psi to Timokhin's Psi_0=1.23, but without rho_0 a reader cannot reconstruct the physical field strength or check sensitivity of the spin-down ratios to this parameter. This is a major omission for a paper whose central claim is a factor-16 vs factor-4 spin-down enhancement. The authors should either state rho_0 or confirm the ratios are independent of it. I'd also flag that the current profile I = alpha (Psi - Psi_0) is imposed ad hoc and, as the authors acknowledge in Section 6, closed magnetospheric currents require plasma supply and are subject to dissipation — so the global-twist branch is an upper-bound scenario, not a prediction.

The paper is honest about its limitations, and the speculative Section 6 is clearly labeled as such. The reference list and the positioning against earlier non-relativistic coupled models (Glampedakis 2014, Akgun 2016/2018, Fujisawa) are accurate. No code or data are released, which compounds the reproducibility issue.

Who is this for: anyone working on pulsar/magnetar spin-down, twisted magnetospheres, or coupled interior-exterior field models. It deserves serious peer review, not desk reject, because the framework is new and the qualitative message is useful. My recommendation: send it to review, and have the referee demand rho_0 (or a parameter-free demonstration), code/data availability, and a tighter separation between the equilibrium results and the speculative observational applications.

Referee Report

2 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper presents a numerical framework that solves simultaneously for the axisymmetric magnetic field of a rotating neutron star in the interior, where the field obeys a barotropic Grad-Shafranov equilibrium with a prescribed density profile, and in the exterior, where the field satisfies the relativistic force-free pulsar equation. The domain is split into five regions and two current prescriptions are studied: an internal twist, with poloidal current confined to flux surfaces closing inside the star, and a global twist, with current flowing also on closed magnetospheric field lines. Solutions are obtained by relaxation for a twist parameter alpha up to 10, and the authors report that the global-twist branch increases the spin-down luminosity by a factor of about 16 relative to the untwisted case, versus about 4 for internal twist, while also enlarging the polar cap and moving the current sheet inner edge inward.

Significance. If the quantitative results are reproducible, this is a useful first coupled interior-magnetosphere equilibrium study that goes beyond previous work by enforcing a barotropic interior and a relativistic force-free exterior simultaneously. The paper includes a convergence check (less than 0.5% change at doubled resolution), a benchmark against earlier interior codes, and a systematic parameter scan in alpha. Its main physical conclusion, that twist currents in closed magnetospheric field lines produce a much larger spin-down enhancement than purely internal twist, is qualitatively plausible and potentially relevant for magnetar timing and intermittent pulsars. However, the central quantitative claim currently rests on an incompletely specified normalization and on an ad hoc current profile whose physical support is not modeled; these caveats must be addressed before the factor-16 result can be taken as robust.

major comments (2)

[Section 4, Eq. (10)] The value of rho0 is never specified, and Eq. (8) is not scale invariant because the term R^2 rho(r) S' is independent of the amplitude of Psi. This term therefore sets the absolute scale of the solution relative to the boundary conditions, so the reported normalization Psi_norm = Psi/(7.79e-7) and the value Psi0 = 1.23 for alpha=0 do not make the calculation reproducible. A reader cannot reconstruct the discretized equations or test whether the spin-down ratios in Tables 1 and 2 depend on rho0; if rho0 were changed by an order of magnitude, the balance between the density source and the magnetic Laplacian would shift and likely alter Psi0 and the spin-down luminosity. Please state the value of rho0 in the code units (and the units in which S'=1), or demonstrate that the normalized results are invariant under rescaling of rho0.
[Section 6, Eq. (22)] The factor-16 spin-down enhancement for the global-twist branch is controlled by the imposed current I = alpha(Psi - Psi0) on closed magnetospheric field lines, whose physical support (plasma supply, pair production, dissipation) is not modeled. The paper itself states in Section 6 that the capacity of the magnetosphere to support twist currents is unresolved and that such currents may untwist on year timescales. The abstract and conclusions should therefore present the global-twist branch as a conditional proof-of-principle scenario rather than as a generic consequence of twist; otherwise the headline quantitative claim overstates the robustness of the model. Please rephrase the conclusions to make this conditionality explicit and consider labeling the factor-16 value as an upper-envelope estimate for the assumed current profile.

minor comments (6)

[Table 2] In the alpha=2.5 row, the entry for Psi_norm_ssf is printed as 1.064, which appears to be a typo for 10.64 and should be corrected.
[Table 1 note] The note contains the phrase 'maximum value of of Psi' with a doubled word, and the corresponding note for Table 2 is missing a final period after 'Table 1'.
[Section 3] The sentence 'the first closed field line for the alpha=0 model corresponding to Psi=1.23 for direct comparison' is grammatically awkward; please revise it for clarity.
[References] Contopoulos et al. (2023) and Contopoulos et al. (2024) are both listed with the same journal volume and page (MNRAS Letters 527, L127); please verify the bibliographic data so the two citations can be distinguished.
[Section 5.2] The text introducing Eq. (26) says the integration is evaluated on the field line Psi = 1.1 Psi0, and only later notes that the quoted Delta-phi is half the full twist; please state this convention immediately before or after Eq. (26).
[Section 2.2] The sign convention in Eq. (15) has Delta*Psi = -I I' while Eq. (16) uses the same form for the magnetosphere but the interior equation has +I I'; a brief note that this reflects the different operator definitions would help avoid confusion.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

The global-twist spin-down result leans on a self-cited boundary-condition constraint, but the coupled interior–exterior solution itself is not reduced to its inputs.

self citation load bearing [Section 3, boundary conditions after Eq. (19)]
"When closed magnetic field lines are twisted above a minimum amount, physically acceptable solutions require R_T to be placed towards the star (Ntotsikas et al. 2024), which is accounted for in our models."

The paper adopts the inward placement of the equatorial current-sheet inner edge R_T from Ntotsikas et al. (2024), a paper with overlapping authorship (Ntotsikas and Gourgouliatos). This imported boundary condition is then made the direct cause of the headline quantitative result: Section 5.1 states that 'the rapid increase of the spin-down luminosity in the globally twisted model is related to the fact that the current sheet inner edge is closer to the stellar surface.' Thus the factor ~16 spin-down enhancement in Table 1 is not independently derived in the present work; it is inherited from a self-cited constraint. The internal-twist branch (factor ~4) does not rely on this constraint, so the central claim retains independent content.

full rationale

The paper's central product is a simultaneous numerical solution of the barotropic Grad-Shafranov equation inside the star and the relativistic pulsar equation outside. That solution is not circular: the spin-down ratio is obtained by solving Eq. (16) with the imposed current profiles (22)-(23), not by inserting the answer; the code is benchmarked against prior and external solutions; and the qualitative difference between global and internal twist is an output of the equilibrium. The one load-bearing self-citation is the placement of the current-sheet inner edge R_T: the paper imports the rule that twisted closed field lines require R_T to move inward from Ntotsikas et al. (2024) and then attributes the factor ~16 enhancement in the global-twist model precisely to this inward R_T. That makes the headline global-twist factor contingent on prior self-cited work rather than derived in this paper. The internal-twist branch is independent of that step. The missing value of rho_0 in Eq. (10) is a reproducibility defect, not a circularity: no equation in the paper defines the spin-down enhancement in terms of rho_0. For these reasons the circularity score is moderate, not severe.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 7 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central result rests on standard Grad-Shafranov machinery plus several deliberate model choices: a prescribed linear current profile with free amplitude alpha, a linear barotropic source term, a fixed stellar radius relative to the light cylinder, and a smoothed current sheet. No new physical entities, particles, forces, or dimensions are introduced.

free parameters (5)

alpha (twist current coefficient) = None; scanned from 0 to 10
Sets the amplitude of the poloidal twist current in the twisted regions via I = alpha (Psi - Psi_0) or I = alpha (Psi - Psi_ssf). All reported spin-down and polar cap trends are functions of this parameter.
S' (slope of the barotropic function S(Psi)) = 1
The paper assumes a linear S(Psi) and sets S' = 1. This fixes the barotropic source term R^2 rho S' in the interior equilibrium and is not derived from microphysics.
r_ns / R_LC = 0.1
The stellar radius is fixed at 10% of the light-cylinder radius, corresponding to Omega = 3000 rad/s. Quantitative results such as the factor-16 spin-down enhancement may differ for slower rotators.
rho_0 (central density) = Not stated in the text
Eq. (10) defines rho(r) with rho_0 as the central density, but its numerical value or normalization is never given. Since S' is set to 1, this is needed to fully specify Eq. (8).
Current sheet smoothing width = 1e-3 Psi_0, centered at 0.99 Psi_0
The singular return-current sheet is approximated by a Gaussian of fixed width and center. This numerical regularization is not varied or tested for sensitivity.

assumptions (7)

standard math Axisymmetric magnetic field represented as B = grad Psi x grad phi + I grad phi.
Standard decomposition used throughout the paper; preserves div B = 0 by construction.
domain assumption The magnetosphere is force-free, ideal MHD, and corotating with the star.
Assumed in Section 2.2; neglects gravity, inertia, pressure gradients, and plasma supply in the magnetosphere.
domain assumption Barotropic equation of state with an n = 1 polytropic density profile.
Assumed in Section 2.1 and used to set P = P(rho) and the density shape in Eq. (10).
domain assumption Aligned rotator: the rotation axis coincides with the magnetic axis.
Adopted in Section 2.2 with E = -(Omega R / c) phi x B; oblique rotators are excluded from the model.
ad hoc to paper S(Psi) is linear with S' = 1.
Chosen in Section 2.1 for simplicity and to allow dipole solutions at I = 0; this restricts the possible barotropic equilibria.
ad hoc to paper Twist current profiles are linear in Psi, as in Eqs. (22) and (23).
Assumed so that the toroidal field vanishes at the boundary of the twisted region; alpha is a free parameter with no microphysical origin.
ad hoc to paper Split-monopole boundary conditions are applied at the finite grid edge.
Applied in Section 3; the authors justify this by comparing with a double-size domain, but it is an approximation to infinity.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Interlinking internal and external magnetic fields of relativistically rotating neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/TW5DUSCP

@misc{pith2026250604198,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Interlinking internal and external magnetic fields of relativistically rotating neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/TW5DUSCP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.04198}
}

read the original abstract

This work presents a global solution for the internal and the external field of an axisymmetric rotating neutron star. It is shown that the twist of the internal field affects the external field, by increasing the number of open field lines and eventually the spin-down rate of the star. This effect is far more drastic if the toroidal field, and consequently the poloidal current flowing within the star, is allowed to populate the closed field lines of the magnetosphere, rather than if it remains confined in the star. We further remark that the internal field structure depends on the presence of a twisted magnetosphere: if the twist current is not allowed to flow in the magnetosphere it only occupied a narrow toroid at the interior of the star, whereas if the twist currents are allowed to flow in the magnetosphere the internal toroidal field may occupy a significant volume of the stellar interior. Strong magnetospheric currents may also impact the emission mechanisms, and lead to fluctuations in magnetar spin-down rates, moding and nulling of pulsars, a correlation between angular shear and twist, and the general morphology of the pulsar magnetic field leading to various observational manifestations. The magnetospheric toroidal fields may possibly dissipate, thus the system may switch from global twist to internal twist and consequently exhibit transient behavior.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.04198 by the authors.

**Figure 1.** The various regions of the domain, labeled from (I) to (V). The field lines are depicted in black, the last open field line of the magnetosphere in red, the stellar surface in green and the light cylinder in dashed blue. The top right inlet provides a zoom on the star. 3. Solution strategy We study two main families of models. One, in which the toroidal twist field is allowed to exist only within the star. We will … view at source ↗

**Figure 2.** The magnetic field of a relativistically rotating neutron star and its magnetosphere for the global twist model. The field lines are shown in black, the stellar surface in green, the light cylinder is depicted with the dashed blue line at R = 1, along with the current sheet. The red line represents the first closed field line of the untwisted case (panel a) and is shown in subsequent panels for comparison. A poloida… view at source ↗

**Figure 3.** The magnetic field of the internal twist model. Panels a and b correspond to α = 5.0, 10.0 respectively. The various field lines, color bars are shown as in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_3.png] view at source ↗

Figures from the paper (3 more)

**Figure 4.** Figure 4: Magnetic flux function of the first closed magnetic field line as a function of α. 5. Discussion Next we are going to address the consequences of increasing the twist to the main physical properties of neutron stars. We will focus on the spin-down luminosity, the overa…

**Figure 5.** Figure 5: The spin-down luminosity of the various solutions scaled to the spin-down power of the untwisted solution, as function of α. 5.1. Spin-down Luminosity The general trend is that an increase in the twist current leads to a larger fraction of open field lines. For small v…

**Figure 7.** Figure 7: The polar cap’s semi-opening angle as a function of α. θpc = arctan RΨ0 zΨ0 , (27) We plot the semi-opening angle of the polar cap in [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_7.png]

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

74 extracted references · 58 canonical work pages

[1]

A., & Pons, J

Akgün, T., Cerdá-Durán, P., Miralles, J. A., & Pons, J. A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5331 Akgün, T., Cerdá-Durán, P., Miralles, J. A., & Pons, J. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 625 Akgün, T., Miralles, J. A., Pons, J. A., & Cerdá-Durán, P. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1894

work page 2018
[2]

F., Kaspi, V

Archibald, R. F., Kaspi, V . M., Ng, C. Y ., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 33

work page 2015
[3]

F., Scholz, P., Kaspi, V

Archibald, R. F., Scholz, P., Kaspi, V . M., Tendulkar, S. P., & Beardmore, A. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 160

2020
[4]

Armaza, C., Reisenegger, A., & Valdivia, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 802, 121

work page 2015
[5]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1044

2009
[6]

Beloborodov, A. M. & Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 967

work page 2007
[7]

& Nordlund, Å

Braithwaite, J. & Nordlund, Å. 2006, A&A, 450, 1077

work page 2006
[8]

M., & Levin, Y

Bransgrove, A., Beloborodov, A. M., & Levin, Y . 2023, ApJ, 958, L9

work page 2023

Show all 74 references

[9]

M., et al

Camilo, F., Cognard, I., Ransom, S. M., et al. 2007, ApJ, 663, 497

2007
[10]

P., & Ransom, S

Camilo, F., Reynolds, J., Johnston, S., Halpern, J. P., & Ransom, S. M. 2008, ApJ, 679, 681 Çıkınto˘glu, S., ¸ Sa¸ smaz Mu¸ s, S., & Ek¸ si, K. Y . 2020, MNRAS, 496, 2183

2008
[11]

& Giacinti, G

Cerutti, B. & Giacinti, G. 2021, A&A, 656, A91

2021
[12]

Chen, A. Y . & Beloborodov, A. M. 2014, ApJ, 795, L22

2014
[13]

& Rezzolla, L

Ciolfi, R. & Rezzolla, L. 2013, MNRAS, 435, L43

2013
[14]

M., & Bhattacharjee, A

Comisso, L., Lingam, M., Huang, Y . M., & Bhattacharjee, A. 2017, ApJ, 850, 142

2017
[15]

1999, ApJ, 511, 351

Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Fendt, C. 1999, ApJ, 511, 351

1999
[16]

2024, MNRAS: Letters, 527, L127

Contopoulos, I., Ntotsikas, D., & Gourgouliatos, K. 2024, MNRAS: Letters, 527, L127

2024
[17]

Contopoulos, I., Ntotsikas, D., & Gourgouliatos, K. N. 2023, MNRAS: Letters, 527, L127 Coti Zelati, F., Rea, N., Pons, J. A., Campana, S., & Esposito, P. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 961 Dall’Osso, S. & Stella, L. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 465, Astrophysics a...

2023
[18]

2024, MN- RAS, 528, 3141

Dimitropoulos, I., Contopoulos, I., Mpisketzis, V ., & Chaniadakis, E. 2024, MN- RAS, 528, 3141

2024
[19]

M., Rajwade, K

Fisher, R., Butterworth, E. M., Rajwade, K. M., et al. 2024, MNRAS, 528, 3833

2024
[20]

& Kisaka, S

Fujisawa, K. & Kisaka, S. 2014, MNRAS, 445, 2777

2014
[21]

2014, MNRAS, 437, 2

Glampedakis, K., Lander, S., & Andersson, N. 2014, MNRAS, 437, 2

2014
[22]

& Lasky, P

Glampedakis, K. & Lasky, P. D. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 2542

2016
[23]

P., Mestel, J., Mestel, L., & Wright, G

Goodwin, S. P., Mestel, J., Mestel, L., & Wright, G. A. 2004, MNRAS, 349, 213

2004
[24]

& Lynden-Bell, D

Gourgouliatos, K. & Lynden-Bell, D. 2008, MNRAS, 391, 268

2008
[25]

N., Cumming, A., Reisenegger, A., et al

Gourgouliatos, K. N., Cumming, A., Reisenegger, A., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 434, 2480

2013
[26]

Gourgouliatos, K. N. & Esposito, P. 2018, in Astrophysics and Space Science

2018
[27]

Gourgouliatos, K. N. & Hollerbach, R. 2016, MNRAS, 463, 3381

2016
[28]

Gourgouliatos, K. N. & Lynden-Bell, D. 2019, MNRAS, 482, 1942

2019
[29]

Gourgouliatos, K. N. & Pons, J. A. 2019, Physical Review Research, 1, 032049

2019
[30]

2005, Physical Review Letters, 94, 021101

Gruzinov, A. 2005, Physical Review Letters, 94, 021101

2005
[31]

2008, MNRAS, 385, 531

Haskell, B., Samuelsson, L., Glampedakis, K., & Andersson, N. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 531

2008
[32]

Hu, C. P. & Ng, C. Y . 2019, Astronomische Nachrichten, 340, 340

2019
[33]

E., Smith, D

Hurley, K., Boggs, S. E., Smith, D. M., et al. 2005, Nature, 434, 1098

2005
[34]

1999, Nature, 397, 41

Hurley, K., Cline, T., Mazets, E., et al. 1999, Nature, 397, 41

1999
[35]

K., & Kazanas, D

Kalapotharakos, C., Brambilla, G., Timokhin, A., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2018, ApJ, 857, 44

2018
[36]

& Contopoulos, I

Kalapotharakos, C. & Contopoulos, I. 2009, A&A, 496, 495

2009
[37]

N., & Contopoulos, I

Karageorgopoulos, V ., Gourgouliatos, K. N., & Contopoulos, I. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 3333

2019
[38]

W., & van Straten, W

Karuppusamy, R., Stappers, B. W., & van Straten, W. 2010, A&A, 515, A36

2010
[39]

Lander, S. K. & Jones, D. I. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 2162

2009
[40]

Lattimer, J. M. & Prakash, M. 2001, ApJ, 550, 426

2001
[41]

G., Desvignes, G., et al

Levin, L., Lyne, A. G., Desvignes, G., et al. 2019, MNRAS, 488, 5251

2019
[42]

E., Karastergiou, A., Johnston, S., et al

Lower, M. E., Karastergiou, A., Johnston, S., et al. 2025, MNRAS, 538, 3104

2025
[43]

E., Younes, G., Scholz, P., et al

Lower, M. E., Younes, G., Scholz, P., et al. 2023, ApJ, 945, 153

2023
[44]

& Boily, C

Lynden-Bell, D. & Boily, C. 1994, MNRAS, 267, 146

1994
[45]

2010, Science, 329, 408

Lyne, A., Hobbs, G., Kramer, M., Stairs, I., & Stappers, B. 2010, Science, 329, 408

2010
[46]

2006, MNRAS, 367, 1594

Lyutikov, M. 2006, MNRAS, 367, 1594

2006
[47]

P., Golentskii, S

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

1979
[48]

2024, MNRAS, 527, 6691

Ntotsikas, D., Gourgouliatos, K., Contopoulos, I., & Lander, S. 2024, MNRAS, 527, 6691

2024
[49]

M., & Hui, L

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

2012
[50]

M., & Hui, L

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

2013
[51]

2009, MNRAS, 395, 753

Pavan, L., Turolla, R., Zane, S., & Nobili, L. 2009, MNRAS, 395, 753

2009
[52]

2020, Phys

Philippov, A., Timokhin, A., & Spitkovsky, A. 2020, Phys. Rev. Lett., 124, 245101

2020
[53]

Philippov, A. A. & Spitkovsky, A. 2014, ApJ, 785, L33

2014
[54]

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

Philippov, A. A., Spitkovsky, A., & Cerutti, B. 2015, ApJS, 801, L19

2015
[55]

G., Bucciantini, N., & Del Zanna, L

Pili, A. G., Bucciantini, N., & Del Zanna, L. 2015, MNRAS, 447, 2821

2015
[56]

2016, MNRAS, 458, 2088

Pintore, F., Bernardini, F., Mereghetti, S., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 458, 2088

2016
[57]

A., Link, B., Miralles, J

Pons, J. A., Link, B., Miralles, J. A., & Geppert, U. 2007, Phys. Rev. Lett., 98, 071101

2007
[58]

A., Viganò, D., & Geppert, U

Pons, J. A., Viganò, D., & Geppert, U. 2012, A&A, 547, A9

2012
[59]

M., Wright, G

Rankin, J. M., Wright, G. A. E., & Brown, A. M. 2013, MNRAS, 433, 445

2013
[60]

2009, A&A, 499, 557

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

2009
[61]

Scharlemann, E. T. & Wagoner, R. V . 1973, ApJ, 182, 951

1973
[62]

2017, ApJ, 841, 126

Scholz, P., Camilo, F., Sarkissian, J., et al. 2017, ApJ, 841, 126

2017
[63]

A., Popov, M

Soglasnov, V . A., Popov, M. V ., Bartel, N., et al. 2004, ApJ, 616, 439

2004
[64]

2006, ApJ, 648, L51

Spitkovsky, A. 2006, ApJ, 648, L51

2006
[65]

A., & Cerdá-Durán, P

Stefanou, P., Pons, J. A., & Cerdá-Durán, P. 2022, MNRAS, 518, 6390

2022
[66]

Suvorov, A. G. & Glampedakis, K. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 108, 084006

2023
[67]

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

2002
[68]

Timokhin, A. N. 2006, MNRAS, 368, 1055

2006
[69]

2019, MNRAS, 489, 3769

Tong, H. 2019, MNRAS, 489, 3769

2019
[70]

& Gourgouliatos, K

Tsang, D. & Gourgouliatos, K. N. 2013, ApJ, 773, L17

2013
[71]

O., Link, B., & Weisberg, J

Urama, J. O., Link, B., & Weisberg, J. M. 2006, MNRAS, 370, L76 Ury¯u, K., Gourgoulhon, E., Markakis, C. M., et al. 2014, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 101501

2006
[72]

Uzdensky, D. A. 2003, ApJ, 598, 446 Viganò, D., Pons, J. A., & Miralles, J. A. 2011, A&A, 533, A125

2003
[73]

M., Kouveliotou, C., Göˇgü¸ s, E., et al

Woods, P. M., Kouveliotou, C., Göˇgü¸ s, E., et al. 2002, ApJ, 576, 381

2002
[74]

K., Baring, M

Younes, G., Lander, S. K., Baring, M. G., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2502.20079 Article number, page 11 of 11

2025 arXiv

Pith tools

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

[1] [1]

A., & Pons, J

Akgün, T., Cerdá-Durán, P., Miralles, J. A., & Pons, J. A. 2018, MNRAS, 481, 5331 Akgün, T., Cerdá-Durán, P., Miralles, J. A., & Pons, J. A. 2018, MNRAS, 474, 625 Akgün, T., Miralles, J. A., Pons, J. A., & Cerdá-Durán, P. 2016, MNRAS, 462, 1894

work page 2018

[2] [2]

F., Kaspi, V

Archibald, R. F., Kaspi, V . M., Ng, C. Y ., et al. 2015, ApJ, 800, 33

work page 2015

[3] [3]

F., Scholz, P., Kaspi, V

Archibald, R. F., Scholz, P., Kaspi, V . M., Tendulkar, S. P., & Beardmore, A. P. 2020, ApJ, 889, 160

2020

[4] [4]

Armaza, C., Reisenegger, A., & Valdivia, J. A. 2015, ApJ, 802, 121

work page 2015

[5] [5]

Beloborodov, A. M. 2009, ApJ, 703, 1044

2009

[6] [6]

Beloborodov, A. M. & Thompson, C. 2007, ApJ, 657, 967

work page 2007

[7] [7]

& Nordlund, Å

Braithwaite, J. & Nordlund, Å. 2006, A&A, 450, 1077

work page 2006

[8] [8]

M., & Levin, Y

Bransgrove, A., Beloborodov, A. M., & Levin, Y . 2023, ApJ, 958, L9

work page 2023