Pith. sign in

REVIEW 1 major objections 3 minor 75 references

Gapless superfluidity in neutron stars: Normal-fluid fraction

T0 review · 1 major / 3 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Inside cold neutron stars, a superfluid pushed past Landau's velocity can develop a normal-fluid component that carries mass even at zero temperature, so two-fluid models must include a zero-temperature normal part in the gapless regime.

desk verdict The math in Eq. (38) is real and clean; the physical conclusion hangs on an untested stability assumption that the paper does not address. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.10649 v1 pith:WRVRBBA4 submitted 2025-06-12 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Valentin Allard , Nicolas Chamel This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE
keywords gaplesssuperfluidityneutronstarsnormal-fluidfractiontwo-fluidmodelsuperfluidvelocityLandaucriticalnuclearenergy-densityfunctionalpulsarglitches
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

Superfluid helium acquires a normal component only by heating; a cold neutron star's superfluid was thought to be entirely superfluid at zero temperature. This paper argues that in the gapless superfluid phase, which sets in when the local superfluid velocity lies between Landau's velocity and a higher critical velocity, quasiparticle excitations appear even at $T=0$. Those excitations carry mass and momentum but no entropy, so the normal-fluid mass density of the star is nonzero at absolute zero. The authors derive an exact formula for the normal-fluid fraction of an arbitrary neutron-proton superfluid mixture and give a universal weak-coupling expression. If realized in nature, the result means the hydrodynamics of cold neutron stars has an extra mass-carrying component that current models omit.

What carries the argument

The engine of the argument is the function $Y_q(T, \mathbf{V}_q)$, defined as the ratio of the momentum carried by quasiparticle excitations of species $q$ to the total momentum of that species; when effective masses equal bare masses, $Y_q$ is exactly the normal-fluid fraction. In the gapless phase the paper reduces $Y_q$ at $T=0$ to a closed algebraic expression, Eq. (38), involving the reduced chemical potential $\bar\mu_q$, the reduced pairing field $\bar\Delta_q$, and the reduced effective superfluid velocity $\bar V_q$. The interval boundaries are Landau's velocity $V_{Lq}$, where the quasiparticle energy gap closes while the order parameter is unchanged, and the critical velocity $V^{(0)}_{cq}$, where $\Delta_q$ vanishes and superfluidity disappears. Through the entrainment matrix of the time-dependent Hartree-Fock-Bogoliubov theory, $Y_q$ feeds the normal-fluid densities $\rho_N^{(n)}$ and $\rho_N^{(p)}$; the weak-coupling form matches the function Vollhardt and Maki derived for superfluid $^3$He, which makes the neutron-star result a direct corollary of a known superfluid universality.

What would settle it

Compute the zero-temperature phase stability of a homogeneous superflow in the interval between Landau's and critical velocities: if a spatially modulated state has lower free energy, the predicted normal fraction does not exist as a homogeneous phase. Observationally, a firm upper bound on vortex unpinning lags below Landau's velocity would show that neutron-star vortices never enter the gapless regime.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that within the gapless superfluid phase, defined by effective superfluid velocities $V_{Lq} < V_q < V^{(0)}_{cq}$ for species $q$, the normal-fluid mass density is nonzero even at zero temperature. For each nucleon species the normal-fluid fraction is controlled by the function $Y_q$, and the paper obtains the exact zero-temperature result $$Y_q = \left( \bar\mu_q + \bar $V_q^{2}$ - \frac{1}{4} \frac{\bar\$Delta_q^{2}$}{\bar $V_q^{2}$} \right)^{3/2}$$ in the gapless interval, with $Y_q$ rising from 0 at Landau's velocity to 1 at the critical velocity. In the weak-coupling limit this becomes a universal function of $V_q/V_{Lq}$, independent of composition, density, and the chosen nuclear energy-density functional. The authors show that the true velocity at which nucleons are transported differs from the superfluid velocity in this phase, and that in neutron-star matter the neutron normal-fluid fraction can be substantial while the proton one is negative, because normal-fluid densities are current-current response coefficients rather than literal particle densities. The paper concludes that the neutron superfluid reservoir in the outer core may be significantly reduced in the gapless phase, complicating the standard picture of pulsar glitches.

Load-bearing premise

For the zero-temperature normal component to appear in a real star, the local neutron superfluid velocity must actually be pushed past Landau's velocity before vortices unpin, and the gapless state must remain stable against decay into other phases.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Two-fluid hydrodynamic models of neutron-star cores must include a zero-temperature normal component whenever the local neutron superfluid velocity lies in the gapless interval.
  • The available superfluid neutron reservoir in the outer core is reduced relative to the standard picture, so the angular-momentum budget for pulsar glitches shrinks in the gapless phase.
  • Because $Y_q$ is universal in the weak-coupling limit, predictions for the normal-fluid fraction do not depend on the uncertain details of the nuclear functional, only on the ratio $V_q/V_{Lq}$.
  • In the gapless phase the velocity with which nucleons are actually transported is not the superfluid velocity, so simulations that identify the two will miscompute mass currents.
  • Protons co-moving with the normal fluid stay below Landau's velocity, so in the standard two-fluid star the gapless normal component is carried by neutrons.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the zero-temperature normal component exists, its mass-carrying but entropy-free character may produce a distinctive inertia for torsional oscillations and gravitational-wave modes that differs from either a fully superfluid or fully normal core; future asteroseismic modeling could look for that signature.
  • A direct stability calculation of the homogeneous zero-temperature gapless superflow against spatial modulation would settle a premise the present paper inherits: if a LOFF-like state has lower energy anywhere in the gapless interval, the predicted homogeneous normal fraction never appears.
  • The same $Y_q$ machinery could be transferred to ultracold Fermi gases with moving superflows, where the velocity interval between Landau's velocity and the critical velocity is experimentally accessible and the predicted normal fraction at $T\sim 0$ could be measured directly.
  • The negative proton normal-fluid density underscores that 'normal-fluid fraction' is a response coefficient, not a literal particle count, so observational tests should target total mass currents rather than local particle densities.
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

1 major / 3 minor

Summary. The paper studies hydrodynamic properties of homogeneous neutron-proton superfluid mixtures in the gapless superflow regime, building on earlier work within time-dependent nuclear energy-density functional theory. The main formal result is a closed-form expression, Eq. (38), for the quantity Y_q that controls the normal-fluid densities and the entrainment matrix at zero temperature when the effective superfluid velocity lies between Landau's velocity and the critical velocity. The authors also derive a weak-coupling universal formula, solve the self-consistent gap and density equations in the gapless phase, and apply the formalism to npeμ matter in neutron-star cores using the BSk24 functional. They conclude that a zero-temperature normal-fluid component can appear in the gapless phase and discuss whether such a phase could be realized in neutron stars.

Significance. If the homogeneous gapless superflow is a genuine equilibrium state, the paper provides a valuable analytic input for two-fluid hydrodynamics of neutron-star matter. The derivation is self-contained and reduces to known weak-coupling limits (Leggett, Vollhardt-Maki), which is a strength. The numerical application self-consistently solves the gap and density equations rather than fitting the normal-fluid fractions, and the predicted weak-coupling universality of Y_q is a clear, falsifiable statement. However, the central physical interpretation depends on the stability of the gapless state, which the manuscript does not establish. The result may describe a stationary but unstable configuration, in which case the astrophysical implications would need substantial revision. The paper is therefore significant in its formal content but currently conditional in its physical claim.

major comments (1)
  1. [Sec. II.A, Eq. (35), and Sec. IV] The central claim that a normal-fluid component exists at T=0 in the gapless phase presupposes that the homogeneous stationary solution with negative-energy quasiparticle states is the equilibrium state. The paper does not test this premise: it does not compute the T=0 free energy of the gapless solution, does not examine the Hessian or the Bogoliubov-de Gennes spectrum including phase fluctuations, and does not compare with phase-separated or LOFF/FF modulated states. The occupation of the negative-energy pocket x- < x < x+ is precisely the mechanism producing Y_q > 0 in Eq. (38), so an instability of the homogeneous state would invalidate the interpretation of Eq. (38) as the equilibrium normal-fluid fraction. This is load-bearing for the neutron-star implications in Sections III and IV; the pinning uncertainties discussed in Section IV are secondary to this question. Please add an explicit stability analysis, or at the very least state clearly that the results apply only to metastable configurations and explain what observable consequences would survive in that case.
minor comments (3)
  1. [Eq. (42)] As printed, the asymptotic expression for the case E_x > 2 V̄_q sqrt(x) appears dimensionally inconsistent and inconsistent with the subsequent derivation: the logarithm should behave as 2 V̄_q sqrt(x)/T̄_q, not as 2 V̄_q E_x/T̄_q. The derivation of Eqs. (43) and (44) is consistent with the former form, so this is likely a typesetting error, but it should be corrected.
  2. [Sec. III.A, Eqs. (59)-(63)] The symbol Y_p is overloaded: in Section II, Y_p denotes the response function defined in Eq. (25), while at the beginning of Section III.A it is redefined as the proton fraction ρ_p/ρ. This makes Eqs. (59)-(63) hard to read, since the same letter appears with two different meanings in the same formulas. Please use a distinct symbol such as x_p for the proton fraction.
  3. [Sec. II.F] The statement that no approximation has been made so far is strong but accurate only within the TDHFB model and in the thermodynamic limit. The continuum limit and the T→0 limit are mathematical limits, but the sentence could be made less ambiguous by specifying that the result is exact within the chosen theoretical framework.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: Eq. (38) is a self-contained analytic evaluation of the model's own response function, and the self-citations supply framework and benchmarks rather than forcing the result.

full rationale

The central result, Eq. (38), is obtained by taking the T=0 limit of the function Yq defined in Eq. (25) and integrating analytically via Eqs. (32), (35), and (37). This is a direct calculation from the model's quasiparticle spectrum and self-consistency equations; no fitted parameter is renamed as a prediction and no external quantity is defined in terms of the result. The identification of Yq with the normal-fluid fraction in the equal-effective-mass limit follows from the entrainment relations (11)-(13) and (18)-(23), so it is a derived correspondence rather than a definitional substitution. The weak-coupling expression (52) is compared with the known results of Vollhardt-Maki and Parmenter, providing independent benchmarks. Equation (55) is a fitted formula from the authors' prior work, but it is used only for approximate comparisons in Sec. III.B after exact numerical solutions of Eqs. (43) and (44) are already presented, and the paper explicitly labels these as approximate estimates. The self-citations to Refs. [18-20,24] provide the previously derived mass-current and entrainment framework, the self-consistent gap equations, and the existence of the gapless phase; these are prior published derivations, not unverified assertions invoked as a substitute for argument, and no uniqueness theorem is imported to force the authors' choice. The stability and realizability caveats raised in Section IV (e.g., uncertainty in pinning forces and the possibility of competing phases) are physical-correctness concerns, not evidence of circular reasoning. The derivation chain is therefore self-contained with respect to the claim made in this paper.

Assumptions & free parameters 3 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new particles or fields are introduced. The paper's central result re-expresses the authors' earlier TDHFB/entrainment formalism in closed form; the only new numerical input is the BSk24 functional. The main unsupported assumptions are the realizability and stability of the gapless phase and the pinning physics that would let neutron-star superflows reach it.

free parameters (3)
  • BSk24 functional parameters (Skyrme coupling coefficients C0^tau, C1^tau, effective masses, pairing interaction) = not quoted
    Numerical outer-core results in Sec. III are evaluated with the Brussels-Montreal functional BSk24 [37], whose parameters were precision-fitted to nuclear data. The analytic Eq. (38) itself does not depend on these values.
  • Energy cutoff epsilon_Lambda for gap-equation regularization = unspecified
    Eqs. (48)-(50) regularize the pairing problem with a cutoff; no value or cutoff-independence test is reported, so numerical Delta and mu could depend on this choice.
  • Proton fraction in beta-equilibrium npe-mu matter = Yp <= 10% in the superfluid region
    Entering the small-Yp expansions (59)-(61); the composition is taken from the BSk24 equation of state, not computed here.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Gapless superfluid phase with E_k < 0 for some k is a valid stationary state at T=0.
    Inherited from Ref. [24] and used throughout Sec. II; stability against competing phases is not analyzed.
  • domain assumption The entrainment matrix expressions (18)-(23) from Refs. [18-20] remain exact in the gapless regime.
    The normal-fluid densities (11)-(13) are defined through these expressions; their validity at E<0 is not rederived.
  • standard math The continuum limit (29)-(30) and the self-consistent gap/density equations (39)-(40) apply for all velocities.
    Standard HFB in infinite matter; used to derive Eqs. (43)-(44).
  • domain assumption The BSk24 functional and its equation of state provide a realistic description of the outer core.
    Sec. III numerical results use BSk24 [37] and the unified EOS [38]; different pairing treatments change VL and Vc.
  • domain assumption In the canonical neutron-star model, protons and leptons co-move with the normal fluid, giving Vp=0 in the normal rest frame.
    Used to simplify normal-fluid fractions in Sec. III.A and in all numerical figures.
  • domain assumption Weak-coupling limits mu-bar approx 1 and V-bar much less than 1 for Eq. (52) and the fitted universal formula (55).
    Used for the approximate universal curves and comparisons; exact results instead solve Eqs. (43)-(44).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Gapless superfluidity in neutron stars: Normal-fluid fraction." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/WRVRBBA4

@misc{pith2026250610649,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Gapless superfluidity in neutron stars: Normal-fluid fraction},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/WRVRBBA4}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.10649}
}
abstract

Our previous investigation within the time-dependent nuclear energy-density functional theory showed that the nuclear superfluids contained inside cold neutron stars could become gapless under certain circumstances. The absence of a gap in the energy spectrum of quasiparticle excitations leads to a specific heat that is comparable to that in the normal phase in sharp contrast with the exponential suppression in the BCS phase of type $^1S_0$ pairing. Here, we further study gapless superfluidity within the same microscopic framework focusing on hydrodynamic properties. In particular, we calculate the mass fraction transported by the normal fluid of quasiparticle excitations, and we find that it can be finite even at zero temperature. We derive an approximate analytical formula for arbitrary neutron-proton superfluid mixtures. We also present numerical results for neutron stars. Our study suggests that the dynamics of neutron stars may be much more complicated than previously thought. The realization of gapless superfluidity in neutron stars and its implications are discussed.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.10649 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Function [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. True nucleon velocity [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p015_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3. Landau’s and critical effective superfluid velocities for neutrons and protons (in units of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (5 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4. Normal-fluid fraction associated with neutron quasiparticles as a function of the neutron [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p019_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5. Same as Fig. 4 but for protons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6. Same as Fig. 4 but for the total normal-fluid fraction. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p020_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: FIG. 7. Deviations between the normal-fluid fraction for neutrons plotted in Fig. 4 and the ap [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p021_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: FIG. 8. Same as Fig. 7 for protons [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p022_8.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

75 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    J. F. Allen and H. Jones, Nature (London) 141, 243 (1938)

    work page 1938

  2. [2]

    Tisza, Nature (London) 141, 913 (1938)

    L. Tisza, Nature (London) 141, 913 (1938)

    work page 1938

  3. [3]

    London, Nature (London) 141, 643 (1938)

    F. London, Nature (London) 141, 643 (1938)

    work page 1938

  4. [4]

    London, Physical Review 54, 947 (1938)

    F. London, Physical Review 54, 947 (1938)

    work page 1938

  5. [5]

    Landau, Physical Review 60, 356 (1941)

    L. Landau, Physical Review 60, 356 (1941). 25

    work page 1941

  6. [6]

    I. M. Khalatnikov, An introduction to the theory of superfluidity , vol. 23 (Perseus Books, 1989)

    work page 1989

  7. [7]

    Bardeen, L

    J. Bardeen, L. N. Cooper, and J. R. Schrieffer, Phys. Rev. 108, 1175 (1957)

    1957

  8. [8]

    A. B. Migdal, Nucl. Phys. 13, 655 (1959)

    1959

Show all 75 references
  1. [9]

    V. L. Ginzburg and D. A. Kirzhnits, Sov. Phys. JETP 20, 1346 (1965)

    1965

  2. [10]

    G. Baym, C. Pethick, and D. Pines, Nature (London) 224, 673 (1969)

    1969

  3. [11]

    Andersson, Universe 7, 17 (2021)

    N. Andersson, Universe 7, 17 (2021)

    2021

  4. [12]

    Antonopoulou, B

    D. Antonopoulou, B. Haskell, and C. M. Espinoza, Rep. Prog. Phys. 85, 126901 (2022)

    2022

  5. [13]

    S. Zhou, E. G¨ ugercino˘ glu, J. Yuan, M. Ge, and C. Yu, Universe8, 641 (2022), URL https: //www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/12/641

    2022

  6. [14]

    Andersson, Universe 7, 97 (2021), URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/7/4/97

    N. Andersson, Universe 7, 97 (2021), URL https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/7/4/97

    2021

  7. [15]

    J. A. Sauls, Superfluidity in the Interiors of Neutron Stars (Springer Netherlands, Dordrecht, 1989), pp. 457–490, NATO Advanced Science Institutes (ASI) Series C, ISBN 978-94-009- 2273-0

    1989

  8. [16]

    A. F. Andreev and E. P. Bashkin, Sov. Phys. JETP 42, 164 (1975)

    1975

  9. [17]

    M. A. Alpar, S. A. Langer, and J. A. Sauls, Astrophys. J. 282, 533 (1984)

    1984

  10. [18]

    Chamel and V

    N. Chamel and V. Allard, Phys. Rev. C 100, 065801 (2019)

    2019

  11. [19]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025804 (2021)

    2021

  12. [20]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Universe 7, 470 (2021), ISSN 2218-1997, URL https://www.mdpi. com/2218-1997/7/12/470

    2021

  13. [21]

    Schunck, ed., Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei , 2053-2563 (IOP Pub- lishing, Bristol, UK, 2019), ISBN 978-0-7503-1422-0

    N. Schunck, ed., Energy Density Functional Methods for Atomic Nuclei , 2053-2563 (IOP Pub- lishing, Bristol, UK, 2019), ISBN 978-0-7503-1422-0

    2019

  14. [22]

    L. B. Leinson, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 479, 3778 (2018)

    2018

  15. [23]

    Sourie, M

    A. Sourie, M. Oertel, and J. Novak, Phys. Rev. D 93, 083004 (2016)

    2016

  16. [24]

    Allard and N

    V. Allard and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 108, 015801 (2023)

    2023

  17. [25]

    Sedrakian and J

    A. Sedrakian and J. W. Clark, Eur. Phys. J. A 55, 167 (2019)

    2019

  18. [26]

    Yasui, D

    S. Yasui, D. Inotani, and M. Nitta, Phys. Rev. C 101, 055806 (2020)

    2020

  19. [27]

    Krotscheck, P

    E. Krotscheck, P. Papakonstantinou, and J. Wang, Astrophys. J. 955, 76 (2023)

    2023

  20. [28]

    Krotscheck, P

    E. Krotscheck, P. Papakonstantinou, and J. Wang, Phys. Rev. C 109, 015803 (2024)

    2024

  21. [29]

    Bender, P.-H

    M. Bender, P.-H. Heenen, and P.-G. Reinhard, Reviews of Modern Physics 75, 121 (2003)

    2003

  22. [30]

    Chamel, S

    N. Chamel, S. Goriely, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 80, 065804 (2009). 26

    2009

  23. [31]

    Bulgac and Y

    A. Bulgac and Y. Yu, Phys. Rev. Lett. 88, 042504 (2002)

    2002

  24. [32]

    Blaizot and G

    J. Blaizot and G. Ribka, Quantum Theory of Finite Systems (MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1986)

    1986

  25. [33]

    M. E. Gusakov and P. Haensel, Nucl. Phys. A 761, 333 (2005)

    2005

  26. [34]

    A. J. Leggett, Physical Review 140, 1869 (1965)

    1965

  27. [35]

    Vollhardt and K

    D. Vollhardt and K. Maki, J. Low Temp. Phys. 31, 457 (1978)

    1978

  28. [36]

    R. H. Parmenter, RCA Rev. (United States) 23, 323 (1962)

    1962

  29. [37]

    Goriely, N

    S. Goriely, N. Chamel, and J. M. Pearson, Phys. Rev. C 88, 024308 (2013)

    2013

  30. [38]

    J. M. Pearson, N. Chamel, A. Y. Potekhin, A. F. Fantina, C. Ducoin, A. K. Dutta, and S. Goriely, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 481, 2994 (2018)

    2018

  31. [39]

    Shelley and A

    M. Shelley and A. Pastore, Universe 6, 206 (2020)

    2020

  32. [40]

    J. M. Pearson, N. Chamel, and A. Y. Potekhin, Phys. Rev. C 101, 015802 (2020)

    2020

  33. [41]

    J. M. Pearson and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 105, 015803 (2022)

    2022

  34. [42]

    Y. D. Mutafchieva, N. Chamel, Z. K. Stoyanov, J. M. Pearson, and L. M. Mihailov, Phys. Rev. C 99, 055805 (2019)

    2019

  35. [43]

    Perot, N

    L. Perot, N. Chamel, and A. Sourie, Phys. Rev. C 100, 035801 (2019)

    2019

  36. [44]

    Perot and N

    L. Perot and N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. C 103, 025801 (2021)

    2021

  37. [45]

    Baym, The Microscopic Description of Superfluidity (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1968), pp

    G. Baym, The Microscopic Description of Superfluidity (Springer US, Boston, MA, 1968), pp. 121–156, ISBN 978-1-4899-6435-9

    1968

  38. [46]

    R. P. Feynman, in Progress in low temperature physics (Elsevier, 1955), vol. 1, pp. 17–53

    1955

  39. [47]

    Typel, European Physical Journal A 57, 284 (2021)

    S. Typel, European Physical Journal A 57, 284 (2021)

    2021

  40. [48]

    Andersson, K

    N. Andersson, K. Glampedakis, W. C. G. Ho, and C. M. Espinoza, Phys. Rev. Lett. 109, 241103 (2012)

    2012

  41. [49]

    Chamel, Phys

    N. Chamel, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 011101 (2013)

    2013

  42. [50]

    Sedrakian and J

    A. Sedrakian and J. M. Cordes, Astrophys. J. 502, 378 (1998)

    1998

  43. [51]

    P. W. Anderson and N. Itoh, Nature (London) 256, 25 (1975)

    1975

  44. [52]

    M. A. Alpar, Astrophys. J. 213, 527 (1977)

    1977

  45. [53]

    Avogadro, F

    P. Avogadro, F. Barranco, R. A. Broglia, and E. Vigezzi, Phys. Rev. C 75, 012805 (2007)

    2007

  46. [54]

    Klausner, F

    P. Klausner, F. Barranco, P. M. Pizzochero, X. Roca-Maza, and E. Vigezzi, Phys. Rev. C 108, 035808 (2023), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.108.035808

    2023 doi

  47. [55]

    P. M. Pizzochero, in Exotic States of Nuclear Matter (2008), pp. 388–395. 27

    2008

  48. [56]

    P. M. Pizzochero, L. Viverit, and R. A. Broglia, Phys. Rev. Lett. 79, 3347 (1997)

    1997

  49. [57]

    Donati and P

    P. Donati and P. M. Pizzochero, Phys. Rev. Lett. 90, 211101 (2003)

    2003

  50. [58]

    Donati and P

    P. Donati and P. M. Pizzochero, Physics Letters B 640, 74 (2006), ISSN 0370-2693

    2006

  51. [59]

    Avogadro, F

    P. Avogadro, F. Barranco, R. A. Broglia, and E. Vigezzi, in Exotic States of Nuclear Matter (2008), pp. 396–403

    2008

  52. [60]

    Bulgac, M

    A. Bulgac, M. M. Forbes, and R. Sharma, Phys. Rev. Lett. 110, 241102 (2013)

    2013

  53. [61]

    Wlaz lowski, K

    G. Wlaz lowski, K. Sekizawa, P. Magierski, A. Bulgac, and M. M. Forbes, Phys. Rev. Lett. 117, 232701 (2016)

    2016

  54. [62]

    Seveso, P

    S. Seveso, P. M. Pizzochero, F. Grill, and B. Haskell, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 455, 3952 (2016)

    2016

  55. [63]

    Antonelli and B

    M. Antonelli and B. Haskell, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 499, 3690 (2020)

    2020

  56. [64]

    Link and Y

    B. Link and Y. Levin, Astrophys. J. 941, 148 (2022), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.3847/ 1538-4357/ac9b29

    2022

  57. [65]

    Zhang and C

    Z.-W. Zhang and C. J. Pethick, Phys. Rev. C 103, 055807 (2021), URL https://link.aps. org/doi/10.1103/PhysRevC.103.055807

    2021 doi

  58. [66]

    A. G. Muslimov and A. I. Tsygan, Astrophys. Space Sci. 115, 43 (1985)

    1985

  59. [67]

    Srinivasan, D

    G. Srinivasan, D. Bhattacharya, A. G. Muslimov, and A. J. Tsygan, Curr. Sci. 59, 31 (1990)

    1990

  60. [68]

    Ruderman, T

    M. Ruderman, T. Zhu, and K. Chen, Astrophys. J. 492, 267 (1998)

    1998

  61. [69]

    M. A. Alpar, J. Astrophys. Astron. 38, 44 (2017)

    2017

  62. [70]

    Charbonneau and A

    J. Charbonneau and A. Zhitnitsky, Phys. Rev. C 76, 015801 (2007)

    2007

  63. [71]

    M. G. Alford and G. Good, Phys. Rev. B 78, 024510 (2008)

    2008

  64. [72]

    T. S. Wood and V. Graber, Universe 8, 228 (2022)

    2022

  65. [73]

    Sourie and N

    A. Sourie and N. Chamel, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 493, L98 (2020)

    2020

  66. [74]

    P. M. Pizzochero, Astrophys. J. Lett. 743, L20 (2011), URL https://dx.doi.org/10.1088/ 2041-8205/743/1/L20

    2011

  67. [75]

    Yosida, Phys

    K. Yosida, Phys. Rev. 110, 769 (1958), URL https://link.aps.org/doi/10.1103/ PhysRev.110.769. 28

    1958

Pith tools

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