Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 58 references

Particle Probes with Superradiant Pulsars

T0 review · 3 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-14 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read Rotational superradiance in millisecond pulsars can turn the existence of the two fastest pulsars into bounds on ultralight scalars that beat torsion-balance experiments by three orders of magnitude.

desk verdict A genuinely new phonon-mediated superradiance calculation for millisecond pulsars, worth refereeing, but the headline bound rests on an optimistic age choice for the fastest pulsar. read the letter →

arxiv 1908.10440 v1 pith:IJO7FUOV submitted 2019-08-27 hep-ph astro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th

David E. Kaplan , Surjeet Rajendran , Paul Riggins This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HEgr-qchep-th
keywords superradiancemillisecondpulsarsultralightscalarbosonsfifth-forceconstraintsQCDaxionneutronstarphononsYukawacouplingpulsarspin-down
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

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

The reading

The paper argues that rotational superradiance—the same instability that can drain angular momentum from spinning black holes—can operate efficiently in millisecond pulsars, because the dense neutron medium absorbs the emitted particles through phonon excitations. It then uses the existence of the two fastest known pulsars, PSR J1748-2446ad and PSR B1937+21, as an exclusion device: had a scalar of mass near the rotation frequency (about $10^{-11}$ eV) coupled to neutrons through $\epsilon\,\Psi\,\bar{n} n$ with strength above roughly $10^{-6}$ times gravity, it would have spun these pulsars down within their lifetime. The resulting bounds beat torsion-balance fifth-force limits by up to three orders of magnitude. If correct, the argument turns ordinary pulsar timing into a particle-physics laboratory and offers a new-physics explanation for the puzzling absence of pulsars spinning above about 700 Hz.

What carries the argument

The engine is rotational superradiance of gravitationally bound scalar modes around a rotating neutron star, with absorption supplied by phonon excitation through the Yukawa interaction $\epsilon\,\Psi\,\bar{n} n$. The growth rate is $\Gamma_{nlm}=C_{nlm}(\mu-m\Omega)/\mu$, so when $\mu<m\Omega$ the absorptive term becomes emissive; efficiency peaks at $\mu\sim\Omega$ because higher angular-momentum modes have suppressed overlap with the star. The authors compute the absorption coefficient $C_{nlm}$ from a scalar-to-phonon conversion rate in the stellar medium, then check that astrophysical asymmetries—free precession, equatorial ellipticity, stellar quakes, and companion tides—do not mix the superradiant mode into absorptive modes fast enough to stop its growth, except in the regions where the exclusion plots are cut off.

What would settle it

Measure the spin-down age of PSR J1748-2446ad directly; if it is close to 25 million years rather than the assumed 300 million years, the derived superradiance limit weakens by roughly an order of magnitude and the excluded region shrinks.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a light scalar $\Psi$ with a Yukawa coupling $\epsilon\,\Psi\,\bar{n} n$ to neutrons can be superradiantly amplified in the gravitational bound states around a rapidly rotating neutron star. When the scalar mass $\mu$ is close to the stellar rotation frequency $\Omega$, the lowest angular-momentum modes ($\psi_{211}$ and $\psi_{322}$) overlap strongly with the star, and the coupling excites phonons that dissipate energy; in the rotating frame the absorption term flips sign into an emissive term. The paper shows that for $\mu\sim 10^{-11}$ eV the growth rate is fast enough that the observed 716 Hz and 642 Hz pulsars, taken with ages around $3\times10^8$ years, exclude couplings down to roughly $10^{-6}$ of gravitational strength, improving on torsion-balance fifth-force bounds by up to three orders of magnitude. For certain neutron-star equations of state, the same argument would also rule out the QCD axion with a Planck-scale decay constant in a mass window near $10^{-12}$ eV.

Load-bearing premise

The constraints assume both pulsars have been spinning at their observed frequencies for about 300 million years; the faster pulsar's measured lower age bound is only 25 million years, so if its true age is nearer the lower bound the excluded region shrinks.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Scalars with masses between about $2\times10^{-12}$ and $6\times10^{-12}$ eV and Yukawa couplings to neutrons near $10^{-6}$ of gravity are excluded by the two pulsars, improving torsion-balance bounds by up to three orders of magnitude.
  • If neutron-star equations of state produce $\theta_{\rm eff}\sim1$, the QCD axion with mass between $5\times10^{-13}$ and $3\times10^{-12}$ eV and a Planck-scale decay constant is ruled out.
  • The observed absence of pulsars above about 700 Hz, despite equations of state allowing rotation up to about 1500 Hz, could be explained by a scalar of mass near $10^{-11}$ eV coupled to nucleons.
  • Superradiant braking would predict a pile-up of pulsar spin frequencies near half the particle mass, a signature that distinguishes it from gravitational-wave or r-mode spin-down.
  • A hypothetical isolated pulsar rotating at 1200 Hz would extend the excluded region to larger masses, showing that faster pulsar discoveries sharpen the particle-physics reach.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the excluded band is real, laboratory searches for axion-like particles should concentrate on the $\sim10^{-11}$ eV mass window, where the astrophysical bound is strongest; a direct detection there would turn the two pulsars into a calibrated probe of scalar-neutron couplings.
  • The argument could be inverted as an age diagnostic: for a scalar with coupling just below the exclusion boundary, the observed spin frequency of a millisecond pulsar would encode how long it has been spinning, making superradiance a clock rather than only a constraint.
  • Because the low-mass edge of the PSR J1748-2446ad exclusion is set by tidal mixing from its companion, a precise measurement of that companion's orbit would sharpen or weaken the boundary; better measurements of the low-order phonon damping rates would similarly tighten the $\psi_{211}$ bounds.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper proposes that rotational superradiance of light scalar fields gravitationally bound to millisecond pulsars can be an efficient spin-down mechanism if the scalar has a Yukawa coupling to neutrons. The authors derive a superradiance rate by modeling the stellar medium as a harmonic chain of neutrons, estimating the phonon-excitation absorption coefficient, and then converting it to a growth rate under the superradiance condition. Using the existence of the two fastest known pulsars, PSR J1748-2446ad (716 Hz) and PSR B1937+21 (642 Hz), they place upper bounds on the Yukawa coupling for scalar masses near 10^-11 eV, claiming an improvement over torsion-balance fifth-force bounds by up to three orders of magnitude. The paper also analyzes mode stability against mixing from free precession, equatorial ellipticity, stellar quakes, and companion stars, and speculates that a new particle could explain the apparent absence of pulsars above about 700 Hz.

Significance. If the rate estimate is reliable, the proposal is significant: pulsar spin frequencies are measured with extraordinary precision, so a superradiance-based probe avoids the systematic uncertainties of black-hole spin measurements. The paper's strengths are the explicit physical mechanism, the detailed treatment of damping via mixing with absorptive modes, and the use of independent pulsar observations as the test data. The bounds would probe ultra-light scalars with nucleon couplings far below current laboratory limits and would give a falsifiable prediction for the pulsar frequency distribution. The main caveat, reflected in the major comments below, is that the quantitative exclusion contours inherit order-of-magnitude uncertainties from the phonon-model calculation and from the assumed pulsar age; these issues do not invalidate the concept but they do affect the advertised factor-of-1000 improvement.

major comments (3)
  1. [Section III A 1, Eqs. (27)-(28)] The text states that the measured spin-down of PSR J1748-2446ad gives only a lower bound on its characteristic lifetime of 2.5e7 years, but then says 'we conservatively take the stellar lifetime to be tau = 3e8 years for each pulsar in setting our constraints.' This wording is not conservative for exclusion purposes: the superradiance constraint is Gamma*tau <~ ln(L_s/hbar) ~ 176, so the minimum excluded coupling scales as epsilon ~ tau^{-1/2}. Replacing the measured lower bound of 2.5e7 years with the assumed 3e8 years weakens the J1748 bound by a factor of sqrt(12) ~ 3.5 in epsilon. Because the abstract's headline claim of a three-order-of-magnitude improvement rests on combining the two fastest pulsars, the authors should recompute the J1748 contours with tau = 2.5e7 years and quote the weakened bound, or explicitly state which exclusion regions depend on the indirect age estimate rather than on measured spin-down. If the B1937+21 constraint alone preserves the full three-order improvement, that should be stated and supported by its measured characteristic age of about 2e8 years.
  2. [Section III A 1, Eqs. (27)-(28)] The central rate formula is obtained by starting from a 1D harmonic chain of N neutrons and then 'extrapolating to 3D' by taking N to be the total number of neutrons and writing the integral with n(r). This step is not justified. In the 1D chain the phonon frequencies are omega_j ~ (j/N) omega, so the lowest mode frequency is set by the chain length in a way that does not map directly onto the global l = 0, 1, 2 stellar oscillation frequencies (omega_1 ~ 2pi x 2-4 kHz) used later in the paper. The relation between the microscopic chain normalization y_js ~ N^{-1/2} and the normalized displacement eigenfunctions of a realistic neutron-star oscillation mode is not established. In addition, the reduction from Eq. (27) to Eq. (28) assumes that the phonon wavefunction has the same angular structure as the scalar mode; the text acknowledges that otherwise the integral vanishes for a spherical star. For l = 1 the authors introduce an additional (R/a0)^2 suppression by hand. Since the predicted superradiance rate is proportional to the squared overlap integral in Eq. (28), all exclusion contours in Figs. 2-4 inherit this uncontrolled factor. The authors should either provide a direct matching of the toy-model matrix element to realistic neutron-star phonon/oscillation modes or give an explicit uncertainty estimate for the overlap integral. The same concern applies to the l = 0 and l = 1 damping rates, which the text itself describes as 'admittedly rough' and which enter the psi211 bounds and the mixing cutoffs.
  3. [Section IV B (parameter choices and uncertainty propagation)] The reported exclusion contours depend on several unmeasured or loosely constrained astrophysical inputs: the temperature T = 1e7 K, the radius R = 12 km, the mass of PSR B1937+21 (taken as 1.4 M_sun without a measurement), the phonon frequencies, and the damping rates. The superradiance rate in Eq. (28) scales linearly with T and quadratically with the overlap integral, so these choices propagate directly into the excluded coupling. The paper does not provide a sensitivity analysis, and the claimed three-order-of-magnitude improvement over torsion-balance limits is a quantitative statement that requires such an analysis. At minimum, the authors should show how the contours in Figs. 2-4 shift when T is varied over the quoted 5e5-1e8 K range and when R and the unmeasured mass of B1937+21 are varied within their plausible ranges.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Figure 3 caption] The caption refers to 'PSR B1937-21' while the text and Figure 2 use 'PSR B1937+21'; make the notation consistent.
  2. [General] There are several typographical errors: 'Millsecond', 'equillibrium', 'absorpative', and 'disovered' should be corrected.
  3. [References] Reference [21] appears to be a webpage on sodium atomic data that is unrelated to the surrounding discussion; it should be removed or replaced with a relevant citation.
  4. [Section V vs. abstract] The conclusions state that the constraints improve current bounds by 'two to four orders of magnitude', while the abstract and Section IV B say 'three orders of magnitude'; harmonize these quantitative claims.
  5. [Conclusions (pulsar cutoff speculation)] The suggestion that a scalar with mass ~2pi x 1500-3000 Hz would produce a cutoff near 700 Hz requires high-m superradiant modes, whose overlap with the star is strongly suppressed; the paper should either provide an estimate showing this is plausible or clearly label the suggestion as an unsupported speculation.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity found: the superradiant pulsar bound is derived from an independent phonon-absorption rate and external pulsar observations.

full rationale

The derivation chain is self-contained and not circular. The paper computes the scalar absorption coefficient C_nlm from the Yukawa interaction epsilon Psi n n via a phonon-excitation calculation, leading to Eq. (28), then converts this into a superradiant growth rate through Eq. (5), and finally imposes the threshold Gamma tau less than about ln(L_s/hbar) approximately 176 using the observed existence of PSR J1748-2446ad and PSR B1937+21. The pulsar spin frequencies, masses, orbital parameters, and the phonon frequencies and damping rates are independent inputs taken from external astrophysical literature or from cited phonon calculations, not quantities fitted to the excluded coupling contours. The excluded regions in Figures 2 and 3 are obtained by inverting the computed rate, rather than by fitting any parameter to the target bound; the observed pulsars serve as external falsification data. The self-citations in the paper, such as Refs. [2-4] and [11], are contextual or motivational and are not load-bearing for the central pulsar constraint. The choice tau = 3 times 10^8 years for PSR J1748-2446ad is an astrophysical modeling assumption and a possible source of uncertainty, but it is not a circular reduction: the paper explicitly reports the measured lower bound of 2.5 times 10^7 years and explains why it regards that bound as too conservative. A weaker age would widen the allowed coupling region, but the structure of the derivation remains independent of the conclusion. No step in the paper makes the predicted exclusion equivalent by construction to an input parameter, and no central claim depends on a self-citation chain. The honest finding is therefore no significant circularity, with score 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 4 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on a small set of hand-chosen astrophysical inputs (age, temperature, radius, nominal mass) and on the phonon absorption model. The paper does not introduce new particles or forces; it constrains existing BSM scalar targets.

free parameters (4)
  • Pulsar spin-down age τ = 3×10^8 yr for both pulsars
    Chosen in Section IV B. For PSR J1748-2446ad only a lower bound of 2.5×10^7 yr is measured. The superradiance bound scales as Γ < 176/τ, so a larger assumed age gives a stronger constraint.
  • Stellar temperature T = 10^7 K
    Taken at the lower end of the 10^7 to 10^8 K range for millisecond pulsars. The absorption rate in Eq. (28) is proportional to T.
  • Stellar radius R = 12 km for both pulsars
    Nominal neutron star radius assumed for both pulsars. It enters the wavefunction overlap and phonon frequency estimates.
  • Mass of PSR B1937+21 = 1.4 M_sun
    The mass of this pulsar is not measured, so the nominal neutron star mass is assumed. The heavier measured mass of PSR J1748-2446ad is used for that pulsar.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption The rotating neutron star can be treated as an axisymmetric absorbing medium with a scalar absorption coefficient C in Eqs. (1)-(4).
    Used to derive the superradiance rate. It assumes the scalar's interaction with the stellar medium is captured by a simple absorptive term.
  • ad hoc to paper The scalar-neutron interaction ϵ Ψ n n can be modeled by a 1D harmonic chain of neutrons with frequencies set by Λ_QCD, extrapolated to 3D in Eqs. (7)-(28).
    The 3D absorption rate is obtained by replacing the 1D integral with a 3D density integral. No microscopic neutron-star phonon calculation is provided.
  • domain assumption PSR J1748-2446ad and PSR B1937+21 have ages near 3×10^8 yr and have been spinning near their current rates for most of that time.
    Needed to convert a superradiance rate into an exclusion. The age is measured by characteristic age for B1937+21 and estimated indirectly for J1748.
  • domain assumption For the QCD axion constraint, θ_eff ~ 1 throughout O(1) of the star's mass for certain neutron star equations of state, as cited from Ref. [31].
    This relation sets ϵ ~ m_n/f_a. If no such pseudoscalar condensate exists, the axion exclusion does not follow.
  • domain assumption Mixing between superradiant and absorptive modes is bounded by the estimated maximum wobble angle θ_w ~ 10^-3 and equatorial ellipticity ϵ_s ~ 10^-7, as cited from Refs. [20,22].
    Used in Section IV A to require δ² < Γ_sr/Γ_abs. If actual asymmetries are larger, the superradiant growth could be quenched.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Particle Probes with Superradiant Pulsars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/IJO7FUOV

@misc{pith2026190810440,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Particle Probes with Superradiant Pulsars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/IJO7FUOV}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:1908.10440}
}
read the original abstract

We demonstrate that rotational superradiance can be efficient in millisecond pulsars. Measurements from the two fastest known pulsars PSR J1748-2446ad and PSR B1937+21 can place bounds on bosons with masses below 10^{-11} eV. The bounds are maximally good at masses corresponding to the rotation rate of the star, where scalar interactions that mediate forces ~ 10^6 times weaker than gravity are ruled out, exceeding existing fifth force constraints by 3 orders of magnitude. For certain neutron star equations of state, these measurements would also constrain the QCD axion with masses between 5 10^{-13} and 3 10^{-12} eV. Despite the ability of most neutron star equations of state to support frequencies as high as ~ 1500 Hz, the observed absence of pulsars above ~ 700 Hz could be due to the existence of a new particle of mass ~ 10^{-11} eV with a Yukawa coupling to nucleons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 1908.10440 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1: A state with non-zero azimuthal angular momentum bound gravitationally to a neutron star. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Constraints imposed by the existence of PSR J1748-2446ad (716 Hz) on scalars of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p025_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Constraints imposed by the existence of PSR B1937-21 (642 Hz) on scalars of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p026_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (1 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Constraints on scalars of mass [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p027_4.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

58 extracted references · 28 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Constraints 13 A

    Scalar Absorption Rate 8 IV. Constraints 13 A. Mode Stability 14

    work page

  2. [2]

    Overview and Formalism 14 arXiv:1908.10440v1 [hep-ph] 27 Aug 2019 2

    arXiv 1908

  3. [3]

    Equatorial Bulge and Free Precession 16

    work page

  4. [4]

    Equatorial Ellipticity 18

    work page

  5. [5]

    Mixing via Phonons 19

    work page

  6. [6]

    Bohr” radius∼ n2 αgµ where the gravitational “fine structure

    Disruptive Companions 19 B. Results 21 V. Conclusions 28 Acknowledgments 29 References 29 I. INTRODUCTION Ultra-light bosonic particles that interact with ultra-low couplings to the standard model are an interesting target to search for new physics. Such particles emerge in a variety of contexts. They are prime dark matter candidates [1] or can act as med...

    work page

  7. [7]

    (6) 9 We may use this to probe any new ultralight scalar or CP-violating pseudoscalar

    Scalar Absorption Rate We now turn to the main operator of interest for this paper, the neutron Yukawa interaction ϵ Ψnn. (6) 9 We may use this to probe any new ultralight scalar or CP-violating pseudoscalar. Depending on the neutron star equation of state, this may even include the QCD axion: many neutron star equation of states predict a pseudoscalar co...

    work page

  8. [8]

    They are therefore mixed together by non-axisymmetric perturbations of the star

    Overview and Formalism The superradiant modes have different azimuthal angular momentum than the absorptive modes. They are therefore mixed together by non-axisymmetric perturbations of the star. Scalars couple to the neutron density and are perturbed by the asymmetries in the mass distribution of the star. Gravitational asymmetries can also cause mixing b...

    work page

Show all 58 references
  1. [9]

    wobble angle

    Equatorial Bulge and Free Precession Superradiance is effective only in a rapidly rotating neutron star. A rapidly rotating neutron star will not remain spherically symmetric owing to centrifugal pressures that will cause the star to develop an equatorial bulge, giving rise to ...

  2. [10]

    stellar quakes

    Equatorial Ellipticity The mass distribution in the star will break axisymmetry at some level. The multipole moments of this anisotropy will mix modes with different azimuthal angular momenta thereby mixing modes with different azimuthal angular momenta. Distortions from axisymm...

  3. [11]

    stellar quakes

    Mixing via Phonons Stellar quakes may cause anisotropies in the star and thus produce mixing between superradiant and absorpative modes. Recall from IV A 2 that the maximal dimensionless ellipticity ϵs that can be supported by the star is roughly∼ 10−7. Strictly speaking, this...

  4. [12]

    spin-orbit

    Disruptive Companions Accretion from the companions is often believed to be the mechanism responsible for powering the initial spin up of the neutron star to the millisecond regime [18], and most millisecond pulsars still have small companions≲M⊙ [18]. A companion object of ma...

    2015

  5. [13]

    W. Hu, R. Barkana and A. Gruzinov, Phys. Rev. Lett. 85, 1158 (2000) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.85.1158 [astro-ph/0003365]

    2000 arXiv

  6. [14]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. Lett. 115, no. 22, 221801 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.115.221801 [arXiv:1504.07551 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  7. [15]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, arXiv:1902.06793 [hep-ph]

    1902 arXiv

  8. [16]

    P. W. Graham, D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 97, no. 4, 044003 (2018) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.97.044003 [arXiv:1709.01999 [hep-th]]

    2018 arXiv

  9. [17]

    E. G. Adelberger, B. R. Heckel, A. E. Nelson, Ann. Rev. Nucl. Part. Sci. 53, 77-121 (2003). [hep- ph/0307284]

    2003

  10. [18]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dimopoulos, S. Dubovsky, N. Kaloper, J. March-Russell, Phys. Rev. D81, 123530 (2010). [arXiv:0905.4720 [hep-th]]

    2010 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Arvanitaki, S

    A. Arvanitaki, S. Dubovsky, Phys. Rev. D83, 044026 (2011). [arXiv:1004.3558 [hep-th]]

    2011 arXiv

  12. [20]

    R. P. Fender, E. Gallo and D. Russell, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 406, 1425-1434 (2010)

    2010

  13. [21]

    S. D. Mathur, Class. Quant. Grav. 26, 224001 (2009) doi:10.1088/0264-9381/26/22/224001 [arXiv:0909.1038 [hep-th]]

    2009 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Almheiri, D

    A. Almheiri, D. Marolf, J. Polchinski and J. Sully, JHEP 1302, 062 (2013) doi:10.1007/JHEP02(2013)062 [arXiv:1207.3123 [hep-th]]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    D. E. Kaplan and S. Rajendran, Phys. Rev. D 99, no. 4, 044033 (2019) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.99.044033 [arXiv:1812.00536 [hep-th]]

    2019 arXiv

  16. [24]

    Cardoso, R

    V. Cardoso, R. Brito and J. L. Rosa, Phys. Rev. D 91, no. 12, 124026 (2015) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.91.124026 [arXiv:1505.05509 [gr-qc]]

    2015 arXiv

  17. [25]

    Cardoso, P

    V. Cardoso, P. Pani and T. T. Yu, Phys. Rev. D 95, no. 12, 124056 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.95.124056 [arXiv:1704.06151 [gr-qc]]

    2017 arXiv

  18. [26]

    Y. B. Zel’Dovich, Soviet Journal of Experimental and Theoretical Physics 35, 1085 (1972)

    1972

  19. [27]

    Richartz, S

    M. Richartz, S. Weinfurtner, A. J. Penner and W. G. Unruh, Phys. Rev. D 80, 124016 (2009) [arXiv:0909.2317 [gr-qc]]

    2009 arXiv

  20. [28]

    J. D. Bekenstein and M. Schiffer, Phys. Rev. D 58, 064014 (1998) [gr-qc/9803033]. 30

    1998 arXiv

  21. [29]

    J. W. T. Hessels, S. M. Ransom, I. H. Stairs, P. C. C. Freire, V. M. Kaspi and F. Camilo, Science 311, 1901 (2006) [arXiv:astro-ph/0601337]

    2006 arXiv

  22. [30]

    S. R. Kulkarni, Millsecond Pulsars. A Decade of Surprise (1995)

    1995

  23. [31]

    W. G. Laarakkers, E. Poisson, [gr-qc/9709033]

    arXiv

  24. [32]

    D. I. Jones, Lecture at the Conference on Gravitational Waves: A Challenge to Theoretical Astro- physics, Trieste, 5-9 June 2000 (LNS013024)

    2000

  25. [33]

    http://steck.us/alkalidata/sodiumnumbers.1.6.pdf

  26. [34]

    B. J. Owen, Phys. Rev. Lett. 95, 211101 (2005). [astro-ph/0503399]

    2005 arXiv

  27. [35]

    E. S. Phinney and S. R. Kulkarni, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 32591, 1994

    1994

  28. [36]

    D. G. Yakovlev, C. J. Pethick, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 42, 169-210 (2004). [astro-ph/0402143]

    2004 arXiv

  29. [37]

    Cutler, L

    C. Cutler, L. Lindblom, R. J. Splinter The Astrophysical Journal, 363:603-611, 1990

    1990

  30. [38]

    K. Chen, M. Ruderman and T. Zhu, The Astrophysical Journal, 493:397-403, 1998

    1998

  31. [39]

    S. R. Kulkarni, Phil. Tran. Phys. Sci. and Eng. 341, 1660 (1992)

    1992

  32. [40]

    D. R. Lorimer, Living Rev. Relativity 11, (2008), 8

    2008

  33. [41]

    Chakrabarty et.al., Nature, 424: 42 - 44, 2003

    D. Chakrabarty et.al., Nature, 424: 42 - 44, 2003

    2003

  34. [42]

    M. E. Gusakov, A. I. Chugunov, and E. M. Kantor, Phys. Rev. D, 90, 063001 (2014)

    2014

  35. [43]

    J. M. Lattimer and M. Prakash, The Astrophysical Journal, 550:426-442, 2001

    2001

  36. [44]

    C. M. Espinoza, A. G. Lyne, B. W. Stappers, M. Kramer, Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 414, 1679a1704 (2011)

    2011

  37. [45]

    Arvanitaki, M

    A. Arvanitaki, M. Baryakhtar, and X. Huang, Phys. Rev. D, 91, 084011 (2015). [arXiv:1411.2263 [hep-ph]]

    2015 arXiv

  38. [46]

    C. M. Espinoza, A. G. Lyne, B. W. Stappers and M. Kramer, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc. 414, 1679 (2011) doi:10.1111/j.1365-2966.2011.18503.x [arXiv:1102.1743 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2011

  39. [47]

    E. S. Phinney and S. R. Kulkarni, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 32, 591 (1994). doi:10.1146/annurev.aa.32.090194.003111

    1994

  40. [48]

    M. E. Gusakov, A. I. Chugunov and E. M. Kantor, Phys. Rev. D 90, no. 6, 063001 (2014) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.90.063001 [arXiv:1305.3825 [astro-ph.SR]]

    2014 arXiv

  41. [49]

    F. V. Day and J. I. McDonald, arXiv:1904.08341 [hep-ph]

    1904 arXiv

  42. [50]

    G. B. Cook, S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Astrophys. J. 424, 823 (1994). doi:10.1086/173934

    1994 doi

  43. [51]

    Baryakhtar, R

    M. Baryakhtar, R. Lasenby and M. Teo, Phys. Rev. D 96, no. 3, 035019 (2017) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.96.035019 [arXiv:1704.05081 [hep-ph]]

    2017 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Patruno, B

    A. Patruno, B. Haskell and C. D’Angelo, Astrophys. J. 746, 9 (2012) doi:10.1088/0004-637X/746/1/9 [arXiv:1109.0536 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2012 arXiv

  45. [53]

    Bildsten, Astrophys

    L. Bildsten, Astrophys. J. 501, L89 (1998) doi:10.1086/311440 [astro-ph/9804325]

    1998 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Cutler, Phys

    C. Cutler, Phys. Rev. D 66, 084025 (2002) doi:10.1103/PhysRevD.66.084025 [gr-qc/0206051]

    2002 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Andersson, K

    N. Andersson, K. D. Kokkotas and B. F. Schutz, Astrophys. J. 510, 846 (1999) doi:10.1086/306625 [astro-ph/9805225]. 31

    1999 arXiv

  48. [56]

    Andersson, Astrophys

    N. Andersson, Astrophys. J. 502, 708 (1998) doi:10.1086/305919 [gr-qc/9706075]

    1998 arXiv

  49. [57]

    Lindblom, B

    L. Lindblom, B. J. Owen and S. M. Morsink, Phys. Rev. Lett. 80, 4843 (1998) doi:10.1103/PhysRevLett.80.4843 [gr-qc/9803053]. [46]

    1998 arXiv

  50. [58]

    C. G. Bassa et al. , Astrophys. J. 846, no. 2, L20 (2017) doi:10.3847/2041-8213/aa8400 [arXiv:1709.01453 [astro-ph.HE]]

    2017 arXiv

Pith tools

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