Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 6 minor 50 references

1D Vlasov Simulations of QED Cascades Over Pulsar Polar Caps

T0 review · 4 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-06 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read A 1D Vlasov-Maxwell code with curvature radiation and magnetic pair production shows that pulsar polar-cap cascades self-regulate into repeating pair-production bursts, and an analytic model quantitatively reproduces gap size, cycle…

desk verdict A useful new 1D Vlasov tool for polar cap cascades with credible analytic scalings, but the uncontrolled rescaling of QED constants and an overclaimed abstract need fixing before the quantitative outputs can be trusted. read the letter →

arxiv 2507.15804 v1 pith:H6YVGJK3 submitted 2025-07-21 astro-ph.HE

Dingyi Ye , Alexander Y. Chen This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HE
keywords pulsarpolarcapQEDpaircascadeVlasov-MaxwellsimulationcurvatureradiationmagneticproductionRuderman-Sutherlandmodelspace-charge-limitedflowcoherentradioemission
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 tries to establish that the microphysics of electron-positron pair cascades above pulsar polar caps can be simulated deterministically with a one-dimensional Vlasov-Maxwell solver, avoiding the particle-noise and cost problems of particle-in-cell methods at high plasma multiplicity. It reports that in both the Ruderman-Sutherland and space-charge-limited-flow regimes the cascade self-organizes into a limit cycle: a vacuum gap forms, undergoes a burst of pair production, gets screened, and re-forms after the plasma drains away. The authors derive a unified analytic model for gap length, cycle period, and magnetic energy injection rate, and show that it matches the simulation numbers. If true, these scalings give practical predictions for X-ray hotspot heating and a foundation for understanding how polar-cap discharges might generate coherent radio emission.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the 1D1P relativistic Vlasov-Maxwell system with momentum-space advection modified by the radiation-reaction force, treated by Strang splitting and the method of characteristics, plus a photon distribution function in position--momentum--angle space that is reparameterized by remaining propagation time so pair-injection events can be scheduled by a precomputed list. The analytic model works by decomposing the gap into an acceleration length $l_p$ and a photon mean free path $l_\gamma$; because $l_\gamma\propto l_p^{-6}$, minimizing the total gap gives $l_p=6l_\gamma$, which yields the gap scalings and, together with a relaxation time $t_{\rm decay}\sim (H/2c)\ln(N/n_{\rm GJ})$, the limit-cycle period.

What would settle it

Run the same two regimes with a milder rescaling (for example $R_c'=10^{-2}R_c$ and $\hbar'=10^{-1}\hbar$) and check whether the dimensionless gap size $l_{\rm gap}/H$, the cycle period $Tc/H$, and the pair-multiplicity ratios stay the same as in the runs reported in Table 2; if they change, the quantitative scalings are artifacts of the artificial coupling constants.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central claim is that a single 1D Vlasov-Maxwell framework, with curvature radiation, radiation reaction, and magnetic pair production as source terms, reproduces the self-regulated polar-cap discharge in both standard regimes. In the Ruderman-Sutherland regime the gap forms, propagates outward near the speed of light, leaves a dense plasma trail, and produces exponential pair multiplication up to multiplicities of $10^3$--$10^4$; in the space-charge-limited-flow regime the gap remains confined near the surface, pair growth is nearly linear, and the local multiplicity reaches only about 20% of the Ruderman-Sutherland value. The paper further claims that three analytic scalings --- gap length $l_{ m gap}\sim R_c^{2/7} B^{-1/7} n_{\rm GJ}^{-3/7}(\eta\pm 1)^{-3/7}$, cycle period $T\sim (l_{\rm gap}+H[1+\tfrac12\ln(N/n_{\rm GJ})])/c$, and injection power $P\sim 10^{32}\, B^{6/7} P_1^{-6/7} (\eta+1)^{1/7}\eta$ erg/s --- agree with the simulations, with periods matching within a few percent in most Ruderman-Sutherland cases and injection power within 10% across all cases. The authors also claim that 30--50% of the injected magnetic energy returns to the stellar surface as particle heating, and that the wave spectra contain superluminal modes whose physical identification in 1D remains ambiguous.

Load-bearing premise

The simulations artificially shrink the curvature radius by a factor of 1000, Planck's constant by a factor of 100, and the electron charge by a factor of 100 to make pair production fast enough to simulate, and the paper never demonstrates that the resulting limit-cycle behavior and scaling relations are unchanged when those constants are set back to their real values.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The Ruderman-Sutherland and space-charge-limited-flow cascades are both limit cycles, but with distinct morphology: Ruderman-Sutherland gaps propagate outward with exponential pair growth, while space-charge-limited-flow gaps stay confined with linear growth and about 20% of the multiplicity.
  • The analytic scalings give direct predictions for how gap size, cycle period, and surface heating rate depend on magnetic field, spin period, and current density, which can be used to model X-ray hotspots.
  • Return-current particle heating deposits roughly 30--50% of the injected magnetic energy onto the polar cap, at rates near $10^{32}$ erg/s, consistent with earlier theoretical estimates.
  • The electric-field spectra contain energy at and beyond the light cone, with a $k=0$ component in the Ruderman-Sutherland case; if these are genuine superluminal O-modes they could connect to coherent radio emission, though 1D simulations cannot distinguish them from Lorentz-boosted Langmuir waves.
  • The Vlasov approach resolves low-density regions and fine phase-space structures that particle noise obscures in PIC simulations, enabling long-time studies of the full cascade cycle.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the gap length scales as $B^{-4/7}P^{4/7}$ while the polar-cap radius grows as $P^{-1/2}$, the 1D assumption may remain valid for millisecond pulsars; a direct simulation at millisecond-pulsar parameters would test that extrapolation.
  • The timing of surface heating within the cycle differs between regimes (late in Ruderman-Sutherland as the gap escapes, early in space-charge-limited flow at gap formation), so time-resolved X-ray hotspot variability could in principle distinguish which regime operates in a given pulsar.
  • If the rescaling invariance does not hold, the reported scalings would apply only to the rescaled world; a cross-check with PIC runs that keep the physical QED rates but tolerate lower multiplicity would settle the question.
  • The deterministic low-noise character of the solver makes it a natural tool for studying the sub-Goldreich-Julian space-charge-limited-flow 'dead zone' where pair production is weak and PIC noise dominates, a regime the current paper does not simulate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

4 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper introduces PRVMs, a 1D relativistic Vlasov solver with curvature radiation, radiation reaction, and magnetic pair production, and applies it to pair cascades above pulsar polar caps in the Ruderman–Sutherland and space-charge-limited-flow regimes. The authors report quasiperiodic gap formation, pair-production bursts, strong electric-field oscillations, and particle backflow, and they derive analytic scalings for the gap length, cycle period, and magnetic-energy injection rate. These predictions are compared with their simulation outputs in Table 2. The paper argues that the Vlasov approach avoids the particle noise and exponential-cost bottlenecks of PIC methods and that the results reproduce earlier PIC studies while providing quantitative estimates relevant to coherent radio emission and X-ray hotspot heating.

Significance. If the central claims hold, the paper offers a valuable new tool: a deterministic, noise-free kinetic solver that can follow high-multiplicity QED cascades in one dimension, plus simple analytic scalings that could inform pulsar X-ray hotspot and radio-emission models. The code is open source and the authors validate the underlying Vlasov scheme against the relativistic two-stream instability, which is a genuine strength. The main scientific value, however, depends on whether the controlled rescaling of fundamental constants in Eq. (32) preserves the physics being simulated; the manuscript currently does not demonstrate this, and every quantitative comparison in Table 2 is performed in the rescaled world. The period model is also partly circular because it uses simulated residual densities as input.

major comments (4)
  1. [§3, Table 1, Eq. (32)] The rescaling R'_c = 10^-3 R_c, hbar' = 10^-2 hbar, e' = 10^2 e changes the effective QED coupling e^2/hbar by a factor of 10^6 and enters all of the physical rates: the curvature-photon energy in Eq. (15), the emission rate in Eq. (16), the radiation-reaction force in Eq. (18), and the pair-production kinematics in Eq. (23). This is not a uniform rescaling of units but a change to a different, much more strongly coupled QED problem. The paper calls the rescaling 'controlled' but gives no invariance or convergence test: for example, one would need to vary the rescaling factors by factors of 2–10 and show that the cycle period, gap length, pair multiplicity, and spectral features are unchanged, or that the analytic scalings transform according to the known dependence of Eqs. (15)–(23) on R_c, hbar, and e. Without such a test, Table 2 and the scalings in Eqs. (40), (45), and (53) are validated only for the rescaled parameters and cannot be transferred to physical pulsar parameters.
  2. [§5.2 and Abstract] The abstract states that 'a significant amount of energy is carried in superluminal modes -- collective excitations that could connect to observed radio features,' but Section 5.2 itself states that the 1D setup does not evolve the full electromagnetic fields, so superluminal O-modes 'should not have been captured in the first place,' and that the 1D superluminal features may instead be Langmuir-type waves that appear superluminal under a Lorentz boost. The section concludes that 'the ambiguity cannot be resolved in the present 1D setup.' This is a direct overclaim in the abstract and conclusions. The superluminal-mode claim and its radio-emission connection should be substantially softened or explicitly labeled as unresolved 1D artifacts.
  3. [§4.1, §4.2, Eqs. (42) and (47), Table 2] The period formulas for both models use N, the residual plasma density left behind by the discharge, as an input. Since N is measured from each simulation, the close agreement between T_sim and T_model in Table 2 is not an independent validation of the period model; it partly reflects the use of simulated data in the formula. To make the period prediction genuine, the authors should either derive N from the model (or from a physical estimate) and show the predicted period remains accurate, or demonstrate that the period is insensitive to N over the relevant range. As written, the 'unified analytic model' is a hybrid model for the period rather than a closed-form predictive one.
  4. [§5.1] The paper asserts that the magnetic-energy injection rate calculated from simulations agrees with the model prediction 'within 10% across all cases,' but no comparison table, figure, or per-case numbers are provided for this claim. Given that this energy-injection estimate feeds the surface-heating rates that are a key observational implication, the supporting data should be shown explicitly, for example as a column in Table 2 or a dedicated figure.
minor comments (6)
  1. [§2.1] The sentence 'The the evolution of the electromagnetic fields is govern Maxwell equations' contains typos and should read 'The evolution of the electromagnetic fields is governed by Maxwell's equations.'
  2. [§2.1 and throughout] The scheme solves a 1D electrostatic Vlasov–Poisson system with an imposed current J0, since the magnetic field is taken as static and only Ex evolves. Calling it a 'Vlasov–Maxwell' solver throughout is misleading; the authors should either justify the terminology or refer to it as Vlasov–Poisson for this application.
  3. [§2.2, Figure 1(c)] The text says the relative error in total energy converges to 6%, but the figure legend and caption do not separately identify the curves for charge and energy conservation; the reader cannot see which error saturates at 6% or how the charge-conservation error behaves. Please make the figure self-explanatory.
  4. [Table 1 and Table 2 captions] The captions contain formatting artifacts such as 'T able 1' and 'T able 2'; these should be corrected.
  5. [Acknowledgments] The word 'computaional' is misspelled; it should be 'computational.'
  6. [§5.2] The spectral analysis and its interpretation could be clearer: the paper should explicitly distinguish between phase velocities |ω/k| > c in the numerical 1D spectrum and genuine superluminal electromagnetic modes, especially because the same section notes that the simulation does not capture the full EM field evolution.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 4.0 of 10

Period 'predictions' use the simulated residual density N as an input, making part of the Table 2 agreement by construction; gap scalings remain independent.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Section 4.1, Eqs. (41)-(42); Table 2]
    "tdecay ∼ H/(2c) ln(N/nGJ), where N is the average plasma density left behind after the peak-density plasma blob exits the simulation domain... The total period of the limit-cycle behavior ... is the sum ... TRS ≈ 1/c(lRS_gap + H(1 + 1/2 ln(NRS/nGJ))). Table 2: 'The model-predicted gap length l_gap^(Model) and period T^(Model) agree well with simulation in most RS cases, with relative errors typically below 2%.'"

    The cycle-period prediction is not first-principles: N_RS is measured from the same simulated discharge whose period is being validated. The relaxation term H(1 + 1/2 ln(N/n_GJ)) is a closure that feeds a simulation output back into the model, so the reported agreement of T^(Model) with T^(Sim) in Table 2 is partly by construction. The gap-length scaling Eq. (40) and the injection-power scaling Eq. (53) are derived independently of simulation outputs, so the circularity is confined to the period comparison; it does not undermine the central gap dynamics.

full rationale

The central gap-length scalings (Eqs. 40, 45) and injection-power scalings (Eq. 53) are derived from the same simplified curvature-radiation and pair-production physics encoded in the code via an explicit variational argument (l_p = 6 l_gamma), not fitted to simulation outputs; this is a legitimate consistency check rather than circularity. The one substantive circular step is the cycle-period prediction (Eqs. 42, 47; Table 2): the relaxation time is estimated from N, the residual plasma density left by the simulated discharge, so the model period is partly a re-description of the simulation rather than an independent prediction. The controlled rescaling in Eq. (32) is a serious validity concern--it changes the effective QED coupling by roughly six orders of magnitude and no invariance check is demonstrated--but it is not a logical circularity; it is a correctness/robustness risk and is treated as such here. The paper itself flags the 1D superluminal-mode ambiguity in Section 5.2, so that claim is not over-sold. No load-bearing self-citation or imported-uniqueness issue was found; citations to Timokhin & Harding and Okawa & Chen are contextual, and the code is open source and validated against the two-stream dispersion relation.

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

No new particles, fields, or forces are introduced. The superluminal O-mode is a borrowed interpretation and the authors themselves question it in Section 5.2. The main ledger items are the rescaled QED constants, the extraction fraction, and the domain height, all chosen by hand, plus several domain assumptions about 1D motion and simplified radiation transfer. The ad hoc rescaling is the most important unverified input.

free parameters (5)
  • Rescaled curvature radius R'_c = 10^-3 R_c = 1e5 cm
    Introduced in Eq. (32) to accelerate pair production; changes photon energies, radiation reaction balance, and gap dynamics by an unquantified amount.
  • Rescaled Planck constant hbar' = 10^-2 hbar
    Part of the same rescaling set in Eq. (32); boosts photon emission rates but alters QED rates relative to other scales.
  • Rescaled elementary charge e' = 10^2 e
    Part of the same rescaling set in Eq. (32); strengthens coupling by four orders in e^2 and changes plasma frequency normalization and pair production threshold.
  • Surface extraction fraction zeta = 1%
    SCLF runs emit 1% of induced surface charge as cold particles; results depend on this tunable value and no sensitivity study is shown.
  • Simulation domain height H = 1000 x0 ~ 1e3 cm
    Chosen to match the estimated cascade height; the cycle cadence scales with H/c, so the period formulas depend on this choice.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption The 1D Vlasov-Maxwell system (Eq. 6) with static background B and only parallel electric field describes polar cap pair plasmas.
    Invoked in Section 2.1; relies on strong synchrotron cooling to 1D motion and R_c much larger than gap height. Multi-dimensional effects are ignored despite being acknowledged as potentially important in Section 5.2.
  • domain assumption Curvature radiation is the only radiative channel; SR and IC are neglected.
    Stated in Section 3.1 for the chosen parameter regime. Reasonable for canonical pulsars but not justified for all runs or for millisecond pulsars discussed in Section 5.3.
  • domain assumption Curvature photons are emitted monoenergetically at critical energy and pair production is deterministic once epsilon_gamma sin(theta) > 2, with pairs sharing energy equally.
    The simplified transfer rates in Eqs. (24)-(25) replace the actual Erber cross-section; this removes stochasticity and spectral breadth from the cascade.
  • ad hoc to paper The rescaled constants R'_c, hbar', e' preserve the qualitative and quantitative physics of the cascade.
    Eq. (32) changes production rates by five orders of magnitude and threshold momentum by three orders; no invariance or convergence check is provided. This is the largest unverified input.
  • domain assumption The surface is a perfect conductor with E = 0 at x = 0, and RS/SCLF boundary conditions are modeled by extracting zero or a zeta fraction of induced charge.
    Section 2.1 and Section 4. This idealization is standard but limits contact with real surface work functions and ion extraction physics.
  • ad hoc to paper The gap length estimate minimizes l_p + l_gamma with l_p = 6 l_gamma and a factor 2 for expansion, giving l_gap = (7/3) l_p.
    The minimization and prefactors in Eqs. (36)-(38) are heuristic; they reproduce simulations but are not derived from a kinetic principle.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of 1D Vlasov Simulations of QED Cascades Over Pulsar Polar Caps." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/H6YVGJK3

@misc{pith2026250715804,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: 1D Vlasov Simulations of QED Cascades Over Pulsar Polar Caps},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/H6YVGJK3}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2507.15804}
}
abstract

Recent developments in the study of pulsar radio emission revealed that the microphysics of quantum electrodynamic (QED) pair cascades at pulsar polar caps may be responsible for generating the observed coherent radio waves. However, modeling the pair cascades in the polar cap region poses significant challenges, particularly under conditions of high plasma multiplicity. Traditional Particle-in-Cell (PIC) methods often face rapidly increasing computational costs as the multiplicity grows exponentially. To address this issue, we present a new simulation code using the Vlasov method, which efficiently simulates the evolution of charged particle distribution functions in phase space without a proportional increase in computational expense at high multiplicities. We apply this code to study $e^\pm$ pair cascades in 1D, incorporating key physical processes such as curvature radiation, radiative cooling, and magnetic pair production. We study both the Ruderman-Sutherland (RS) and the Space-charge-limited Flow (SCLF) regimes, and find quasiperiodic gap formation and pair production bursts in both cases. These features produce strong electric field oscillations, potentially enabling coherent low-frequency radio emission. We construct a unified analytic model that describes the key features of the polar cap cascade, which can be used to estimate the return current heating rate that can be used to inform X-ray hotspot models. Spectral analysis shows that a significant amount of energy is carried in superluminal modes -- collective excitations that could connect to observed radio features. Our results align with previous PIC studies while offering enhanced fidelity in both dense and rarefied regions.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2507.15804 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) Electron distribution function of relativistic two-stream instability solved with the proposed scheme at t = 60 ω −1 p . (b) The exponential amplification of the electric field energy owing to relativistic two-stream instability. The simulation reproduced the growth rate obtained from the linear theory. (c) Conservation property for relativistic two￾stream instability solved with the proposed scheme. Relative er… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Snapshot of the simulation of the RS case at t = 900t0 (nGJ = 2n0, η = 1.5). Panels (a)–(c): Phase space distributions of electrons, positrons, and newly produced pairs. Panels (d)–(e): Normalized number densities. Panel (f): Electric field profile. The same panel layout is also used for the simulations of the SCLF model. A full animation of the temporal evolution can be viewed at: RS-movie field. The system then en… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Temporal evolution of the Ruderman–Sutherland discharge at four selected snapshots: t = 300 t0, 600 t0, 900 t0, and 1800 t0 (left to right). Top/Middle row: normalized electron/positron number density. Bottom row: electric field profile. Outflow and backflow components are shown separately in each density panel. These panels illustrate the cyclic dynamics of the RS model. The first column shows the initial developme… view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (4 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Snapshot of the simulation of the SCLF case at t = 525t0 (nGJ = 5n0, η = 2).In the SCLF model, the gap remains stationary during this stage, and pairs are primarily created near the center of the gap. Due to the presence of backflowing positrons, additional pair produc…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Time evolution of particle densities and electric field for an SCLF model discharge. Each column corresponds to a different snapshot in time, from left to right: t = 270t0, 540t0, 810t0, and 1620t0. Top/Middle row: normalized electron/positron number density. Bottom ro…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Frequency–wavenumber spectrum of the electric field energy density E 2 (k, ω) for the RS (left) and SCLF (right) models. The red dashed lines indicate ω = ±ck, corresponding to the light cone. The wave components near ω = ±ck are likely driven by ultra-relativistic pla…

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

50 extracted references · 25 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , " * write output.state after.block = add.period write newline

    ENTRY address archivePrefix author booktitle chapter doi edition editor eprint howpublished institution journal key month number organization pages publisher school series title misctitle type volume year version url label extra.label sort.label short.list INTEGERS output.state before.all mid.sentence after.sentence after.block FUNCTION init.state.consts ...

  2. [2]

    write newline

    " write newline "" before.all 'output.state := FUNCTION format.url url empty "" new.block "" url * "" * if FUNCTION format.eprint eprint empty "" archivePrefix empty "" archivePrefix "arXiv" = new.block " " eprint * " " * new.block " " eprint * " " * if if if FUNCTION format.doi doi empty "" " " doi * " " * if FUNCTION format.pid doi empty eprint empty ur...

  3. [3]

    - [1] #1 = = ^ ^ ^ .\!\!^ d .\!\!^ h .\!\!^ m .\!\!^ s .\!\!^ @mss

    thebibliography [1] 20pt to REFERENCES 6pt =0pt -12pt 10pt plus 3pt =0pt =0pt =1pt plus 1pt =0pt =0pt -12pt =13pt plus 1pt =20pt =13pt plus 1pt \@M =10000 =-1.0em =0pt =0pt 0pt =0pt =1.0em @enumiv\@empty 10000 10000 `\.\@m \@noitemerr \@latex@warning Empty `thebibliography' environment \@ifnextchar \@reference \@latexerr Missing key on reference command E...

    2021

  4. [4]

    Arons, J., & Scharlemann, E. T. 1979, Astrophysical Journal, 231, 854

    work page 1979

  5. [5]

    G., & Harding, A

    Baring, M. G., & Harding, A. K. 2001, The Astrophysical Journal, 547, 929

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    Beloborodov, A. M. 2008, ApJ, 683, L41

    work page 2008

  7. [7]

    Benáček, J., Jessner, A., Pohl, M., Rievajová, T., & Oswald, L. S. 2025, Astronomy & Astrophysics. 2503.17249

    arXiv 2025

  8. [8]

    Dimensionality-Aware Outlier Detection: Theoretical and Experimental Analysis

    Benáček, J., Pohl, M., & Hakobyan, H. 2024, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society. 2401.05453

    work page Pith review arXiv 2024

Show all 50 references
  1. [9]

    Bhattacharya, D., & van den Heuvel, E. P. J. 1991, Physics Reports, 203, 1–124, 10.1016/0370-1573(91)90064-S

    1991 doi

  2. [10]

    A., Parfrey, K., & Spitkovsky, A

    Cerutti, B., Philippov, A. A., Parfrey, K., & Spitkovsky, A. 2015, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 448, 606, 10.1093/mnras/stv040

    2015 doi

  3. [11]

    Y., & Beloborodov, A

    Chen, A. Y., & Beloborodov, A. M. 2012, The Astrophysical Journal, 762, 76

    2012

  4. [12]

    Y., & Beloborodov , A

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

    2014 doi

  5. [13]

    1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 351

    Contopoulos, I., Kazanas, D., & Fendt, C. 1999, The Astrophysical Journal, 511, 351. http://iopscience.iop.org/0004-637X/511/1/351

    1999

  6. [14]

    Cruz, F., Cerutti, B., & Uzdensky, D. A. 2021, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 921, L28, 10.3847/2041-8213/ac2f3d

    2021 doi

  7. [15]

    2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics

    Cruz, F., Grismayer, T., Torres, R., et al. 2024, Astronomy & Astrophysics

    2024

  8. [16]

    K., & Harding, A

    Daugherty, J. K., & Harding, A. K. 1983, The Astrophysical Journal, 273, 761

    1983

  9. [17]

    1966, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 626

    Erber, T. 1966, Reviews of Modern Physics, 38, 626

    1966

  10. [18]

    2003, Computer Physics Communications, 150, 247

    Filbet, F., & Sonnendrücker, E. 2003, Computer Physics Communications, 150, 247

    2003

  11. [19]

    Gil, J., & Melikidze, G. I. 2003, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 407, 315, 10.1051/0004-6361:20030857

    2003 doi

  12. [20]

    2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 1, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.05700.x

    Gil, J., & Mitra, D. 2001, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 336, 1, 10.1046/j.1365-8711.2001.05700.x

    2001

  13. [21]

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

    1969 doi

  14. [22]

    E., & Jacobson, T

    Gralla, S. E., & Jacobson, T. 2014, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 445, 2500

    2014

  15. [23]

    E., Lupsasca, A., & Philippov, A

    Gralla, S. E., Lupsasca, A., & Philippov, A. 2020, Physical Review D, 102, 123017, 10.1103/PhysRevD.102.123017

    2020 doi

  16. [24]

    1999, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9902288

    Gruzinov, A. 1999, arXiv preprint astro-ph/9902288

    1999 arXiv

  17. [25]

    2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A168

    Guépin, C., Cerutti, B., & Kotera, K. 2019, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 627, A168

    2019

  18. [26]

    A., & Arons, J

    Hibschman, J. A., & Arons, J. 2001, Astrophysical Journal, 560, 871

    2001

  19. [27]

    K., & Kazanas, D

    Kalapotharakos, C., Brambilla, G., Timokhin, A., Harding, A. K., & Kazanas, D. 2018, The Astrophysical Journal, 857, 44, 10.3847/1538-4357/aab550

    2018 doi

  20. [28]

    Komissarov , S. S. 2006, , 367, 19, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2005.09932.x

    2006

  21. [29]

    R., & Kramer, M

    Lorimer, D. R., & Kramer, M. 2005, Handbook of Pulsar Astronomy, Cambridge Observing Handbooks for Research Astronomers (Cambridge University Press)

    2005

  22. [30]

    2008, Journal of Plasma Physics, 74, 619–629

    Lyubarsky, Y. 2008, Journal of Plasma Physics, 74, 619–629

    2008

  23. [31]

    Michel , F. C. 1973, , 180, 207, 10.1086/151956

    1973 doi

  24. [32]

    G., & Tsygan, A

    Muslimov, A. G., & Tsygan, A. I. 1992, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 255, 61

    1992

  25. [33]

    Okawa, T., & Chen, A. Y. 2024, The Astrophysical Journal, 970, 46, 10.3847/1538-4357/acec12

    2024 doi

  26. [34]

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

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

    2015 doi

  27. [35]

    A., Timokhin, A

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

    2020

  28. [36]

    2002, Physics of Plasmas, 9, 2014

    Qin, H., Tang, W., Rewoldt, G., & Lee, W. 2002, Physics of Plasmas, 9, 2014

    2002

  29. [37]

    Z., Melrose, D

    Rafat, M. Z., Melrose, D. B., & Mastrano, A. 2019, Journal of Plasma Physics, 85, 905850305, 10.1017/S0022377819000448

    2019 doi

  30. [38]

    A., & Sutherland, P

    Ruderman, M. A., & Sutherland, P. G. 1975, Astrophysical Journal, 196, 51

    1975

  31. [39]

    2019, Journal of Computational Physics, 379, 32, 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.041

    Shiroto, T., Ohnishi, N., & Sentoku, Y. 2019, Journal of Computational Physics, 379, 32, 10.1016/j.jcp.2018.10.041

    2019 doi

  32. [40]

    2024, Physical Review D, 109, 063012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063012

    Song, H.-H., & Tamburini, M. 2024, Physical Review D, 109, 063012, 10.1103/PhysRevD.109.063012

    2024 doi

  33. [41]

    2006, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 648, L51, 10.1086/507518

    Spitkovsky, A. 2006, The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 648, L51, 10.1086/507518

    2006 doi

  34. [42]

    2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037669

    Sznajder, M., & Geppert, U. 2020, Astronomy & Astrophysics, 640, A99, 10.1051/0004-6361/202037669

    2020 doi

  35. [43]

    Timokhin, A. N. 2006, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 368, 1055, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2006.10117.x

    2006

  36. [44]

    2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 2092, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x

    ---. 2010, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 408, 2092, 10.1111/j.1365-2966.2010.17286.x

    2010

  37. [45]

    N., & Arons, J

    Timokhin, A. N., & Arons, J. 2013, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 429, 20, 10.1093/mnras/sts298

    2013 doi

  38. [46]

    N., & Harding , A

    Timokhin , A. N., & Harding , A. K. 2015, , 810, 144, 10.1088/0004-637X/810/2/144

    2015 doi

  39. [47]

    2019, , 871, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050

    ---. 2019, , 871, 12, 10.3847/1538-4357/aaf050

    2019 doi

  40. [48]

    W., et al

    Tolman, B. W., et al. 2022, Phys. Rev. D, 106, 063013

    2022

  41. [49]

    V., & Melrose, D

    Usov, V. V., & Melrose, D. B. 1995, Australian Journal of Physics, 48, 571, 10.1071/PH950571

    1995 doi

  42. [50]

    Zhang, B., & Harding, A. K. 2000, The Astrophysical Journal, 532, 1150, 10.1086/308594

    2000 doi

Pith tools

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