Pith. sign in

REVIEW 4 major objections 4 minor 159 references

Circumstellar interaction in the extreme white dwarf merger remnant ZTF\,J1901+1458: A new class of white dwarf merger remnants with X-ray emission

T0 review · 4 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-15 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read ZTF J1901+1458's X-rays come from circumstellar material interacting with its ~720-MG magnetosphere, not from the white dwarf's surface.

desk verdict Solid multi-wavelength study with a real new atmosphere-model result; the X-ray detection is secure, but the 600% pulse fraction is statistically under-supported and the stellar parameters carry unquantified systematics. read the letter →

arxiv 2509.03216 v2 pith:L4W6UYRX submitted 2025-09-03 astro-ph.SR astro-ph.HE

Aayush Desai , Ilaria Caiazzo , Stephane Vennes , Adela Kawka , Tim Cunningham , Gauri Kotiwale , Andrei A. Cristea , John C. Raymond
show 26 more authors
Maria Camisassa Leandro G. Althaus J. J. Hermes Iris Traulsen James Fuller Jeremy Heyl Jan van Roestel Kevin B. Burdge Antonio C. Rodriguez Ingrid Pelisoli Boris T. Gänsicke Paula Szkody Sumit K. Maheshwari Zachary P. Vanderbosch Andrew Drake Lilia Ferrario Dayal Wickramasinghe Stephen Justham Ruediger Pakmor Kareem El-Badry Thomas Prince S. R. Kulkarni Matthew J. Graham Ben Rusholme Russ R. Laher Josiah Purdum
This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.SRastro-ph.HE
keywords whitedwarfmergersmagneticdwarfsX-rayemissioncircumstellarmatteratmospheremodelsZTFJ1901+1458propelleraccretionmagnetosphericinteraction
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's aim is to establish that the extreme white dwarf merger remnant ZTF J1901+1458 produces its X-rays not from its hot surface but from material around the star interacting with its powerful magnetosphere, making it the first member of a new class of isolated merger remnants with X-ray emission. To get there, the authors build magnetic atmosphere models that let a strong magnetic field alter the atmosphere's structure and opacities, and these models for the first time explain the mysterious ~3000 Å spectral break seen in many highly magnetised white dwarfs. With those models they revise the star's radius, temperature, mass, and cooling age, and they use near-infrared data to rule out a stellar or brown dwarf companion hotter than about 700 K, leaving circumstellar material as the X-ray power source. If the paper is right, J1901 together with the similar ZTF J2008+4449 defines a new class of white dwarf merger remnants whose X-ray emission traces fallback debris, a disrupted planet, or a magnetically driven wind.

What carries the argument

The central object is a new grid of magnetic white dwarf atmosphere models in hydrostatic, radiative, and convective equilibrium, in which the visible hemisphere is split into 900 surface elements each with its own local field strength and viewing angle, and magnetic opacities (including forbidden Zeeman transitions) feed back into the thermal structure of the atmosphere. This feedback is what produces the ~3000 Å break that non-magnetic models cannot explain. The second carrier of the argument is the comparison of the magnetospheric radius, $R_m\approx500$–$700\,R_{\rm WD}$, with the Keplerian corotation radius, $R_K\approx35\,R_{\rm WD}$: because $R_m\gg R_K$, J1901 is firmly in the propeller regime, where infalling material is centrifugally ejected and shocks or magnetic reconnections generate the observed soft power-law X-rays.

What would settle it

Take a long, phase-resolved X-ray observation of the pulse: the propeller and reconnection picture predicts a featureless power law with $\Gamma\approx2.9$, while a thermal origin predicts emission lines from a $\sim0.23$ keV and $\sim3$ keV plasma; detecting such lines would rule out the non-thermal interpretation, and a pulse shape that requires relativistic beaming would place the X-ray region near the light cylinder rather than near the white dwarf surface.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

This paper argues that J1901, the most compact and strongly magnetised known white dwarf merger remnant, is an isolated star of about 1.3 solar masses whose soft, 416-second-pulsed X-ray emission cannot come from its 28,000 K photosphere and must instead be powered by interaction of its ~720 MG magnetosphere with circumstellar material. New magnetic atmosphere models that include magnetic opacities reproduce the unexplained 3000 Å SED break and yield $T_{\rm eff}=28{,}015\pm20$ K, $R=2630\pm10$ km, a mass of $1.29$–$1.31$ $M_\odot$, and a cooling age of roughly 0.46–0.49 Gyr. The near-infrared data exclude a Roche-lobe-filling stellar or brown dwarf companion hotter than about 700 K, and the X-ray spectrum, $L_X\simeq(1.3\pm0.2)\times10^{27}$ erg/s with photon index $\Gamma=2.9^{+0.4}_{-0.3}$, is pulsed at the rotation period. The paper therefore places J1901, with its twin J2008, as the first member of a new class: isolated, X-ray-emitting white dwarf merger remnants interacting with circumstellar material.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the star's magnetic field is close to a simple centred dipole viewed at a fixed inclination; if the true surface field is far more complex, the revised radius, temperature, mass, cooling age, and the X-ray energetics inferred from them would shift beyond the quoted statistical errors.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The revised radius and mass place the central density below the sodium electron-capture threshold, so the previously suggested Urca-collapse instability is unlikely; instead the core is expected to be roughly 50–80% crystallised.
  • The 3000 Å break is a magnetic-opacity effect, so reliable temperatures, radii, and masses for ultramagnetised white dwarfs require UV data and magnetic atmosphere models; non-magnetic SED fits can be systematically off.
  • The X-ray luminosity corresponds to a lower-limit accretion rate of about $4\times10^9$ g/s, compatible with fallback material from a merger still accreting at a low level hundreds of Myr later, a regime current merger simulations have not yet probed.
  • The ~600% pulsed, soft X-ray emission, anti-phased with the far-UV continuum, points to a compact emission region near a magnetic pole or to relativistic beaming; phase-resolved X-ray spectroscopy can distinguish between these geometries.
  • If J1901 and J2008 are related systems, they define a new class of isolated merger remnants whose X-ray luminosity, H-alpha emission, and spin-down rate trace the available circumstellar material, with J2008 younger and richer in material than J1901.

Reading between the lines

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

  • If the magnetic-opacity mechanism is general, published temperatures and radii of other strongly magnetic white dwarfs fitted with non-magnetic models may be systematically off, so re-fitting existing UV/optical SEDs could shift the inferred masses and ages of the whole class.
  • The J1901/J2008 comparison suggests an evolutionary sequence in which X-ray luminosity and H-alpha emission decay as fallback material is depleted over a few hundred Myr; finding a third object with intermediate luminosity and age would test this directly.
  • The propeller geometry implies angular-momentum loss from ejected material, so years of high-speed photometry should reveal a period derivative larger than the dipole-braking value of about $2\times10^{-14}$ s/s, distinguishing wind or propeller torques from simple magnetic braking.
  • Because the quoted stellar parameters assume a centred dipole, a Zeeman-tomographic reconstruction of the real field could change the radius, temperature, mass, and cooling-age estimates; the qualitative conclusion that the X-rays are non-photospheric and circumstellar would, however, likely survive unless the true geometry drastically changes the SED fit.
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 / 4 minor

Summary. This paper presents a multiwavelength study of the extreme white dwarf merger remnant ZTF J1901+1458, combining new HST/COS and STIS ultraviolet spectroscopy, optical and near-infrared photometry and spectroscopy, and archival plus new X-ray data from Chandra and XMM-Newton. The authors use newly developed magnetic atmosphere models that include the effect of field-dependent opacities on the atmospheric structure to fit the UV-to-optical SED, obtaining Teff = 28,015 K, a radius of 2630 km, B_avg = 721 MG, a mass near 1.3 M_sun, and a cooling age of about 0.48 Gyr. They exclude a Roche-lobe-filling brown dwarf companion hotter than about 700 K. A joint spectral fit of the X-ray data gives a soft power-law with photon index 2.9 and L_X = 1.3e27 erg/s in the 0.25-10 keV band, and the X-ray events are reported to be pulsed on the optical spin period with a pulse height of about 600%. The authors argue that the X-rays cannot be photospheric and are instead produced by interaction of the WD magnetosphere with circumstellar material, and they propose that J1901 and the similar object ZTF J2008+4449, presented in a companion paper, form a new class of X-ray-emitting white dwarf merger remnants.

Significance. If the central claims hold, this paper substantially improves the physical picture of J1901 and provides the first well-characterized example of an isolated, ultra-massive, rapidly rotating magnetic white dwarf whose non-photospheric X-rays are modulated on the spin period. The X-ray detections are robust: the Chandra VFAINT reprocessing yields a 6.5 sigma source in the medium band and the XMM PN detection is at 9-10 sigma, and the non-photospheric nature of the X-rays is secure for a 28,000 K hydrogen atmosphere. The near-infrared companion exclusion is careful and quantitative, and the new magnetic atmosphere models with variable opacities are a genuine technical advance that appears to reproduce the puzzling 3000 Angstrom break. The main risk to the paper's significance is the statistical support for the reported 600% X-ray pulse fraction, which is load-bearing for the magnetospheric origin and for the new class interpretation, and the unquantified systematic errors in the SED-based stellar parameters.

major comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.8 and Section 4.5 (Fig. 11, Table 5)] The reported approximately 600% X-ray pulse fraction is not statistically supported by the information presented. Table B.1 gives 306 source counts and 140 expected background counts in the PN 0.2-4.5 keV band; the periodogram in Section 3.8 uses a narrower 0.3-1.0 keV range and five phase bins, so the minimum phase bin must contain only a handful of background-subtracted counts. The paper never states the number of counts in the minimum bin, the background contribution there, or a confidence interval on the pulse fraction, and the significance thresholds in Fig. 11 are defined as multiples of the standard deviation of the periodogram values, which is not a false-alarm probability for the number of trial periods scanned. It is also not stated whether the phase-folded events have been background-subtracted, which matters because the background is about half of the PN source-region counts. Please provide a background-subtracted phase-folded light curve with per-bin counts, a proper detection significance accounting for trials (e.g., bootstrap or analytic trials factor), and an uncertainty on the pulse fraction. This is load-bearing because the interpretation that the X-ray emission is rotationally locked and originates near the WD surface rests on this measurement.
  2. [Sections 3.3-3.4 and Fig. 7] The best-fit parameters and the derived mass, cooling age, and central density are based on a single centered dipole with a fixed inclination of 80 degrees and approximate bound-free opacities; the authors explicitly state in Section 3.3 that the Lyman line shapes and Balmer edges are not well reproduced and that systematic errors are expected to be larger than the quoted statistical errors. Despite this, Table 2 quotes only statistical uncertainties, and Section 4.1 uses the resulting central density of about 7.3-7.6 x 10^8 g/cc to conclude that the core is below the sodium electron-capture threshold. Please quantify the systematic uncertainty on R and Teff by testing at least a few alternative field geometries, inclinations, or opacity treatments. Without this, the revised Titan-sized radius, the mass of about 1.3 M_sun, and the electron-capture conclusion are not robust.
  3. [Section 3.8 and middle panel of Fig. 11] The X-ray periodogram peak is reported at PX = 415.771 s and the comparison optical period is given as PO = 416.394 s, while Section 3.1 determines the spin period to be 416.243058 +/- 0.000008 s. The text states that the X-ray period matches closely the optical period, but no uncertainty is quoted for the X-ray period, and the 0.47 s offset from the precise optical value is formally enormous, although it may be within the X-ray frequency resolution. Please give the X-ray period with its uncertainty and discuss the consistency quantitatively, since the phase-locking of the X-rays to the optical spin period is a key piece of evidence for the magnetospheric interpretation.
  4. [Section 4.7 and title] The new class of white dwarf merger remnants with X-ray emission claim rests on the comparison with ZTF J2008+4449, whose properties are presented in the companion paper Cristea et al. (2025), which is not available for scrutiny here. The key supporting evidence for J2008, including its H-alpha emission, its spin-down rate, and its X-ray light curve, cannot be checked from the present manuscript. I ask the editor to circulate the companion paper to the referees, or to have the authors include the essential J2008 spectra and timing data in an appendix, before the class-level claim is accepted.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section 3.7 and Table 3] The text gives L_X = 1.28(+0.18,-0.15) x 10^-15 erg/s, but the units should be 10^27 erg/s as stated in Table 3 and the abstract; this appears to be a typographical error in the exponent.
  2. [Fig. 11] The optical comparison period in the middle panel is labelled PO = 416.394 s, which is inconsistent with the more precise value P = 416.243058 s quoted in Section 3.1 and Table 5; please harmonize the labels and provide uncertainties.
  3. [Section 6 (Conclusions)] In the paragraph summarizing the X-ray fit, the plasma temperature is written as kT = 0.23±0.03 K; the unit should be keV as used elsewhere in the paper.
  4. [Table 4] The entry for RE J0317-853 shows 'Non-Detection1.' with a footnote marker that is not formatted consistently with the other notes in the table; please fix the typography and ensure the references Harayama et al. (2013) and Dessert et al. (2022) are both cited in the table notes.

Circularity Check

1 steps flagged · score 2.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the X-ray/CSM conclusion rests on independent X-ray and NIR data; only the 3000 Å break 'reproduction' is a postdiction from the SED fit.

  1. fitted input called prediction [Abstract; Section 3.3 (Modelling the spectral energy distribution), Fig. 6]
    "Our results demonstrate that the spectral break at ≈3000 Å, observed in several highly magnetised WDs, is well-reproduced by our new models ... We employ a grid of models ... to fit the SED of the WD. ... In Fig. 6, we show that our model ... naturally reproduces the overall shape of the WD's SED."

    The 3000 Å break is part of the very SED used to fit the free parameters (Teff, R/D, Bavg, E(B-V)) in Section 3.3. A model optimized against this dataset will, by construction, track features in that dataset, so the 'reproduction' of the break is a postdiction/consistency check rather than an independent prediction. The wording 'demonstrate ... is well-reproduced' presents the fit quality as confirmation, but the feature was not held out or predicted before the fit. This is mild and does not affect the main X-ray/CSM conclusion, which is based on independent X-ray data.

full rationale

The central claims of the paper are not circular. The X-ray detection, its spin-period pulsation, and the exclusion of a stellar/brown-dwarf companion are empirical anchors that do not depend on the fitted magnetic atmosphere parameters. The argument that the X-rays are too hard and too bright to be photospheric uses only the measured X-ray spectra plus standard photospheric expectations, so it is independent of the SED-fitting loop. The near-infrared companion limit is a genuine forward check: the magnetic model was fit only to UV/optical data, and the UKIDSS/FIRE data then show no excess. The revised mass, radius, and cooling age come from fitting the magnetic atmosphere model to the UV/optical SED and then interpolating on published evolutionary tracks; this is a normal parameter-inference chain, not a definitional loop. Self-citations to the companion paper on ZTF J2008+4449 support the 'new class' suggestion and the ISM exclusion, but those are independent external observations presented in a companion paper, not an unverified uniqueness theorem or ansatz smuggled in by citation. The only mild circularity is the presentation of the 3000 Å break as 'well-reproduced' by models that were themselves fitted to the SED containing the break; this is a postdiction rather than an independent prediction, but it does not carry the paper's main X-ray/CSM conclusion. Overall, the derivation is self-contained against external benchmarks and no substantive circular step is load-bearing.

Assumptions & free parameters 6 free parameters · 8 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claims rest on the fitted SED parameters (Teff, R/D, B_avg, E(B-V)) and the fitted X-ray spectral parameters, plus standard stellar-atmosphere and accretion assumptions. The fixed dipole geometry and approximate opacities are choices specific to this paper, and the wind scenario is explicitly speculative. No new physical entities are introduced.

free parameters (6)
  • Teff (effective temperature) = 28,015 K (statistical ±20 K)
    Free parameter in the magnetic atmosphere SED fit (Section 3.3, Table 2). Statistical error only; geometry systematics not included.
  • R/D (radius-to-distance ratio) = R = 2630 ± 10 km at D = 41.39 pc
    SED fit parameter; converted to radius with the Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric distance.
  • B_avg (average surface magnetic field) = 721 ± 5 MG
    Fitted dipolar field strength in SED modeling; polar field Bp = 1055 MG.
  • E(B-V) extinction = 0.0 (best fit)
    SED fit parameter; reddening with the Gordon et al. (2023) extinction curve.
  • X-ray power-law parameters (nH, photon index, normalization) = nH ~ 0.07e22 cm^-2, Gamma = 2.9, log10 norm ~ -5.77
    Fitted to the joint XMM-Newton and Chandra spectra (Section 3.7, Fig. B.1).
  • X-ray two-temperature APEC parameters = kT1 = 2.95 keV, kT2 = 0.23 keV, nH ~ 0.02e22 cm^-2
    Alternative spectral model fitted to the same X-ray data for model comparison (Section 3.7, Fig. B.1).
assumptions (8)
  • domain assumption The magnetic atmosphere models are in hydrostatic equilibrium and joint radiative-convective equilibrium, with opacities from cited literature (Lamb & Sutherland 1974; Jordan 1992; Schimeczek & Wunner 2014).
    Standard stellar atmosphere assumptions invoked in Section 3.2; the bound-free opacities are approximate, and the authors state exact opacities are needed.
  • ad hoc to paper The surface field is a centered dipole with inclination fixed at 80 degrees to the line of sight.
    Section 3.3: 'We employ a grid of models with a fixed field geometry (a dipole with inclination with respect to the line of sight of 80 degrees).' The paper acknowledges the true geometry is likely different.
  • domain assumption The WD is hydrogen-dominated, as indicated by the Zeeman-split Lyman lines.
    From the COS spectrum (Section 3.2), consistent with the earlier discovery paper.
  • domain assumption Distance D = 41.39 ± 0.06 pc from the Bailer-Jones et al. (2021) photogeometric estimate.
    Used to convert R/D to a physical radius (Section 3.3).
  • domain assumption Evolutionary cooling tracks of Althaus et al. (2022, 2023) for ONe and CO cores correctly give mass and cooling age.
    Section 3.4; some present authors are co-authors of those track papers, but the tracks are published external models.
  • domain assumption The gravitational energy of infalling material is converted to X-rays with efficiency A = 1 and half the photons absorbed by the star (Patterson & Raymond 1985).
    Equation 7 in Section 3.7; used to estimate the lower-limit accretion rate.
  • domain assumption The magnetospheric radius is a fraction xi = 0.5 of the Alfven radius (Pringle & Rees 1972).
    Equation 8 in Section 4.3; standard prescription but with a chosen numerical factor.
  • ad hoc to paper If the rapidly rotating magnetic field can power a weak wind, material could be extracted from the surface of the WD.
    Section 4.3; explicitly speculative, requiring MHD simulation beyond the scope of the paper.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Circumstellar interaction in the extreme white dwarf merger remnant ZTF\,J1901+1458: A new class of white dwarf merger remnants with X-ray emission." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/L4W6UYRX

@misc{pith2026250903216,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Circumstellar interaction in the extreme white dwarf merger remnant ZTF\,J1901+1458: A new class of white dwarf merger remnants with X-ray emission},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/L4W6UYRX}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2509.03216}
}
abstract

Double degenerate white dwarf (WD) mergers can exhibit extreme magnetic fields exceeding $10^{8}$ G and rapid rotation, but their spectral-energy distributions and high-energy emission mechanisms remain poorly characterised. ZTF J1901+1458 stands out as the most compact and strongly magnetised object discovered in this class to date. Recent Chandra observations have revealed that the white dwarf is also a source of soft X-ray emission, inconsistent with a photospheric origin. We analyse new phase resolved UV spectroscopy from the HST combined with optical and near-infrared photometry and spectroscopy, with newly developed magnetic atmosphere models to determine its effective temperature, radius, mass, average surface magnetic field strength, and cooling age. Our results demonstrate that the spectral break at $\approx$3000 {\AA}, observed in several highly magnetised WDs, is well-reproduced by our new models, which take into account the effect of magnetic opacities on the structure of the atmosphere. Our best-fit parameters for the WD yield an effective temperature ($T_{\rm{eff}}=28,015\pm 20$ K) and larger radius ($2630\pm10$ km) than previously reported. Furthermore, the near-infrared data exclude the presence of a stellar or brown dwarf companion hotter than $\approx$700 K. We also jointly analyse the previously published Chandra data and new XMM-Newton X-ray spectra. The faint X-ray emission, $L_X =(1.3\pm0.2)\times10^{27}$ erg/s is very soft and highly pulsed on the rotation period of the WD. We suggest that the X-rays are powered by accretion or via the interaction of the WD magnetosphere with CSM. If the rapidly rotating magnetic field could power a weak wind along open field lines, material could be extracted directly from the surface of the WD. Alternatively, accretion of fallback material from the merger or the tidal disruption of a planetary body are possible sources of CSM.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2509.03216 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. COS and STIS spectra of J1901. Top: Phase-averaged UV spectrum of J1901. The different bands used to reconstruct the light curves are marked by their respective colours. Middle Right: Light curves of J1901 for the bands defined in the top panel. Each light curve is divided by its mean and placed in a panel with y-axis limits set to (0.92,1.08). The phase was calculated while fixing the amplitude and period. They are… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Line profiles of the absorption features present at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. LightSpeed (upper plot) and CHIMERA (lower two plots) [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (11 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Spectrum obtained from the FIRE instrument. The black [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Left: Our synthetic spectral models with the same effective temperature (Teff = 28, 000) and magnetic field structure (a centred dipole with an inclination of 80◦ with respect to the line of sight) and different magnetic field strength at the pole (solid lines). Also, …
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Spectral energy distribution of J1901. The red line shows the phase-averaged spectrum from COS and STIS. The red points [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Top: Corner plot with the marginalised distributions of the Radius, Temperature, Magnetic field and Extinction. The contours indicate the 1 and 3 sigma limits. Bottom: ONe-core WD evolutionary tracks for different masses from Althaus et al. (2023) (radius and cooling t…
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Top: BD effective temperature Ttot,BD (Eq. (3)) of a Roche-lobe-filling brown dwarf companion as a function of orbital separation (bottom axis, in units of the WD’s radius, RWD ≈ 2646 km) and corresponding orbital period (top axis). Coloured points denote different com…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Central wavelength of the first nine cyclotron harmonics [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: Fit to the available archival X-ray spectroscopic data, including XMM EPIC PN (left) and MOS (middle) and Chandra [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]
Figure 11
Figure 11. Figure 11: Top and Middle: Chi-squared periodogram for the EPIC PN source events. The chi-squared value indicates the goodness-of-fit for a constant count rate after phase folding the event times at each of the periods shown. Large chi-squared val￾ues indicate periodic variabili…
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: Left: Figure showing the starting phase (top) and amplitude (bottom) of the lightcurve with respect to the Reference Ephemeris as a function of the central wavelength of the respective band. Right: Figure showing lightcurves in all observed bands. Apart from XMM, all …
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: Top: Phase-folded and normalised light curves in the different bands. The phase is defined with respect to the reference ephemeris. The ZTF light curves are in the right-most panel, while the HST light curves for COS and STIS are in the left and middle panels, respect…
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: Figure illustrating a possible setup (not to scale) of J1901 in blue, with dipolar field lines emanating from the poles. The [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

159 extracted references · 48 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    & Wickramasinghe, D

    Achilleos, N. & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1989, ApJ, 346, 444

    1989

  2. [2]

    G., Camisassa, M

    Althaus, L. G., Camisassa, M. E., Torres, S., et al. 2022, A&A, 668, A58

    2022

  3. [3]

    G., Córsico, A

    Althaus, L. G., Córsico, A. H., Camisassa, M. E., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 4492

    2023

  4. [4]

    G., Gil-Pons, P., Córsico, A

    Althaus, L. G., Gil-Pons, P., Córsico, A. H., et al. 2021, A&A, 646, A30

    2021

  5. [5]

    Arnaud, K. A. 1996, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 101, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V , ed. G. H. Jacoby & J. Barnes, 17

    1996

  6. [6]

    J., & Scott, P

    Asplund, M., Grevesse, N., Sauval, A. J., & Scott, P. 2009, ARA&A, 47, 481 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Lim, P. L., et al. 2022, ApJ, 935, 167 Astropy Collaboration, Price-Whelan, A. M., Sip˝ocz, B. M., et al. 2018, AJ, 156, 123 Astropy Collaboration, Robitaille, T. P., Tollerud, E. J., et al. 2013, A&A, 558, A33

    2009

  7. [7]

    & Montmerle, T

    Babel, J. & Montmerle, T. 1997, A&A, 323, 121

    1997

  8. [8]

    Bailer-Jones, C. A. L., Rybizki, J., Fouesneau, M., Demleitner, M., & Andrae, R. 2021, AJ, 161, 147

    2021

Show all 159 references
  1. [9]

    2024, On the X-ray e fficiency of the white dwarf pulsar candidate ZTF J190132.9+145808.7

    Bamba, A., Terada, Y ., Kashiyama, K., et al. 2024, On the X-ray e fficiency of the white dwarf pulsar candidate ZTF J190132.9+145808.7

    2024

  2. [10]

    A., Jordan, S., O’Donoghue, D., et al

    Barstow, M. A., Jordan, S., O’Donoghue, D., et al. 1995, MNRAS

    1995

  3. [11]

    Belcher, J. W. & MacGregor, K. B. 1976, ApJ, 210, 498

    1976

  4. [12]

    C., Kulkarni, S

    Bellm, E. C., Kulkarni, S. R., Graham, M. J., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018002

    2019

  5. [13]

    & Ginzburg, S

    Blatman, D. & Ginzburg, S. 2024, MNRAS, 533, L13

    2024

  6. [14]

    Lovelace, R. V . E. 2019, MNRAS, 487, 1754

    2019

  7. [15]

    2018, A&A, 617, A126

    Bozzo, E., Ascenzi, S., Ducci, L., et al. 2018, A&A, 617, A126

    2018

  8. [16]

    2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    Bradley, L., Sip˝ocz, B., Robitaille, T., et al. 2024, astropy/photutils: 2.0.2

    2024

  9. [17]

    Brent, R. P. 1973, Algorithms for Minimization without Derivatives| BibSonomy

    1973

  10. [18]

    2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    Buchner, J. 2016, Astrophysics Source Code Library

    2016

  11. [19]

    2014, A&A, 564, A125

    Buchner, J., Georgakakis, A., Nandra, K., et al. 2014, A&A, 564, A125

    2014

  12. [20]

    R., Jordan, S., & Schweizer, W

    Burleigh, M. R., Jordan, S., & Schweizer, W. 1999, ApJ, 510, L37

    1999

  13. [21]

    2021, The radius and magnetic field structure of the smallest white dwarf, HST Proposal

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K., Ferrario, L., et al. 2021, The radius and magnetic field structure of the smallest white dwarf, HST Proposal. Cycle 29, ID. #16753

    2021

  14. [22]

    B., Fuller, J., et al

    Caiazzo, I., Burdge, K. B., Fuller, J., et al. 2021, Nature, 595, 39–42

    2021

  15. [23]

    2018, A&A, 610, A46

    Campana, S., Stella, L., Mereghetti, S., & de Martino, D. 2018, A&A, 610, A46

    2018

  16. [24]

    Carnall, A. C. 2017, SpectRes: A Fast Spectral Resampling Tool in Python

    2017

  17. [25]

    C., Magnier, E

    Chambers, K. C., Magnier, E. A., Metcalfe, N., et al. 2019, The Pan-STARRS1 Surveys

    2019

  18. [26]

    2009, Nature, 461, 501

    Charpinet, S., Fontaine, G., & Brassard, P. 2009, Nature, 461, 501

    2009

  19. [27]

    & Takata, J

    Cheng, Y . & Takata, J. 2025, Spin evolution modeling for a newly-formed white dwarf resulting from binary white dwarf merger

    2025

  20. [28]

    Cox, D. P. & Reynolds, R. J. 1987, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astro- physics, 25, 303

    1987

  21. [29]

    2023, Scientific colour maps

    Crameri, F. 2023, Scientific colour maps

    2023

  22. [30]

    A., Caiazzo, I., Cunningham, T., et al

    Cristea, A. A., Caiazzo, I., Cunningham, T., et al. 2025, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2507.13850

    2025

  23. [31]

    Z., et al

    Cunningham, T., Caiazzo, I., Prusinski, N. Z., et al. 2024, ApJ, 975, L7

    2024

  24. [32]

    J., Tremblay, P.-E., et al

    Cunningham, T., Wheatley, P. J., Tremblay, P.-E., et al. 2022, Nature, 602, 219

    2022

  25. [33]

    2014, MNRAS, 438, 14

    Dan, M., Rosswog, S., Brüggen, M., & Podsiadlowski, P. 2014, MNRAS, 438, 14

    2014

  26. [34]

    M., Riddle, R., et al

    Dekany, R., Smith, R. M., Riddle, R., et al. 2020, PASP, 132, 038001

    2020

  27. [35]

    J., & Safdi, B

    Dessert, C., Long, A. J., & Safdi, B. R. 2019, Phys. Rev. Lett., 123, 061104

    2019

  28. [36]

    J., & Safdi, B

    Dessert, C., Long, A. J., & Safdi, B. R. 2022, Phys. Rev. Lett., 128, 071102

    2022

  29. [37]

    S., Marsh, T

    Dhillon, V . S., Marsh, T. R., Stevenson, M. J., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 378, 825

    2007

  30. [38]

    1996, ApJ, 472, 783

    Dominguez, I., Straniero, O., Tornambe, A., & Isern, J. 1996, ApJ, 472, 783

    1996

  31. [39]

    & Horne, K

    Eracleous, M. & Horne, K. 1996, ApJ, 471, 427

    1996

  32. [40]

    T., & Hessman, F

    Euchner, F., Jordan, S., Beuermann, K., Gänsicke, B. T., & Hessman, F. V . 2002, A&A, 390, 633 8 http://www.astropy.org

    2002

  33. [41]

    A., Schaefer, B

    Fesen, R. A., Schaefer, B. E., & Patchick, D. 2023, ApJ, 945, L4

    2023

  34. [42]

    G., Halm, H., Neuhäuser, R., & Neuhäuser, D

    Fischer, J. G., Halm, H., Neuhäuser, R., & Neuhäuser, D. L. 2025, Astronomis- che Nachrichten, n/a, e70024

    2025

  35. [43]

    2023, Phys

    Fleury, L., Caiazzo, I., & Heyl, J. 2023, Phys. Rev. D, 107, L101303

    2023

  36. [44]

    W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D., & Goodman, J. 2013, PASP, 125, 306

    2013

  37. [45]

    2022, A&A, 662, A125

    Fouesneau, M., Andrae, R., Dharmawardena, T., et al. 2022, A&A, 662, A125

    2022

  38. [46]

    C., Redfield, S., & Slavin, J

    Frisch, P. C., Redfield, S., & Slavin, J. D. 2011, Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics, 49, 237

    2011

  39. [47]

    C., Allen, G

    Fruscione, A., McDowell, J. C., Allen, G. E., et al. 2006, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 6270, Ob- servatory Operations: Strategies, Processes, and Systems, ed. D. R. Silva & R. E. Doxsey, 62701V

    2006

  40. [48]

    J., et al

    Gabriel, C., Denby, M., Fyfe, D. J., et al. 2004, in Astronomical Society of the Pacific Conference Series, V ol. 314, Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems (ADASS) XIII, ed. F. Ochsenbein, M. G. Allen, & D. Egret, 759 Gaia Collaboration. 2020, VizieR Online Data Cat...

    2004

  41. [49]

    P., Bautz, M

    Garmire, G. P., Bautz, M. W., Ford, P. G., Nousek, J. A., & Ricker, Jr., G. R. 2003, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confer- ence Series, V ol. 4851, X-Ray and Gamma-Ray Telescopes and Instruments for Astronomy., ed. J. E. Truemper & H. D. Tananbaum, 28–44

    2003

  42. [50]

    & Lamb, F

    Ghosh, P. & Lamb, F. K. 1979, ApJ, 232, 259

    1979

  43. [51]

    & Julian, W

    Goldreich, P. & Julian, W. H. 1969, ApJ, 157, 869

    1969

  44. [52]

    & Julian, W

    Goldreich, P. & Julian, W. H. 1970, ApJ, 160, 971

    1970

  45. [53]

    D., Clayton, G

    Gordon, K. D., Clayton, G. C., Decleir, M., et al. 2023, ApJ, 950, 86

    2023

  46. [54]

    J., Kulkarni, S

    Graham, M. J., Kulkarni, S. R., Bellm, E. C., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 078001

    2019

  47. [55]

    C., Froning, C

    Green, J. C., Froning, C. S., Osterman, S., et al. 2011, ApJ, 744, 60

    2011

  48. [56]

    Green, R. F. & Liebert, J. 1981, PASP, 93, 105

    1981

  49. [57]

    2004, A&A, 413, 257

    Guerrero, J., García-Berro, E., & Isern, J. 2004, A&A, 413, 257

    2004

  50. [58]

    V ., Gräfener, G., Langer, N., et al

    Gvaramadze, V . V ., Gräfener, G., Langer, N., et al. 2019, Nature, 569, 684

    2019

  51. [59]

    2013, PASJ, 65, 73

    Harayama, A., Terada, Y ., Ishida, M., et al. 2013, PASJ, 65, 73

    2013

  52. [60]

    K., Hallinan, G., Milburn, J., et al

    Harding, L. K., Hallinan, G., Milburn, J., et al. 2016, MNRAS, 457, 3036

    2016

  53. [61]

    2023, MNRAS, 520, 6111

    Hardy, F., Dufour, P., & Jordan, S. 2023, MNRAS, 520, 6111

    2023

  54. [62]

    J., Gänsicke, B

    Hermes, J. J., Gänsicke, B. T., Kawaler, S. D., et al. 2017, ApJS, 232, 23 Hernández Santisteban, J. V ., Knigge, C., Littlefair, S. P., et al. 2016, Nature, 533, 366

    2017

  55. [63]

    & Hodge, P

    Hulbert, S. & Hodge, P. 1997, in The 1997 HST Calibration Workshop with a New Generation of Instruments, 47

    1997

  56. [64]

    2021, ApJ, 916, L13

    Ishizaki, W., Ioka, K., & Kiuchi, K. 2021, ApJ, 916, L13

    2021

  57. [65]

    2001, A&A, 365, L1

    Jansen, F., Lumb, D., Altieri, B., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L1

    2001

  58. [66]

    S., Tout, C

    Jermyn, A. S., Tout, C. A., & Ogilvie, G. I. 2017, MNRAS, 469, 1768

    2017

  59. [67]

    2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04827

    Jewett, G., Kilic, M., Bergeron, P., et al. 2024, arXiv e-prints, arXiv:2407.04827

    2024 arXiv

  60. [68]

    Johnstone, C. P. 2017, A&A, 598, A24

    2017

  61. [69]

    1992, A&A, 265, 570

    Jordan, S. 1992, A&A, 265, 570

    1992

  62. [70]

    1994, A&A, 290, 834

    Jordan, S., Wolff, B., Koester, D., & Napiwotzki, R. 1994, A&A, 290, 834

    1994

  63. [71]

    Kaastra, J. S. & Bleeker, J. A. M. 2016, A&A, 587, A151

    2016

  64. [72]

    E., Hodge, P

    Kaiser, M. E., Hodge, P. E., Keyes, C., et al. 2008, in Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, V ol. 7014, SPIE, 2238–2250

    2008

  65. [73]

    2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 39

    Kashiyama, K., Fujisawa, K., & Shigeyama, T. 2019, The Astrophysical Journal, 887, 39

    2019

  66. [74]

    O., Pelisoli, I., Jordan, S., et al

    Kepler, S. O., Pelisoli, I., Jordan, S., et al. 2013, MNRAS, 429, 2934

    2013

  67. [75]

    G., Bergeron, P., & Conly, A

    Kilic, M., Kosakowski, A., Moss, A. G., Bergeron, P., & Conly, A. A. 2021, ApJ, 923, L6

    2021

  68. [76]

    G., Kosakowski, A., et al

    Kilic, M., Moss, A. G., Kosakowski, A., et al. 2023, MNRAS, 518, 2341

    2023

  69. [77]

    2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    Kippenhahn, R., Weigert, A., & Weiss, A. 2013, Stellar Structure and Evolution

    2013

  70. [78]

    M., et al

    Kitaguchi, T., An, H., Beloborodov, A. M., et al. 2014, ApJ, 782, 3

    2014

  71. [79]

    2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 76, 475

    Ko, T., Tsuna, D., Hatsukade, B., & Shigeyama, T. 2024, Publications of the Astronomical Society of Japan, 76, 475

    2024

  72. [80]

    Koester, D., Dreizler, S., Weidemann, V ., & Allard, N. F. 1998, A&A, 338, 612

    1998

  73. [81]

    T., & Farihi, J

    Koester, D., Gänsicke, B. T., & Farihi, J. 2014, A&A, 566, A34

    2014

  74. [82]

    P., Burrows, D

    Kraft, R. P., Burrows, D. N., & Nousek, J. A. 1991, ApJ, 374, 344 Külebi, B., Jordan, S., Euchner, F., Gänsicke, B. T., & Hirsch, H. 2009, A&A, 506, 1341 Külebi, B., Jordan, S., Nelan, E., Bastian, U., & Altmann, M. 2010, A&A, 524, A36

    1991

  75. [83]

    Lamb, F. K. & Sutherland, P. G. 1974, in IAU Symposium, V ol. 53, Physics of Dense Matter, ed. C. J. Hansen, 265

    1974

  76. [84]

    J., Almaini, O., et al

    Lawrence, A., Warren, S. J., Almaini, O., et al. 2007, MNRAS, 379, 1599

    2007

  77. [85]

    2014, in EPJ Web of Conferences, V ol

    Lii, P., Romanova, M., & Lovelace, R. 2014, in EPJ Web of Conferences, V ol. 64, 05002

    2014

  78. [86]

    Liu, F. L. & Zhao, L. B. 2022, ApJS, 259, 47 Lorén-Aguilar, P., Isern, J., & García-Berro, E. 2009, A&A, 500, 1193 Article number, page 24 of 28 Aayush Desai et al.: A Multiwavelength Study of the Titan-sized White Dwarf

    2022

  79. [87]

    Lothringer, J. D. & Casewell, S. L. 2020, ApJ, 905, 163

    2020

  80. [88]

    A., Ritter, A., et al

    Lykou, F., Parker, Q. A., Ritter, A., et al. 2023, ApJ, 944, 120

    2023

  81. [89]

    J., Gänsicke, B

    Manser, C. J., Gänsicke, B. T., Eggl, S., et al. 2019, Science, 364, 66

    2019

  82. [90]

    S., Gelino, C., Stephens, D., Lunine, J

    Marley, M. S., Gelino, C., Stephens, D., Lunine, J. I., & Freedman, R. 1999, ApJ, 513, 879

    1999

  83. [91]

    S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al

    Marley, M. S., Saumon, D., Visscher, C., et al. 2021, ApJ, 920, 85

    2021

  84. [92]

    R., Gänsicke, B

    Marsh, T. R., Gänsicke, B. T., Hümmerich, S., et al. 2016, Nature, 537, 374

    2016

  85. [93]

    & Wickramasinghe, D

    Martin, B. & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1979, MNRAS, 189, 883

    1979

  86. [94]

    & Wickramasinghe, D

    Martin, B. & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1981, MNRAS, 196, 23

    1981

  87. [95]

    & Wickramasinghe, D

    Martin, B. & Wickramasinghe, D. T. 1984, MNRAS, 206, 407

    1984

  88. [96]

    J., Laher, R

    Masci, F. J., Laher, R. R., Rusholme, B., et al. 2019, PASP, 131, 018003

    2019

  89. [97]

    O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al

    Mason, K. O., Breeveld, A., Much, R., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L36

    2001

  90. [98]

    1995, A&A, 298, 193

    Merani, N., Main, J., & Wunner, G. 1995, A&A, 298, 193

    1995

  91. [99]

    1968, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 39, 619

    Murai, T., Sugimoto, D., H¯oshi, R., & Hayashi, C. 1968, Progress of Theoretical Physics, 39, 619

    1968

  92. [100]

    Ning, O., Dessert, C., Hong, V ., & Safdi, B. R. 2025, Phys. Rev. D, 111, 103002 O’Dwyer, I. J., Chu, Y .-H., Gruendl, R. A., Guerrero, M. A., & Webbink, R. F. 2003, AJ, 125, 2239

    2025

  93. [101]

    & Meintjes, P

    Oruru, B. & Meintjes, P. J. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 1557

    2012

  94. [102]

    M., Gvaramadze, V

    Oskinova, L. M., Gvaramadze, V . V ., Gräfener, G., Langer, N., & Todt, H. 2020, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 644, L8 Ould Rouis, L. B., Hermes, J. J., Gänsicke, B. T., et al. 2024, ApJ, 976, 156

    2020

  95. [103]

    2024, A&A, 691, A179

    Pakmor, R., Pelisoli, I., Justham, S., et al. 2024, A&A, 691, A179

    2024

  96. [104]

    & de Martino, D

    Papitto, A. & de Martino, D. 2022, in Astrophysics and Space Science Library, V ol. 465, Astrophysics and Space Science Library, ed. S. Bhattacharyya, A. Papitto, & D. Bhattacharya, 157–200

    2022

  97. [105]

    & Raymond, J

    Patterson, J. & Raymond, J. C. 1985, ApJ, 292, 535

    1985

  98. [106]

    Pringle, J. E. & Rees, M. J. 1972, A&A, 21, 1

    1972

  99. [107]

    1967, ApJ, 150, 131

    Rakavy, G., Shaviv, G., & Zinamon, Z. 1967, ApJ, 150, 131

    1967

  100. [108]

    A., Lykou, F., et al

    Ritter, A., Parker, Q. A., Lykou, F., et al. 2021, ApJ, 918, L33

    2021

  101. [109]

    Lovelace, R. V . E. 2018, New A, 62, 94

    2018

  102. [110]

    M., Ustyugova, G

    Romanova, M. M., Ustyugova, G. V ., Koldoba, A. V ., & Lovelace, R. V . E. 2005, ApJ, 635, L165

    2005

  103. [111]

    M., Ustyugova, G

    Romanova, M. M., Ustyugova, G. V ., Koldoba, A. V ., & Lovelace, R. V . E. 2012, MNRAS, 421, 63

    2012

  104. [112]

    2007, MNRAS, 376, L48

    Rosswog, S. 2007, MNRAS, 376, L48

    2007

  105. [113]

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

    1975

  106. [114]

    Rueda, J., Ruffini, R., Wang, Y ., et al. 2019, J. Cosmology Astropart. Phys., 2019, 044

    2019

  107. [115]

    T., et al

    Sahu, S., Bédard, A., Gänsicke, B. T., et al. 2025, Nature Astronomy [arXiv:2508.03811]

    2025 arXiv

  108. [116]

    Salaris, M., Blouin, S., Cassisi, S., & Bedin, L. R. 2024, A&A, 686, A153

    2024

  109. [117]

    Schaefer, B. E. 2023, MNRAS, 523, 3885

    2023

  110. [118]

    & Wunner, G

    Schimeczek, C. & Wunner, G. 2014, ApJS, 212, 26

    2014

  111. [119]

    D., West, S

    Schmidt, G. D., West, S. C., Liebert, J., Green, R. F., & Stockman, H. S. 1986, ApJ, 309, 218

    1986

  112. [120]

    2017, MNRAS, 472, 3390

    Schwab, J., Bildsten, L., & Quataert, E. 2017, MNRAS, 472, 3390

    2017

  113. [121]

    J., Bildsten, L., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E

    Shen, K. J., Bildsten, L., Kasen, D., & Quataert, E. 2012, ApJ, 748, 35

    2012

  114. [122]

    J., Blouin, S., & Breivik, K

    Shen, K. J., Blouin, S., & Breivik, K. 2023, ApJ, 955, L33

    2023

  115. [123]

    A., Burgasser, A

    Simcoe, R. A., Burgasser, A. J., Bernstein, R. A., et al. 2008, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7014, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy II, ed. I. S. McLean & M. M. Casali, 70140U

    2008

  116. [124]

    A., Burgasser, A

    Simcoe, R. A., Burgasser, A. J., Bochanski, J. J., et al. 2010, in Society of Photo- Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Conference Series, V ol. 7735, Ground-based and Airborne Instrumentation for Astronomy III, ed. I. S

    2010

  117. [125]

    F., Coelho, J

    Sousa, M. F., Coelho, J. G., de Araujo, J. C. N., Guidorzi, C., & Rueda, J. A. 2023, ApJ, 958, 134

    2023

  118. [126]

    F., Coelho, J

    Sousa, M. F., Coelho, J. G., de Araujo, J. C. N., Kepler, S. O., & Rueda, J. A. 2022, ApJ, 941, 28 Strüder, L., Briel, U., Dennerl, K., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L18

    2022

  119. [127]

    Sullivan, P. W. & Simcoe, R. A. 2012, Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 124, 1336

    2012

  120. [128]

    P., Lin, L

    Takata, J., Hu, C. P., Lin, L. C. C., et al. 2018, ApJ, 853, 106

    2018

  121. [129]

    & Heyl, J

    Thirumalai, A. & Heyl, J. S. 2010, MNRAS, 409, 1669

    2010

  122. [130]

    A., Wickramasinghe, D., Liebert, J., Ferrario, L., & Pringle, J

    Tout, C. A., Wickramasinghe, D., Liebert, J., Ferrario, L., & Pringle, J. 2008, MNRAS, 387, 897

    2008

  123. [131]

    2013, A&A, 559, A104

    Tremblay, P.-E., Ludwig, H.-G., Ste ffen, M., & Freytag, B. 2013, A&A, 559, A104

    2013

  124. [132]

    Turner, M. J. L., Abbey, A., Arnaud, M., et al. 2001, A&A, 365, L27 ud-Doula, A. & Nazé, Y . 2016, Advances in Space Research, 58, 680 ud-Doula, A. & Owocki, S. P. 2002, ApJ, 576, 413

    2001

  125. [133]

    P., & Townsend, R

    Ud-Doula, A., Owocki, S. P., & Townsend, R. H. D. 2008, MNRAS, 385, 97

    2008

  126. [134]

    2008, A&A, 486, 923

    Unglaub, K. 2008, A&A, 486, 923

    2008

  127. [135]

    A., Rappaport, S., et al

    Vanderburg, A., Johnson, J. A., Rappaport, S., et al. 2015, Nature, 526, 546

    2015

  128. [136]

    1999, ApJ, 525, 995

    Vennes, S. 1999, ApJ, 525, 995

    1999

  129. [137]

    1988, ApJ, 331, 876

    Vennes, S., Pelletier, C., Fontaine, G., & Wesemael, F. 1988, ApJ, 331, 876

    1988

  130. [138]

    D., Ferrario, L., et al

    Vennes, S., Schmidt, G. D., Ferrario, L., et al. 2003, ApJ, 593, 1040

    2003

  131. [139]

    2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 1

    Veras, D. 2021, in Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Planetary Science, 1

    2021

  132. [140]

    J., & Bonsor, A

    Veras, D., Mustill, A. J., & Bonsor, A. 2024, Reviews in Mineralogy and Geo- chemistry, 90, 141

    2024

  133. [141]

    A., Gregory, S

    Vidotto, A. A., Gregory, S. G., Jardine, M., et al. 2014, MNRAS, 441, 2361

    2014

  134. [142]

    N., Ricci, F., et al

    Vito, F., Brandt, W. N., Ricci, F., et al. 2021, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 649, A133

    2021

  135. [143]

    Weber, E. J. & Davis, Jr., L. 1967, ApJ, 148, 217

    1967

  136. [144]

    C., Tananbaum, H

    Weisskopf, M. C., Tananbaum, H. D., Van Speybroeck, L. P., & O’Dell, S. L. 2000, in Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE) Confer- ence Series, V ol. 4012, X-Ray Optics, Instruments, and Missions III, ed. J. E. Truemper & B. Aschenbach, 2–16

    2000

  137. [145]

    1979, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 72, 104

    Wesemael, F. 1979, Astronomy and Astrophysics, 72, 104

    1979

  138. [146]

    Wickramasinghe, D. T. & Ferrario, L. 2000, PASP, 112, 873

    2000

  139. [147]

    A., Hermes, J

    Williams, K. A., Hermes, J. J., & Vanderbosch, Z. P. 2022, ApJ, 164, 131

    2022

  140. [148]

    1998, PASP, 110, 1183

    Woodgate, B., Kimble, R., Bowers, C., et al. 1998, PASP, 110, 1183

    1998

  141. [149]

    2022, MNRAS, 512, 2972

    Wu, C., Xiong, H., & Wang, X. 2022, MNRAS, 512, 2972

    2022

  142. [150]

    A., King, A

    Wynn, G. A., King, A. R., & Horne, K. 1997, MNRAS, 286, 436

    1997

  143. [151]

    2017, ApJ, 836, L7

    Xu, S., Zuckerman, B., Dufour, P., et al. 2017, ApJ, 836, L7

    2017

  144. [152]

    2022, RAA, 22, 105014

    Yang, H.-W., Thomas Tam, P.-H., & Yang, L. 2022, RAA, 22, 105014

    2022

  145. [153]

    Zhao, L. B. 2021, ApJS, 254, 21

    2021

  146. [154]

    Zhao, L. B. & Liu, F. L. 2021, MNRAS, 507, 2283

    2021

  147. [155]

    2023, The optically thick rotating magnetic wind from a massive white dwarf merger product – II

    Zhong, Y ., Kashiyama, K., Takasao, S., Shigeyama, T., & Fujisawa, K. 2023, The optically thick rotating magnetic wind from a massive white dwarf merger product – II. axisymmetric magnetohydrodynamic simulations

    2023

  148. [156]

    M., & Jura, M

    Zuckerman, B., Koester, D., Melis, C., Hansen, B. M., & Jura, M. 2007, ApJ, 671, 872

    2007

  149. [157]

    N., & Hünsch, M

    Zuckerman, B., Koester, D., Reid, I. N., & Hünsch, M. 2003, ApJ, 596, 477

    2003

  150. [158]

    2010, ApJ, 722, 725 1 Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Am Campus 1, 3400,

    Zuckerman, B., Melis, C., Klein, B., Koester, D., & Jura, M. 2010, ApJ, 722, 725 1 Institute of Science and Technology Austria, Am Campus 1, 3400,

    2010

  151. [159]

    CONICET-IALP, Paseo del Bosque s/n, 1900 La Plata, Argentina 18 Departament de Física, Universitat Politècnica de Catalunya, c/Esteve Terrades 5, 08860 Castelldefels, Spain 19 Leibniz-Institut für Astrophysik Potsdam (AIP), An der Sternwarte 16, 14482 Potsdam, Germany Article ...

    1900

Pith tools

Reviewed August 15, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.