Pith. sign in

REVIEW 2 major objections 5 minor 2 cited by

Effects of Landau quantization on neutrino emission and absorption

T0 review · 2 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-11 · deepseek-v4-flash

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

Pith's one-line read At magnetic fields of $10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$ and above, Landau quantization creates density resonances in neutrino emission and can increase low-energy neutrino absorption opacities by an order of magnitude.

desk verdict Careful finite–Landau-level calculation of DU emissivity and neutrino opacities; credible in the uniform-field limit, but the astrophysical reach needs a field-spread sensitivity study. read the letter →

arxiv 2412.02925 v3 pith:5ET6Y4TD submitted 2024-12-04 nucl-th astro-ph.HE

Mia Kumamoto , Catherine Welch This is my paper · ORCID
classification nucl-thastro-ph.HE
keywords LandauquantizationDirectUrcaneutrinoemissivityopacitymagnetarsneutronstarmergersrelativisticmeanfieldPauliblocking
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 when a neutron star's magnetic field reaches about $10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$, the quantization of electron and proton motion into Landau levels changes neutrino emission and absorption in ways that the commonly used continuous-level (quasiclassical) approximation misses. For the Direct Urca cooling reaction, each newly available Landau level produces a resonance that can amplify the neutrino emissivity at specific densities, particularly at low temperature. In binary neutron star merger ejecta, the same effects enhance the opacity for low-energy neutrino capture by an order of magnitude or more, by suppressing electron Pauli blocking for capture on neutrons and through the nucleon magnetic moments for capture on protons. The authors conclude these effects are not important for the thermal evolution of an entire neutron star, but they may matter for phenomena that depend on behavior at specific densities and for neutrino transport in mergers.

What carries the argument

The machinery is Landau quantization of charged-particle wavefunctions in a uniform magnetic field: electrons and protons occupy quantized transverse states labeled by Landau level numbers $n$, with transverse wavefunctions $I_{n,r}(x)$ built from Laguerre polynomials. The paper's reduced matrix element packages the spin sums and spatial integrations, and the density-of-states resonance at $k_z \to 0$ whenever a new Landau level opens is what produces the emissivity peaks. A semi-analytic approximation treats levels far from resonance with a Fermi-surface analytic formula and computes the full phase-space integral for the highest few levels, which captures the resonances at roughly a factor of five to ten less computational cost.

What would settle it

Compute the same emissivity and opacity integrals with a spatially varying or fluctuating magnetic field profile, for example a field that changes on scales comparable to the electron or proton Landau-level spacing, and check whether the density resonances and opacity enhancements survive; alternatively, observe neutrino emission or absorption from a magnetar or merger event with fields near $10^{16}$ to $10^{17}\,\mathrm{G}$ and test for the predicted density-specific features.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The central discovery is that Landau quantization, not just a smooth quasiclassical density of states, controls the Direct Urca neutrino emissivity and low-energy neutrino absorption when $B \gtrsim 10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$. The authors compute the fully relativistic Direct Urca rate in a constant magnetic field using the standard V-A weak Lagrangian with relativistic mean-field nuclear interactions. They find that each time a new Landau level becomes available at a given density, the density of states has a resonance that can amplify the emissivity, producing peaks in the radial emissivity profile that the quasiclassical approximation cannot capture, particularly at keV temperatures. For capture opacities in merger ejecta, they find that low-energy neutrinos are absorbed at least an order of magnitude more readily than in zero-field calculations, because the magnetic field suppresses the electron chemical potential and with it electron Pauli blocking for captures on neutrons, and because the nucleons' anomalous magnetic moments shift thresholds and lift suppression for captures on protons.

Load-bearing premise

The calculation assumes a locally uniform magnetic field pointing in one direction, so if a real magnetar's internal field is tangled or varies strongly over the length scales that set the Landau-level spacing, the sharp density resonances and the order-of-magnitude opacity enhancements would be smeared out or changed.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • At $B \geq 5\times 10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$ the quasiclassical approximation underestimates the total Direct Urca emissivity of a neutron star, though not by more than an order of magnitude, because relativistic corrections suppress the rate while quantization enhances it.
  • The density peaks in emissivity average out over an entire star, so global cooling simulations need not be revised, but any phenomenon sensitive to the emissivity at a specific density, such as Urca-process viscosity, could inherit a non-monotonic density dependence.
  • In merger ejecta at $B \geq 5\times 10^{16}\,\mathrm{G}$, low-energy neutrino capture opacities are enhanced by an order of magnitude or more, which can distort the neutrinosphere and locally change the proton fraction in small strongly magnetized regions.
  • The opacity enhancement persists at temperatures of a few MeV and densities around $0.001\,n_{\mathrm{sat}}$, where electron Pauli blocking is suppressed by the magnetic field, while at higher densities the opacity stays suppressed until neutrino energy opens more Landau levels.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the emissivity resonances sharpen as temperature drops, a magnetar cooling through the keV range could in principle show a time-varying neutrino luminosity as each density shell crosses a resonance; this is an implication of the paper's density-localized effect that the authors do not develop.
  • The same reduced matrix element and semi-analytic phase-space treatment could be applied to neutrino scattering and absorption on other charged-current targets, such as muon production, or to neutrino pair emission, to see whether the order-of-magnitude opacity enhancements persist.
  • The paper suggests but does not calculate that resonance-enhanced Urca processes could make the viscosity of neutron star matter a non-monotonic function of density; computing transport coefficients from these rates is a direct next step with implications for magnetar oscillation damping.
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

2 major / 5 minor

Summary. The manuscript presents a fully relativistic calculation of the Direct Urca neutrino emissivity in a uniform magnetic field with Landau quantization, using the standard V-A charged-current Lagrangian and an RMF equation of state (IUFSU*). It develops a semi-analytic (SA) approximation in which most Landau levels are treated with Fermi-surface integrals and the highest few are integrated exactly; the SA is validated against the full integral at B = 5 × 10^16 G. The same machinery is applied to low-density neutrino/antineutrino capture opacities in merger-ejecta-like conditions. The central findings are (i) for B ≳ 10^16 G, Landau quantization produces density resonances in the DU emissivity that the quasiclassical approximation misses, especially at temperatures of order 1–100 keV; and (ii) at B ≳ 5 × 10^16 G and low ejecta densities, low-energy capture opacities are enhanced by orders of magnitude, from reduced electron Pauli blocking for capture on neutrons and from nucleon anomalous magnetic moments for capture on protons.

Significance. If the results hold, the paper supplies a systematic treatment of the intermediate regime between the quasiclassical and lowest-Landau-level limits for DU neutrino emission, together with a practical semi-analytic method that is benchmarked against the full phase-space integral. The paper is careful about internal consistency: the matrix element is derived from the V-A Lagrangian, the SA approximation is checked against the full integral (Fig. 1), the RMF parameters come from an independent prior fit, and known limits (zero field, quasiclassical) are reproduced. The opacity results identify a physically interesting mechanism—magnetic-field suppression of the electron chemical potential and consequent reduction of Pauli blocking—that could affect neutrino transport in merger ejecta. The authors are also transparent about acknowledged limitations: anomalous magnetic moments are inserted in the dispersion rather than at the Lagrangian level (Sec. II), higher-order weak nucleon current terms are deferred, and the internal field geometry of magnetars is uncertain. The code/data are openly available.

major comments (2)
  1. [Sec. II, Eq. (5); Sec. IV B, Figs. 5–6] The quantitative claims—the sharp density resonances in the DU emissivity and the order-of-magnitude opacity enhancements—are computed for a single, spatially constant magnetic field directed along z. In magnetar interiors and merger ejecta the field is expected to be nonuniform or tangled, and a spread in B will broaden the Landau-level resonances and shift the neutrino energy at which electron Pauli blocking is suppressed. Since the authors themselves state that the internal field configuration is not fully known, they should either quantify the sensitivity to a plausible distribution of B (for example, by convolving the emissivity and opacity with a spread in field strength) or explicitly restrict the relevance statements to locally uniform field regions and state the coherence length required for the resonances to survive. Without such an estimate, the specific-density and order-of-magnitude claims are not yet robust for astrophysical application.
  2. [Sec. IV A, Eq. (48); Sec. IV B, Figs. 5–6; abstract] The opacity calculation is performed at two densities with very different outcomes: at n_B = 0.001 n_sat and Y_p = 0.25 the low-energy capture opacities are enhanced by orders of magnitude, while at n_B = 0.1 n_sat and Y_p = 0.1 they are suppressed relative to the zero-field result. The abstract and conclusion present the enhancement as a general feature of merger-ejecta conditions without this density qualification. The authors should state explicitly the density and energy window over which the enhancement applies, and should temper the claim that magnetic fields distort the neutrinosphere so that it is not read as applying to high-density ejecta where their own calculation shows suppression.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Sec. III B, Eq. (41)] The notation n_p and n_e in Eq. (41) denotes particle densities, but n_p and n_e are used throughout the rest of the paper for Landau-level quantum numbers. This collision is confusing and should be resolved, for example by writing the densities as n_p^d and n_e^d or using n_B and n_e with an explicit label.
  2. [Table I] At T = 100 keV the semi-analytic approximation differs from the full calculation by roughly 16–24% (for example, 2.05 × 10^36 erg/s versus 1.65 × 10^36 erg/s at B = 2 × 10^16 G), whereas the text describes the SA error as 'generally low.' The authors should quantify the SA error as a function of temperature and state the tolerance settings used, since the 100 keV entry in Table I is not visually obvious in Fig. 1.
  3. [Fig. 1] The caption says that the semi-analytic approximation and full calculation are indistinguishable in the left panel, but the right panel presumably shows visible differences; the caption should state which curves correspond to which approximation and how the full numerical integration was performed (for example, with the lookup-table Laguerre evaluation).
  4. [Sec. IV A, Eqs. (46)–(47)] The change in normalization of M_red between the high-density treatment (Sec. III, dimensionful) and the low-density opacity treatment (Sec. IV, dimensionless) is noted in the text but could be stated more explicitly in the equations, since otherwise the factors of L and eB in Eqs. (46)–(47) are easy to misread.
  5. [Abstract and Introduction] The phrase 'the Direct Urca process allows neutron stars to cool rapidly, even at low density' could be misread as a statement about the total cooling of a neutron star. The paper itself shows in Table I that for B = 2 × 10^16 G the integrated slow-cooling rate is larger than the DU rate. A more careful wording such as 'enables local DU-like cooling at densities below the zero-field threshold' would avoid this apparent tension.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circularity: the DU emissivity and opacity results are derived from the standard V-A Lagrangian and independently benchmarked, with no fitted input renamed as prediction.

full rationale

The paper's central calculations are self-contained and benchmarked against external results rather than reducing to their inputs. The DU emissivity in Eq. (32) follows from the V-A weak Lagrangian (Eqs. (1)-(3)), Landau-quantized wavefunctions (Eqs. (7)-(10)), and a phase-space integral with explicit Fermi-Dirac factors; no parameter is fitted to the target emissivity. The quasiclassical comparison (Eqs. (36)-(38)) is imported from Refs. [4,5] as an external benchmark, not as an input that by construction yields the claimed quantization features, and the full and semi-analytic calculations are compared against each other rather than tuned to a desired answer. The RMF parameters are taken from the independent IUFSU* fit of Ref. [20], and the semi-analytic approximation uses stated accuracy cutoffs (cos theta > 0.2, excluding the highest two Landau levels) chosen from explicit error considerations, not fitted to reproduce the final rates. For the opacities in Sec. IV, the matrix elements are expanded at low density and compared with the independent Duan-Qian results (Refs. [17,18]) and zero-field curves; the enhancements are traced to physical mechanisms (electron Pauli blocking suppression and nucleon magnetic moments) that follow from the stated dispersion relations. The uniform-field assumption is a modeling assumption whose astrophysical validity is uncertain, but it does not make any derivation circular. No load-bearing self-citation chain or renaming of a known result was found, so the appropriate score is 0.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central calculation rests on standard weak-interaction physics and an externally fitted RMF parameter set. The only hand-chosen numerical element is the semi-analytic cutoff, which is validated against the full integral and is not fitted to the target result. Several domain assumptions are load-bearing for applicability: the field must be strong and locally uniform, the core field must not be expelled by superconductivity, and the low-density opacity expansion requires E_nu well below sqrt(2 M T). These are stated in the text rather than hidden. No circular fitting appears: the DU rate and opacities are compared against quasiclassical [4], zero-field [5], and Duan-Qian [18] benchmarks.

free parameters (2)
  • IUFSU* RMF couplings (g_sigma, g_omega, g_rho, meson terms) = values from Ref. [20]
    External fit to nuclear matter and neutron star properties; sets M*, U, and the Direct Urca threshold used in the emissivity calculations.
  • Semi-analytic speed/accuracy cutoffs = cos(theta) > 0.2; full integral for highest two LLs
    Hand-chosen numerical tolerances, not fitted to the target result; authors state error can be tuned arbitrarily small.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Standard V-A weak interaction Lagrangian with gV=1, gA=1.27 and Cabibbo angle
    Eqs. (1)-(3); accepted weak-interaction input taken from prior literature, not derived in this paper.
  • domain assumption Uniform magnetic field along z with symmetric gauge and Landau-quantized charged lepton/proton wavefunctions
    Sec. II, Eqs. (5)-(10); neglects field curvature and spatial gradients.
  • domain assumption Relativistic mean field approximation: meson fields take mean-field values, giving E(k)=sqrt(k^2+M*^2)+U
    Sec. II; standard treatment but model-dependent through IUFSU* parameters.
  • ad hoc to paper Proton anomalous magnetic moment enters through modified dispersion, Eq. (4), with O(eB/M^2) discrepancy versus a Lagrangian-level treatment
    Sec. II; authors adopt Ref. [29] and estimate the error as negligible for the fields considered.
  • ad hoc to paper Low-density opacity matrix element expanded to zeroth order in nucleon momentum, valid for E_nu much less than sqrt(2 M T)
    Sec. IV.A; the paper notes the highest-energy neutrino regime is unclear.
  • domain assumption Magnetar core field is not expelled by proton superconductivity
    Introduction, citing Ref. [11]; load-bearing for the relevance of B >= 10^16 G to real neutron stars.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Effects of Landau quantization on neutrino emission and absorption." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/5ET6Y4TD

@misc{pith2026241202925,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Effects of Landau quantization on neutrino emission and absorption},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/5ET6Y4TD}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2412.02925}
}
abstract

Some neutron stars known as magnetars possess very strong magnetic fields, with surface fields as large as $10^{15}\,\rm G$ and internal fields that are possibly stronger. Recent observations of the radio pulsar GLEAM-X J1627 suggest it may have a surface field as strong as $10^{16} \,\rm G$. In the presence of a strong magnetic field, the energy levels of electrons and protons are quantized and the Direct Urca process allows neutron stars to cool rapidly, even at low density. For the case of magnetic fields $B \geq 10^{16}\,\rm G$, we find features in the emissivity due to energy quantization that are not captured by the frequently employed quasiclassical approximation where energy levels are treated as nearly continuous. Resonances can result in amplification of the neutrino emissivity at specific densities compared to a calculation that neglects quantization, particularly at low temperature. These effects are not important for the thermal evolution of an entire neutron star, but may be relevant for phenomena that depend on behavior at specific densities. We present a fully relativistic calculation of the Direct Urca rate in a strong magnetic field using the standard V-A weak Lagrangian incorporating mean field nuclear effects and discuss approaches to the numerical challenge the modified wavefunctions present and a new semi-analytic approximation. These tools are also applicable to calculating neutrino opacities in strong magnetic fields in the ejecta of binary neutron star mergers. We calculate the opacities for neutrinos capturing on free nucleons at sub-saturation densities and temperatures exceeding an MeV. We find an enhancement to capture processes of the lowest energy neutrinos by an order of magnitude or more due to suppression of electron Pauli blocking in the case of capture on neutrons, and from the effect of the nucleon magnetic moments in the case of capture on protons.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2412.02925 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2: Radial profiles of the DU emissivity for various magnetic field strengths in a NS with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. FIG. 3: Radial profiles of the DU emissivity for various magnetic field strengths in a NS with [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p010_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (3 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Cross sections for neutrinos to capture on nucleons. Green circles correspond to [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p012_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: Neutrino opacities at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: FIG. 6: Neutrino opacities at [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_6.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 2 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. Full citation record

  1. Neutrino energy and momentum emission from magnetized dense quark matter

    hep-ph 2025-01 conditional novelty 8.0 of 10

    The paper derives the neutrino energy and momentum emission rates from magnetized dense quark matter, finding a small asymmetry ratio eta = 2e-3 |eB|/(mu_e T) that rules out neutrino momentum emission as the cause of ...

  2. Magnetic Field Configurations in Binary Neutron Star Mergers II: Inspiral, Merger and Ejecta

    astro-ph.HE 2025-08 conditional novelty 6.0 of 10

    Initial magnetic field topology, especially anti-aligned poloidal fields, strongly controls post-merger field amplification and ejecta magnetisation in neutron star merger simulations.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

38 extracted references · 24 canonical work pages · cited by 2 Pith papers

  1. [1]

    S. A. Olausen and V. M. Kaspi, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 212, 6 (2014)

    work page 2014

  2. [2]

    A. G. Suvorov and A. Melatos, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 520, 1590–1600 (2023)

    work page 2023

  3. [3]

    L. B. Leinson and A. P´ erez, Journal of High Energy Physics 1998, 020 (1998)

    work page 1998

  4. [4]

    D. A. Baiko and D. G. Yakovlev, Astronomy & Astrophysics 342, 192 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9812071 [astro-ph]

    arXiv 1999

  5. [5]

    Yakovlev, A

    D. Yakovlev, A. Kaminker, O. Gnedin, and P. Haensel, Physics Reports 354, 1 (2001)

    work page 2001

  6. [6]

    D. Page, J. M. Lattimer, M. Prakash, and A. W. Steiner, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement Series 155, 623 (2004)

    work page 2004

  7. [7]

    D. Page, U. Geppert, and F. Weber, Nuclear Physics A 777, 497 (2006), special Issue on Nuclear Astrophysics

    work page 2006

  8. [8]

    Enoto, S

    T. Enoto, S. Kisaka, and S. Shibata, Reports on Progress in Physics 82, 106901 (2019)

    work page 2019

Show all 38 references
  1. [9]

    R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, The Astronomical Journal 129, 1993 (2005)

    2005

  2. [10]

    Dexheimer, B

    V. Dexheimer, B. Franzon, R. Gomes, R. Farias, and S. Avancini, Astronomische Nachrichten 338, 1052 (2017)

    2017

  3. [11]

    A. P. Igoshev, S. B. Popov, and R. Hollerbach, Universe 7 (2021), 10.3390/universe7090351

    2021 doi

  4. [12]

    Canuto and H.-Y

    V. Canuto and H.-Y. Chiu, Phys. Rev. 173, 1210 (1968)

    1968

  5. [13]

    Tambe, D

    P. Tambe, D. Chatterjee, M. Alford, and A. Haber, (2024), arXiv:2409.09423 [nucl-th]

    2024 arXiv

  6. [14]

    M. G. Alford and S. P. Harris, Phys. Rev. C 98, 065806 (2018)

    2018

  7. [15]

    M. G. Alford, A. Haber, S. P. Harris, and Z. Zhang, Universe 7 (2021)

    2021

  8. [16]

    Maruyama, A

    T. Maruyama, A. B. Balantekin, M.-K. Cheoun, T. Kajino, M. Kusakabe, and G. J. Mathews, Physics Letters B 824, 136813 (2022)

    2022

  9. [17]

    Duan and Y.-Z

    H. Duan and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 69, 123004 (2004)

    2004

  10. [18]

    Duan and Y.-Z

    H. Duan and Y.-Z. Qian, Phys. Rev. D 72, 023005 (2005)

    2005

  11. [19]

    Dutra, O

    M. Dutra, O. Louren¸ co, S. S. Avancini, B. V. Carlson, A. Delfino, D. P. Menezes, C. Providˆ encia, S. Typel, and J. R. Stone, Phys. Rev. C 90, 055203 (2014)

    2014

  12. [20]

    Agrawal, A

    B. Agrawal, A. Sulaksono, and P.-G. Reinhard, Nuclear Physics A 882, 1 (2012)

    2012

  13. [21]

    H. T. Cromartie et al. (NANOGrav), Nature Astron. 4, 72 (2019), arXiv:1904.06759 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  14. [22]

    Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    J. Antoniadis et al., Science 340, 6131 (2013), arXiv:1304.6875 [astro-ph.HE]

    2013 arXiv

  15. [23]

    Demorest, T

    P. Demorest, T. Pennucci, S. Ransom, M. Roberts, and J. Hessels, Nature 467, 1081 (2010), arXiv:1010.5788 [astro-ph.HE]

    2010 arXiv

  16. [24]

    B. P. Abbott et al. (LIGO Scientific, Virgo), Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 161101 (2018), arXiv:1805.11581 [gr-qc]

    2018 arXiv

  17. [25]

    S. De, D. Finstad, J. M. Lattimer, D. A. Brown, E. Berger, and C. M. Biwer, Phys. Rev. Lett. 121, 091102 (2018), [Erratum: Phys.Rev.Lett. 121, 259902 (2018)], arXiv:1804.08583 [astro-ph.HE]

    2018 arXiv

  18. [26]

    C. D. Capano, I. Tews, S. M. Brown, B. Margalit, S. De, S. Kumar, D. A. Brown, B. Krishnan, and S. Reddy, Nature Astron. 4, 625 (2020), arXiv:1908.10352 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  19. [27]

    M. C. Miller et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L24 (2019), arXiv:1912.05705 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  20. [28]

    T. E. Riley et al., Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, L21 (2019), arXiv:1912.05702 [astro-ph.HE]

    2019 arXiv

  21. [29]

    Steinmetz, M

    A. Steinmetz, M. Formanek, and J. Rafelski, The European Physical Journal A 55, 40 (2019)

    2019

  22. [30]

    Broderick, M

    A. Broderick, M. Prakash, and J. M. Lattimer, The Astrophysical Journal 537, 351–367 (2000). 15

    2000

  23. [31]

    I. S. Gradshteyn and I. M. Ryzhik, Table of Integrals, Series, and Products(Academic Press, New York, 1980)

    1980

  24. [32]

    Bhattacharya, Elementary Particle Interactions In A Background Magnetic Field, Ph.D

    K. Bhattacharya, Elementary Particle Interactions In A Background Magnetic Field, Ph.D. thesis, Jadavpur University (2004), arXiv:hep-ph/0407099 [hep-ph]

    2004 arXiv

  25. [33]

    S. L. Shapiro and S. A. Teukolsky, Black Holes, White Dwarfs, and Neutron Stars: The Physics of Compact Objects(Wiley, New York, 1983)

    1983

  26. [34]

    E. R. Most, S. P. Harris, C. Plumberg, M. G. Alford, J. Noronha, J. Noronha-Hostler, F. Pretorius, H. Witek, and N. Yunes, Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 509, 1096 (2021)

    2021

  27. [35]

    Endrizzi, A

    A. Endrizzi, A. Perego, F. M. Fabbri, L. Branca, D. Radice, S. Bernuzzi, B. Giacomazzo, F. Pederiva, and A. Lovato, The European Physical Journal A 56 (2020)

    2020

  28. [36]

    Kiuchi, P

    K. Kiuchi, P. Cerd´ a-Dur´ an, K. Kyutoku, Y. Sekiguchi, and M. Shibata, Phys. Rev. D92, 124034 (2015)

    2015

  29. [37]

    D. J. Price and S. Rosswog, Science 312, 719 (2006)

    2006

  30. [38]

    NS-landau-quantization,

    M. Kumamoto and C. Welch, “NS-landau-quantization,” (2024), github repository

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 11, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.