Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 56 references

Constraints on magnetic monopoles from X-ray observations of neutron stars

T0 review · 3 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 X-ray observations of old millisecond pulsars set the strongest monopole-flux limits yet in the 10^11 to 10^13 GeV mass range.

desk verdict A solid, transparent re-derivation of the old neutron-star monopole calorimeter idea applied to a modern MSP sample; the headline limit is plausible, but the normalization rests on an unstated spectral conversion for the archival X-ray upper limits. read the letter →

arxiv 2608.07652 v1 pith:XTFTOOY6 submitted 2026-08-07 astro-ph.HE hep-phhep-th

Mainak Mukhopadhyay , Daniele Perri , Edward W. Kolb This is my paper · ORCID
classification astro-ph.HEhep-phhep-th
keywords magneticmonopolesneutronstarsmonopole-catalyzednucleondecaymillisecondpulsarsX-rayastronomygrandunifiedtheoriescalorimetricconstraints
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

This paper proposes that old, isolated millisecond pulsars with little or no measured X-ray emission act as calorimeters for magnetic monopoles. A monopole captured by a neutron star catalyzes nucleon decay, and the paper assumes that the released energy thermalizes and escapes as surface X-rays; the absence of observed X-rays then caps the number of monopoles that can be crossing the Galaxy. Using archival X-ray data for nineteen such pulsars plus the seven nearby isolated neutron stars with measured thermal emission, the paper derives a limit on the Galactic monopole flux of roughly $6\times10^{-19}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}}$ at a benchmark catalysis cross-section of $10^{-27}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$, with a mass-dependent factor that is strongest between $10^{11}$ and $10^{13}\,\mathrm{GeV/c^2}$. If correct, these are the most restrictive monopole-flux limits in that mass range to date, competitive with, and in places stronger than, limits from large underground neutrino detectors and earlier neutron-star bounds.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the monopole-catalyzed nucleon-decay luminosity $L_{\mathrm{cat}}$ of a neutron star. A captured monopole catalyzes the decay of nucleons at a rate set by the cross-section $\sigma_{\Delta B}$ and the nucleon density, and the star-wide luminosity grows with the number of accumulated monopoles $N_M = (2\pi/3)F_M A_{\mathrm{cap}}\tau$, where $A_{\mathrm{cap}}$ is the gravitational capture area and $\tau$ the pulsar age. This luminosity is converted into an observed X-ray flux by assuming a blackbody surface spectrum with gravitational redshift and integrating the fraction falling in the 0.2–12 keV band, after which the paper compares the predicted flux against measured fluxes or 3$\sigma$ upper limits for each source.

What would settle it

A radiation-transport calculation of the thermalization efficiency of the $p\to e^+\pi^0$ decay products inside a neutron star would settle the central premise: if the fraction re-emitted as surface photons is well below unity, the limits in Eq. (5) are too strong by that factor, while an efficiency near unity would confirm the bounds as stated.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that archival X-ray observations of old isolated millisecond pulsars constrain the Galactic magnetic-monopole flux $F_M$ through monopole-catalyzed nucleon decay. For a benchmark catalysis cross-section $\sigma_{\Delta B}\sim10^{-27}\,\mathrm{cm^2}$, the paper derives $F_M(m_M) \lesssim 6\times10^{-19}\,\mathrm{cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}} \times \max(4\times10^{-6},\, \min(2\times10^{11}\,\mathrm{GeV/c^2}/m_M,\,1))$, and it argues that this is the strongest available bound on $F_M$ for monopole masses between $10^{11}$ and $10^{13}\,\mathrm{GeV/c^2}$, while remaining competitive with existing limits in neighbouring mass ranges. The bound improves on the original neutron-star catalysis constraint and extends it to smaller masses, and the paper also derives weaker, complementary limits from the measured thermal emission of the Magnificent Seven isolated neutron stars.

Load-bearing premise

The paper assumes that all energy released by monopole-catalyzed nucleon decay inside the neutron star thermalizes and is re-radiated as surface X-rays, with no energy lost to neutrinos; if that efficiency is below unity, every quoted flux limit is overestimated by the corresponding factor.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The flux limit excludes a region of the monopole mass–flux plane that previous neutron-star bounds left open, specifically for masses between $10^{11}$ and $10^{13}$ GeV/c^2.
  • Because the constraint strengthens with pulsar age and proximity and with exposure time, dedicated long pointed observations of the best old isolated MSPs could push the limit down by up to two orders of magnitude.
  • A monopole-induced heating component would show up as a late-time upturn in the luminosity–age relation of old isolated neutron stars, distinct from standard cooling and rotochemical reheating.
  • Detections of X-ray counterparts for currently undetected MSPs would complicate the interpretation, since the monopole-heating contribution would need to be separated from other reheating mechanisms with better thermal-evolution modeling.
  • The same data set can be reinterpreted for other catalysis cross-sections, since the limit scales inversely with $\sigma_{\Delta B}$.

Reading between the lines

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

  • Because the limit scales inversely with the thermalization efficiency, a future radiation-transport calculation that gives an efficiency well below unity would weaken all quoted bounds by the same factor; this paper's assumption that efficiency is unity is the main lever.
  • The same archival X-ray upper limits could be recycled for other exotic energy-injection mechanisms in old neutron stars, such as dark-matter capture and annihilation, where the calorimetric logic is identical.
  • If lighter monopoles that still catalyze nucleon decay exist through non-GUT mechanisms, the dataset could be re-binned to set limits below $10^{10}$ GeV/c^2, which the paper deliberately does not claim.
  • A different model for how Galactic magnetic fields accelerate monopoles would shift the mass axis in the comparison with neutrino-detector limits, potentially changing which probe leads in a given mass bin.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

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

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper derives upper limits on the Galactic flux of GUT magnetic monopoles that catalyze nucleon decay in neutron stars. It estimates the number of monopoles captured by old isolated millisecond pulsars, converts the resulting decay luminosity into a soft X-ray blackbody flux (Eqs. 3 and 4), and compares this prediction with archival Chandra, XMM-Newton, and Swift-XRT measurements and upper limits, as well as with bolometric luminosities of the Magnificent Seven. The headline result, Eq. (5), is F_M(m_M) ≲ 6×10^-19 cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 × max(4×10^-6, min(2×10^11 GeV/c^2 / m_M, 1)) for σ≈1×10^-27 cm^2, claimed to be the strongest limit in the 10^11–10^13 GeV/c^2 mass range and competitive with Super-Kamiokande.

Significance. The capture-to-luminosity derivation is transparent, the comparison to X-ray upper limits is a genuine, parameter-free limit-setting procedure (no parameters are fitted to the X-ray data), and the paper correctly separates the old-MSP and Magnificent-Seven analyses. If the flux-calibration and absorption issues identified below are resolved, the method would provide an interesting new probe of monopole catalysis and would strengthen the case for dedicated X-ray observations of old neutron stars. The main quantitative claims, however, are not yet secure because the conversion of archival count-rate limits to energy fluxes is not matched to the predicted soft blackbody spectra, and no interstellar absorption is included.

major comments (3)
  1. The archival upper limits in Table I are quoted as energy fluxes, but the text never states the spectral model used to convert count-rate upper limits into those fluxes. The predicted spectra from Eq. (4) are soft blackbodies with kT_∞ ∼20–50 eV, whose count-rate-weighted mean photon energy in the 0.2–12 keV band is several times smaller than that of the power-law models (photon index ∼1.7–2) usually adopted by X-ray catalog services. For the same count-rate limit, the true energy flux for the predicted spectrum is therefore smaller than the quoted flux, so the normalization of Eq. (5) is overestimated by a factor of roughly 3–5; the discrepancy can be larger in the self-consistent solution, since solving Eqs. (3)–(4) for the tabulated J0711-6830 limit gives F_M values that differ from Eq. (5) by factors of order 2–20 depending on mass. Because the multiple archival limits are produced by different instruments with different bands and assumed spectra, adopting the smallest numerical flux without a common spectral conversion is not a controlled procedure. Please reproduce the upper-limit conversion for the predicted blackbody spectrum (including instrument responses and band definitions) or provide the correction factors for each source.
  2. The model flux at Earth is computed without interstellar photoelectric absorption, while the archival fluxes and upper limits are observed (absorbed) values. For the soft blackbody temperatures kT_∞ ∼20–50 eV relevant to these limits, the emitted flux is concentrated below ∼0.5 keV, where the Galactic absorption cross-section is large; for sources at d_L ∼1 kpc, N_H is typically 10^20–10^21 cm^-2, which suppresses the predicted flux by a large factor. Ignoring this attenuation makes the predicted flux exceed the true observable flux, so the derived upper limits on F_M are too strong by an N_H-dependent factor. Please include N_H for each source and apply absorption to the model spectra, or use absorption-corrected limits consistently in the comparison.
  3. The central limit assumes that all of the energy released by catalyzed decays thermalizes into surface blackbody emission and that direct neutrino losses are negligible. The stated justification (old MSPs are in the photon-cooling regime) concerns the star's standard neutrino cooling, not the partition of the injected decay energy between photons and neutrinos. Since Eq. (5) scales linearly with the assumed thermalization efficiency, the headline bound should be stated as conditional on unit efficiency, or the efficiency should be quantified for the hadronic and electromagnetic cascade in dense matter.
minor comments (5)
  1. [Eq. (3)] Please provide a derivation or citation for the factor 2π/3 in N_M = (2π/3) F_M A_cap τ; for an isotropic flux in units cm^-2 s^-1 sr^-1 the angular integral is not self-evident, and this factor enters the normalization of Eq. (5).
  2. [Table I] For the sources marked with an asterisk (J0030+0451, J1744-1134, J2124-3358) the quoted value is a measured flux, not a 3σ upper limit; please make this distinction explicit in the table caption and in the surrounding text.
  3. [Sample selection paragraph] The cut d_L^2/τ < 2.5 is introduced with numerical units kpc^2 (10^10 yr)^-1, but the origin of the factor 2.5 is not defined; please clarify whether this is exactly the cut used in Ref. [22] or a new tolerance choice.
  4. [Eq. (4)] The integral limits are written as E_1/(k_B T∞_cat) and E_2/(k_B T∞_cat); please state explicitly that E_1 and E_2 are the observer-frame band edges (0.2 and 12 keV) and clarify whether the gravitational redshift is already included in T∞_cat.
  5. [References] Reference [46] is described as a 'draft version' of the 5XMM-DR15 catalogue; if a published version is available it should be cited, and the access date for reference [47] should be updated at proof stage.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the flux limits follow from comparing an independent calorimetric prediction to archival X-ray upper limits, with no fitted parameters.

full rationale

The derivation chain is not circular. The predicted X-ray luminosity is built from independent inputs (Eq. 3: monopole capture rate, nucleon density, catalysis cross-section; Eq. 4: blackbody band fraction), and the bound is obtained by requiring F_X <= F_obs or F_3sigma,lim for catalog sources. No parameter is fitted to the X-ray data; sigma_DeltaB is an external benchmark, and the monopole velocity model in Eq. (1) is a stated physical input, not derived from the target bound. The paper cites Ref. [22] (Kolb 1982, by co-author E.W. Kolb) for the d_L^2/tau < 2.5 sample-selection threshold, but this is a conservative filter, not a target: J0711-6830, which sets the headline Eq. (5), has d_L^2/tau = 0.019, far below the threshold, so the strongest constraint does not reduce to the self-cited cut. Similarly, Ref. [17] is cited for the 2e11 GeV kinetic-energy scale that sets the mass break, but that is an external estimate of galactic acceleration, not a re-import of the final bound. The thermalization and no-neutrino-loss assumption is explicit and conditional; it weakens the limits if wrong but does not make the comparison tautological. There is no equation in the paper that is equivalent to its own input by construction, and no fitted quantity is renamed as a prediction. The 'strongest to date' claim is an external comparison with Super-K, MACRO, IceCube, and Parker bounds, not an input to the calculation.

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

The paper is transparent about its physical inputs: catalysis cross-section, relative velocity, nucleon density, Galactic acceleration energy, and fiducial NS parameters are all stated. No parameters are fitted to the X-ray data; the result follows from comparing a predicted thermal flux to observed upper limits. The main unquantified input is the assumed 100% thermalization of decay energy, which appears in the text as an assertion.

free parameters (6)
  • sigma_DeltaB (catalysis cross-section) = 10^-27 cm^2
    Benchmark QCD-scale cross-section used throughout; the limit scales linearly with it. Chosen by hand, not fitted.
  • v_MN (monopole-nucleon relative velocity) = 0.1 c
    Assumed similar to nucleon Fermi velocity; enters L_cat linearly in Eq. (3).
  • n_N (nucleon number density) = 2e38 cm^-3
    Assumed average interior density; enters L_cat linearly in Eq. (3).
  • E_kin (Galactic magnetic acceleration energy) = 2e11 GeV
    Sets monopole velocity v_G(m_M) in Eq. (1); from prior literature, not fitted here.
  • Sample selection cut d_L^2/tau < 2.5 = 2.5 (kpc^2/(10^10 yr))
    Hand-chosen tolerance to retain only MSPs expected to improve on the 1982 bound; affects which sources are used, not the formula.
  • NS mass and radius (M_*, R_*) = 1.4 M_sun, 12 km
    Fiducial values; affect capture radius and gravitational redshift.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Magnetic monopoles with GUT magnetic charge propagate through the Galaxy with an isotropic flux F_M.
    Assumed throughout; the searched-for signal is a monopole flux.
  • domain assumption Monopole-catalyzed nucleon decay (Callan-Rubakov effect) occurs in neutron-star matter at the rate n_N sigma_DeltaB v_MN.
    Core physical mechanism; the constraint only applies if catalysis is active.
  • ad hoc to paper The decay energy thermalizes in the NS interior and is re-radiated as a blackbody surface spectrum.
    Assumed in 'we assume that the energy deposited by the decay products thermalizes efficiently'; not derived, and it sets the X-ray band fraction.
  • ad hoc to paper Neutrino losses from the decay products are negligible.
    The text states 'we neglect any direct neutrino energy losses'; if a fraction of energy escapes as neutrinos, the limits weaken.
  • domain assumption Monopole-antimonopole annihilation is negligible inside the NS.
    Justified in Appendix S2 using Ref. [23], but still a modeling assumption.
  • standard math The capture rate follows the post-Newtonian geometric formula with the velocity distribution of Eqs. (1)-(2).
    Standard gravitational focusing; magnetic-field effects on capture are neglected.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Constraints on magnetic monopoles from X-ray observations of neutron stars." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/XTFTOOY6

@misc{pith2026260807652,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Constraints on magnetic monopoles from X-ray observations of neutron stars},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/XTFTOOY6}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2608.07652}
}
abstract

Magnetic monopoles are captured efficiently by neutron stars, and if they catalyze nucleon decay, the decay products would thermalize and generate observable X-ray surface emission. We use archival Chandra, XMM-Newton, and Swift-XRT data for old isolated millisecond pulsars to place conservative limits on the Galactic monopole flux ($F_M$). For a benchmark cross-section of $\sigma_{\Delta \rm B} \sim 10^{-27}\ {\rm cm^2}$, our constraint as a function of monopole mass $m_M$ is given by $F_{\rm M}(m_M) \lesssim 6 \times 10^{-19}~\mathrm{cm^{-2}s^{-1}sr^{-1}} \times \max \big(4 \times 10^{-6}, \min (2 \times 10^{11}~\mathrm{(GeV/c^2)}/m_{\rm M} , 1 ) \big)$. These limits improve previous neutron-star bounds, provide the strongest constraints to date on $F_M$ for $m_M$ between $10^{11} - 10^{13}\ {\rm GeV/c^2}$, and are competitive to existing constraints for this scenario. We also derive complementary constraints from the measured thermal emission of the Magnificent Seven. Our results demonstrate that neutron star X-ray observations provide a powerful probe of magnetic monopoles and motivate dedicated X-ray searches for old neutron stars as a means to test monopole-induced heating.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2608.07652 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. FIG. 1. Comparison of bounds obtained in this work from nucleon decay catalysis using observed X-ray measurements of old [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. FIG. 2. Standard cooling curve (solid dark-blue), [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

56 extracted references · 34 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    P. A. M. Dirac, Quantised singularities in the electro- magnetic field,, Proc. Roy. Soc. Lond. A133, 60 (1931)

    work page 1931

  2. [2]

    ’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge The- ories, Nucl

    G. ’t Hooft, Magnetic Monopoles in Unified Gauge The- ories, Nucl. Phys. B79, 276 (1974)

    1974

  3. [3]

    A. M. Polyakov, Particle Spectrum in Quantum Field Theory, JETP Lett.20, 194 (1974)

    1974

  4. [4]

    P.GoddardandD.I.Olive,Magneticmonopolesingauge field theories, Rep. Prog. Phys.41, 1357 (1978)

    work page 1978

  5. [5]

    C. P. Dokos and T. N. Tomaras, Monopoles and Dyons in the SU(5) Model, Phys. Rev. D21, 2940 (1980)

    work page 1980

  6. [6]

    Dawson and A

    S. Dawson and A. N. Schellekens, Monopole Catalysis of Proton Decay in SO(10) Grand Unified Models, Phys. Rev. D27, 2119 (1983)

    work page 1983

  7. [7]

    Ambrosioet al.(MACRO), Final results of magnetic monopole searches with the MACRO experiment, Eur

    M. Ambrosioet al.(MACRO), Final results of magnetic monopole searches with the MACRO experiment, Eur. Phys. J. C25, 511 (2002), arXiv:hep-ex/0207020

    arXiv 2002

  8. [8]

    Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Search for Relativistic Mag- netic Monopoles with Eight Years of IceCube Data, Phys

    R. Abbasiet al.(IceCube), Search for Relativistic Mag- netic Monopoles with Eight Years of IceCube Data, Phys. Rev. Lett.128, 051101 (2022), arXiv:2109.13719 [astro- ph.HE]

    arXiv 2022

Show all 56 references
  1. [9]

    Aabet al.(Pierre Auger), Search for ultrarelativistic magnetic monopoles with the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys

    A. Aabet al.(Pierre Auger), Search for ultrarelativistic magnetic monopoles with the Pierre Auger Observatory, Phys. Rev. D94, 082002 (2016), arXiv:1609.04451 [astro- ph.HE]

    2016 arXiv

  2. [10]

    Acharyaet al.(MoEDAL), Search for magnetic monopoles produced via the Schwinger mechanism, Na- ture602, 63 (2022), arXiv:2106.11933 [hep-ex]

    B. Acharyaet al.(MoEDAL), Search for magnetic monopoles produced via the Schwinger mechanism, Na- ture602, 63 (2022), arXiv:2106.11933 [hep-ex]

    2022 arXiv

  3. [11]

    Uenoet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Search for GUT monopoles at Super–Kamiokande, Astropart

    K. Uenoet al.(Super-Kamiokande), Search for GUT monopoles at Super–Kamiokande, Astropart. Phys.36, 131 (2012), arXiv:1203.0940 [hep-ex]

    2012 arXiv

  4. [12]

    Perri, M

    D. Perri, M. Doro, and T. Kobayashi, Recasting exper- imental constraints on relativistic magnetic monopoles, Phys. Dark Univ.50, 102134 (2025), arXiv:2507.05136 [hep-ph]

    2025

  5. [13]

    E. N. Parker, The Origin of Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J.160, 383 (1970)

    1970

  6. [14]

    M. S. Turner, E. N. Parker, and T. J. Bogdan, Magnetic Monopoles and the Survival of Galactic Magnetic Fields, Phys. Rev. D26, 1296 (1982)

    1982

  7. [15]

    E. N. Parker, Magnetic Monopole Plasma Oscillations and the Survival of Galactic Magnetic Fields, Astrophys. J.321, 349 (1987)

    1987

  8. [16]

    F. C. Adams, M. Fatuzzo, K. Freese, G. Tarle, R. Watkins, and M. S. Turner, Extension of the Parker bound on the flux of magnetic monopoles, Phys. Rev. Lett.70, 2511 (1993)

    1993

  9. [17]

    Kobayashi and D

    T. Kobayashi and D. Perri, Parker bounds on monopoles with arbitrary charge from galactic and primordial magnetic fields, Phys. Rev. D108, 083005 (2023), arXiv:2307.07553 [hep-ph]

    2023 arXiv

  10. [18]

    Gould and A

    O. Gould and A. Rajantie, Magnetic monopole mass bounds from heavy ion collisions and neutron stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.119, 241601 (2017), arXiv:1705.07052 [hep- ph]

    2017 arXiv

  11. [19]

    Khelashvili, T

    M. Khelashvili, T. Kobayashi, and A. J. Long, Magnetic monopole plasma oscillations and implications for TeV blazars, (2026), arXiv:2606.26229 [hep-ph]

    2026 arXiv

  12. [20]

    V. A. Rubakov, Superheavy magnetic monopoles and decay of the proton, ZhETF Pisma Redaktsiiu33, 658 (1981)

    1981

  13. [21]

    C. G. Callan, Monopole catalysis of baryon decay, Nu- clear Physics B212, 391 (1983)

    1983

  14. [22]

    E. W. Kolb, S. A. Colgate, and J. A. Harvey, Monopole Catalysis of Nucleon Decay in Neutron Stars, Phys. Rev. Lett.49, 1373 (1982)

    1982

  15. [23]

    J. A. Harvey, Monopoles in neutron stars, Nucl. Phys. B 236, 255 (1984)

    1984

  16. [24]

    Dimopoulos, J

    S. Dimopoulos, J. Preskill, and F. Wilczek, Catalyzed Nucleon Decay in Neutron Stars, Phys. Lett. B119, 320 (1982)

    1982

  17. [25]

    J. A. Harvey, M. A. Ruderman, and J. Shaham, Effects of Neutron Star Superconductivity on Magnetic Monopoles and Core Field Decay, Phys. Rev. D33, 2084 (1986)

    1986

  18. [26]

    Freese, M

    K. Freese, M. S. Turner, and D. N. Schramm, Monopole Catalysis of Nucleon Decay in Old Pulsars, Phys. Rev. Lett.51, 1625 (1983)

    1983

  19. [27]

    M. C. Weisskopf, B. Brinkman, C. Canizares, G. Garmire, S. Murray, and L. P. Van Speybroeck, An overview of the performance and scientific results from the Chandra X-ray Observatory (CXO), Publ. Astron. Soc. Pac.114, 1 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0110308

    2002 arXiv

  20. [28]

    Jansen, D

    F. Jansen, D. Lumb, B. Altieri, J. Clavel, M. Ehle, C. Erd, C. Gabriel, M. Guainazzi, P. Gondoin, R. Much, R. Munoz, M. Santos, N. Schartel, D. Texier, and G. Va- canti, XMM-Newton observatory. I. The spacecraft and operations, Astronomy and Astrophysics365, L1 (2001)

    2001

  21. [29]

    D. N. Burrowset al.(SWIFT), The Swift X-ray Tele- scope, Space Sci. Rev.120, 165 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0508071

    2005

  22. [30]

    Haensel, A

    P. Haensel, A. Y. Potekhin, and D. G. Yakovlev,Neu- tron Stars 1: Equation of State and Structure(Springer, 2007)

    2007

  23. [31]

    D. D. Ofengeim and D. G. Yakovlev, Analytic description of neutron star cooling, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.467, 3598 (2017)

    2017

  24. [32]

    Fernandez and A

    R. Fernandez and A. Reisenegger, Rotochemical heat- ing in millisecond pulsars. Formalism and non-superfluid case, Astrophys. J.625, 291 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0502116

    2005

  25. [33]

    D. G. Yakovlev and C. J. Pethick, Neutron star cooling, Ann. Rev. Astron. Astrophys.42, 169 (2004)

    2004

  26. [34]

    A. Y. Potekhin, J. A. Pons, and D. Page, Neutron stars—cooling and transport, Space Sci. Rev.191, 239 (2015)

    2015

  27. [35]

    D. R. Lorimer, Binary and Millisecond Pulsars, Living Rev. Rel.11, 8 (2008)

    2008

  28. [36]

    Bhattacharya and E

    D. Bhattacharya and E. P. J. van den Heuvel, Formation and evolution of binary and millisecond radio pulsars, Phys. Rept.203, 1 (1991)

    1991

  29. [37]

    C. Done, M. Gierlinski, and A. Kubota, Modelling the 8 behaviour of accretion flows in X-ray binaries, Astron. Astrophys. Rev.15, 1 (2007), arXiv:0708.0148 [astro-ph]

    2007 arXiv

  30. [38]

    Becker, X-ray emission from pulsars and neutron stars, inNeutron Stars and Pulsars, edited by W

    W. Becker, X-ray emission from pulsars and neutron stars, inNeutron Stars and Pulsars, edited by W. Becker (Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2009) pp. 91–140

    2009

  31. [39]

    Haberl, AXPs and X-ray-dim isolated neutron stars: recent XMM-Newton and Chandra results, Adv

    F. Haberl, AXPs and X-ray-dim isolated neutron stars: recent XMM-Newton and Chandra results, Adv. Space Res.33, 638 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0302540

    2004 arXiv

  32. [40]

    Haberl, The Magnificent Seven: Magnetic fields and surface temperature distributions, Astrophysics308, 181 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0609066

    F. Haberl, The Magnificent Seven: Magnetic fields and surface temperature distributions, Astrophysics308, 181 (2007), arXiv:astro-ph/0609066

    2007 arXiv

  33. [41]

    Ertan, Ş

    Ü. Ertan, Ş. Çalışkan, O. Benli, and M. A. Alpar, Long- term evolution of dim isolated neutron stars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.444, 1559 (2014), arXiv:1408.0650 [astro-ph.HE]

    2014 arXiv

  34. [42]

    Wozna, L

    A. Wozna, L. Kuiper, and W. Hermsen, PSR B1929+10 revisited in x-rays, Astron. Astrophys.434, 1097 (2005), arXiv:astro-ph/0302467

    2005 arXiv

  35. [43]

    R. N. Manchester, G. B. Hobbs, A. Teoh, and M. Hobbs, The Australia Telescope National Facility pul- sar catalogue, Astron. J.129, 1993 (2005), arXiv:astro- ph/0412641

    2005

  36. [44]

    ATNF Pulsar Catalogue,https://www.atnf.csiro.au/ research/pulsar/psrcat

  37. [45]

    Zolotukhin, M

    I. Zolotukhin, M. Bachetti, N. Sartore, I. Chilingarian, and N. A. Webb, The slowest spinning X-ray pulsar in an extragalactic globular cluster, Astrophys. J.839, 125 (2017), arXiv:1602.05191 [astro-ph.HE]

    2017 arXiv

  38. [46]

    N. A. Webb, I. Traulsen,et al., The 5xmm-dr15 serendip- itous source catalogue, (2026), draft version, XMM- Newton Survey Science Centre

    2026

  39. [47]

    irap.omp.eu/(2026), accessed: 2026-07-28

    XMM-Newton Survey Science Centre, Xmm-newton source catalogue (5xmm-dr15),https://xmm-catalog. irap.omp.eu/(2026), accessed: 2026-07-28

    2026

  40. [48]

    HIgh-energy LIghtcurve GeneraTor (HILIGT),https:// xmmuls.esac.esa.int/hiligt/

  41. [49]

    edu/cscweb/index.do

    Chandra Source Catalog,https://cda.cfa.harvard. edu/cscweb/index.do

  42. [50]

    Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results

    N. Aghanimet al.(Planck), Planck 2018 results. VI. Cosmological parameters, Astron. Astrophys.641, A6 (2020), [Erratum: Astron.Astrophys. 652, C4 (2021)], arXiv:1807.06209 [astro-ph.CO]

    2020 arXiv

  43. [51]

    T. W. Kephart and Q. Shafi, Family unification, exotic states and magnetic monopoles, Phys. Lett. B520, 313 (2001), arXiv:hep-ph/0105237

    2001 arXiv

  44. [52]

    Yanagi, N

    K. Yanagi, N. Nagata, and K. Hamaguchi, Cooling The- ory Faced with Old Warm Neutron Stars: Role of Non-Equilibrium Processes with Proton and Neutron Gaps, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.492, 5508 (2020), arXiv:1904.04667 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  45. [53]

    A. Y. Potekhin, D. A. Zyuzin, D. G. Yakovlev, M. V. Beznogov, and Y. A. Shibanov, Thermal luminosities of cooling neutron stars, Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.496, 5052 (2020), arXiv:2006.15004 [astro-ph.HE]

    2020 arXiv

  46. [54]

    Magnificent Seven

    S. Bogdanov and W. C. G. Ho, The “Magnificent Seven” X-Ray Isolated Neutron Stars Revisited. I. Improved Timing Solutions and Pulse Profile Analysis, Astrophys. J.969, 53 (2024), arXiv:2407.00275 [astro-ph.HE]

    2024 arXiv

  47. [55]

    Braithwaite and H

    J. Braithwaite and H. C. Spruit, Evolution of the mag- netic field in magnetars, Astron. Astrophys.450, 1097 (2006)

    2006

  48. [56]

    Ferrario, A

    L. Ferrario, A. Melatos, and J. Zrake, Magnetic fields of neutron stars, Space Sci. Rev.191, 77 (2015). S1 Supplementary Material Constraints on magnetic monopoles from X-ray observations of neutron stars Mainak Mukhopadhyay, Daniele Perri, and Edward W. Kolb Appendix S1: Magn...

    2015

Pith tools

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