trailSome compact star observations are difficult to explain with conventional neutron star models
Some observed compact stars may be strange quark stars
Anomalously light and compact objects· for
The compact object in HESS J1731-347 has a mass near 0.77 solar masses and a radius near 10.4 km
The X-ray spectrum of the compact object in HESS J1731-347 is well described by a uniform-temperature carbon atmosphere model
✓
◌
⇄
Hydrogen-atmosphere hot-spot models fit the X-ray spectrum of HESS J1731-347 as well as carbon-atmosphere models
↑
◌
✓
Conventional supernova mechanisms cannot readily produce neutron stars with masses well below one solar mass
atomic
The pulsar XTE J1814-338 has an inferred radius of about 7 km, smaller than neutron star models predict
Pulse profile modeling of XTE J1814-338's thermonuclear burst oscillations yields a radius near 7 km and a mass near 1.2 solar masses
◌
Standard nuclear-matter equations of state predict radii of about 11 to 13 km for neutron stars near 1.2 solar masses
Earlier pulse-shape modeling of XTE J1814-338's accretion-powered pulsations indicated a radius of roughly 12 to 22 km
Systematic uncertainties in the inferences· against
Inferred masses and radii of compact stars depend strongly on assumed distance and atmosphere composition
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Some compact star observations are difficult to explain with conventional neutron star models
↑SupportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →credence 0.75Credence, from 0 to 1: the Steward's probability that the claim, as stated, is true. Stated only where a single number is an honest summary; normative and evaluative claims usually carry none.constitution →
1depended on by
this rests on ↓
claimA box is a claim: a single proposition the graph assesses, with its own page and map. Click any claim to centre the map on it.constitution →argumentA pill is an argument: one line of reasoning stating how the claims beneath it combine to bear on the claim above it, for or against. Arguments are not destinations; click their claims to explore.constitution →✓verifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →↑supportedEvidence favors the claim, but the chain is incomplete or the sources are secondary.constitution →⇄contestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →○unsupportedNo credible evidence found, though the claim is not contradicted.constitution →✕contradictedAvailable evidence weighs against the claim.constitution →?unknownInsufficient information to assess.constitution →◌unassessedNo current assessment. Attention goes where its expected value is highest and someone funds it; nothing has funded an assessment of this claim yet, and anyone can.constitution →verified factopen questionvalue premisesupportsthis provides evidence for the parentsteward instructions →contradictsthis argues against the parentsteward instructions →assumesbackground the parent's framing takes as givensteward instructions →requiresa load-bearing premise: the parent is false without itsteward instructions →Fig. Detail falls off with distance; every claim is an address.