trailHydrogen-atmosphere hot-spot models fit the X-ray spectrum of HESS J1731-347 as well as carbon-atmosphere models
The compact object in HESS J1731-347 has a mass near 0.77 solar masses and a radius near 10.4 km
Convergent spectral-fitting results· for
Phase-averaged X-ray spectra alone cannot discriminate between carbon-atmosphere and hydrogen hot-spot models of central compact objects
Uniform-temperature carbon atmosphere models acceptably fit the phase-averaged X-ray spectra of pulsed central compact objects with hot spots
Hydrogen-atmosphere hot-spot models fit the X-ray spectra of unpulsed central compact objects as well as carbon-atmosphere models
For at least one unpulsed central compact object, improved X-ray spectral data excludes an acceptable carbon-atmosphere fit
Pulsation-absence objection· against
Hot-spot thermal emission from a rotating neutron star generically produces detectable X-ray pulsations
atomic
No X-ray pulsations have been detected from the compact object in HESS J1731-347
atomic
The pulsed-fraction upper limits for HESS J1731-347 exclude most hot-spot viewing geometries
Hot spots on central compact objects are preferentially aligned with the rotation axis
assumed
The X-ray spectrum of the compact object in HESS J1731-347 is well described by a uniform-temperature carbon atmosphere model
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
Hydrogen-atmosphere hot-spot models fit the X-ray spectrum of HESS J1731-347 as well as carbon-atmosphere models
✓VerifiedThe claim traces to reliable primary sources through a clear chain of evidence.constitution →credence 0.90Credence, 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.