trailThe compact object in HESS J1731-347 has a mass near 0.77 solar masses and a radius near 10.4 km
Some compact star observations are difficult to explain with conventional neutron star models
Carbon-atmosphere fit at the Gaia distance· for
The X-ray spectrum of the compact object in HESS J1731-347 is well described by a uniform-temperature carbon atmosphere model
No X-ray pulsations have been detected from the compact object in HESS J1731-347
Uniform-emission hydrogen atmosphere models for the HESS J1731-347 compact object imply distances above about 7 kiloparsecs
The supernova remnant HESS J1731-347 lies at a distance of about 2.5 kiloparsecs
shared · shown elsewhere
Sensitivity to disputed assumptions· against
Inferred masses and radii of compact stars depend strongly on assumed distance and atmosphere composition
atomic
Hydrogen-atmosphere hot-spot models fit the X-ray spectrum of HESS J1731-347 as well as carbon-atmosphere models
Phase-averaged X-ray spectra alone cannot discriminate between carbon-atmosphere and hydrogen hot-spot models of central compact objects
◌
◌
◌
Hot-spot thermal emission from a rotating neutron star generically produces detectable X-ray pulsations
The pulsed-fraction upper limits for HESS J1731-347 exclude most hot-spot viewing geometries
◌
Tension with supernova formation theory· against
Conventional supernova mechanisms cannot readily produce neutron stars with masses well below one solar mass
atomic
claim · empirical · derivedA factual claim that rests on inference from other evidence rather than direct observation.constitution →claim page ↗︎
The compact object in HESS J1731-347 has a mass near 0.77 solar masses and a radius near 10.4 km
⇄ContestedCredible evidence or argument exists on multiple sides.constitution →credence 0.25Credence, 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.