I understand that bit, but it's proportional to the shrinkage. If star A is spinning at X turns per unit time, and identical star B is spinning at 4X turns per the same unit time, and they both collapse to the same size neutron star, tiny A' should be spinning at 4X the turns per unit time as little B'.
If the observations in the article are correct, then this neutron star is spinning around 1/10,000th as fast as some others. Neutron star weirdness aside - and that's a whole awful lot of weirdness to set aside - I think that'd mean its earlier version was spinning about 1/10,000th as fast as others. What I don't know, again, as a layman, is whether that's especially unusual or unexpected.
Could it be that instead we're looking at its pole, and the pole has an axial precession of an hour while the little fellow's equator is spinning around quickly?
If the observations in the article are correct, then this neutron star is spinning around 1/10,000th as fast as some others. Neutron star weirdness aside - and that's a whole awful lot of weirdness to set aside - I think that'd mean its earlier version was spinning about 1/10,000th as fast as others. What I don't know, again, as a layman, is whether that's especially unusual or unexpected.
Could it be that instead we're looking at its pole, and the pole has an axial precession of an hour while the little fellow's equator is spinning around quickly?