Ancient Pulsar Still Pulsing
Written by Nancy Atkinson
Artist concept of ancient pulsar J0108. Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Penn State/G.Pavlov et al. Optical: ESO/VLT/UCL/R.Mignani et al. Illustration: CXC/M. Weiss
It may be old, but it ain't dead. The Chandra X-Ray Observatory has found the oldest isolated pulsar ever detected. While this pulsar is ancient, this exotic object is still kicking and is surprisingly active. According to radio observations, the pulsar, PSR J0108-1431 (J0108 for short) is about 200 million years old. Among isolated pulsars — ones that have not been spun-up in a binary system — it is over 10 times older than the previous record holder. A team of astronomers led by George Pavlov of Penn State University observed J0108 in X-rays with Chandra, and found that it glows much brighter in X-rays than was expected for a pulsar of such advanced years.
At a distance of 770 light years, it is also one of the nearest pulsars we know of.
Pulsars are created when stars that are much more massive than the Sun collapse in supernova explosions, leaving behind a small, incredibly weighty core, known as a neutron star. At birth, these neutron stars, which contain the densest material known in the Universe, are spinning rapidly, up to a hundred revolutions per second. As the rotating beams of their radiation are seen as pulses by distant observers, similar to a lighthouse beam, astronomers call them "pulsars".
Astronomers observe a gradual slowing of the rotation of the pulsars as they radiate energy away. Radio observations of J0108 show it to be one of the oldest and faintest pulsars known, spinning only slightly faster than one revolution per second.
J0108 in a combination of optical and X-ray. Image credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/Penn State/G.Pavlov et al. Optical: ESO/VLT/UCL/R.Mignani et al.
Some of the energy that J0108 is losing as it spins more slowly is converted into X-ray radiation. The efficiency of this process for J0108 is found to be higher than for any other known pulsar.
"This pulsar is pumping out high-energy radiation much more efficiently than its younger cousins," said Pavlov. "So, although it's clearly fading as it ages, it is still more than holding its own with the younger generations."
It's likely that two forms of X-ray emission are produced in J0108: emission from particles spiraling around magnetic fields, and emission from heated areas around the neutron star's magnetic poles. Measuring the temperature and size of these heated regions can provide valuable insight into the extraordinary properties of the neutron star surface and the process by which charged particles are accelerated by the pulsar.
The younger, bright pulsars commonly detected by radio and X-ray telescopes are not representative of the full population of objects, so observing objects like J0108 helps astronomers see a more complete range of behavior. At its advanced age, J0108 is close to the so- called “pulsar death line,” where its pulsed radiation is expected to switch off and it will become much harder, if not impossible, to observe.
"We can now explore the properties of this pulsar in a regime where no other pulsar has been detected outside the radio range," said co- author Oleg Kargaltsev of the University of Florida. "To understand the properties of ‘dying pulsars,’ it is important to study their radiation in X-rays. Our finding that a very old pulsar can be such an efficient X-ray emitter gives us hope to discover new nearby pulsars of this class via their X-ray emission."
The Chandra observations were reported by Pavlov and colleagues in the January 20, 2009, issue of The Astrophysical Journal. However, the extreme nature of J0108 was not fully apparent until a new distance to it was reported on February 6 in the PhD thesis of Adam Deller from Swinburne University in Australia. The new distance is both larger and more accurate than the distance used in the Chandra paper, showing that J0108 was brighter in X-rays than previously thought.
"Suddenly this pulsar became the record holder for its ability to make X-rays," said Pavlov, "and our result became even more interesting without us doing much extra work." The position of the pulsar seen by Chandra in X-rays in early 2007 is slightly different from the radio position observed in early 2001. This implies that the pulsar is moving at a velocity of about 440,000 miles per hour, close to a typical value for pulsars.
Currently the pulsar is moving south from the plane of the Milky Way galaxy, but because it is moving more slowly than the escape velocity of the Galaxy, it will eventually curve back towards the plane of the Galaxy in the opposite direction.
Source: NASA
Filed under: Astronomy, Chandra
Related stories on Universe Today
Comment policy: Be nice and brief. Don't advertise your stuff, or promote your personal theories. We'll delete any comments that break these policies. Click here for more details.
February 27th, 2009 at 3:23 pm
This makes me think an undiscovered stellar body is close-by, perhaps a 'brown dwarf or faint M9 star- I can understand findings perhaps to 50-80% more than previously thought but not 10x!!
February 27th, 2009 at 5:36 pm
"it glows much brighter in X-rays than was expected for a pulsar of such advanced years. "
Frankly, I'm shocked the mainstream scientists believe the observation. Normally when mainstream scientists find observations that conflict with their theory they reject the observation.
"It is the theory that determines what can be observed." — Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1926
February 27th, 2009 at 7:53 pm
Nancy said;
"Astronomers observe a gradual slowing of the rotation of the pulsars as they radiate energy away."
Good to see the trusty old conservation of angular momentum at work yet again.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:31 pm
@OillsMastery: Um, no, when "mainstream scientists" find an observation that conflicts with the theory, it's the theory that gets revised (provided that the observation is reproducible). Your comment is completely backwards.
February 27th, 2009 at 8:56 pm
Very old beast this J0108- I though it would have long been dead-each findings like this tells me that outer space beyond the Suns' heliosphere is that much more dangerous!!!
February 27th, 2009 at 9:03 pm
"Frankly, I'm shocked the mainstream scientists believe the observation. Normally when mainstream scientists find observations that conflict with their theory they reject the observation"
No they don't, they check these findings over and over again also their models and correct. when necessary.
Only those with unscientific theories believe that there is a big conspiracy against them.
Look, I follow string therory very closely since it is a very cool theory and it seems that it could be actually true. But when scientific tests proof that the string theory is false than I would drop it imediately without hesitation and continue with the things that are proven to be correct. No point in settig up a web site with some conspiracy theory that scientists wants to hide the fact that the string theory is valid. If it is true then it is true if it is not tue then I accept it to be.
Your are referrin to EU but a 100 years ago that could have been true but too many observations has prove it to be completely BS! It is like trying to prove that the Earth is flat.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:06 pm
Dave,
"Um, no, when 'mainstream scientists' find an observation that conflicts with the theory, it's the theory that gets revised (provided that the observation is reproducible)."
Does that mean you think Einstein is against the mainstream or fringe? Glad to hear we're on the same page.
"Your comment is completely backwards."
It's not my comment. It's Einstein's comment but I agree he got it backwards.
"Einstein’s theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." — Wallace Thornhill, physicist, 2001
February 27th, 2009 at 9:10 pm
Olaf,
"Only those with unscientific theories believe that there is a big conspiracy against them."
Are you saying that heliocentrism is unscientific because mainstream geocentric theorists conspired to burn them at the stake?
" when scientific tests proof that the string theory is false than I would drop it imediately without hesitation and continue with the things that are proven to be correct."
Exactly why I don't believe in gravitation or plate tectonics.
February 27th, 2009 at 9:30 pm
Electromagnetism has been confirmed in the laboratory; gravitation is an occult force that relies upon divine intervention and miracles and a Meinong's Jungle of imaginary objects such as gravitons that have never been observed.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:18 pm
Oil,
Is it electromagnetism that's keeping you on the ground? If so can I pick you up using a giant electromagnet like they do with crushed cars?
February 27th, 2009 at 11:40 pm
ND,
"Is it electromagnetism that's keeping you on the ground?"
Yes.
"What we call mass would seem to be nothing but an appearance, and all inertia to be of electromagnetic origin." — Henri Poincaré, physicist, 1908
Even Newton seemed to suggest electricity in the General Scholium of Book III:
"And now we might add something concerning a certain most subtle spirit which pervades and lies hid in all gross bodies; by the force and action of which spirit the particles of bodies attract one another at near distances, and cohere, if contiguous; and electric bodies operate to greater distances, as well repelling as attracting the neighboring corpuscles; and light is emitted, reflected, refracted, inflected, and heats bodies; and all sensation is excited, and the members of animal bodies move at the command of the will, namely, by the vibrations of this spirit, mutually propagated along the solid filaments of the nerves, from the outward organs of sense to the brain, and from the brain into the muscles. But these are things that cannot be explained in few words, nor are we furnished with that sufficiency of experiments which is required to an accurate determination and demonstration of the laws by which this electric and elastic spirit operates." — Isaac Newton, mathematician, 1686
February 27th, 2009 at 11:50 pm
You didn't answer the second part. I can pick up an iron ball using an electromagnet but not a plastic ball. And yet they both fall to the ground at the same rate (if you discount air resistance). There are two different phenomenon at work here. Wether gravity and electromagnetism are
somehow related (along with the other fundemantal forces of nature) , would be a different matter. Electromagnetism and gravity are different phenomenon in nature.
In fact you can put the metal and plastic balls in orbit around the earth and they would stay in orbit even though one is influenced by electromagnetism and the other isn't.
February 27th, 2009 at 11:56 pm
@ Olaf:
There is no physical observations & measurements that support "string theory". It's completely theoretical.
It's a mathematical construct searching for observation & measurement, even if they have to imagine five parallel Universes to do it…
And, NASA has confirmed by in situ measurements that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in the solar system's interplanetary medium.
Yet, you think Plasma Cosmology is completely BS.
Go figure.
As to the post, "neutronium" the supposed material a "neutron" star is made of violates known nuclear physics. Neutrons can't stay packed together in pure form, as recognized by the nuclear physics postulate called the 'island of stability.
There are pulsars that pulse at rates, which if converted into the rotation necessary for the "lighthouse" theory would rip apart even a "neutron" star.
"Neutron" stars are another make-believe hypothesis to sustain the gravity only model.
Electromagnetic explanations rely on known and recognized plasma physics. A pulsar is likely similar to a relaxing electrical oscillator.
No exotic materials required.
Occam's Razor: Unkown phenomenon should be explained in terms of known phenomenon.
And, again, "neutronium" has never been observed & measured because it doesn't exist.
Let the light in, or should I say, let the electromagnetic particle/waves in.
Your near endorsement of string theory, tells me what I suspected — you'll swallow anything that has the stamp of "approval" regardless of how little actual scientific observation & measurement supports it.
Your protestations against Plasma Cosmology seem more based on bias & prejudice than reasoned reliance on evidence or lack, there of.
February 28th, 2009 at 12:21 am
Frankly, I'm shocked that Anaconda doesn't believe in observation. Normally when Anaconda finds observations that conflict with his theory even he rejects the observations.
As I said; "It is the theory that determines what can be observed." — Albert Einstein, mathematician, 1926
February 28th, 2009 at 12:35 am
Actually your quote is wrong. The truth is, "when OilIsMastery's proof that the string theory is true than I would drop it immediately without hesitation and continue with the things that are proven to be correct."
"OilIsMastery's theory of gravity is the craziest explanation of the phenomenon imaginable." — Anaconda, 2009
February 28th, 2009 at 12:45 am
Anaconda's Razor: Unknown phenomenon should be explained in terms of unknown phenomenon. – OilIsMastery, 2009
February 28th, 2009 at 2:55 am
WTF, someone is impersonating me Anaconda, that's not me who wrote all that.
February 28th, 2009 at 2:58 am
I'm the biggest idiot who's ever walked the face of the Earth.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:15 am
"WTF, someone is impersonating me Anaconda, that's not me who wrote all that."
Don't you just love the Anaconda's Razor;. Perhaps you would prefer;
OilIsMastery Razor; "All known phenomenon should be explained in terms of irrelevant phenomenon." – Salacious B. Crumb, 2009"
Really, resorting to self-sock puppetry is always one way of always winning a logical argument – as you just can't lose or even disagree.
Also notable. What, no quote?
February 28th, 2009 at 3:42 am
Anaconda said;
"And, NASA has confirmed by in situ measurements that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in the solar system's interplanetary medium.
Yet, you think Plasma Cosmology is completely BS."
Oh dear back to that again. eh?
Surely the Solar System and Plasma Cosmology are the same thing, or are they? Oh I forgot, as you implied before, you cannot exactly explain what you mean.
Very simple request to you please, so we can get this absolutely right before we go any further debating this issue.
A. Please define in precise terms, so we now what you mean, your interpretation of;
1. Plasma Cosmology
2. Plasma Astrophysics
3. Plasma Universe
4. Plasma Physics
B. Even simpler. Do photons actually exist?
February 28th, 2009 at 4:14 am
Oh you silly curmudgeon Salacious, you just got it all wrong;
As to 'OilIsMastery Razor', shouldn't it be'
"All irrelevant phenomenon should be explained in terms of known phenomenon." – Salacious B. Crumb, 2009"
Many apologies to you all.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:45 am
Can you explain the apparent non-symmetry of the beams? Three seem to be going in the same direction and one in the opposite direction. Thanks.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:47 am
OilIsMaster said to ND; ""Is it electromagnetism that's keeping you on the ground?"
Yes."
Actually this is quite factually wrong. This should read;
"Is it electromagnetism that's keeping you to be able to see that you are actually standing on the ground?"
Please be more precise in future.
"You can't be a ballet dancer if your pigeon-toed" André Eglevsky 1947
February 28th, 2009 at 6:48 am
HA! Now Oils drops another little bombshell – he doesn't believe in plate tectonics! You are a dead-set classic mate!
Honestly – it actually gets you off coming on these sorts of sites and making such audacious claims, doesn't it? It is the same reason that people such as holocaust deniers and AIDS deniers do what they do – it gives them a little surge of power to think that they can commandeer peoples attention for a bit and rile them up. Surely this is your deal? You can't honestly believe that gravity is a myth and that plate tectonics is on anything other than a rock-solid scientific basis. Surely!
P.S – please don't feel the need to defend your view against this post – I just simply don't care what your beliefs are… But by all means, feel free to decide that this is because I'm a horrible nasty mainstream scientist trying desperately to maintain my worldview against all available evidence and suppress the truth that only Oils himself and God knows.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:42 am
Gotta love those 'artist concepts'! Utter nonsense.
February 28th, 2009 at 8:52 am
@ Salacious B. Crumb:
In regards to your request for definitions, they all stand for the proposition that electromagnetism is an important elemental force in the Universe that has a role in the construction and processes observed and measured, both in the solar system and beyond.
The terms tend to get used interchangably, although, different people have variations in what they subscribe to.
Just like some people subscribe to "black hole" theory, but don't subscribe to "dark" matter, or "dark" energy.
To your second question, yes, photons do exist. Are they a wave? Are they a particle? Are they both? photons exibit properties of both, that is why some people refer to them as wave/particles.
Salacious B. Crumb, do you deny NASA has confirmed by in situ measurements that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in the solar system's interplanetary medium?
Salacious B.Crumb, do you subscribe to the "neutron" star theory?
February 28th, 2009 at 10:39 am
I don't see any problem with the existence of neutron stars. If perhaps gravity somehow didn't exist, then maybe the "island of stability" argument might have some relevance, but unfortunately we're stuck with having gravity in this universe.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:08 pm
@ Qev:
The "island of stability" law of nuclear physics is not dependent on gravity.
Set aside the a law of physics if that will keep you happy. Just remember it's not science when you do.
February 28th, 2009 at 3:14 pm
I thought black holes contained the densest matter known. Not neutron stars.
February 28th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
Anaconda said;
"In regards to your request for definitions, they all stand for the proposition that electromagnetism is an important elemental force in the Universe that has a role in the construction and processes observed and measured, both in the solar system and beyond.
Sorry that just didn't answer the question.
Define them each specifically, please.
February 28th, 2009 at 6:07 pm
"To your second question, yes, photons do exist. Are they a wave? Are they a particle? Are they both? photons exibit properties of both, that is why some people refer to them as wave/particles."
OK. Then where is the fault with Noether's theorem?
You already agreed gravity exists, therefore Noether's theorem must also be applicable?
February 28th, 2009 at 7:09 pm
@ Salacious B. Crumb:
Aren't you forgetting something?
I asked you two direct questions. Yes or no questions, in fact.
"Do you deny NASA has confirmed by in situ measurements that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in the solar system's interplanetary medium?"
"Do you subscribe to the "neutron" star theory?"
I'd like your answers.
February 28th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
Anaconda,
I'll say it again
Very simple request to you please, so we can get this absolutely right before we go any further debating this issue.
A. Please define in precise terms, so we now what you mean, your interpretation of;
1. Plasma Cosmology
2. Plasma Astrophysics
3. Plasma Universe
4. Plasma Physics
You for some reason just can't answer that. Why not?
February 28th, 2009 at 9:14 pm
Anaconda Says:
"Do you deny NASA has confirmed by in situ measurements that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in the solar system's interplanetary medium?"
Define "ubiquitous", as it can mean present, appearing or found everywhere? Which one?
If you mean "present", then yes.
If you mean "found everywhere", then no.
Regardless, so what. No-one here has ever denied magnetic fields in the solar system (interplanetary medium) or beyond the solar system (interstellar space).
The important part of the question that is missing (Sigh, yet again) is the relative strengths of both force on astronomical phenomena;
"The position regarding the role of electromagnetism (whatever} and gravity is crystal clear, and what is held by current theory and 99.9% of the astronomical community is that;
"Presently explanations of astrophysical phenomena seem mostly and significantly influenced by gravity, and that the effects of electromagnetic forces are fairly minor." "
As to your now predictable response, here is my next (now pre-emptive) reply…
The question discussed here has never been about the existence or non-existence of magnetic fields at all, and to presume that just shows how truly lost and deluded you are.
The real problem is the absolutely crazy notion and contention that all phenomena can be explained solely on electromagnetism (whatever) and magnetic / electric fields.
It simply can't. FACT.
[On this matter, really, the more you seem to say, the even more ignorant you appear.]
But don't think you can weasel out that we can measure electromagnetic (whatever) in the laboratory – but we cannot do so with gravity. As we have seen from your twisted logic, all this affirms to you is that gravity as a fundamental force doesn't exist.
What you do totally fail recognise is that gravitational fields work mostly on the macro scale.
You have already sillily stubbled in admitting that photons – are dualistic – in that they act as waves and particles. (You should not have really done that because you admit (like Oillsmastery) the same folly that "Yes but most likely electromagnetism causes gravity." )
So here for you now is the final coup de gras.
You must therefore believe that gravity is caused by an exchange of photons. Right?
If you say gravity is NOT caused by an exchange of photons, then what is the transmitter particle of gravity?
If your ridiculous conclusion were correct, then all physical observed and astronomical phenomena is controlled by an exchange of photons. Right?
Therefore, how then do you explain (too many to mention),
- If I switch the lights off I should actually weigh less.
- If you are placed in a Faraday cage, removing all the electromagnetic radiation and electric fields, then any matter in the centre of the cage should either become instantly lighter or float. (Note: if you do the experiment on Earth, mass falls to the ground at the same rate as if outside the cage.)
- Processes of electromagnetic shielding would also reduce the gravitational field too. Sadly for you, all gravitation fields are observed to be independent electromagnetic fields. I.e. You can change the electromagnetic field strength, but the acceleration due to gravity on mass remains exactly the same.
- That the orbit of planets would move by the magnetic field lines of the sun. (Here I do suggest you seriously think of the implications, of say, the asteroid Pallas, which has an inclination of 35 degrees to the ecliptic. Also if you are really silly enough to belief that electromagnetic forces and fields generate gravity, then the observed significant changes in the magnetic field throughout the solar cycle would mean the distance between, say planets and the Sun would vary accordingly. Simple observation shows that it is totally not true!)
Have you cottoned on to what Noether's theorem is all about yet?
February 28th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Anaconda said;
"Do you subscribe to the "neutron" star theory?"
What do you mean by " "neutron" star theory" " ? As far as I know, there is no such formal astronomical theory named that.
Of course, are you actually referring this to atomic theory, QED / QCD and the strong force exerted under strong gravitational fields. I have noticed you have said very little of either the strong or weak nuclear forces. [Are these also just consequence of electromagnetic (whatever)?]
Again in pre-emption of your usual unrelenting diatribe…
Frankly, as far as I can see, you likely know very little about QED or QCD, or even the important parts related of General Relativity, so it is really pretty pointless discussing it, or even trying to convince you.
So sorry, regardless of the existence/ non-existence of neutron stars, they are totally irrelevant here in explaining your crazy contention that electromagnetic (whatever) is related to your wacky views on gravitation and gravity fields. If you can't explain it in terms of everyday accepted physics, then what do you expect to achieve in extreme circumstances.
Note: I've also read your (and Oillsmastery) general BS on neutron stars elsewhere. I just don't buy any of it. As far as I understand, neutron stars are more to do with particle physics than astronomy.
In the end, I not my role here just to teach you a whole general course on physics.
February 28th, 2009 at 10:09 pm
(Sorry to repeat this again folks, but it crucial that Anaconda actually defines precisely the terms below and finally stops ducking and avoiding these very simple definitions.)
Directly at Anaconda
Now, for the FOURTH time. Please DEFINE IN PRECISE TERMS (individually), so we know what exactly you mean, in your interpretation of;
1. Plasma Cosmology
2. Plasma Astrophysics
3. Plasma Universe
4. Plasma Physics
I.e. "Plasma Cosmology" is…, etc.
If for some reason just can't answer this. Why not?
(My bet is he'll try rabbeting on about something else, or will just disappear!)
NOTE: Your last reply was; "In regards to your request for definitions, they all stand for the proposition that electromagnetism is an important elemental force in the Universe that has a role in the construction and processes observed and measured, both in the solar system and beyond."
THIS SIMPLY DID NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION.
Please do so!
February 28th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
My friend also reading my previous post suggested spelling it out for Anaconda, as good example, and not avoid the answer. I.e.
1. Cosmology – Is the branch of astronomy concerned with the origin, properties and evolution of the Universe. Physical cosmology is about making observations giving information about the whole Universe. Theoretical cosmology, based on General Theory of Relativity, establishes models which aim to describe the observational properties of the universe in mathematical terms. Modern cosmology as a subject is based on the laws of physics and in the constructs of mathematics and astrophysics.
2. Astrophysics is the physical theory of astronomical objects and their phenomena. It is a study that interprets observation and measurement, and through the scientific method, explained in terms of physics and physical processes, It covers topics like the structure and stability of stars, the propagation of electromagnetic radiation in space, production of spectra, nucleosynthesis (nuclear) processes, to applications of gravitational theory.
3. Universe etc. etc.
March 1st, 2009 at 12:01 am
@ Salacious B. Crumb:
Who's going on a diatribe?
It's simple really, I wasn't going to have you ignore my questions.
And when I did call you on it, what did I get ? A diatribe.
Your answers are fine: Yes ELECTROmagnetism is "present". Okay.
But don't backslide to magnetic fields because only ELECTRIC current causes magnetic fields. In fact, electric current is the only KNOWN way to generate magnetic fields.
As a rhetorical question: Where is electromagnetism not found in the interplanetary medium?
Sal. B. Crumb puts out a strawman argument: "[Anaconda's position is that] all phenomena can be explained solely on electromagnetism (whatever) and magnetic / electric fields."
I haven't wrote that. Actually, I've written that the relationship of electromagnetism and gravity should be determined. Yes, electromagnetism is important, but not "solely".
Strawman argument # 2: "[A]ll this affirms to you is that gravity as a fundamental force doesn't exist."
Of course, I have explicitly stated gravity does exist.
Strawman argument # 3: "You must therefore believe that gravity is caused by an exchange of photons. Right?"
I've never written anything close to that.
People who have to resort to strawman arguments are treading on sand.
And it's a fraudulent way to argue a point.
Sal.B. Crumb asks: "[W]hat is the transmitter particle of gravity?"
I don't know, do you?
You are shameless about using strawman arguments, aren't you?
As to your "neutron" star answer, it's easy to characterize that answer: Weasel.
Sal.B. Crumb: "What do you mean by 'neutron' star theory? As far as I know, there is no such formal astronomical theory named that."
That's called evading the question.
People on astronomy blogs know what is being referred to when "neutron" star is mentioned. The post, itself, uses the term and I discussed it.
Sal. B. Crumb: "[R]egardless of the existence/ non-existence of neutron stars, they are totally irrelevant…"
Yes, "weasel," fits you like a snitch jacket.
Sal. B. Crumb: "If you can't explain it in terms of everyday accepted physics…"
That's exactly my point: "Neutronium" doesn't exist in accepted nuclear physics.
Sal. B. Crumb: "I just don't buy any of it. As far as I understand, neutron stars are more to do with particle physics than astronomy."
What are you doing here then?
This entire post is about a "neutron" star.
A simple, "yes," or "no," would have been a lot easier on your credibility.
As far as your question goes, I already answered it — if you don't like my answer, too bad, after your display, I'm not inclined to jump any hoops for you. Go look up the differences yourself and report back.
To sum up:
In response to two simple questions, Sal. B. Crumb goes on a diatribe, a rant, and mixes in 3 strawman arguments and weasels out of the one question directly on point with this post.
You are a piece of work.
Do you expect anybody to take you seriously?
March 1st, 2009 at 4:19 am
Oh, such venom. Must have hit the target to get you riled so. Sounds like the man has been caught with his pants down, and is striking out in fear of being proven dead wrong.
Now let's see, who said; "You[r] emotional responses only reveal the weakness of your position. – Anaconda February 6th, 2009 3:35pm
Now lets look at what you said, eh?
1) You also said "Jupiter, Saturn Plowed Through Asteroids, Study Says" Article, you said;
"Binary stars (and multiple star sytems) — Gravity doesn't account for binary and multiple star systems. Electromagnetism does."
2) Then you said that; "Yes, but the identified and observed physics will be electromagnetism and "modern" astronomy will be required to back away from this infatuation with invented imaginary "forces" and concentrate on known, observed, and measured physical forces."
3) Also you said on December 11, 2008 12:50 AM
http://irrationaltheorist.blogspot.com/2008/12/as-you-go-up.html
"Did I ever say gravity didn't exist? No, I didn't.
Your confusion is partly because of terminology.
"Gravitrons??? Another unproven term made up by theoretical mathematicians."
4) Sal.B. Crumb asks: "[W]hat is the transmitter particle of gravity?"
Anoconda says; "I don't know, do you?"
So from all these quotes and responses above, we can only conclude;
- You may or may not think gravity is a fundamental force
- Electromagnetism exists in binary stars but not gravity
- You don't believe in the existence of gravitons
- Yet you state you don't know if there is a transmitter particle of gravity, and if you do you don't know what they are
- Gravity waves don't exist (assumed from you first post in this article)
- Electromagnetism manifested though photons can be particles and waves, while gravity can't.
- As still you want to "the relationship of electromagnetism and gravity should be determined."
- And you still don't know anything about Noether's theorem, that gives insight in why physicists are looking for means of explaining all four of the fundamental forces – and in gravity's case; the existence of highly likely corresponding waves and particles.
Therefore we can only conclude, according to you, gravity cannot be a wave, it can be particle, it exists, but you don't know what it is. Yet you want us to believe electromagnetic (whatever)
is the predominate force and dominate astronomical phenomena – but physics is on the wrong tact.
Your logic is clear as mud, and clearly, there appears much confusion with you.
Yet although I so have science capabilities, I apparently don't know what I am talking about, you do, and because of this you think. "Do you expect anybody to take you seriously?"
Its no wonder most of the time no one comprehends what you mean let alone what you say or are on about.
Actually, you really could simply avoid all these problem by saying "electromagnetism and gravity." Based on the phenomena is question, you should relate the relative quantity 'A' of electromagnet (whatever) and 'B' quantity by gravitation. I.e.
Stating "Do you deny NASA has confirmed by in situ measurements that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in the solar system's interplanetary medium?" is a direct threat, and not a question (its a loaded question, actually).
Answering decisively yes or no is impossible to do – and worse you already know this.
Perhaps if you asked the question (without the loaded implications) I.e. "Do you think NASA have confirmed that electromagnetism is insignificant, weak or strongly significant in the solar system's interplanetary medium?"
As to your silly "Straw man comments", you views are is wrong, and you obviously don't understand what it means;. Simply, arguing that the opposing position implies that at least one of two other statements–both being presumably easier to refute than the original position–must be true. If one refutes both of these weaker propositions, then the refutation is valid, and does not fit the above definition of a "straw man" argument."
I.e. "You must therefore believe that gravity is caused by an exchange of photons. Right?
If you say gravity is NOT caused by an exchange of photons, then what is the transmitter particle of gravity?"
Therefore logically is not a straw man argument as you claim. Your premise is therefore false, as is your accusation.
Also how can I misrepresent your position, when you don't make it clear (ND is right, your actual problem is how you express your own arguments.)
[Moderators: Please leave these comments here and don't delete them, as it shows an object lesson when presenting arguments and ideas.
As I said before. "I might be rancid butter, but I am on your side of the bed.)
March 1st, 2009 at 4:20 am
Correction:
[Moderators: Please leave these comments here and don't delete them, as it shows an object lesson when presenting arguments and ideas.
As I said before. "I might be rancid butter, but I am on your side of the BREAD.)
March 1st, 2009 at 4:46 am
Oh, and to let Anaconda out of his misery…
The implications of Noether theorem, is that in the modern versions of the theorem applies to both particles and fields. I.e. Conservation of angular momentum or conservation of electric charge.
Knowing about such conservation lets physicists place logical boundary constraints on the various generated theories. It continues to proves a very powerful method of learning insights into many conservative laws and their symmetries and has lead towards many new ideas and discoveries in physics. If you at least grasp could what it means, you would not be attacking mathematics, theoretical physics and cosmology so much unwarranted recklessly abandon.
Unusually, Emmy Noether was an eminent German theoretical mathematician. Her work applies equally with gravitational field and electromagnetic fields. (Hence the connect, as an example to you.
"To learn anything new, sometimes more important to listen, then think what it means, and then somehow applies to what you are doing."
Unknown (but it is what my teaching lecturer once said. I didn't forget it.)
March 1st, 2009 at 5:05 am
@ Anaconda
(Sorry to repeat this yet again folks, but it crucial that Anaconda actually defines precisely the terms below.)
Now, please for the FIFTH time. Please DEFINE IN PRECISE TERMS (individually), so we know what exactly you mean, in your interpretation of;
1. Plasma Cosmology
2. Plasma Astrophysics
3. Plasma Universe
4. Plasma Physics
I.e. "Plasma Cosmology" is…, etc.
If for some reason just can't answer this. Why not?
This is requested, so some people responding to your ideas and finally work out what you are saying!
Thanks.
March 1st, 2009 at 8:45 am
Oh dear, at the computer too long, to write such as string of errors . I originally said said;
"To learn anything new, sometimes more important to listen, then think what it means, and then somehow applies to what you are doing."
Unknown (but it is what my teaching lecturer once said. I didn't forget it.)
It should read.
"To learn anything new, sometimes it is more important to listen, and then think what it means, and then somehow apply it to what you are doing."
Unknown (but it is what my teaching lecturer once said. I didn't forget it.)
My apologies.
March 1st, 2009 at 11:07 am
Anaconda/OIM:
Perhaps one of you two would care to show us what an Ambiplasma looks like?
Yes? No?
March 1st, 2009 at 12:38 pm
@ Salacious B. Crumb:
You're a joke.
Crumb responds to my proceeding comment with, "Oh, such venom."
Oh, really?
Pointing out your strawman arguments and your evasions to a yes or no question is "venom"?
Anyway, to the point:
Obviously, you have no compunctions about taking somebody's quote out of context.
Here's what I said about gravity, earlier, in that same thread you quote from:
"As to gravity, yes I am convinced gravity exists, and Newton did an admirable job of describing its mechanics (particularly in reference to the general state of scientific knowledge at the time) and developing mathematical equations (calculus) to predict gravity's effects. After all, with little modification those equations took Man to the Moon and back, alive!
No small achievement" — 2/27/09, 10:09am
The quote you take out of context was referring to the difficulties of gravitational theory in explaining binary and multiple star systems alone, not that gravity doesn't exist.
Also, the quote you provide afterwards is also taken out of context: "…'modern' astronomy will be required to back away from this infatuation with invented imaginary 'forces' and concentrate on known, observed, and measured physical forces." (date, time unknown)
This refers to "black holes", "neutron' stars, "dark" matter, and "dark" energy. None have been observed & measured by astronomers. Electromgnetism actually can account for those objects and doesn't require unseen "dark" matter and energy. Again, twisting my words does nothing for your credibility.
The above objects & phenomenon were necessary because the gravity "only" model failed by its own constraints and requirements. In other words, without the listed items, the gravity "only" model would be falsified.
Wow — I must've hit a nerve for Crumb to go quote hunting and reach back to a quote 2 and 1/2 months ago, on a small blog.
By the way, "gravitrons" have not been observed & measured, they are a theoretical construct. So, no, I don't know.
Again, you mislead readers because the implication of your passage is that "gravitrons" have been observed & measured; they most certainly haven't.
Back to passing off your strawman arguments, I see.
I hate to take the time and space, but this string of strawman arguments is Crumb's "Big Lie" push.
"- You may or may not think gravity is a fundamental force"
I've never stated gravity wasn't a fundamental force.
"- Electromagnetism exists in binary stars but not gravity"
Again, I didn't write that, it's a shameless twisting of my words. Gravity doesn't adequately or SUFFICIENTLY explain binary and multiple star system formation.
"- Gravity waves don't exist"
Yes, gravity waves have NEVER been observed & measured, even after millions spent and satellites sent up into space.
Gravity could easily operate at a distance without "gravitrons" or "gravity waves". Maybe, those things will be observed & measured, but so far they haven't.
Science has to be based on what has been observed & measured, not on what hasn't.
The reason I wrote: ""Do you expect anybody to take you seriously?", is simple enough, your style of argument with the use of strawmen and twisting words out of context is fraudulent.
Ah… Now, we come to the heart of the matter, Crumb: "Stating 'Do you deny NASA has confirmed by in situ measurements that electromagnetism is ubiquitous in the solar system's interplanetary medium?' is a DIRECT THREAT [to the status quo of the gravity "only" model]."
So, now we come to the purpose of Sal. B. Crumb's comments: To protect the status quo, even if he has to be disingenuous to do it.
Sal B. Crumb's preferred form of the question: "Do you think NASA have confirmed that electromagnetism is insignificant, weak or strongly significant in the solar system's interplanetary medium?"
Okay, I agree, that would have been a more 'artful' form of the question.
Too bad, you had to stack up all your strawman arguments before simply rephrasing the question.
But regrettably, there you go again.
You pose a reasonable form of the question, but then you go off without answering it.
Sorry, when you misstate my position and then attack me based on your false characterization — that's a stawman argument, plain and simple.
Sal. B. Crumb: "If you say gravity is NOT caused by an exchange of photons, then what is the transmitter particle of gravity?"
I didn't call this a strawman argument.
But the first half of your quote: "You must therefore believe that gravity is caused by an exchange of photons. Right?"
Is most definitely a form of strawman argument because I never expressed an opinion about photons one way or the other, yet, here, Crumb is attempting to assign a position to me, I've never expressed.
Sal. B. Crumb: "[Y]our actual problem is how you express your own arguments."
Maybe so, but readers can judge for themselves.
Yes, moderators, Sal B. Crumb's comments speak loudly and are edifying: "I might be rancid butter, but I am on your side of the BREAD."
In other words, the "ends justify the means" and I'm on your "side" of the argument, so leave my comments.
Problem is, Crumb, your intent is transparent and your tactics are so "rancid" that you are an embarrassment to your "side" (science doesn't have "sides") because it leaves the impression that only "rancid" arguments like yours can preserve the status quo, gravity "only" model.
Is that what it's come down to for "modern" astronomy to have to rely on Crumb's kind of discussion?
A sad state of affairs.
A final note: Crumb never responded regarding my characterization of his "neutron" star weaseling and evasion.
That's the subject of the post, after all, which should tell readers something.
As I stated off the top, Crumb is a joke.
And he does no favors to his side of the argument. Any "side" that has to rely on a disingenuous attack dog like that is not on a firm scientific foundation.
March 1st, 2009 at 10:24 pm
Anoconda…
Let it go.mate. I think you have already lost the argument.
The more you write, the more you show your ignorance.
So I'll come back to what I originally said.
It was YOU who made the contentions NOT me.
As for prosperity, your understanding of plasma cosmology (and we still don't know what you mean) is very poor at best and limited in its usefulness. You have weak knowledge of current theories, and you don't understand why the majority of astrophysicists and cosmologists think like they do.
As for the neutron star points, you keep saying the degenerate matter in neutron stars does not exist, but you don't say why do you? I have told you it has to do with the strong force and atomic theory – but you just ignore it by saying I'm avoiding the question.
I recall somewhere you say you believe in white dwarf stars but not neutron stars? Why?
Clearly you bring it up in a side issue and a distraction (but I still won't bite), because you wish to avoid the tenet of the nature of gravitational sources hiding behind electromagnetic (whatever).
Now let's see.
1) You also said; "But the first half of your quote: "You must therefore believe that gravity is caused by an exchange of photons. Right?"
Is most definitely a form of strawman argument because I never expressed an opinion about photons one way or the other, yet, here."
Oh yes you did!
You said photons were dualistic "waves / particles." Remember. Ergo, if you concluded that, and "Binary stars (and multiple star sytems) — Gravity doesn't account for binary and multiple star systems. Electromagnetism does." Hence we must conclude electromagnetism is gravity in binary and multiple stars.
But then you say that this was never said.
I.e. " "Gravity doesn't account for binary and multiple star systems. Electromagnetism does" Hence the point "- Electromagnetism exists in binary stars but not gravity"
Again, I didn't write that, it's a shameless twisting of my words. Gravity doesn't adequately or SUFFICIENTLY explain binary and multiple star system formation." "
Oh yes you did write that!
I.e. "Binary stars (and multiple star sytems) — Gravity doesn't account for binary and multiple star systems. Electromagnetism does." (no mention of formation by the way)
[See "Jupiter, Saturn Plowed Through Asteroids, Study Says " February 28th, 2009 at 9:40 am ]
Hence my statements are actually true.
Your argument is therefore false and contention is wrong. (need I say more)
March 1st, 2009 at 10:25 pm
Anaconda,
Perhaps some timely advise is in order, and you might be able to understand this when you calm down.
If you can't construct a logical argument, well really their is no point in saying anything at all. So one thing is positive, at least you have given us a much better insight into what you may or may not believe. (ND will be happy!)
Even better they have been recorded for prosperity, so I suggest you be a bit more more cautious when stating what you say or didn't say.
As some honest advice, I would suggest you perhaps collect your ideas together is some semblance of order, and start to work out what theories you support and what evidence there is to disprove it. I would avoid also expression things in terms of absolutes. I..e "gravity waves don't exist". A better way is to say something like "…because of contention 'A' and contention "B', it is more likely that gravity waves don't exist " If you don't do this, your arguments will be always instantly be destroyed if only one point proves the statement false. Sadly, your aims seem more deliberate to trick or catch out others to make believe what you believe.
Anyway thanks for your someone somewhat strange and quirky views on the Universe. Sadly I have other more important issues to deal with.
So have a NICE day, won't you….
March 1st, 2009 at 11:21 pm
@ Salacious B. Crumb:
One concluding thought: Your arguments are designed to roil gravity "only" minded folks' opinions by playing to their prejudice against the scientific theory I bring to their attention. My arguments are designed to appeal to their reason. Why? because if they do respond emotionally, likely it will only work against my position, whereas, if you roil their emotions against me it will work to your side of the argument.
(Their emotions being predisposed to your side of the argument.)
In that regard, your intentions and tactics are clear.
March 2nd, 2009 at 12:52 am
Now this is truly beginning to be delusional.
"Your arguments are designed to roil gravity "only" minded folks' opinions by playing to their prejudice against the scientific theory I bring to their attention."
I (again) recall you to my very plain an unemotional statement that I have now given you on numerous occasions.
"The position regarding the role of electromagnetism (whatever} and gravity is crystal clear, and what is held by current theory and 99.9% of the astronomical community is that;
"Presently explanations of astrophysical phenomena seem mostly and significantly influenced by gravity, and that the effects of electromagnetic forces are fairly minor." " **
NOTE: OK, different perspective, and now without emotion or excuses, what PERCENTAGE do you roughly think gravitational forces to electromagnetic forces are important in all astronomical phenomena should be? 100%, 90%, 50%, 20%, 0%, etc.?
As for; "My arguments are designed to appeal to their reason. Why? because if they do respond emotionally, likely it will only work against my position, whereas, if you roil their emotions against me it will work to your side of the argument."
This is just pure paranoia.
Again. Who are "they"? Whose "emotions"?
What are my (and the other respondents) motives, here?
Why would they be against you?
Also I have no "side".
Yet again
******************************************************
It was YOU who made the contentions NOT me !
******************************************************
** The bottom line is that there are ZERO people I.e. NOBODY in either cosmology or astrophysics are "gravity "only" minded folks' " The evidence is perfectly clear. A vast majority of known astronomical objects have a electromagnetic component and a gravitational component. What we observe is that the gravitational component is overwhelmingly the predominate force, and much of the observed behaviour of astronomical objects can be calculated solely in terms of provable gravitational theory calculations. Sorry, that is how it is – no emotions no delusions.
So the million dollar question remains is why can't you just accept that?
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:50 am
Different day… same morons.
It only takes a few idiots to ruin a web site. We are witnessing this process here.
Before you have a debate about forces, you should at least have a complete understanding of them. To believe electromagnetism is the force keeping you on the ground is rediculous.
If you really understood how electromagnetism worked, you would easily understand that IF electromagnistism was the force pushing you down to earth, then EVERYTHING on earth would STICK TO YOU, as if you and everything else was a magnet.
In reality, it is electromagnetism which keeps us from actually being able to touch anything, as well as keeping objects from passing through each other.
Just because you "Think" something happens, doesn't mean it does.
March 2nd, 2009 at 1:01 pm
jesus, get a room
March 2nd, 2009 at 2:35 pm
There is a new Theory of Everything Breakthrough. It exposes the flaws in both Quantum Theory and String Theory. Please see: Theory of Super Relativity at Super Relativity Einstein was right!
March 2nd, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Neil say:
"jesus, get a room."
Actually no.
There are claims being made here that are both misleading and untrue.
Do you want to know the truth or are you just happy to be deceived?
My suggest to you instead "…get a book.", then you might just know what is going on…
In the future I'd suggest you quell such irrelevant comments.
March 3rd, 2009 at 1:48 am
I have duplicated this post to aid in the issues brought up in aspects for the portions of discussion on this article.
(If the moderators feel this was not particularly necessary, I would not be put out if you removed it.
*****************************************
Quite frankly, probably like most responding here, I have become very frustrated especially in arguing against Anaconda. Reading some of the ancillary response here, I'm beginning to know why.
Two points I would like to make, who aim is to quell the continuous and somewhat bitter debate here;
1) In a general short discussion at a meeting yesterday with some astronomical educators and professional astronomers, I brought up the issue of those who express dogmatic views on astronomical phenomena. I gave an example of Anaconda views regarding plasma physics and the presumed importance / weakness in our knowledge of gravitational sources.
Needless to say two main ideas were raised
a) The perception that the majority of the astronomical sources in universe are comprised of exotic phenomena.
b) That components of magnetic fields, generation of electromagnetic radiation, and gravitational sources were of significant importance to explain the vast majority of known astronomical phenomena.
However, the first contention is probably the most interesting and relevant. Articles on galactic or extragalactic stories (like we see throughout Universe Today") tend to concentrate on exotic phenomena. I.e. Gamma-ray bursters, X-ray sources, interacting close binary system, galaxy jets, quasars, etc.
What some forget to realise is that most observed astronomical phenomena is in fact very very ordinary – passive going through formation and their evolution. Electromagnetic activity in most cases is quiescent.
So in the end, Anaconda is basically right that electromagnetic activity can be significant, but mostly only in active objects. Regarding the run-of-the-mill objects in the universe its influence is small compared to gravitational sources. (exactly like Lawrence B. Crowell has said above and ND.)
[Perhaps the other biggest question is the proportion of exotic phenomena to quiescent astronomical phenomena - but that is yet another matter]
2) I have been reading some of the issues Anaconda has brought up, because few papers discuss gravitation and their electromagnetic counterparts.
A recent released arvix article given on 2nd March 2009 (you can get more recent than that) might be very useful as an independent source. This will also aid greatly in relevant discussion
Entitled; "Finding and Using Electromagnetic Counterparts of Gravitational Wave Sources", by E. Sterl Phinney http://arxiv.org/pdf/0903.0098
This paper joins information and perspective, study into the immediate future and the role of electromagnetic and gravitational sources.
[If Anaconda (and Oillsmastery) cannot accept such relevant an up to date information, then I suggests he/they takes his views to another forum.]
Again many apologies for the length of this reply, or if it is irrelevant.
March 5th, 2009 at 10:23 pm
Maybe it is time for registration and moderation.
i dunno.