Astrophysics overturned by baffling pulsar

[fuelair]

They called Bozo a clown for his beliefs!! And look at him now!!!!*










* Still a flippin' clown.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Well pointed out BAC. I think that all of this is a far more plasuible explantion for pulsars than the current one, and I hadn't thought of the possible link between this and the Jupiter-Io connection before, but that makes a lot of sense.

... snip ...

So how many mutually incompatible 'plasma cosmology' accounts of pulsars are we up to now?

I count at least two; before this post is over, there may be more ...

And this discovery is way cool, I had heard of pulsars spinning at 716 Hertz before (716 times per second, ref; Astronomers Discover Fastest-Spinning Pulsar), but this one blows it out of the water at 2150 rotations per second. The question surely has to arise; Is this speed really tenable?, or are the pulses we detect from them due to something else? This sort of speed was certainly not anticipated when the original interpretation of pulsars was proposed.

Well, why not actually go and read some papers on this?

(material on this for interested readers to follow, in a later post)

... snip ...

When Neutron stars were first discovered it was thought that they rotated rapidly - like lighthouses. But I find this very unlikely now, even when the observed rate of "rotation" got up to about once per second for certain pulsars, despite their having masses exceeding that of the sun, the old official explanation became largely untenable in my opinion.

And your opinion is based on what, exactly?

This is where the concept of the "Neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds. (Some nuclear chemists have noted that current explanations for Neutron Stars violate the Island of Stability, as it is now known that neutrons can not be packed that close together without spontaneously undergoing radioactive transformations. Despite this fact, most astronomers remain confident that the gravity of neutron stars is strong enough to alter the fundamental observations of nuclear chemistry significantly on the atomic scale, despite gravities role at this scale still being a bit of a mystery (ref: The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars Journal of Fusion Energy, 2006) . This quite recent empirical observation even challenges the conventional assumption that stars are powered by H-fusion, but that’s for another thread in the future, not here, I feel. ref, ref)

Well, now we have three mutually incompatible 'plasma cosmology' ideas ... and some indirect evidence (you listening JEROME?) that Zeuzzz is Michael Mozina!

Oh, and yet more inconsistencies between 'if it hasn't been observed in the lab, it doesn't exist!' and 'here's something plasma cosmologists accept'.

... snip ...

Another one that offers further proof of this is one of the nearest to us (is it the nearest actually???), the "Crab Nebula", which is currently thought to have a Neutron Star at its centre, CM Tauri. The frequency of repetition of the pulsar's output is 30 pulses per second. The length of each flash, however, is approximately 1/1000 sec, just one millisecond. This lead Plasma cosmologists

Which ones?

Michael Mozina?
Wallace Thornhill?
Don Scott?
Eric Lerner?
Anthony Peratt?
Dr. László Körtvélyessy?
Ian Tresman?
Dwardu Cardona?

... snip ...

Another thing that I find fascinating about pulsars is that it is well known that the pulses are considered some of the most accurate clocks in the universe, of relative accuracy of 10^-15 And here on earth the most accurate clocks are Ion clock mechanisms; which is the exact mechanism that Peratt and Plasma Cosmologists propose is occurring in Pulsars, ie, ions periodically building up and discharging in the stellar circuit.

... snip ...

(emphasis added)

Now that I've quoted your post, you can't go edit it.

So, when I (or someone else) gets around to going through that Healy and Peratt paper, and discovers that there is, shall we say, a discrepancy ...

And to counter the usual "We all ready know nearly everything about pulsars, this is all plasma cosmology woo-hoo-poo" response I can anticipate; many details of pulsars are are still poorly understood, such as:

... snip ...

And of course, no logic of false dichotomy operating here.

Further, all these - and more! - have been explained in great and glorious detail in the Healy and Peratt paper (or is it the Dr. László Körtvélyessy model? Or the 'Sun has a solid iron surface' model? I get confused over which of the mutually inconsistent explanations is the *true* plasma cosmology one).

This long list of uncertainties with pulsar theory certainly adds room for the possibility of the plasma cosmology interpretation turning out correct. And I feel this is one of the areas that PC excels at explaining.

Indeed ...

Apart from the trivial little detail of there being at least two (three?) mutually inconsistent 'plasma cosmology' explanations, and no papers which actually go through the tiresome bother of providing a consistent, quantitative account of all of the above, and ...

If you look at pictures of the pulsar in the Crab Nebula, it certainly takes the morphology of a unipolar inductor, with a central current filament and a rotating EM field of plasma surrounding it;

... snip ...

Ah yes ...

The devastatingly insightful scientific method called 'look at this picture!'

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Come on dude, someone with your capability can surely add something constructive here to the quite considerabale amount of information in my post. And its not as if its my theory, I'm just relaying the work of other scientists. This comment is almost as helpful as the one comment you contributed to the "Plasma cosmology - woo or not" thread, by just saying, "It is the very definition of woo", and leaving it at that. Well, do you have any reason for this supposition? or not?

... snip ...

Hmm ...

While BenBurch may have been a little extreme in his brevity, as a prediction it seems he was absolutely spot on: the evidence is pretty clear that 'plasma cosmology' does not seem to include an acknowledgment that serious inconsistencies (internal, with experimental results, with observations, ...) even exist, let alone that any 'plasma cosmologist' is deeply concerned about them.

Such insouciance to such a central feature of science would surely count as 'the very definition of woo', wouldn't it?

 

[Jeff Corey]

Man, now I wish I had took that astrology course in collige.

 

[Zeuzzz]

So how many mutually incompatible 'plasma cosmology' accounts of pulsars are we up to now?

I count at least two; before this post is over, there may be more ...
Well, why not actually go and read some papers on this?

(material on this for interested readers to follow, in a later post)

And your opinion is based on what, exactly?


Well, now we have three mutually incompatible 'plasma cosmology' ideas ... and some indirect evidence (you listening JEROME?) that Zeuzzz is Michael Mozina!

Oh, and yet more inconsistencies between 'if it hasn't been observed in the lab, it doesn't exist!' and 'here's something plasma cosmologists accept'.

Which ones?

Michael Mozina?
Wallace Thornhill?
Don Scott?
Eric Lerner?
Anthony Peratt?
Dr. László Körtvélyessy?
Ian Tresman?
Dwardu Cardona?

(emphasis added)

Now that I've quoted your post, you can't go edit it.

So, when I (or someone else) gets around to going through that Healy and Peratt paper, and discovers that there is, shall we say, a discrepancy ...

And of course, no logic of false dichotomy operating here.

Further, all these - and more! - have been explained in great and glorious detail in the Healy and Peratt paper (or is it the Dr. László Körtvélyessy model? Or the 'Sun has a solid iron surface' model? I get confused over which of the mutually inconsistent explanations is the *true* plasma cosmology one).

Indeed ...

Apart from the trivial little detail of there being at least two (three?) mutually inconsistent 'plasma cosmology' explanations, and no papers which actually go through the tiresome bother of providing a consistent, quantitative account of all of the above, and ...

Ah yes ...

The devastatingly insightful scientific method called 'look at this picture!'

Please stop!!! Too many logical fallacies!!! I cant bear it!



Where is your responce to the subject that this topic, and my post, is specifically about? ie, the science of pulsars.

You seem to have a pretty weird idea of PC if your saying things like "if it hasn't been observed in the lab, it doesn't exist!" By that logic, how could you anything in space exist???

And where on earth did I EVER say that the "Sun has a solid iron surface"??? Your making a fool of yourself.


If you had any answer to anything in this post, you would have said it. Instead you just give a vague list of largely random people, some not even remotely connected to plasma cosmology (fallacy of guilt by association? [not even used right though, usually people at least quote the correct people!]), claiming that something is inconsistant with something whilst completely misrepresenting (and largely ignoring) what has actually been said, accusing me of being someone (what does this achieve? how does this progress this topic at all?) And what are you talking about and Iron sun for? when have I, or any plasma cosmologist, said that the sun has an Iron surface? I linked to a paper in the highly respected Journal of Fusion energy, and that link is the only place where the full text is available. Its got nothing to do with where the link happens to be. Whats your point anyway? And why are you mentioning Dr. László Körtvélyessy, Ian Tresman, or Dwardu Cardona? Who on earth is Dwardu Cardon? Where are there any peer reviewed scientific plasma cosmology publications written by any of them? oh, I forgot, there are none. Are you getting enough sleep DRD?

"Now that I've quoted your post, you can't go edit it." Yes, quite. I might make a case study of this very post, the psychology behind it I feel would be very interesting, and i'll use it as an example in future posts of the type of tactics you continually use.

Care to add any more fallacies whilst directly not commenting on any of the main material in my post?

 

[robinson]

Zeuzzz, and anyone else who actually reads new research, check out this article.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0506/0506545v3.pdf

Or if you can't bring yourself to wade through the massive amount of research they did, here is the short version.

http://www.esa.int/esaCP/SEMB6IBUQPE_index_0.html

It is illuminating in regards to Pulsars and the revolutionary changes taking place in our understanding of the Universe.

Or you could just read short dumb stuff some people make up, which do nothing to advance science. Or a conversation.

 

[robinson]

Oh, I also recommend filtering out users who engage in trolling, insults and straw dogs. Life is too short to waste any of it.

 

[Tubbythin]

When Neutron stars were first discovered it was thought that they rotated rapidly - like lighthouses. But I find this very unlikely now, even when the observed rate of "rotation" got up to about once per second for certain pulsars, despite their having masses exceeding that of the sun, the old official explanation became largely untenable in my opinion.

Have you done any calculations for this? I would like to see them. Or is this just argument from incredulity.

This is where the concept of the "Neutron star" was invented. It was proposed that only such a dense material could make up a star that could stand those rotation speeds. (Some nuclear chemists have noted that current explanations for Neutron Stars violate the Island of Stability, as it is now known that neutrons can not be packed that close together without spontaneously undergoing radioactive transformations.

It violates the island of stability? What do you mean?

Despite this fact, most astronomers remain confident that the gravity of neutron stars is strong enough to alter the fundamental observations of nuclear chemistry significantly on the atomic scale, despite gravities role at this scale still being a bit of a mystery

There is good reason you know. Like the lack of white dwarf stars above 1.4 solar masses. And type 1a supernovas. How does your pet theory explain these?

(ref: The Nuclear Cycle that Powers the Stars Journal of Fusion Energy, 2006) .
This quite recent empirical observation even challenges the conventional assumption that stars are powered by H-fusion, but that’s for another thread in the future, not here, I feel.

When I've got time I'll go through this. Can I just ask... are you really willing to support a theory suggesting there is a neutron star in the centre of the Sun?

 

[Dancing David]

Other than one paper what evidence is there of the neutron repulsion? I found multiple links to the same paper.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It violates the island of stability? What do you mean?

Stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons, a neutron/proton ratio of 1. The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio spontaneosly undergo radioactive transformations that tend to bring their compositions into or closer to this ratio. This should mean that the Neutronium that Neutron stars are thought to be constituted of can not exist for long enough to form the current stable structures, or, this reaction could be resonsible for the huge amount of energy we see from these types of objects, whether at the centre of the galaxy or a typical Neutron star candidate. Nuclear chemistry is not really my strong point, so i'm taking their word for this... and I admit I may have misrepresented that part about the island of stability, i'll leave that up for you to decide... http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html

There is good reason you know. Like the lack of white dwarf stars above 1.4 solar masses. And type 1a supernovas. How does your pet theory explain these?

My pet theory?

I would love to have personally come up with this theory, but, alas, tis not mine. Just showing you already existing theories of other competant scientists.

When I've got time I'll go through this. Can I just ask... are you really willing to support a theory suggesting there is a neutron star in the centre of the Sun?

Not so sure about that certain aspect, but the repulsion between these nuclides does seem to contradict many things in current models. Thats why I said "but that’s for another thread", and you should start one about this work if you feel the need, this thread should probably be kept to the topic of pulsars.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

... snip ...

1) Their magnetosphere structures are a bit of a mystery (bandaged dipoles being one theory out of many, and, I think, the most popular current one; http://www.springerlink.com/content/l27044q5g2148051/)
2) The work function of their polar caps, has been observed to vanish in the presence of a pair plasma corona, generated by electron bombardment
3) the origin of the extreme brightness temparature of their coherent radio pulses, reaching 10^28±2K in the peaks
4) Radiation at all higher than radio frequencies not explained by current theories
5) high degrees of polarization (which i think has been observed both circular and linear)
6) intensity fluctuations from pulse to pulse, who's histograms fall into some five different categories (briefly addressed in Peratts publication)
7) 3-d bean shapes, or antenna patterns, composed of huge numbers of narrowed spikes, with net bean fraction ~1
8) The modes of formation (currently via SN explosion in all cases, even including the ms pulsars!)
9) modes of extinction (via suffocation?, or some other not fully known mechanism) A question remains on whether the ms pulsars are 'recycled', ie, spun by accretion, just born fast, or from the Van Allen hypothesis (which would explain why their magnetic fields are always so high, which implies a relation between the speed of rotation and the magnetic field, something lacking from conventional theories; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287019 [the plasma cosmology interpretation of the three]
10) occasional Giant pulses radio emission (these events, surprisingly, have actually been attributed to electric discharges already, see; http://www.mssl.ucl.ac.uk/~sz/Conference_files/pres/kuzmin.pdf "Giant pulses radio emission is generated in the electric discharge taking place due to the magnetic reconnection of field lines connecting the opposite magnetic poles” [of course though, Alfvens electrical double layer, or current disruption model, is preferred to the "magnetic reconnection" idea of "merging lines" by most PC proponents]

Even their spindown ages (t_sd := P/2P) have been occasionally questioned as upper bounds on their true ages. The spindown obeys;
[latex](p^{2})^{.}=\frac{16\pi^{2}D^2}{3c^{3}I}[/latex]
for a transverse magnetic dipole moment D, (≈ 10³¹Gcm³), and a moment of inertia I ≈ 10⁴⁵gcm². The positive initial period ( P(t₀) ) is uncertain, and so renders the rest of the relationship questionable.

... snip ...

I have a vague recollection of reading a list much like this elsewhere - if this is other than entirely your own work, would you mind telling us what your source(s) are Zeuzzz?

I'm also curious to know what your source is for the spindown expression ... it is (I guess) from someone or other's model, no doubt published in some paper somewhere (perhaps repeated now in some standard astrophysics text too).

 

[Tubbythin]

Stable nuclei of the lighter elements contain approximately equal numbers of neutrons and protons, a neutron/proton ratio of 1.

Correct.

The heavier nuclei contain a few more neutrons than protons, but the limit seems to be 1.5 neutrons per proton. Nuclei that differ significantly from this ratio spontaneosly undergo radioactive transformations that tend to bring their compositions into or closer to this ratio.

Yes, generally. Though there are exceptions.

This should mean that the Neutronium that Neutron stars are thought to be constituted of can not exist for long enough to form the current stable structures, or, this reaction could be resonsible for the huge amount of energy we see from these types of objects, whether at the centre of the galaxy or a typical Neutron star candidate.

Well if you had a nucleus and you just kept adding neutrons on to it then it would, fission, alpha decay or the neutrons would just drop off. But this isn't what happens in a neutron star. So this argument doesn't apply.

Nuclear chemistry is not really my strong point, so i'm taking their word for this... and I admit I may have misrepresented that part about the island of stability, i'll leave that up for you to decide... http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html

You're thinking of the "valley of stability", not the "island of stability". I'm still not sure why you're using the word "violating" though.

Not so sure about that certain aspect, but the repulsion between these nuclides does seem to contradict many things in current models.

That's because its nonsense. And you mean neutrons or nucleons not nuclides.

 

[Zeuzzz]

I have a vague recollection of reading a list much like this elsewhere - if this is other than entirely your own work, would you mind telling us what your source(s) are Zeuzzz?

I'm also curious to know what your source is for the spindown expression ... it is (I guess) from someone or other's model, no doubt published in some paper somewhere (perhaps repeated now in some standard astrophysics text too).

Of course its reported in some standard physics texts. PC is not re-writing the entire scientific method! And a few of the points are from; Astrophysics: A new Approach, which is a book, so isn't available online unfortunately.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

Oh, I also recommend filtering out users who engage in trolling, insults and straw dogs. Life is too short to waste any of it.

May one enquire as to what criteria you would use to decide who such users are?

Ones who say:

Such terrible logic and huge fallacies. (without saying what, or why)?

Yet another fallacy! Marvelous. (without saying why)?

Yet another illogical assumption! (without saying what, why, how, or ...)?

Not true. (without saying why, or how, or ...)?

That claim is utter nonsense (with no explanation)?

To what extent would you say those who write such things are engaging in "trolling, insults and straw dogs"?

 

[BeAChooser]

http://www.newsdaily.com/stories/n15315677-pulsar/ "Astronomers baffled by weird, fast-spinning pulsar ... May 15, 2008, Astronomers are baffled after finding an exotic type of star called a pulsar apparently locked in an elongated orbit around a star much like the sun -- an arrangement defying what had been known about such objects. ... The big question is -- how in the heck did this thing form, because it doesn't follow our standard models of how these things form," astronomer Scott Ransom ... snip ... "If you were to ask any astronomer if we would have found a system like this, they would have said no. So this is a very big surprise," Ransom said."

Time for a new gnome.

 

[DeiRenDopa]

It seems there are two different aspects of pulsars/magnetars/neutron stars being questioned/discussed in this thread:

* whether there are dense objects with masses ~1 sol, that are (somehow) associated with gamma/x-ray/optical/radio pulses and/or very characteristic nebulae (i.e. diffuse sources)

* what the mechanisms are which give rise to the observed pulses.

There's also been the question of how the emission in the diffuse nebulae arises.

Let's take the 'dense, massive objects' first.

In 1993, Hulse and Taylor were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for physics, for the discovery of the 'Hulse-Taylor' pulsar, and analysis of observations of it showing that it is in a binary whose mutual orbits are decaying at a rate consistent with Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR), due to the emission of gravitational wave radiation. Here is the Nobel committee's announcement, here is Hulse's Nobel lecture, here is Taylor's, and when the site comes back up, I'll post the section in Clifford Will's latest "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" that discusses this (and similar) object.

In 2003 a double pulsar was discovered - two pulsars in orbit around each other. This system has permitted much more rigorous testing of GR than the Hulse-Taylor pulsar could - this Jodrell Bank PR gives a brief description, as well as links to some papers.

This ATNF* introduction gives a good, if brief, account of pulsars (it also has a link to a more advanced tutorial).

Until the 'living reviews' website comes back up, the 2006 paper Tests of General Relativity from Timing the Double Pulsar will have to do to summarise just how far the study of pulsars has come in terms of putting GR through its paces; here's the abstract (emphasis added):

The double pulsar system PSR J0737-3039A/B is unique in that both neutron stars are detectable as radio pulsars. They are also known to have much higher mean orbital velocities and accelerations than those of other binary pulsars. The system is therefore a good candidate for testing Einstein's theory of general relativity and alternative theories of gravity in the strong-field regime. We report on precision timing observations taken over the 2.5 years since its discovery and present four independent strong-field tests of general relativity. These tests use the theory-independent mass ratio of the two stars. By measuring relativistic corrections to the Keplerian description of the orbital motion, we find that the ``post-Keplerian'' parameter s agrees with the value predicted by general relativity within an uncertainty of 0.05%, the most precise test yet obtained. We also show that the transverse velocity of the system's center of mass is extremely small. Combined with the system's location near the Sun, this result suggests that future tests of gravitational theories with the double pulsar will supersede the best current solar system tests. It also implies that the second-born pulsar may not have formed through the core collapse of a helium star, as is usually assumed.

* Australian Telescope National Facility - one of the primary 'pulsar hunters'.

If anyone is interested in learning, in more detail, how the many years of astronomical observations, across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, have been interpreted as 'here be dense, massive objects called neutron stars', please ask (and I'll be happy to take a shot at explaining).

Next: pulsars/magnetars/neutron stars as plasma physics laboratories.

 

[Klimax]

May one enquire as to what criteria you would use to decide who such users are?

Ones who say:

Such terrible logic and huge fallacies. (without saying what, or why)?

Yet another fallacy! Marvelous. (without saying why)?

Yet another illogical assumption! (without saying what, why, how, or ...)?

Not true. (without saying why, or how, or ...)?

That claim is utter nonsense (with no explanation)?

To what extent would you say those who write such things are engaging in "trolling, insults and straw dogs"?

May I suggest following list?
Robinson
BAC
Zeuzzz
Jerome da Gnome

May be I missed some,but these are bit persistent...

 

[Zeuzzz]

May I suggest following list?
Robinson
BAC
Zeuzzz
Jerome da Gnome

May be I missed some,but these are bit persistent...

Thank you. Anything else you want to add? I dont see you adding anything worthwhile to this discussion.

 

[Zeuzzz]

It seems there are two different aspects of pulsars/magnetars/neutron stars being questioned/discussed in this thread:

* whether there are dense objects with masses ~1 sol, that are (somehow) associated with gamma/x-ray/optical/radio pulses and/or very characteristic nebulae (i.e. diffuse sources)

* what the mechanisms are which give rise to the observed pulses.

There's also been the question of how the emission in the diffuse nebulae arises.

Let's take the 'dense, massive objects' first.

In 1993, Hulse and Taylor were jointly awarded the Nobel Prize for physics, for the discovery of the 'Hulse-Taylor' pulsar, and analysis of observations of it showing that it is in a binary whose mutual orbits are decaying at a rate consistent with Einstein's theory of General Relativity (GR), due to the emission of gravitational wave radiation. Here is the Nobel committee's announcement, here is Hulse's Nobel lecture, here is Taylor's, and when the site comes back up, I'll post the section in Clifford Will's latest "The Confrontation between General Relativity and Experiment" that discusses this (and similar) object.

Indeed, and they deserved it. They were mysterious objects even when discovered back then.

In 2003 a double pulsar was discovered - two pulsars in orbit around each other. This system has permitted much more rigorous testing of GR than the Hulse-Taylor pulsar could - this Jodrell Bank PR gives a brief description, as well as links to some papers.

Yes, as I pointed out in my post above, it is an odd fact that many of these type of pulsars (a very high percentage) are binary systems. This observation is just one in a long line of observations of pulsar binaries, which is exactly what PC proponents predicted. From that page "They have shown that the compact object orbiting the 23-millisecond pulsar PSR J0737-3039A, which they reported previously [Nature 4th December 2003], is not only, as suspected, another neutron star, but is also a detectable pulsar. The companion, PSR J0737-3039B, is rotating once every 2.8 seconds and orbits PSR J0737-3039A in only 2.4 hours." Leaves me wondering if they all are, maybe the ones that we don’t think have a companion actually do but just haven't been detected yet. And this observation is exactly what you would expect from the Plasma cosmology explanation for pulsars, as this EM connection between the two objects could be providing the periodic resonating pulses, as BAC first pointed out above by quoting Scotts interpretation of pulsars proposed in first in 1999. To which you shouted woo-hoo-hoo without even considering what he was saying. Shame on you.

Radio emissions from terrestrial planets around white dwarfs - Astronomy and Astrophysics, 2005

Radio emissions from terrestrial planets around white dwarfs
A. J. Willes1 and K. Wu2

1 British Antarctic Survey, Cambridge, UK and School of Physics, University of Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
e-mail: [email protected]
2 Mullard Space Science Laboratory, University College London, Holmbury St. Mary, Surrey, UK
e-mail: [email protected]

(Received 10 March 2004 / Accepted 19 November 2004)

Abstract:

Terrestrial planets in close orbits around magnetic white dwarf stars are potential electron-cyclotron maser sources, by analogy to planetary radio emissions generated from the electrodynamic interaction between Jupiter and the Galilean moons. We present predictions of radio flux densities and the number of detectable white-dwarf/terrestrial-planet systems, and discuss a scenario for their formation.

This connection between pulsars and the EM field connection between jupiter IO has been reported in various established journals.

This ATNF* introduction gives a good, if brief, account of pulsars (it also has a link to a more advanced tutorial).

Until the 'living reviews' website comes back up, the 2006 paper Tests of General Relativity from Timing the Double Pulsar will have to do to summarise just how far the study of pulsars has come in terms of putting GR through its paces; here's the abstract (emphasis added):

* Australian Telescope National Facility - one of the primary 'pulsar hunters'.

If anyone is interested in learning, in more detail, how the many years of astronomical observations, across the entire electromagnetic spectrum, have been interpreted as 'here be dense, massive objects called neutron stars', please ask (and I'll be happy to take a shot at explaining).

Next: pulsars/magnetars/neutron stars as plasma physics laboratories.

That’s all very well, but I’m not sure what relativity and standard pulsar theory has to do with this topic? These new observations imply the old theory has fallen flat on its face. The OP suggests that a new theory of pulsars needs to be used to explain the new observations that contradict current theories, and so I’m discussing a model that could resolve this issue. You don’t have to comment on the PC electric star/unipolar inductor interpretation if you don’t want to, but it would be nice. Its basically a scaled down version of the unipolar inductor/farady motor/homopolar motor (all the same thing) model that Alfven proposed for galaxies and other bodies in space;

The original 1995 paper by Peratt et al on pulsars concluded that instead of emission points on a rotating surface that a periodic plasma discharge between the pulsar and its magnetosphere creates a resonating or modulating component to the proper current pulse, and this model can now be applied with greater certainty, since it is known that most pulsars have a companion to allow this discharge to occur between two definitive bodies. A large part of the PC publication (http://public.lanl.gov/alp/plasma/downloads/HealyPeratt1995.pdf) spends time looking at the polarization properties of the pulses, which they conclude was due to the high electric current (and resulting magnetic fields) component that is powering the two. They suggest;

Both simulation and experiment suggest that micro-pulses and sub-pulses are produced by particle-wave interactions in non-uniform plasma eradiated by the electromagnetic wave. This effect is produced when the magnetically insulated voltage pulse reaches the pulsar surface. Because of the curvature, magnetic insulation is lost and plasma flows across this region.[....]

In other words, the double layer formation creates and maintains the PD that enables the current to discharge between the two. Peratt talks about the high degree of circular polarization of the pulses (up to 99.99%, so ~100%), which can be easily explained by the formation of a double layer in the plasma environment. They are essentially large magnetic field alligned potential drops close to the surface of the white dwarf that accelerate the ions to high relativistic speeds (the same mechanism that PC proponents think causes the acceleration of the solar wind, a long unresolved problem in conventional theories) And the double layers could also be responsible for the production of gamma ray bursts (pointed out first by PC proponents, and more recently by Meintjes and Jager, 2000; http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/2000MNRAS.311..611M)

I like this idea, and this seems to imply that the founder of modern PC was correct. Hannes Alfven said that the source of cosmic rays that puzzle astronomers need not be such a mystery (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unsolved_problems_in_physics). The question of how particles arrive as these immense speeds and energies has long been an unsolved problem to traditional theories. Alfven, in a NASA sponsored conference on double layers in astrophysics in 1986 (NASA CP 2469) said:

"Double layers in space should be classified as a new type of celestial object (one example is the double radio sources). It is tentatively suggested that x-ray and gamma ray bursts may be due to exploding double layers. In solar flares, DL's with voltages of 10⁹ V or even more may occur, and in galactic phenomena, we may have voltages that are several orders of magnitude larger. Examples are given of possible galactic DL voltage differences of 10'2 V. This means that by a straightforward extrapolation of what we know from our cosmic neighborhood, we can derive acceleration mechanisms which brings us up in the energy region of cosmic radiation."

At times, a double layer may actually cutoff the current flow in the circuit causing a catastrophic rise in voltage across the double layer. The powerful energy release of the "exploding double layer" is sometimes observed in power transmission switchyards when a circuit breaker is opened incorrectly.

Meanwhile astrophysicists, untrained in the physics of double layers, treat supernovae remnants as a problem in fluid dynamics and gravitational relationships, using mechanical shockwaves to provide the observed cosmic ray energies. It is an approach that Alfvén warned, more than half a century ago, is doomed to fail. Likewise with magnetic reconnection theory which uses frozen in field lines, and ignores the vital electrical component of double layers, that can easily explain these events. Alfven too warned against proliferating this idea as it would lead to a dead end, even though he came up with the idea himself originally, which shows great integrity. And as many astronomers are finding out, there are many unresolved problems in the areas that magnetic reconnection theory has been used to try to explain things, including where used to explain energy release from pulsars/neutron stars. This view has recently been gaining attention, and the highly respected ex director of the Geophysical Institute, Syun-Ichi Akasofu has been at the forefront of trying to get astronomers to realize the flaws in this approach (Who Sol says is a crank! see the list of honors he has recieved on his wikipedia page, and make your own mind up). See this publication in the reputable Journal, IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science; http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4287018 and others; http://www.asiaoceania.org/abstract/ST/58-ST-A0801.pdf

This seems to be another PC prediction, along with double layers causing cosmic rays, that is turning out correct.

Anyways, I digress, back to the electric star model for pulsars...

A new form of stellar energy?

However, further observations led by astronomers at MSSL found that two of the distingushing characteristics of polars - polarised optical light and optical emission lines - were absent Ramsay et al 2002). This paper proposes several other scenarios for RX J1914+24. These include a double degenerate Algol system (also proposed independently by Marsh & Steeghs 2002), a neutron star-white dwarf pair and a unipolar-inductor model (or electric star model). The latter model would represent a third form of stellar energy after nuclear and accretion power. It is described more fully in Wu et al 2002) .

This proposal may seem rather far-fetched. However, we do know that a similar effect has been observed on Jupiter where its satellite's rotate round the magnetic field of Jupiter causing electrical currents to be driven. These are deposited in the Jovian atmosphere causing bright streaks which were imaged using the Hubble Space Telescope:

(Satellite Footprints Seen in Jupiter Aurora)


This image shows both the aurora on Jupiter (caused by the same effect as the Northern lights we observe on Earth) and also the footpoints of three of Jupiters satellites. Each footprint is represented by a bright dot. Io's footprint is at far left; Ganymede's is just below and to the right of center; and Europa's is to the right of Ganymede's signature.

In the case of RX J1914+24, the currents which are generated are much greater than that in Jupiter since the secondary white dwarf is rotating around the primary white dwarf on a much shorter timescale and its mass is much greater than that of Jupiter's satellites. The diagram below shows how the energy is liberated on the magnetic white dwarf:

Satellite Footprints Seen in Jupiter Aurora.

This model can explain all the observed characteristics of RX J1914+24. [....]

And Wu's much cited publication of this electrical model, which is extremely similar to the unipolar inductor principle first developed by Alfven et al to explain many things in space, can explain many of the enigmatic problems with pulsars that current theories face. See An electrically powered binary star? - Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society, 2002. Which was the first main publications popularizing this idea outside of various PC publications that use unipolar inductors and electric star theories for various objects in space.

And since he wrote that seminal paper, lots of astronomers have become aware of the PC unipolar inductor model, and have been expanding on it in relation to pulsars. Electric Stars: What accounts for the enigmatic x-ray pulses of V407 Vul?


http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2004PASA...21..248W [[full text]]

Timing measurements of periodic X-ray pulses from two ultrashort-period double degenerate binaries, RX J1914+24 and RX J0806+15, show that the rates of change of their orbital periods are consistent with gravitational radiation losses. This contradicts the predictions of models which invoke mass transfer between the two white dwarfs. The X-ray emission is, therefore, unlikely to be powered by accretion processes. The unipolar inductor model explains the source of X-ray emission as electrical dissipation at the base of a flux tube, which connects the magnetic white dwarf to its companion. This model is most consistent with the observed X-ray pulse properties. A similar current system exists in the Jupiter-Io system, where a mildly relativistic electron current produces an auroral footprint at the base of the Io flux tube and highly polarized beamed radio emission by means of the electron cyclotron maser mechanism. Detection of radio emission from RX J1914+24 and RX J0806+15 would thus provide further support for the unipolar inductor model. We present theoretical predictions, based on a loss-cone-driven electron cyclotron maser model, of radio fluxes from systems with parameters similar to RX J1914+24 and RX J0806+15.

The potential that electrically powered stars could exist outside of pulsars seems to be currently be a vague area. Alfvens Unipolar inductor heliospheric current circuit for stars, that should connect each star in the galaxy via diffuse incident currents, seems to have all been forgotten by most modern astronomical establishments. This leads to a quite different picture than the current completely isolated bodies view of stars and galaxies. Not many scientists have even considered it, and they certainly have not considered it on our own sun. (although a few seem to have noticed it recently: (electric current flowing toward the Sun), (MAGNETIC FLUX TRANSFER BY THE SOLAR
WIND AND HELIOSPHERIC CURRENT SYSTEM)) Maybe this will be another prediction by PC/EU proponents that turns out correct.


Themsis only just discovered the immense Birkeland currents connecting the Earth to the sun a year ago, transferring 650,000 Amps into the poles of the Earth, and they are quite literally right next to us. They were found to be "transferring the total energy of the two-hour event at five hundred thousand billion (5 x 10¹⁴) Joules" (ref: NASA, ref) Could the same type of currents that are powering these pulsars also be powering our own sun? it could be quite similar to the electric model of pulsars, but much less energetic, and more diffuse, and so less visible. Coronal holes may indicate this, and the very filamentary structure of the corona certainly implies this, standard theories don’t really have a definitive reason why the corona should be there at all. Solar inflows are a well known mystery, where gas is found to be flowing from the outer reaches of the solar system and into the sun, against the predominant direction of the solar wind, indicating that these inflowing currents as predicted by Alfven are very plausible.

http://www.onr.navy.mil/Focus/spacesciences/research/sun.htm

Naval Research: The Sun - Inflows

Astronomers spend a lot of time studying what flows away from the Sun, such as supercharged particles, hot gases, light, heat, and other types of energy. They want to know what is coming toward the Earth so that we can learn how to protect our astronauts, satellites, and communications. Now scientists believe that by studying material that flows into the Sun, they can better understand what comes out of the Sun.

This, along with the new electrical explanation for pulsars and other stars, certainly adds credence to the electric sun hypothesis.

We've only just found these huge currents that are right next to us in our very own atmosphere connecting the sun and Earth, who knows what we could find in space and our solar system in the near future.

 

[Dancing David]

OMGoddess you did not just say something lends credence to the electric sun foolishness. remember protons and repulsions!