Crab Nebula Burst

[CraigS]

This is quite a stunning observation … the most energetic particles ever traced to a specific astronomical target … good old M1: Crab Nebula ..


Fermi's Large Area Telescope sees surprising flares in Crab Nebula (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-01-fermi-large-area-telescope-flares.html)



This whole observation has uncovered some very interesting points …
(See following post).

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

fascinating the limitations of a rotating lighthouse...

but alas, what if the power required is delivered from outside the phenomena?

[CraigS]

From the paper about this

Gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula (http://arxiv.org/pdf/1011.3855v2) by Rolf Buehler and Stefan Funk 18 Nov 2010 (arXiV) ….



The first paragraph shows the challenge confronting current theory about particle acceleration.

The second paragraph discusses the electrical model for the Pulsar .. take a look at the numbers involved here (Alex)!! No matter what anyone believes may be at the centre of the nebula, it has to possess extraordinary physical magnitudes to explain the acceleration of particles, recently observed.

The third paragraph rules out the possibility that there might be a Blazar lurking either behind or within the nebula, which leaves a pulsar source as the only known object, capable of generating the power required to give rise to the bursts.

The whole report demonstrates just how narrow the field of options scientists have, when it comes to explaining how such phenomena can exist … not limited by choice .. but by the extraordinary magnitudes of the burst themselves. Fantastic stuff.

Cheers

[CraigS]

Alex, in this case, I don't think anyone would argue that electrical and magnetic fields are involved in all of this .. (ie: acceleration of particles, evidenced by the presence of synchrotron radiation and Brehmstrahlung).

The issue (as you have published elsewhere), is what is it at the core, that keeps powering these fields ?

If you agree it was originally a Supernova, and the material is observed moving outwards (very fast), why would the material coalesce at the core ? Ie: What would cause this ? Lerner's Fusion Focus apparatus ?

Cheers

[astroron]

The mind boggleshttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/../vbiis/images/smilies/eyepopping.gif
The power must be extra ordinary for that to occurhttp://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/../vbiis/images/smilies/eyepopping.gif
Two Nights ago I was observing the Crab Nebula with my 8" SCT I saw nothing:lol::lol::lol:
Thanks for posting
cheers

[sjastro]

Alex,

And we are still waiting on your explanation of why a relaxation oscillator has not created a light echo in the surrounding gas (plasma).

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

The issue is that the standard model makes the assumption that the core is responsible for the phenomena. Ofcourse you are familiar that i am currently examining the decades (or older) old theory of the Electric Universe, which in a way reverses the question you pose, as the discharges are a result of external currents stressing and overloading the system.

Qualitatively the two models are very different with EU not suffering from the question of "what's in the core that does this", these phantom hidden genies are simply not required.

I hope, this may shed some light on how this fundamental difference of looking at the phenomena is understood by those familiar with EU concepts.

in short: Lerner's plasmoid is supplied externally from the capacitor bank.

"The issue (as you have published elsewhere), is what is it at the core, that keeps powering these fields" <--- this is meaningless in EU/PC

[CraigS]

Yes .. where we left off previously (http://www.iceinspace.com.au/forum/showthread.php?t=67001&highlight=light+echo&page=2) …



Alex ???

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

This would be based on the assumption that the emission is spherical? no? Electrical emission characteristics proposed by plasma cosmology proponents do not make these assumptions, Peratt Healy emission paper is probably the best to examine here for you Steven.

Title: Radiation Properties of Pulsar Magnetospheres: Observation, Theory, and Experiment
Authors: Healy, K. R. & Peratt, A. L.
Journal: Astrophysics and Space Science, Volume 227, Issue 1-2, pp. 229-253
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1995Ap%26SS.227..229H

Of particular interest here would be 'glitches' and outbursts due to particle leakages, also of interest here would be this quote:
So here we have Peratt and Healy describing emission characteristics of pulsars, whilst also aknowledging Alfven's suggestion that the Pulsar could have it's radiation energy delivered by means of an external circuit.

Steven's assumption that a relaxation circuit *must* expect spherical radiation emission characteristics is simply incorrect, the radiation emission characteristics are fully described here by Peratt, and with a relaxation oscillation providing the energy by means of an external circuit is consistent with EU's hypothesis.

Best,

[Jarvamundo]

Thankyou Craig, please study my response to steven, his assumption of:

Is simply taking a nova emission characteristic that EU has described and recklessly making the assumption that *all* emission characteristics of plasma driven by electrical power are spherical.

This is simply not the case and not proposed. From the Peratt paper we are able to explain the emission characteristics, and also allow the oscillations or radiating energy to be supplied by an external circuit.

I hope this clears up the confusion.

Thanks to Steven for encouraging to find this clarification.

Cheers,

[sjastro]

Alex,

This now becomes a logical morass.
The converse argument now becomes applicable. Why are light echos observed in recurring novae given that EU doesn't differentiate between recurring novae and pulsars.

Of course you can take a bet each way by suggesting some emit spherical radiation and some don't in which case how does Peratt differentiate between the two?

Regards

Steven

[Jarvamundo]

For some.

For others one is able to separate the conditions for radiation emission from the energy provided to the circuit, as described by the paper.

It's worth noting that Don Scott has referred to this paper in correspondence after his 2009 NASA talk.

Whilst this distraction was worthwhile Steven, i thank you.... It's also BLEEDINGLY OBVIOUS that the main difference and relevance to this article and thread is that externally provided electrical current is available to EU/PC, where as standard has condemned it's self to 'looking for more in the core', a curse EU inherently does not suffer from.

thanks

[sjastro]

Alex,

What is BLEEDINGLY OBVIOUS is your attempts to sidestep the issue.
If EU wants to be taken seriously it needs to address questions like this.
It is a perfectly straightforward question which you seem to be unable to answer in your own words.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Thank goodness the maths has ruled out that it might be a black hole powering this thing !

Perhaps they consulted Crothers to dispel that one !!
The Tassie devil himself !!

:lol::)

Cheers
PS: Sorry Alex … Crothers is just too much of a worry !!

[Jarvamundo]

The questions had been addressed in 1995 and 1982 as per referenced material above.

The personal slap downs are irrelevant to the hypothesis or the science. Disappointing, as i have now thanked you several times for the opportunity to explore the detail.

However it's not directly relevant to this thread or article's content, which is: standards absence of an explanation for the power to supply this emission, maybe that is where our constructive skepticism should be focused!

[Jarvamundo]

Another personal sledge. Address the science gentlemen.

[sjastro]

Please Craig I'm distraught I no longer know what a radius is.:lol:

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Alex,
I just reread Peratt's paper and I beg to differ with your interpretation of the issue Steven has raised with you.

He discusses halos in the context of adding emphasis to dispelling the Blandford et al Theory of 1973 !! The issue of light emission geometry would seem to still be relevant.

Or am I reading this the wrong way. Sorry if I am, I have a lot of difficulty in seeing where you get your interpretation. Could you elaborate further for us ?

Cheers

[sjastro]

Selective blindness Alex.

Here is a man whose stock answer to anyone who disagrees with him is an idiot.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Its a co-ordinate !! :mad2:

No !!! … its a radius !! :mad2:

No !! … its the inverse square root of the Gaussian curvature of the 2-sphere. :mad2:

:shrug:

(A little humour … )

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

And so completes the distraction from the subject content of this article.

Thanks for the article Craig.

[CraigS]

Aww … just a little fun, Alex. No personal sledging involved (at least towards you, from me).

Lets get back on track.

I apologise … (it happens sometimes) ..

Cheers

[CraigS]

Peratt doesn't really comment any further on this … he gets onto his model of the radio pulses (which we've talked about before).

I still don't see any correlation between this and your assertion that 'spherical radiation emission characteristics is simply incorrect'.

Cheers

[sjastro]

Alex,

I find it a bit rich for someone who hijacked this thread to start pontificating about what is and isn't relevant to the thread.

Since you have steered this thread down an EU line the question is valid. Like every other question posed you duck and weave with the inevitable non answer.

If you want to be the EU representative start answering the questions. You are not doing your cause any favours.

Regards

Steven

[bojan]

I am sort of still waiting for plausible explanation for high frequency stability of the pulsars from EU point of view (of course, I don't expect to see anything, any time soon..)

[renormalised]

You won't get it Bojan, the wait would be pointless.

The EU mob don't understand the basic science to begin with so whatever "answer" they may come up with would be bogus right from the start.

[CraigS]

Hey Carl;

Good to have you back.

Coming back to my original post in this thread, know anything about "acceleration due to absorption of ion cyclotron waves" ?

I've been trying to find out about what this is all about, since my original post.

Still have no idea.

Cheers & Rgds

[renormalised]

Just type "ion cyclotron waves" into Google scholar....there's heaps of info :)

Although wiki has a good explanation and it's what I though it was...waves in a plasma. I would imagine the acceleration would come from absorption of the energy being carried by the waves into the surrounding gases. It would basically act like a microwave in that it transfers its energy into the surrounding gas particles via induction, speeding up their motion. The more waves that were absorbed, the greater the acceleration of the particles in the gas, the more radiation given off by those particles. Depending on the frequency of the cyclotron waves (stored energy), their rate of formation and propagation, the higher the rate of acceleration seen and the greater number of pulses seen coming from the neb.

[CraigS]

Hmmm .. interesting.

Thanks Carl.

Will have a read up on it from these sources you recommend.

Cheers

[Jarvamundo]

Bojan, please see the aforementioned paper. Peratt & Healy (noting contributions from Alfven) have developed theory, modelling and conducted empirical experiments on the dynamics of the pulsar system. Regarding frequency stability, it appears the 'glitch' and stability is explained here by Healy & Peratt as....

As far as modeling, experiment and theory rooted in empirical plasma physics, the Healy Peratt papers seem to be the most complete i can locate. I'd love to see if they continued this work further, as the electrical (externally power through double layer currents) model seems to be able to explain many of the 'anomalies' that standard continues to raise. I find these sound ideas to atleast consider as incalculable surprises continue to be brought up by links such as Craig has raised here.

Call it perspective?

Again thanks for your questions too Bojan, as a little friction is raised you are helping me continue to explore the validity of these ideas by raising so. "bouncin"

[Jarvamundo]

Carl? Are you questioning this paper's validity in basic science?

[Jarvamundo]

pfff hijacked? I merely suggested (or reminded) that an idea passed around by Alfven might have some applicability to this scenario of 'explaining the energy required', since that is the question that was raised by Craig's article. In this case Alfven's Ideas are naturally well suited to providing anomalous energy levels, is that not the basis of much of his work. Did Alfven not state that the double layer should be regarded as a new 'astrophysical' class?

Now, Go back and read your first contribution. Was it angled at me? or the subject?

You then alledge i called people on this forum 'idiots'??? I have not. Some who might see through this outburst might use the appropriate search terms in this site to reveal the validity of such allegations. This was in response to the obvious qualitative difference the 'rotating beacon' model has painted it'self into.

That the "IDEAS" (not the messenger) might cause you some discomfort when relating to your schooling is simply not my problem. The IDEAS were raised by a Nobel Prize Winner Hannes Alfven, who wrote the book on plasma modelling. I am only interested in exploring the IDEAS.

I hope this clarifies any so dubbed 'cause'.

Thankyou again for helping. I'd suggest taking your focus off me, and place it on the ideas where you excel.

[bartman]

Hi Craig et al,
Just curious - and please excuse my level of knowledge of this subject:confused2:- , in my splimplistic mind, it sounds like a type of dynamo is at the center which, like one on Earth, has a spinning coil of wire within a magnetic field creating the energy. Then some sort of material acts like a large capacitor which-when it reaches full capacity-releases it energy as those bursts.
Am I on the right track?
If so, is what 'they' are looking for is the explanation of why such large amounts are coming out of M1 when mathematically it's not possible?

You say:
"what is it at the core, that keeps powering these fields ?

"If you agree it was originally a Supernova, and the material is observed moving outwards (very fast), why would the material coalesce at the core ?"
A dynamo doesnt loose any material afaik, but generates energy that needs to go somewhere. So could there not be a blob of copper filaments spinning within a very strong magnetic field be at the center of M1? Then some sort of material surrounding the mag field captures the energy until it reaches a critical point or has some sort of interaction with other material and then like lightning here on Earth explode into a burst of energy?
I guess you are going to tell me ( and please be kind;)) that I need to do a course in astro physics before I can make such comments or that it simply is not mathematically/physically possibly.:rofl::rofl::rofl:
Anyway, It was ticking in my head all night at work and just thought I would ask/comment.:question:
Cheers
Bartman

[sjastro]

Alex,

First of all the "idiot" reference was made in relation to Crothers.
Now that this misunderstanding has been cleared up let's get down to basics.

There is no difference between the nature of Craig's post and the question that I posed. Both relate to observational issues that each theory struggles with.

I'm simply pointing out that your alternative creates a new set of problems one of which is the light echo issue. The ball is in your court.

If you feel that this line of enquiry amounts to nothing more than a veiled personal attack then that is a most unfortunate interpretation.

Regards

Steven

[CraigS]

Yes .. spot on Steven.

All;

There would seem to be not much rationale to abandon 'standard' theory, and adopt one where basic observational, empirical data is not accounted for (ie: the Electric Model's problems explaining what differentiates pulsars from novae )!!

For the life of me, I can't see any explanatory theoretical, difference (from the EU perspective), but clearly, there's a huge difference between say, a supernova, and a pulsar, from "Standard's" theoretical and empirical perspectives!!

Also, I feel Alex may have jumped onto the old bandwagon again … regardless of the nature of the core, (… and there is one ... regardless of hypothesised, asymmetrical, current flows/lightning discharges), Science is struggling with what causes the acceleration of the electrons. As the article in my original post states, all known acceleration mechanisms are struggling to explain the observations. The magnitudes of the synchrotron radiation are greater than ever observed in a pulsar … the ultimate mechanism explaining this, may actually be a common ground, maybe even shared ground, between Alex's models and Standard theory. Who knows ? :shrug:

This is what I was hoping this thread to be about .. rather than being devisive. (Perhaps I was being too idealistic ?)

Cheers

[CraigS]

Ok .. so the report points out that:


…which is:


So, the neutron star core model still demonstrates that there is sufficient potential difference AND current flow to support the flare flow at the acceleration site.

The controversy is only how the current flows and is dissipated at the site, not about the presence or absence of a neutron star at the core:



Note this inter-mainstream science, theoretical controversy, is 'in the noise', when compared to attempting to throw out the whole neutron-star-powering theory ... in favour of a plasma-gun (or relaxation oscillator) paradigm.

Drawing an analogy between the EU theory and mainstream rotating neutron star theory is thus a diversion, (or a hijacking attempt), from the real controversy mentioned in the paper.

Cheers

[CraigS]

So, what I'd like to see is a breakdown description, (ie: an engineering components description), of the various elements in a 'plasma-gun', and a corresponding explanation as to how each of these components can occur in nature, ie: in a space-bound plasma environment.

Examples of 'plasma-guns' I have so far seen, (like relaxation oscillators), are very highly engineered, high tolerance, man-made pieces of equipment, with each component functioning in a very specific manner, in order to generate a regular resonant discharge (or pulse). And lets be honest, this is a 'complex' machine (as opposed to 'simple' machines, which can occur in nature). Just how plasma can arrange itself in a space environment, in multiple locations, throughout the universe seems a highly remote possibility and strains credibility (again)… or is M1 a unique instance of such an assembly ?

(PS: Worse still is Peratt's alluding to a 'trapped-ion clock mechanism' ! Just how complex is is the engineering to make these oscillate with precisions commensurate with a Pulsar's output ?)

Other than arm-waving, I am yet to see anything written down by the EU camp, to convince me that self-assembly of these components, by nature, is anything other than arm-waving.

Cheers

[bojan]

Craig,
This is exactly what I want from Alex as well.
Only I am concentrating on only one, single detail: frequency stability.
It is up to him to explain it.
You pointed out very nicely where the attempt to explain this little detail in EU terms could end up - alien equivalent of some sort of space GPS beacon :eyepop: (only joking, of course! But.. having said that, pulsars can be used for navigation through space, really ;))

[renormalised]

It's like I said guys, the Sun has a better chance of going supernova than anyone here getting a straight answer from Alex. All he will do is quote Peratt and Alfven and whoever else he cares to quote and all it will do is frustrate the hell out of everyone here.

Anyone can quote from journal papers and such, but the crux of the matter is do they actually understand what they're on about. Very few of the EU proponents would have the requisite education and/or the knowledge to do so....even in its basic form.