Crab Nebula Burst

CraigS · #1 07-01-2011, 02:51 PM

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

Quote:

The Crab Nebula, one of our best-known and most stable neighbors in the winter sky, is shocking scientists with a propensity for fireworks—gamma-ray flares set off by the most energetic particles ever traced to a specific astronomical object. The discovery, reported today by scientists working with two orbiting telescopes, is leading researchers to rethink their ideas of how cosmic particles are accelerated.
…
According to Funk, the short duration of the flares points to synchrotron radiation, or radiation emitted by electrons accelerating in the magnetic field of the nebula, as the cause. And not just any accelerated electrons: the flares were caused by super-charged electrons of up to 10 peta-electron volts, or 10 trillion electron volts, 1,000 times more energetic than anything the world's most powerful man-made particle accelerator, the Large Hadron Collider in Europe, can produce, and more than 15 orders of magnitude more energetic than photons of visible light.
...
Not only are the electrons surprisingly energetic, added Buehler, but, "the fact that the intensity is varying so rapidly means the acceleration has to happen extremely fast." This challenges current theories about the way cosmic particles are accelerated, which cannot easily account for the extreme energies of the electrons or the speed with which they're accelerated.

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

Cheers

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #2 07-01-2011, 03:15 PM

fascinating the limitations of a rotating lighthouse...

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

CraigS · #3 07-01-2011, 03:37 PM

From the paper about this

Gamma-ray flares from the Crab Nebula by Rolf Buehler and Stefan Funk 18 Nov 2010 (arXiV) ….

Quote:

We conclude that the electric field, as measured in the Crab frame, is close in magnitude to the magnetic field in the region where the highest energy synchrotron photons are emitted. This subsumes the possibility of bulk relativistic motion. Furthermore, the resistive force due to radiation reaction is competitive with the Lorentz force and the cooling length is comparable with the Larmor radius. This poses severe difficulties to the widely-discussed acceleration mechanism of diffusive shock acceleration. The proposed acceleration due to absorption of ion cyclotron waves does not suffer from these constraints. However, it appears to operate on time scales which are too long to accommodate the fast variability seen during the flares. Alternatively, the acceleration could be related directly to the electric field from the pulsar.
…
The Crab Nebula is powered by the central neutron star which acts as a DC unipolar inductor and a source of an AC “striped” wind. Using the measured spin-down rate, a moment of inertia of ∼ 1 × 10⌃45 g cm2 and a force-free model of the magnetosphere, the total induced potential difference is ∼ 50 PV and the associated current is ∼ 300 TA with an associated DC power per hemisphere of ∼ 1.5 × 10⌃38 erg s−1. What happens to the DC and AC current flows is controversial.
..
Finally, the only source class known to produce variability on the flare time scales of the observed magnitude in gamma-rays are blazars. No known blazar is located near the Crab Nebula within the angular resolution of Fermi and X-ray observations taken two days after the second flare revealed no new source which might be associated with a yet-unknown blazar.

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 · #4 07-01-2011, 03:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

fascinating the limitations of a rotating lighthouse...

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

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 (Ron) · #5 07-01-2011, 03:51 PM

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

Thanks for posting
cheers

sjastro · #6 07-01-2011, 04:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

fascinating the limitations of a rotating lighthouse...

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

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 (Alex) · #7 07-01-2011, 04:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · #8 07-01-2011, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

Yes .. where we left off previously …

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

Novae are relaxation oscillators (according to EU proponents)
Novae embedded in gas and dust are observed with light echoes.
Light echoes are the result of spherical radiation.

Conclusion: Relaxation oscillators must emit spherical radiation.

Yet pulsars do not exhibit light echos. So they cannot be relaxation oscillators as they do not emit spherical radiation.

Alex ???

Cheers

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #9 07-01-2011, 04:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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:

Quote:

"If this effect is verified then the source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar but may instead derive from either the pulsars interaction with it's environment or by energy delivered from an external circuit (ref Alfven 1982 Cosmic Plasma)

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 (Alex) · #10 07-01-2011, 05:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CraigS

Alex ???

Cheers

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

Quote:

Novae are relaxation oscillators (according to EU proponents)
Novae embedded in gas and dust are observed with light echoes.
Light echoes are the result of spherical radiation.

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 · #11 07-01-2011, 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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,

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 (Alex) · #12 07-01-2011, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sjastro

This now becomes a logical morass.

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 · #13 07-01-2011, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 · #14 07-01-2011, 06:06 PM

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 !!

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

Jarvamundo (Alex) · #15 07-01-2011, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Alex) · #16 07-01-2011, 06:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 !!

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

Another personal sledge. Address the science gentlemen.

sjastro · #17 07-01-2011, 06:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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 !!

Cheers

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

Regards

Steven

CraigS · #18 07-01-2011, 06:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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!

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