Crab Nebula Burst

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

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

Thanks for the article Craig.

[CraigS]

Originally Posted by Jarvamundo

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

Thanks for the article Craig.

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]

Originally Posted by 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

Originally Posted by Peratt

A recent Hubble image of the vicinity of the Crab pulsar shows a pair of circular haloes concentric with what is interpreted as the pulsar's spin axis. These haloes are then thought to be some type of interaction of the pulsar's relativistic beams of particles with the circumstellar medium (J. Hester, 1994)

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]

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!

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]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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

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 (Carl)]

Originally Posted by 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..)

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 (Carl)]

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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..)

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....

Because of the losses in the dielectric media and in synchrotron emission, the periodicity of the propagating pulses increases. However the experiment dramatically showed that there are glitches, the flow of electron flux across the magnetosphere, can shorten the line and concomitantly the period. The fractional frequency stability scaling versus measurements interval up to about 30,000,000 s for pulsars is nearly identical to that for trapped-ion clocks. This supports the pulsar surface-magnetosphere relativistic double layer model; itself a trapped ion mechanism

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. This tends to create a resonating or modulating component to the proper current pulse

The source of the radiation energy may not be contained within the pulsar, but may instead derive from either the pulsars interaction with its environment or by energy delivered by an external circuit ( Alfvem 1981). This hypothesis is consistent with both the long term memory effect of the time averaged pulse and the occurrence of nulling, when no sub-pulses are observed. As noted earlier, our results support the 'planetary magnetosphere' view (Michael 1982) where the extent of the magnetosphere, not emissions on a rotating surface, determines the pulsar emission"termines the pulsar emission."

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 (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[Jarvamundo (Alex)]

Originally Posted by 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

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 (Bart)]

Hi Craig et al,
Just curious - and please excuse my level of knowledge of this subject- , 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.
Anyway, It was ticking in my head all night at work and just thought I would ask/comment.
Cheers
Bartman

[sjastro]

Originally Posted by 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.

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]

Originally Posted by sjastro

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.

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 ?

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:

The current flowing through the acceleration site carried by the highest energy electrons is then ∼ Lγ /Φacc ∼ 0.3 − 3 TA, significantly less than the current flowing through the neutron star estimated above.

…which is:

the total induced potential difference is ∼ 50 PV and the associated current is ∼ 300 TA

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:

It is widely supposed that ∼ 90% of the DC current returns in an outflowing wind which becomes particle-dominated and shocks at a (mostly invisible) termination shock with radius ∼ 0.1 pc (37). Alternatively, the wind could remain electromagnetically dominated with most of the dissipation and associated flux removal occurring along the polar axis at the jet and/or in the equatorial plane at the torus. The AC component may also disappear through reconnection in the wind or survive to contribute to the nebular particle acceleration.

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 (only joking, of course! But.. having said that, pulsars can be used for navigation through space, really )

[renormalised (Carl)]

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.