|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
Just posted to arXiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1518
Either a double-pulsar or a NS-WD binary. Strong candidate for Southworth's catalog. Angel is in the details. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
On Friday, November 7, 2014 7:04:59 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Just posted to arXiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1518 Either a double-pulsar or a NS-WD binary. Strong candidate for Southworth's catalog. Well, no, the Southworth catalog contains detached eclipsing binaries and this is certainly not one (the secondary can't even be seen). In this case masses are derived from the pulse timing. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
On Friday, November 7, 2014 7:04:59 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Just posted to arXiv.org: http://arxiv.org/abs/1411.1518 Either a double-pulsar or a NS-WD binary. Strong candidate for Southworth's catalog. Angel is in the details. You're right, that's a really nice result. It's also a quite sound rejection of certain mass quantization theories recently discussed on this newsgroup, namely mass quantized in units of 0.145 Msun. For the pulsar in question, J1906+0746, the estimated total binary mass is 2.6134 +/- 0.0003, which disagrees with 0.145 Msun mass quantization at 11.3 sigma significance. The pulsar mass and companion mass disagree at 70 and 57 sigma respectively. All of these results soundly reject such mass quantization with essentially 100% confidence. Since the paper presents a nice table of pulsar and companion masses surveyed from the literature, it's worth commenting on those as well. The ensemble of pulsar masses, companion masses and total masses each exclude the 0.145 Msun mass quantization theory at essentially 100% significance. Here I did exclude samples with large error bars (larger than 0.25 * 0.145 Msun = 0.036 Msun) where the comparison would be ambiguous. So thanks for pointing out that excellent paper. The details were worth exploring. CM |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
On Saturday, November 8, 2014 2:40:39 AM UTC-5, Craig Markwardt wrote:
You're right, that's a really nice result. It's also a quite sound rejection of certain mass quantization theories recently discussed on this newsgroup, namely mass quantized in units of 0.145 Msun. For the pulsar in question, J1906+0746, the estimated total binary mass is 2.6134 +/- 0.0003, which disagrees with 0.145 Msun mass quantization at 11.3 sigma significance. The pulsar mass and companion mass disagree at 70 and 57 sigma respectively. All of these results soundly reject such mass quantization with essentially 100% confidence. Here is how I compare the predicted and observed total masses. 2.6134 - 2.61 divided by 2.61 times 100 = 0.34 relative error. 100 - 0.34 = 99.66% relative agreement. Note: 2.61 = 18 times 0.145 solar masses. Given the realistic and unavoidable uncertainties involved here, I think the results and their implications are indeed very nice. [Mod. note: Craig's analysis uses the actual quantified error. Yours waves hands about the 'realistic uncertainties'. Guess which one statistically literate scientists will believe -- mjh] |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 4:32:54 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Here is how I compare the predicted and observed total masses. 2.6134 - 2.61 divided by 2.61 times 100 = 0.34 relative error. 100 - 0.34 = 99.66% relative agreement. This is not a fair comparison. I will create a scenario to see why. In my scenario the measured mass is 145.0725 +/- 0.0001 solar masses. By your argument, there would be 99.95% agreement with quantization. Eureka, right? And yet, the quoted mass is exactly between 1000x and 1001x multiple of 0.145, i.e. exact counter-evidence for quantization! Using the error bars, there is a 725 sigma exclusion of quantization based on reported errors in the scenario. By dividing by a large number (2.61 Msun), you artificially created "agreement" with your hypothesis. I did the same thing in my fictitious scenario. The correct comparison is use the reported error bars, in which case one finds that for J1906+0746, quantization at 0.145 Msun is excluded with essentially 100% statistical confidence. Given the realistic and unavoidable uncertainties involved here, I think the results and their implications are indeed very nice. No, the paper reports or cites the uncertainties. It's a very nice paper with very tight constraints, but it also excludes the posited mass quantization. CM |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
On Thursday, November 13, 2014 3:20:45 PM UTC-5, Craig Markwardt wrote:
On Sunday, November 9, 2014 4:32:54 AM UTC-5, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote: Here is how I compare the predicted and observed total masses. 2.6134 - 2.61 divided by 2.61 times 100 = 0.34 relative error. 100 - 0.34 = 99.66% relative agreement. This is not a fair comparison. I will create a scenario to see why. In my scenario the measured mass is 145.0725 +/- 0.0001 solar masses. By your argument, there would be 99.95% agreement with quantization. Eureka, right? And yet, the quoted mass is exactly between 1000x and 1001x multiple of 0.145, i.e. exact counter-evidence for quantization! Using the error bars, there is a 725 sigma exclusion of quantization based on reported errors in the scenario. By dividing by a large number (2.61 Msun), you artificially created "agreement" with your hypothesis. I did the same thing in my fictitious scenario. A measured mass of 145.0725 +/- 0.0001 is highly unrealistic. Such narrow error bars on such a large stellar mass are hard to imagine. At the relevant lower masses my method is able to identify general agreement with predictions and disagreement with predictions. The correct comparison is use the reported error bars, in which case one finds that for J1906+0746, quantization at 0.145 Msun is excluded with essentially 100% statistical confidence. The measured mass for J1906+0746 has error bars that give the precision of the measurement assuming all theoretical modeling, observations and assumptions are perfect, and that there are no unknown unknowns. In terms of the actual mass of J1906+0746, I would think an accuracy of +/- 0.01 solar mass is a reasonable uncertainty to hope for at present. Given the accumulation of a large enough sample of accurately measured total masses for actual binary star systems, I maintain that my method is capable of determining whether or not there is a preference for the predicted peaks and an avoidance of the inter-peak gaps. Then one of us will have to change his thinking on this and more fundamental issues. Also, would you prefer that I not divide by 2.61 and instead just say the error is 0.0034 solar mass? [Mod. note: reformatted -- mjh] |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
Le 14/11/2014 21:05, Robert L. Oldershaw a écrit :
A measured mass of 145.0725 ± 0.0001 is highly unrealistic. Mr Oldershaw. You propose 1 + or - 0.01. Later in that post you propose that as the precision needed. Since the sun is exactly 1.0 solar masses :-) is this star mass a multiple of 0.145 solar masses? 1.0/0.145 -- 6,89655172413793 Apparently not. (1 - 0.01) -- 0.99/0.145 is 6,96621386276559 and (1 + 0.01 -- 1.01/0.145 is 6,96551724137931 The lower limit is close but not exact. Well, but if you take the mass of all planets... Mass of the sun -- 1.9891 x E+30 kg. Jupiter -- 1.8986 x E+ 27 kg, a thousandths of the mass of the sun. Other planets like our smallish earth are a millionth away, i.e. their whole sum wouldn't move the mass of the system to the required value. Of course maybe I just do not understand something obvious. Could you please tell me where I go wrong? Thanks [Mod. note: the solar mass is in fact known to one part in 10^4 or so, so you can work out for yourself how consistent it is with the 'prediction' -- mjh] |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
On Saturday, November 15, 2014 5:03:48 AM UTC-5, jacob navia wrote:
Mr Oldershaw. You propose 1 + or - 0.01. Later in that post you propose that as the precision needed. Since the sun is exactly 1.0 solar masses :-) is this star mass a multiple of 0.145 solar masses? 1.0/0.145 -- 6,89655172413793 Apparently not. There are several misunderstandings in this post. I have carefully analyzed the mass of the Sun and the total mass of the Solar system in terms of my predictions. If you go to http://www3.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw and carefully study "Technical Note..." #1 (first in list), you will see that the mass of the Sun (~7 times 0.145 solar mass) is a bit lower than the *specific* DSR prediction, and the mass of the planetary system is correspondingly too high. The key fact is that the total mass of the system once again is very close to the specifically predicted mass of 7 times 0.145 solar mass. Please remember that total system mass is the parameter that is relevant here. Also, please try to attain at least a basic working knowledge of the theory before criticizing it. |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
On 11/15/2014 4:03 AM, jacob navia wrote:
[Mod. note: entire quoted article snipped -- mjh] What is the estimated mass of the Oort cloud? ~100 times the mass of the earth so ~one ten thousandths of the mass of the sun and I am not convinced the estimate is even close to reality. And then there is dark matter that may also be part of the system, can you definitively quantify that mass? What would 3% of the sun's mass, distributed spherically, look like? |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors
Le 17/11/2014 10:01, David Staup a écrit :
On 11/15/2014 4:03 AM, jacob navia wrote: [Mod. note: entire quoted article snipped -- mjh] What is the estimated mass of the Oort cloud? ~100 times the mass of the earth so ~one ten thousandths of the mass of the sun and I am not convinced the estimate is even close to reality. And then there is dark matter that may also be part of the system, can you definitively quantify that mass? What would 3% of the sun's mass, distributed spherically, look like? OK. But Mr Oldershaw spoke of a precision of 1% when talking about mass estimation so I thought that the estimation of the system's mass should be accurate to that precision. Yes, if we distribute 3% of the sun's mass in a spherical shell it would be quite invisible, specially if it is made of "dark matter" of course. But with that we can justify ANYTHING. |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
GR Passes Double Pulsar Test | Tom Kirke | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 30th 05 02:13 AM |
GR Passes Double Pulsar Test | Tom Kirke | Amateur Astronomy | 1 | March 30th 05 02:13 AM |
Pulsar mass calculation doesn't make sense | Cyde Weys | Misc | 18 | February 24th 05 06:43 PM |
First-Known Double Pulsar Opens Up New Astrophysics (Forwarded) | Andrew Yee | Astronomy Misc | 6 | January 20th 04 12:49 AM |
OT (not): A Double Radio Pulsar provides stringent test of GeneralRelativity | Sam Wormley | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | January 9th 04 06:53 AM |