A Space & astronomy forum. SpaceBanter.com

Go Back   Home » SpaceBanter.com forum » Astronomy and Astrophysics » Research
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Possible New Double-Pulsar With Low Mass Errors



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 7th 14, 01:04 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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  
Old November 8th 14, 08:38 AM posted to sci.astro.research
wlandsman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 43
Default 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  
Old November 8th 14, 08:40 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default 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  
Old November 9th 14, 10:32 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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  
Old November 13th 14, 09:20 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Craig Markwardt[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 137
Default 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  
Old November 14th 14, 09:05 PM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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  
Old November 15th 14, 11:03 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default 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  
Old November 17th 14, 10:00 AM posted to sci.astro.research
Robert L. Oldershaw
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 617
Default 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  
Old November 17th 14, 10:01 AM posted to sci.astro.research
David Staup[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 347
Default 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  
Old November 18th 14, 11:28 AM posted to sci.astro.research
jacob navia[_5_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 543
Default 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

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

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


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 10:26 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 SpaceBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.