Stellar Magnetic Fields

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:
(1) A Kerr-Newman ultracompact object is capable of emitting Gamma-
rays, X-rays and radio radiation in abundance if it is in the process
of accreting matter.

The spectrum from an accretion disk is, however, rather different
than stellar spectra and produces different line ratios from the
ionized gas. Planetary nebula are ionized by something like a
stellar spectrum (not terribly far from blackbody).

(2) The systems I am trying to get you to think of, and
tryng to get astrophysicists to study, are PNae like the "Bubble
Nebula" [PN G75.7 + 1.7]

Do these systems have anomalous emission line spectra? In
particular, are there lines indicating a wide range of ionization
states?

Such a system does not require a powerful
ionizing source at the center once the system is formed.

What is the basis for this claim? Have you calculated the
recombination time? Or are you rejecting standard recombination
theory?

[Moderator: the rest of this post is not really science. If you want
to snip it, it's fine by me.]

(3) Ask yourself how many times throughout the history of science have
people said something was "NOT POSSIBLE!" - until it was actually
observed.

"People" say all sorts of silly things. If you ask about experts in
the relevant field who share a strong consensus, I can think of two
examples offhand, both more than 100 years old. And even there, the
statements were closer to "contrary to existing theory" rather than
"can't possibly be right." I can, of course, think of vast numbers
of examples of experts being correct.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

On 2011-01-14, Robert L. Oldershaw wrote:
Discerning readers will of course be aware that neutron stars and Kerr-
Newman black holes are well-known as emitters of blackbody radiation.

If newtron stars and Kerr-Newman are "well known" to be emitters of
blackbody radiation, can you cite observations proving this?

In article ,
"Robert L. Oldershaw" writes:
Discerning readers will of course be aware that neutron stars and Kerr-
Newman black holes are well-known as emitters of blackbody radiation.

I guess I'm not a "discerning reader."

Neutron stars probably ought to be near-blackbody emitters, but I'm
not aware of empirical evidence one way or the other. However, as I
wrote in my first message, given their small surface area, they have
to be very hot if they are going to emit enough ionizing photons.
The required temperatures will be inconsistent with the nebular
emission line ratios. Also, I suspect (but haven't calculated) that
the cooling time of such hot stars will be ridiculously short.

As to black holes, their accretion disks exhibit a wide range of
temperatures, and the emission is nothing like a blackbody. The
broad energy distribution of the ionizing photons leads to a wide
range of ions in the gas, and this shows up in the emission line
ratios. This is the basis for the BPT diagram, for example.

If you want some different black hole emission mechanism than an
accretion disk, that seems to be "new physics." At a minimum, you
would have to show that both the effective temperature of the
emission and the emission rate of ionizing photons are consistent
with the nebular ionization. And that means the temperature and
emitting surface area will be close to those of a star on its way to
becoming a white dwarf.

In general, both the temperature of the ionizing source and its
surface area are determined by the nebular line observations. Any
alternative ionizing source you propose has to match these two
parameters within reasonable limits.

Osterbrock's book _Astrophysics of Gaseous Nebulae and Active
Galactic Nuclei_ is the standard reference for all this.

--
Help keep our newsgroup healthy; please don't feed the trolls.
Steve Willner Phone 617-495-7123
Cambridge, MA 02138 USA

It is definitely time to bring this thread back to where it started,
i.e., to the crucial topic under discussion.

I have demonstrated that there is a linear relation between the B
values for major classes of stars and the R values for these
classes.

The relation is B = B0/R^2.

A KEY POINT that needs to be reiterated here is that this relationship
holds not only for the B values, but also for the B-max values of
the different classes of stars. Having BOTH B and B-max following
the 1/R^2 scaling increases the probability that the relationship is
not a coincidence, but rather might have important astrophysical
meaning. Anyone who can identify the obvious logical reason for the B-
max of Red Dwarf stars falling below the 1/R^2 line by a moderate
amount will receive a gold star and a commendation. It is not hard to
figure out.

In the various posts of this thread I have presented what I think are
the obvious implications of: (1) the B vs R relationship, (2) the huge
jets found in protostars, and (3) the fact that central ultracompact
nuclei remain when stars go supernova. If there are any doubts about
my general hypothesis, you can review the whole thread.

I repeat my offer to send a FREE MULTI-COLORED GRAPH showing the B vs
R results to anyone who send me an email that I can attach it to. It
is a thing of beauty. :-)

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

In article ,
Steve Willner wrote:
The required temperatures will be inconsistent with the nebular
emission line ratios. Also, I suspect (but haven't calculated) that
the cooling time of such hot stars will be ridiculously short.

Chandra observations give that the neutron star in Cassiopeia A has
cooled by 3% (at temperatures around two megakelvin) in ten years,
which does seem ridiculously short; the cooling mechanism is
apparently neutrino emission from the deep interior.

Tom

[[Mod. note -- I am approving this post with some reluctance: the
linked-to photograph does indeed show a (very beautiful) "delicate
spherical bubble", but almost none of the author's other claims
are supported in this post. Hopefully further discussion can focus
on some of the interesting science of supernova remanents and their
modelling. This object seems to be quite well-studied -- an ADS search
just now found me 65 abstracts of research papers mentioning this
object (more accurately known as B0509-67.5).
-- jt]]

Ok you doubting Thomases, take a gander at:

http://www.spacetelescope.org/news/heic1018/

This system is called SNR 0509.

Here we have all the ingredients that were predicted:

(1) delicate spherical bubble

(2) guaranteed ultracompact nucleus at the center

(3) no need to obfuscate about temps, radiation, etc. Nature appears
to have provided all the evidence of a system doing exactly what
Discrete Scale Relativity predicted defintively.

This system is called a supernova remnant, but forgive me if I am a
bit skeptical of that designation, given the unique and well-ordered
geometry of the bubble. But the bottom line is that it does not matter
whether they call it a SNR or a PN. A rose by any name is still a
rose.

I feel very confident that more "SN" of this type will be found, as
will systems of a highly similar nature that cannot be called SN, but
rather will have to be identified as PN.

Pre-existing nuclear objects that have been at the centers of stars
since their formation, and can explain the global magnetic fields of
magnetic star classes, can eject their outer envelopes and leave
behind a bare nucleus. This is in exact analogy to atoms undergoing
complete ionization with the *minimum* energy required to do so.

QED, my friends, whether you are ready to believe it yet, or not..

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

One of the key conjectures of this thread is that Kerr-Newman
ultracompact objects constitute the nuclei of all stars, H-H systems,
planetary nebulae, protostars, and supernovae.

Central compact objects and/or pulsars are usually found at the
approximate centers of type-II SN.

Discrete Scale Relativity makes the bold and highly definitive
prediction that all type-I SN also are associated with one or more
ultracompact nucleus which pre-existed the SN event. When the putative
stellar nucleus is revealed via envelope ejection, it may be left in a
high or low energy state and this determines its radiative output.

Conventional astrophysics predicts that type-I SN events will not
contain ultracompact nuclei, and so we have a very nice and very
definitive scientific test of Discrete Scale Relativity versus
conventional assumptions.

Today at arxiv.org the following preprint was posted.

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/...102.3871v1.pdf

Tycho's SN remnant, which is classified as a type-I SN, appears to
have a "point source" near its center that is emitting "weak" TeV
gamma-ray emission. The centroid of the gamma-ray emission appears to
be correlated with a region of X-ray emission too.

This certainly does not yet vindicate Discrete Scale Relativity's
prediction. However, subsequent and more detailed study of this system
may provide important information towards the eventual vindication/
falsification of DSR's prediction.

Is it a fluke? Is Tycho's SN mis-classified? Or does this system
herald a major breakthrough in our understanding of stellar
astrophysics? Stay tuned!

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Conventional astrophysics predicts that type-I SN events will not
contain ultracompact nuclei,

Conventional astrophysics holds that type Ia supernova (e.g. Tycho's
supernova) are due to the accumulation of material from a larger star
onto a white dwarf, which then explodes when a critical mass is reached
(thus explaining why type Ia supernova are standard candles).

Do you not consider a white dwarf an "ultracompact object"? Yes, it is
not as compact as a neutron star, but it is compact (i.e. the mass of
the Sun in the volume of the Earth).

The paper you cite says "Observations performed in the period 2008-2010
with the VERITAS ground- based gamma-ray observatory reveal weak
emission coming from the direction of the remnant, compatible with a
point source...." Gamma-ray observations are certainly not able to
distinguish between "compact" (e.g. white dwarf) and "ultracompact"
(e.g. neutron star) at this distance. The paper also notes that the
emission is less than 1% of the strength of that from the Crab, a
typical pulsar supernova remnant.

It requires a huge leap of faith to construe this as evidence even
vaguely in support of your claim.

On Feb 23, 4:49*am, Phillip Helbig---undress to reply
wrote:
In article , "Robert L.

Do you not consider a white dwarf an "ultracompact object"? *Yes, it is
not as compact as a neutron star, but it is compact (i.e. the mass of
the Sun in the volume of the Earth).

If you like analogies, neutron star : white dwarf as subatomic
nucleus : He^+ ion.

Both neutron stars and white dwarfs might be loosely termed "compact",
but there are many orders of magnitude differences in their empirical
densities.

Typically astrophysicists refer to black holes and neutron stars as
"ultracompact" and white dwarfs as "compact". The distinction needs
to be made because these are very different physical systems that
behave in quite different ways.

It requires a huge leap of faith to construe this as evidence even
vaguely in support of your claim.

Well, I only meant to imply that this limited and tentative evidence
was suggestive and worthy of keeping an eye on. Gamma-ray astronomy
may reveal major new discoveries in the forseeable future. The test
[central ultracompacts in SN-I events] I have outlined is very
definitive, so even my critics should embrace it.

Changing paradigms does require a "huge leap" but I prefer to think of
it as a leap of intuition rather that a leap of "faith".

RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

In article , "Robert L.
Oldershaw" writes:

Both neutron stars and white dwarfs might be loosely termed "compact",
but there are many orders of magnitude differences in their empirical
densities.

Right.

Typically astrophysicists refer to black holes and neutron stars as
"ultracompact" and white dwarfs as "compact". The distinction needs
to be made because these are very different physical systems that
behave in quite different ways.

OK, sure, but...

Well, I only meant to imply that this limited and tentative evidence
was suggestive and worthy of keeping an eye on. Gamma-ray astronomy
may reveal major new discoveries in the forseeable future. The test
[central ultracompacts in SN-I events] I have outlined is very
definitive, so even my critics should embrace it.

.....the paper you mentioned provides NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER that there
might be an ultracompact object in the remnant of Tycho's supernova.