Most Thorough Model

Beyond the boundaries of established science an avalanche of exotic ideas compete for our attention. Experts tell us that these ideas should not be permitted to take up the time of working scientists, and for the most part they are surely correct. But what about the gems in the rubble pile? By what ground-rules might we bring extraordinary new possibilities to light?

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Sep 02, 2016 7:53 am

Everybody believes that redshift equates to distance, but not everybody (including me) believes that redshift is a sign of an expanding Universe -- the redshift might just be "tired light" or something similar.

A few years ago there were said to be over 3,000 known blue-shifted galaxies. I don't know if those are just the closer ones though. EU theory seems to suggest that redshift is caused at least sometimes by ionization. Your model of quasars could be ionization effect too, in a sense. Since some galaxies have galactic jets, don't you think the redshifts may often be coming from the jets, just like from the jets of quasars?

Another issue is the margin of error in conventional distance calculations, which the EU says is huge beyond about 300 lightyears, which means that around 500 lightyears the distances are actually entirely unknown, I think. It seems to me that the arcseconds of diameter of galaxies ought to provide good estimates of distances, unless glare effects are too great.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Sep 02, 2016 10:32 am

Quasars and Globular Clusters

I found this article just now: Quasars Lensed by Globular Clusters of Spiral and Elliptical Galaxies
https://arxiv.org/ftp/arxiv/papers/0705/0705.0446.pdf Yu. L. Bukhmastova, AstronomicalInstitute, St. Petersburg State University, Russia, E-mail: bukh_julia@mail.ru
. The abstract is below. The article is online too. It seems to me that any object that is seen through a "gravitational" lens, would be distorted into the shape of an arc, instead of remaining a circular point source. Do you agree? So the main idea of the article seems wrong, since most quasars etc appear to be circular, not arc shaped. However, there seems likely to be useful info in the article nonetheless. For example, it includes tables of 64 pairs of near galaxies and quasars (not far from us and visibly near each other) that have about the same redshifts. Do you suppose those are quasars that are seen from the side, instead of from their jets? I'll quote the conclusion too.

Abstract

Based on the SDSS catalog, we have found new close quasar–galaxy pairs. We analyze the radial distribution of quasars from pairs around galaxies of different types. We show that the quasars from pairs follow the density profile of halo globular clusters. This is new observational evidence that the quasars projected onto the halos of galaxies are magnified by gravitational lensing by halo globular clusters.
...
CONCLUSIONS AND OBSERVATIONAL TESTS
Quasars projected onto the halos of nearer galaxies are encountered among the multitude of quasars observed at various distances from us. Among them there are quasars that are close to the galaxies not only in angular separation, but also in redshift. Such quasar – galaxy pairs are called close pairs. In this paper, we developed further the hypothesis that such pairs appear, because the fluxer on the nucleus of the more distant galaxy passes through halo globular clusters of the nearer galaxy, resulting in magnification and splitting of the image of the source that we interpret as a quasar. To corroborate this hypothesis, we analyzed the distribution of quasars in the plane of the halos of these galaxies. The quasars from close pairs were found to follow the density profile of globular clusters in the halos of elliptical and spiral galaxies with slopes of α ≈ − 1.5 and α ≈ − 2.4 for elliptical and spiral galaxies, respectively. This suggests that quasars do not appear near galaxies by chance and that quasars are associated with galaxies via halo globular clusters. The quasars from close quasar – galaxy pairs can be observed to study the splitting of their images. The presumed splitting angles between the images are very small (several milliarcseconds), but they are nevertheless accessible to such telescopes as the VLTI in Chile. Another observational test consists in the following. If the quasars from pairs are actually the central sources of galaxies magnified by globular clusters in the nearer galaxy, then, since zgal/zqso > 0.9 in close pairs, then stars of the host galaxy of the quasar will be mixed with stars of the nearer lensing galaxy for an observer. This may give rise to lines in the galaxy spectra corresponding to two redshifts. We were unable to perform similar studies with irregular galaxies,
because we found no close pairs, i.e., quasars and galaxies close in redshift, among the 203 quasar – irregular galaxy pairs found (Bukhmastova 2001). However, the following fact is of considerable interest: despite the smaller number of quasar – irregular galaxy pairs compared to the number of quasar – elliptical galaxy and quasar – spiral galaxy pairs, the relative contribution of irregular galaxies in pairs is considerably higher, i.e., among the elliptical and spiral galaxies, 1–2% of their total number are in pairs with quasars, while among the irregular galaxies, about 9% of their total number are in pairs with quasars (Bukhmastova 2003). This suggest that there may be an enhanced number of compact objects with masses and radii typical of globular clusters around the irregular galaxies at distances of ∼50−100 kpc. Detection of these effects would be yet another observational test on the possibility of an association between quasars and nearby galaxies.


Here's another somewhat related article abstract. The article is readable online too. I don't think your papers have discussed globular clusters yet. Right? Some scientists suggest that globular clusters may be proto-galaxies, or the remains of former dwarf galaxies. Have you thought about them as yet? Got any thoughts to share yet?

THE PROTO-GALAXY, GLOBULAR CLUSTERS, AND QUASARS
... http://adsabs.harvard.edu/full/1993ApJ...411..178V
ABSTRACT
Metallicities and horizontal-branch population gradients are used to distinguish between two populations of Galactic halo globular clusters. The Beta population of clusters appears to be almost coeval and occurs mainly at R < R\sun [They have a sun symbol after the R, but I suppose they might mean galaxy]. Clusters of the Beta population were probably formed during a rapid Eggen, Lynden-Bell, & Sandage (ELS)-type collapse of the inner proto-Galaxy. Clusters of the Alpha population all occur at R > 8 kpc. Many of these objects are found to lie on plunging retrograde orbits. This suggests that clusters of the Alpha population formed during an extended Searle-Zinn-type merger and collapse phase. The relative ages, metallicities, and locations of the Alpha and Beta populations indicate , as has also been suggested by Larson and by Lee, that the Galaxy formed inside out, with the dense proto-Galactic core forming stars and clusters before its lower density halo. It is very tentatively suggested that the metal-poor bulge cluster NGC 6287 might be the oldest Galactic globular cluster. In a massive galaxy the quasar phenomenon probably takes place after the bulk of its globular cluster system has formed. A quasar outburst may have guillotined cluster formation in the nearby SO galaxy NGC 3115, thus preventing the formation of a thick-disk globular cluster population.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Sun Sep 04, 2016 2:10 pm

Do Stars Explode Like This?
Eta Carinae 1840s Great Eruption was only the latest in a series of massive outbursts of the star system since the 13th century
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-supernova-wasnt-tale-cosmic-eruptions.html

http://cdn.phys.org/newman/csz/news/800/2016/thesupernova.jpg
Image
Best known for an enormous eruption in the 1840s that created the billowing, hourglass-shaped Homunculus nebula imaged here by the Hubble Space Telescope, Eta Carinae is the most massive and luminous star system within 10,000 light-years. Credit: Nathan Smith/UA and NASA

Charles, since a nebula is involved in this series of explosions, would you say this star is an exotic, i.e. a Natural Tokamak? Could exotics explode every few hundred years?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Sun Sep 04, 2016 4:09 pm

Lloyd wrote:Charles, since a nebula is involved in this series of explosions, would you say this star is an exotic, i.e. a Natural Tokamak? Could exotics explode every few hundred years?

I consider all planetary nebulae, and for that matter, anything with bipolar outflow, to be emanating from a "natural tokamak", since only the toroidal plasmoid has a concentration of ejecta along its axis. Periodic flare-ups could happen for a wide variety of reasons, especially very early in the organization of the star.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Sep 05, 2016 10:02 am

CharlesChandler wrote:I consider all planetary nebulae, and for that matter, anything with bipolar outflow, to be emanating from a "natural tokamak", since only the toroidal plasmoid has a concentration of ejecta along its axis. Periodic flare-ups could happen for a wide variety of reasons, especially very early in the organization of the star.

Would you tell us what you think would be some of the main causes of the flare-ups? Would matter from imploding local filaments be arriving late, every few hundred years? Or would objects like asteroids or planets falling into the toroid cause such bipolar outbursts? What else?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:13 pm

Lloyd wrote:Would you tell us what you think would be some of the main causes of the flare-ups? Would matter from imploding local filaments be arriving late, every few hundred years? Or would objects like asteroids or planets falling into the toroid cause such bipolar outbursts? What else?

Yes, late arrivals would cause flare-ups. Also, in my "natural tokamak" model, there is an equilibrium between the centrifugal force that is trying to enlarge the radius of the toroid, versus the tensile force running around the axis of the annulus that is trying to shrink the radius of the toroid. So it's like a rapidly rotating rubber band, where the centrifugal force stretches it, but the tensile strength of the rubber band opposes the stretching, eventually achieving an equilibrium. There is reason to believe, from data on one star that I believe to be a "natural tokamak" (i.e., Mira), that the major radius of the toroid is similar to the orbit of Pluto around the Sun (5906 Gm), and if Mira has the same mass as the Sun, the minor radius would be roughly equal to the radius of Mars (3486 km). The competing forces that eventually arrive at the equilibrium might oscillate during star formation, producing gradual brightenings and darkenings. I guess I'd expect something like that to act over a period of tens, hundreds, or thousands of years.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Sep 05, 2016 12:55 pm

CharlesChandler wrote:Also, in my "natural tokamak" model, there is an equilibrium between the centrifugal force that is trying to enlarge the radius of the toroid, versus the tensile force running around the axis of the annulus that is trying to shrink the radius of the toroid. So it's like a rapidly rotating rubber band, where the centrifugal force stretches it, but the tensile strength of the rubber band opposes the stretching, eventually achieving an equilibrium. There is reason to believe, from data on one star that I believe to be a "natural tokamak" (i.e., Mira), that the major radius of the toroid is similar to the orbit of Pluto around the Sun (5906 Gm), and if Mira has the same mass as the Sun, the minor radius would be roughly equal to the radius of Mars (3486 km). The competing forces that eventually arrive at the equilibrium might oscillate during star formation, producing gradual brightenings and darkenings. I guess I'd expect something like that to act over a period of tens, hundreds, or thousands of years.

So Eta Carinae is a plasma torus instead of a spherical star. What provides the tensile strength of the torus? Isn't the torus just very high velocity positive ions on the inside and negative ions on the outside going in the opposite direction? The only attractive forces I can imagine there are electrical attraction between opposite charges and the "attractive" force of gravity. Is the electrical attraction the main tensile force? Once the torus forms, I don't see how internal forces would disrupt it and cause a flareup. Do you? Would the flareup be due to some of the positive and negative charges recombining? How would they do so going in opposite directions at high speed? How is the magnetic field affected by the opposite directions of the two charge layers? (Or could there be more than two layers, like in stars?)

By the way, Charles, could I use your site to start Future School? I just started a thread about it at http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16433.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Mon Sep 05, 2016 2:09 pm

Lloyd wrote:So Eta Carinae is a plasma torus instead of a spherical star. What provides the tensile strength of the torus? Isn't the torus just very high velocity positive ions on the inside and negative ions on the outside going in the opposite direction? The only attractive forces I can imagine there are electrical attraction between opposite charges and the "attractive" force of gravity. Is the electrical attraction the main tensile force?

Gravity won't be important -- the inward force is entirely electrical. The counterstreaming charged particles will all be pinched toward the same annular axis, so it won't be positive ions inside and negative ions outside. The tensile force will be just a function of all of the free charges (atomic nuclei and free electrons). The velocity of the implosion that created the "natural tokamak" could be a substantial fraction of the speed of light, meaning that the combined counterstreaming velocity might be above the speed of light. At such speeds, plasma is a near-perfect conductor, meaning very little resistance. So you'll have nothing but extremely high velocity, discrete charges...

-> P ---- P ---- P ---- P ---- P
<- -- N ---- N ---- N ---- N --


In that configuration, there will be a net attraction, since on average, there will always be an electron between every two protons. In linear form, you'd call this a tensile force. In annular form, the tensile force will try to shrink the major radius of the toroid.

Lloyd wrote:Once the torus forms, I don't see how internal forces would disrupt it and cause a flareup. Do you?

Not really -- I think that it would stabilize, and thereafter, only external forces could cause a flare-up.

Lloyd wrote:Would the flareup be due to some of the positive and negative charges recombining? How would they do so going in opposite directions at high speed?

I don't know how long it would take, but eventually, the electrical resistance will decelerate the combined velocity, to the point that the positive & negative charges will be near enough in velocity to enable recombination. When that starts happening, it will mean the beginning of the end for the star. Neutrally charged particles won't have any magnetic pinch effect, so the organizing principle of the toroid will go away.

Lloyd wrote:How is the magnetic field affected by the opposite directions of the two charge layers?

In counterstreaming opposite charges, the magnetic pinch from both charges is in the same direction, so the charge streams will be pinched together.

Lloyd wrote:By the way, Charles, could I use your site to start Future School?

Be my guest. I'll have to check how much free space you have. You went on an image-posting frenzy, and I think that you hit your limit. I did some more work on the image compression, which might help, but it doesn't mean that space on the QDL server is free, so you should always try to compress the images as much as possible before uploading them, and to use images sparingly. But in general, I don't know of any freeware that has more features than QDL, so if you can't do something there, maybe it can't be done. ;)
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Mon Sep 05, 2016 9:16 pm

Thanks much. I'm still curious about how those opposing charge streams would move around each other, like whether they each would be in one stream or a few or many. Initially I thought they might resemble the charge streams in the bipolar jets, but you seem to say not. How would the bipolar jets send out positive ions first and then electrons afterwards in a sheath around the positive columns? I'll message you something regarding your site.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:40 pm

Charles, here's a recent article title at Phys.org.

A first for direct-drive fusion: Scientists at the University of Rochester have taken a significant step forward in laser fusion research
http://phys.org/news/2016-09-direct-drive-fusion.html


Do you contend that fusion energy will never be practical on Earth? I think you say that the Sun derives a significant portion of its energy from fusion via arc discharges deep in or under the photosphere and I guess you say exotic stellar objects, like quasars, derive most of their energy from fusion, since you call them Natural Tokamaks. Do you suppose that imploding galactic filaments that form stars and exotics are the only way that significant fusion can occur? I believe biological transmutation produces fusion in some cases, but I suppose it's not a practical source of energy.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Fri Sep 09, 2016 11:29 pm

Lloyd wrote:Do you contend that fusion energy will never be practical on Earth?

I don't know about "never", but fusion takes incredible temperatures and pressures -- way outside the range of what can be contained in terrestrial devices. Magnetic confinement, as in tokamaks, keeps the plasma away from the walls, but the energy that it takes to generate the magnetic fields results in a net power loss. Thus sustained nuclear fusion, with a net power output, is a tough nut to crack.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:52 pm

White Dwarfs

Charles, I was watching NASA's Unexplained Files last night which included a story about a white dwarf supposedly destroying a planet via gravity. Here are highlights from an article online and I'll ask some questions below.

The real Death Star: This white dwarf may have destroyed a planet
by Chuck Bednar April 2015
http://www.redorbit.com/news/space/1113373831/the-real-death-star-this-white-dwarf-may-have-destroyed-a-planet-041815/#QK9FLMSiTpL12hOO.99

... NASA reported that its Chandra X-ray Observatory along with several other telescopes had discovered evidence that [a] white dwarf may have been a planet-killer [by f]inding ... a new X-ray source near the center of the globular cluster NGC 6388. [It was] ... determined that the X-rays were not actually coming from a black hole at the center of NGC 6388, but instead from a region located somewhat off to the side. ... During the course of ... observations, the source became dimmer, and the rate at which the X-ray brightness decreased correlated with theoretical models of a disruption of a planet caused by the gravitational tidal forces of a white dwarf.

In the aforementioned theoretical models, a planet is first pulled away from its parent star by the gravity of the passing white dwarf, and when it gets too close, it can be ripped to shreds due to the intense tidal forces of the dense star remnant. The planetary debris is then heated and glows in X-rays as it falls onto the white dwarf, NASA explained, with the observed amount of X-rays emitted at different energies agreeing with expectations for a tidal disruption event. In this case, the researchers estimate that the destroyed planet would have contained about a third of the mass of Earth, while the white dwarf had about 1.4 times the Sun’s mass.


Questions
I think you say that white dwarfs are not actually spherical stars, but are toroidal exotics. Do you think all of the exotics are about the same? I think you say that exotics have bipolar jets. I don't readily see jets mentioned with white dwarfs online. Do your papers explain why you think white dwarfs are exotics? Do you think exotics cover a wide range of sizes? What might be the upper and lower limits of their sizes? Do you think knowing their distances and magnetic field strengths might be able to determine their diameters?

Scientists seem to find metals around some white dwarfs and assume that they are planets or planetary or cometary debris orbiting white dwarfs. Do you think normal planets can form from the same or nearby filaments that form white dwarfs? Do you think white dwarfs could be as small as the Earth and have the mass of the Sun? Would rocky material falling into a white dwarf produce x-rays? Or what do you think the occasional x-rays indicate when seen with white dwarfs? Thanks for your time.
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 14, 2016 4:51 pm

Lloyd wrote:I think you say that white dwarfs are not actually spherical stars, but are toroidal exotics. Do you think all of the exotics are about the same?

They're all the same in the sense that they're all toroidal plasmoids, as opposed to spherical stars (which is my model for main sequence stars). While the exotics have overlapping property sets, they're not identical.

Lloyd wrote:I think you say that exotics have bipolar jets. I don't readily see jets mentioned with white dwarfs online.

Here's somebody who seems to think that white dwarfs can also be pulsars, complete with bipolar jets:

http://www.universetoday.com/74300/white-dwarf-pulsars/

Lloyd wrote:Do your papers explain why you think white dwarfs are exotics?

The extremely powerful magnetic fields (i.e., millions of gauss) just aren't possible in a spherical model -- the centrifugal force wouldn't allow it. But in a toroid, with a major radius like that of Pluto's orbit around the Sun, with relativistic particle velocities, you get extreme magnetic fields, without such enormous centrifugal forces. Then, of course, the thing that keeps the star organized has to be the magnetic fields themselves (i.e., the magnetic pinch in the toroid's annulus).

Lloyd wrote:Do you think exotics cover a wide range of sizes? What might be the upper and lower limits of their sizes?

I don't have anything for a size limit on "natural tokamaks". For spherical stars, I consider the limit to be 1.4 solar masses, above which the pressure would initiate a runaway thermonuclear explosion that would annihilate the star. But toroidal plasmoids don't have this problem.

Lloyd wrote:Do you think knowing their distances and magnetic field strengths might be able to determine their diameters?

No, the magnetic fields strengths are a function of the angular velocity.

Lloyd wrote:Scientists seem to find metals around some white dwarfs and assume that they are planets or planetary or cometary debris orbiting white dwarfs.

The metals are fusion by-products, and have been found around other exotics, such as quasars. While high energy particles ejected toward the center of the toroid can end up getting collimated into bipolar jets streaming away from the star, particles ejected on the equatorial plane undergo magnetic braking that will result in an accumulation. The mainstream considers these metal belts around stars to be part of the "accretion discs" that formed the stars, but I consider them to be "excretion discs" that were formed by the star.

Lloyd wrote:Do you think normal planets can form from the same or nearby filaments that form white dwarfs?

I don't see why not.

Lloyd wrote:Do you think white dwarfs could be as small as the Earth and have the mass of the Sun?

No. The size estimates come from the mainstream's attempt to come up with force that can oppose the centrifugal force of the extreme angular velocity. So of course they use gravity, but to get a gravity field up to the task, they need extremely compact matter -- so compact that it violates atomic theory. But the "natural tokamak" model doesn't need to do this.

Lloyd wrote:Would rocky material falling into a white dwarf produce x-rays?

In the standard model, impacts don't generate x-rays, so for white dwarfs, they have to invoke mysterious processes. But counterstreaming charged particles in a toroidal plasmoid would certainly produce x-rays, and just about everything else.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby Lloyd » Wed Sep 14, 2016 6:57 pm

More on White Dwarfs
Thanks much for your previous answers. I don't know if these next questions are worth your time, but I figure it's worth posting this additional info at any rate.

Ancient White Dwarf Stars
http://www.nasa.gov/multimedia/imagegallery/image_feature_2097.html
This article shows an image of white dwarfs in a globular cluster in Scorpius. It looks like at least dozens and maybe hundreds. Do you think such white dwarfs would have formed all about the same time? Would the galactic filaments have had to be extra long or thick to produce so many white dwarfs in one cluster?

Regarding the paper you linked, Possibility for White Dwarf Pulsars? at http://www.universetoday.com/74300/white-dwarf-pulsars, it says:
- A new paper ... has proposed ... pulsars powered by white dwarfs. PAMELA's ... mission is to observe high energy cosmic rays. Among the types of particles PAMELA detects is the elusive positron. This anti-particle of the electron is quite rare due to the scarcity of anti-matter in general in our universe. However, much to the surprise of astronomers, in the range of 10 – 100 GeV, PAMELA has reported an abundance of positrons. In even higher ranges (100 GeV – 1 TeV) astronomers have found that there is a rise in both electrons and positrons. The conclusion from this is that something is able to actually create these particles in these energy ranges.
- Indeed, many events that produce high energies are sufficient to spontaneously produce matter from energy through the process of pair production. However, the range of these ejected particles would be limited. ... From this, astronomers are presuming the culprits are in the local universe. ... The authors ... propose that a white dwarf may reach the necessary rotational speed if they undergo a merger or accrete a sufficient amount of mass. ... [A]round 10% of white dwarfs are expected to have magnetic fields of 10^6 Gauss.... [M]any of the pulsars observed in our own galaxy are [perhaps] white dwarfs.


Does this mean they're starting to doubt neutron stars? Do you agree that positrons could come from white dwarfs? Do you know if 10^6 Gauss would be a maximum magnetic field strength for them?
Lloyd
 
Posts: 4113
Joined: Fri Apr 04, 2008 2:54 pm

Re: Most Thorough Model

Unread postby CharlesChandler » Wed Sep 14, 2016 10:23 pm

Lloyd wrote:Do you think such white dwarfs would have formed all about the same time? Would the galactic filaments have had to be extra long or thick to produce so many white dwarfs in one cluster?

They could have formed at roughly the same time. If there was a collision of two giant molecular clouds, and if the direction of the collision was perpendicular to the galactic field, the formation of "natural tokamaks" instead of main sequence stars would have been favored.

Lloyd wrote:Do you know if 10^6 Gauss would be a maximum magnetic field strength for them?

I don't know if there would be a theoretical limit.
Give a man a fish and you feed him for a day. Teach a man to fish and he'll spend the rest of the day sitting in a small boat, drinking beer and telling dirty jokes.

Volcanoes
Astrophysics wants its physics back.
The Electromagnetic Nature of Tornadic Supercell Thunderstorms
User avatar
CharlesChandler
 
Posts: 1776
Joined: Tue Aug 19, 2008 6:25 am
Location: Baltimore, MD, USA

PreviousNext

Return to New Insights and Mad Ideas

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests