Neutron star may sport four magnetic poles

[mrfrodo918]

Can anyone shed some light on this? Is it possible for four poles to occur??

Neutron star may sport four magnetic poles

02:00 09 January 2007 by David Shiga, Seattle
The neutron star inside the Crab Nebula may have four magnetic poles, rather than the usual two - unlike any other astronomical object known. The poles may have somehow been frozen into the neutron star when it was formed in a supernova explosion.

A neutron star is the dense stellar corpse left behind after a relatively massive star dies in a supernova explosion. Some neutron stars, like the one in the Crab Nebula supernova remnant, are called pulsars because astronomers detect regular radio pulses coming from them.

The pulses are thought to result from lighthouse-like beams of radio energy shooting from the neutron star's magnetic poles that sweep across the Earth as the star rotates.

Usually the beam from only one pole is seen. But sometimes a second, weaker signal can be detected if the beam from the other pole points roughly in Earth's direction when it comes into view. The Crab pulsar has long been known to display weaker, secondary pulses.

Now, observations of unprecedented detail have revealed that the primary and secondary pulses are radically different, casting doubt on the idea that they simply come from opposite magnetic poles. Instead, some astronomers speculate that the secondary pulses are related to an additional pair of magnetic poles.

[Solar]

A link: Neutron star may sport four magnetic poles

It’s been proposed before that this (four poles) occurs with the Sun as well with the dynamic being a part of the ‘transition’ that occurs when the magnetic poles “flip” or reverse polarity. The “flip” isn’t immediate but occurs over time and during the process two additional poles can occur along the equator:

Sun may soon have four poles, say researchers

Be careful of small words such as “speculate”, “may”, “probably”, “could”, “if” and the like with such articles because, from the first link:

"It's mind boggling the kind of stuff they've been seeing," he told New Scientist. "They don't understand the results, and nobody else does either."

To the point, perhaps this will help:

The solar magnetic polarity reversal with every 11 year sunspot cycle has baffled solar physicists since its discovery. Electric current structure in the Electric Sun model provides a simple explanation…. -Solar Magnetic Polarity Reversal

[kiwi]

Solar those people are away with the fairys ..... that site is the Hollywood of science portals

[sjw40364]

Quite possible, and it is also quite possible for charges of the same sign but differing intensity to create dipoles as well. Contrary to what we have all been taught.

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-physicists ... atoms.html

I.e., the larger something is the more likely similar charges of differing values will also create magnetic monopoles. So the stars being mostly one overall charge is not a barrier. Now disregard the neutron part of a star and apply an electrical interpretation and one sees it is likely all stars have multiple monopoles.

[Solar]

Solar those people are away with the fairys ..... that site is the Hollywood of science portals

Well, yes - so I put a link to a TPOD at the end of the reply so the original poster could have another option. Forgot to say that it was a TPOD though.

[kiwi]

Quite possible, and it is also quite possible for charges of the same sign but differing intensity to create dipoles as well. Contrary to what we have all been taught.

http://phys.org/news/2011-11-physicists ... atoms.html

I.e., the larger something is the more likely similar charges of differing values will also create magnetic monopoles. So the stars being mostly one overall charge is not a barrier. Now disregard the neutron part of a star and apply an electrical interpretation and one sees it is likely all stars have multiple monopoles.

It gets more interesting. Weber has already dared, in the 1870 paper, to conceive the notion we know today as the proton-electron mass ratio, which leads him to wonder as to the possible motions of the different configurations of particle pairs. It turns out that, according to his relativistic electrical law (one which was never considered in the accepted, modern formulations of atomic theory), it is possible to develop an orbital system for the case of a lighter electrical particle of one sign, orbiting a heavier particle of the opposite sign! It is also possible for two similar particles of the same sign to develop a closed system of oscillations along the straight line connecting them.

http://www.21stcenturysciencetech.com/a ... amics.html

[sjw40364]

Yes, have read that several times (A favorite bookmark of mine) and I find a lot going for the idea. Before too long we will have to begin questioning all our supposed facts about what we think we know about electricity. It can be and is a lot more complicated a picture than we have been led to believe and can have interactions on many levels previously thought impossible. One sometimes wonders if our descriptions of positive and negative have any meaning beyond that of intensity.

[orrery]

I would remind everyone that Don Scott advocates that a pulsar is actually a plasma connected binary system emulating a relaxation oscillator. Evidence of 4 magnetic pole object would indicate 2 stars in a tight binary configuration as proposed by Scott's relaxation oscillator theory.

Score +1 for the Electric Sky

[nick c]

I would remind everyone that Don Scott advocates that a pulsar is actually a plasma connected binary system emulating a relaxation oscillator. Evidence of 4 magnetic pole object would indicate 2 stars in a tight binary configuration as proposed by Scott's relaxation oscillator theory.

Score +1 for the Electric Sky

Yes, there is a binary star at the center of the Crab Nebula.

http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1942ApJ....96..199M

The central star of the Crab nebula is probably the south preceding of the two stars near the center of the nebula.

Which begs the question for mainstream: how did the companion survive a supernova explosion?

[sjw40364]

First we have no direct evidence that an actual explosion occurred. We have only standard hypothesis that this actually occurs, and their track record isn't too good.

I seriously doubt the outer so called shock waves are actually that. More likely like the TPOD on supernova 1987A (can't find it right now but I'll continue looking) it is nothing more than the outer shell of the Z-Pinch and has always been there. Sometimes the current flow causes these filaments to exist in glow mode, sometimes they don't. When in glow mode the stars brightness would seam to increase in magnitude which is happening as well with the energy increase. The outer shell undergoing glow mode would appear to increase the apparent size of the star and add more overall magnitude than one could calculate for a single star. The star must therefore have exploded according to standard theory as they have no other mechanism for the extra brightness.

[nick c]

First we have no direct evidence that an actual explosion occurred. We have only standard hypothesis that this actually occurs, and their track record isn't too good.

There is some pretty good observational evidence from China in 1054 AD.
http://messier.seds.org/more/m001_sn.html
The description of the "guest star" is that it was brighter than Venus and the location near the star Zeta Tauri corresponds well with the Crab Nebula (M1). The description could not be that of a comet since its' location remained fixed during the entire period (23 days) of observation. The obvious implication from the Chinese report is that a nova or supernova was observed and we have the Crab Nebula in the spot where the "guest star" was reported. I find the conclusion that the Crab Nebula is the site of the guest star and the remains of an exploding star to be reasonable, and consider it a valid observation. There is some supporting evidence of this "new star" from other nations.
The EU does not dispute the description of the nebula being the remnant of an "exploding star." The difference lies in the nature and cause (exploding double layers versus gravitational collapse) of said explosion.

see:
http://electric-cosmos.org/hrdiagr.htm

It is becoming obvious that pulsars are electrical discharges between members of binary pairs.

The Crab Pulsar
The "Crab Nebula" (M1) is a cloud of gas (plasma) that is the remnant of a nova explosion seen by Chinese astronomers. Lying at the center of the nebula is a pulsar- a star called CM Tauri. The frequency of repetition of the pulsar's output is 30 pulses per second. The length of each flash, however, is approximately 1/1000 sec., one millisecond! The obvious question to ask next is: Is this star a binary pair? No companion is visible from even the largest earthbound telescopes. But, the Hubble orbiting telescope has recently found a companion, "a small knot of bright emission located only 1500 AU (1500 times the distance from the Earth to the Sun) from the pulsar. This knot has gone undetected up until now because even at the best ground-based resolution it is lost in the glare of the adjacent pulsar. The knot and the pulsar line up with the direction of a jet of X-ray emission. A second discovery is that in the direction opposite the knot, the Crab pulsar is capped by a ring-like 'halo' of emission tipped at about 20 degrees to our line of sight. In this geometry the polar jet flows right through the center of the halo."


The shape of this pulsar centered object is exactly that of an electrical homopolar motor - generator.

[orrery]

nick / sjw

I believe sjw was trying to say that the "supernova" was not an exploding star => star's death and obliteration. But that these "supernova" events are actually just the star "shedding" its outer skin.

[sjw40364]

No, I am saying that there exists no evidence that the star did anything other than increase in brightness from excessive charge which caused the nearby plasma clouds to accelerate outwards, this accretion of dust and plasma we see around quite a few stars, condensed into stellar clouds and spread everywhere throughout the universe to such an extent it blocks any further peering through these vast clouds.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=6330
http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe ... right.html
The sun accelerates particles outwards, of course there is a ring around it, just like there is a ring around our sun.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... tron-flux/

Depending on relative voltage passing through this ring, it may or may not fluctuate in the x and gamma ray and even enter into glow mode. This would make it appear as if the magnitude of the star increased dramatically. No explosion needed.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/supernova ... decoded-2/
Now double that voltage or some such number for the 2nd half of the binary pair, and you not only get the oscillation but the magnitude increase without need for stars blowing up. If redshift is an inherent affect of plasma, then red giants are not old stars, but young stars. A so called supernova would more likely be a young star undergoing plasma instabilities which then settle down and become red stars and as they begin forming planetary systems become cooler and bluer. Which is why the further out and hence newer galaxies are the more they are shifted to the red.

[Solar]

No, I am saying that there exists no evidence that the star did anything other than increase in brightness from excessive charge which caused the nearby plasma clouds to accelerate outwards, this accretion of dust and plasma we see around quite a few stars, condensed into stellar clouds and spread everywhere throughout the universe to such an extent it blocks any further peering through these vast clouds.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpB ... f=3&t=6330
http://www.space.com/5348-view-universe ... right.html
The sun accelerates particles outwards, of course there is a ring around it, just like there is a ring around our sun.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/wp/2011/12 ... tron-flux/

Depending on relative voltage passing through this ring, it may or may not fluctuate in the x and gamma ray and even enter into glow mode. This would make it appear as if the magnitude of the star increased dramatically. No explosion needed.
http://www.holoscience.com/wp/supernova ... decoded-2/
Now double that voltage or some such number for the 2nd half of the binary pair, and you not only get the oscillation but the magnitude increase without need for stars blowing up. If redshift is an inherent affect of plasma, then red giants are not old stars, but young stars. A so called supernova would more likely be a young star undergoing plasma instabilities which then settle down and become red stars and as they begin forming planetary systems become cooler and bluer. Which is why the further out and hence newer galaxies are the more they are shifted to the red.

You know what is interesting: There is recent data to suggest that the heliosheath 'shell' surrounding the sun is not elongated by passing through the ISM. Perhaps the so called "termination shock" could be but not the heliosphere. I need to find that; its pretty recent. Anyways:

Interesting perspective SJW especially in comparison to what occurred with V838 Monocerotis from 2002. It wasn’t that the star went “nova” at that time but that the increase in brightness due to it’s transformation revealed previously unseen concentric ‘shells’ of material. This was referred to as being the result of a “light echo”, a rather bizarre conceptual term imho. The rationale being that; had there been an actual “nova” the material surrounding the star would have had to “expanded” faster than the limiting shackle known as the “speed of light”.

V838 Mon: Mystery Star which suddenly transformed

"Observations indicate that the erupting star transformed itself over a period of months from a small under-luminous star a little hotter than the Sun, to a highly luminous, cool super giant star undergoing rapid and complex brightness changes. The transformation defies the conventional understanding of stellar life cycles.” - Thunderbolts TPOD

Hubble watches light echo from mysterious erupting star

The light echo of supernova 1987A

I wonder if the concentric shells can be monitored to see if they are moving in a direction inward/outward from a star, or if they are stationary with respect to the star, and/or if they correlate with the position of the star’s helio-sheath and/or supposed larger “termination shock”. That would be interesting.

Now, there is only one problem I'm (constructively) having with this approach: Obviously images can be referenced which seem to visually indicate (perspective), and normally are interpreted in the sense, that at quite some distance these "clouds" have the character of undergoing a sort of 'dissipation'. They're interpreted as if having been 'expelled' from the star at some point long ago and are more rarified the further one gets away from a star etc.

I think it would helpful if we could find literature indicating directional 'flows' to these 'shells'.

[Solar]

A reference interclump density is no = 10 H atoms cm−3. I assume that as a first approximation, the presence of the dense clumps can be neglected in the propagation of the supernova shock front. The evolution of a supernova remnant in a uniform medium has been frequently treated, so I primarily highlight some of the aspects that are important for the molecular cloud case.

In the first phase of evolution, the supernova ejecta are decelerated by interaction with the
ambient medium. The ejecta are expected to be mostly freely expanding until they have swept
up their own mass,...- SUPERNOVA REMNANTS IN MOLECULAR CLOUDS

Okay, so... it is known that "supernova ejecta" consisting on the average of several solar masses encounters the ISM as stars undergo the 'electric discharge process'. Of course, it isn't an 'electrical discharge' process (exploding double layers) to the mainstream but a thermonuclear explosion after a star has supposedly spent its fuel and some sort of 'gravitational collapse' is induced; or somethin'. However, yes there is an 'explosive' release of energy at rather large scales to such extent that the material 'ejected' can be resolved, tracked, and its composition studied. There exist lots in the literature regarding this.