Imagined mechanical magnetism (left) vs. lab electrical magnetism (right).
Credit (left): NASA/CXC/M.Weiss; (right) unknown.
 

Sporadic bursts of X-ray and gamma-ray radiation were superimposed on a regular X-ray oscillation of 9.1 seconds. After the bursts, the intensity decreased as expected, but the oscillation period did not. If the period is a reflection of the star’s rotation (and what else could it be.), a burst of radiation and particles will carry rotational energy away, causing the star to slow down.

Since the star didn’t slow down, the magnetic field must be weaker than normal. But then, as the press release puzzles, “where does the energy come from to power bursts and the persistent X-ray emission”?

They’re asking the right questions. However, they’ve limited answers to the pocket lexicon that came with the gravity-in-a-box wind-up science toy from a couple of centuries ago. They propose a winding up of internal magnetic field lines that unwind at the surface and heat or accelerate particles.

Imaginary lines may, like iron filings, help in visualizing the magnetic field around a bar magnet. When used to visualize a fluctuating magnetic field, the metaphor sends all the wrong signals.

First in importance is that it obscures the origin of the field in an electric current. Adding “electricity” to the lexicon opens answers to the possibility of lab-testable explanations: X-ray oscillations can be generated with the electrical properties of inductance, capacitance, and resistance found in ordinary stellar plasma.

X-ray and gamma-ray bursts can be generated from exploding double layers in a plasma discharge. Recourse to “spooky neutronium” and mechanical over-twisting of reified field lines is unnecessary. The “particles” that are heated and accelerated can be understood simply as charge carriers in a star-sized Birkeland current.

Mel Acheson