Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Looking at neutron stars

  1. May 13, 2005 #1

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~heyl/ns2005/prospectus.html

    Neutron Stars at the Crossroads of Fundamental Physics

    I. Organizers

    Jeremy Heyl – University of British Columbia
    Vicky Kaspi – McGill University
    Feryal Özel – University of Arizona
    Krishna Rajagopal – Massachusetts Institute of Technology
    Chris Thompson – University of Toronto, CITA
    Marten van Kerkwijk – University of Toronto

    II. Location: UBC – 9-13 August 2005

    III. Objectives, Activities and Target Audience

    A. A short overview of the subject area:

    Neutron stars provide a laboratory to verify our understanding of nature at the extreme. The intense magnetic fields of neutron stars exceed those produced on Earth a billion-fold, and the densities and pressures dwarf the realm of Earth-bound matter by a factor of a trillion or more. Neutron stars provide a unique opportunity to extrapolate and verify our theories of matter, energy and their interaction.
     
    Last edited: May 13, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. May 13, 2005 #2

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    By the way, I'll be at this meeting the week after next. Seems I'll have to brush up on my particle physics...
     
  4. May 13, 2005 #3

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I see they have a banquet laid on, oh for the high life :smile:
     
  5. May 13, 2005 #4

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Eh, I never pay for those. :tongue2:
     
  6. May 13, 2005 #5

    wolram

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    All the best on your trip ST
     
  7. May 17, 2005 #6

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Cool!

    If you get a chance to chat with Max (or Scott), ask him when he thinks the Year 2 WMAP results will be published (and what's holding them up, specifically?)!

    If you get some 'skinny' on how AMANDA is doing (and when we might see some astrophysics-related results) ...

    Above all else, have a great time!
     
  8. May 17, 2005 #7

    SpaceTiger

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    David says that "they're trying to get it right". There won't technically be a 2-year release, just a "second" release. They're still not sure when it will be.
     
  9. May 17, 2005 #8

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Hi, ST! Do you mean that we will see a "massaged" version of the first year release instead of directly comparable 2nd year? That would not be good. In my ZPE inertial/gravitational model, I expect that the anisotropies of WMAP1 would not line up with the anisotropies of WMAP2. I expect that the anisotropies result from redshift/blueshift in respect to our movements with respect to the reference frame of the ZPE field of the vacuum. They mirror the gross movement of our galaxy, the rotation of the galactic arm in which our solar system is embedded, the movement of our solar system through the galactic arm, and the movement of the Earth around Sol. I hope we get a directly-comparable 2nd year map at some point. It is important.
     
  10. May 17, 2005 #9
    Can you use your model and the WMAP-1 data to make any specific predictions about WMAP-2 data?
     
  11. May 18, 2005 #10

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    A 'massaged' version? I certainly hope not. That would not be good for any model. I can't resist asking, turbo, are you aware the first year data has been analyzed for, and no seasonal effects were found? - at least according to 'mainstream' researchers. References available upon request.
     
  12. May 18, 2005 #11

    Nereid

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Also, didn't the 'first release' include essentially all the data - both 'raw' and 'processed'? IOW, if you wanted to (and apparently some folk did), you could perform your own analyses on the raw data ...
     
  13. May 18, 2005 #12

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    There are anisoptropies on multiple levels (monopole, dipole, etc, you know the drill), and I just want to know if the anisotropies in WMAP2 map against the sky with a 1-to-1 correspondence with those observed in WMAP1. Because of the mysterious delay in the release of the year 2 data, I have become suspicious that the anisotropies do not overlay smoothly with year 1. If this is true, the CMB cannot be the echo of the Big Bang, and that would be Big News. It would also lay open the possibility that the temperature of the now-non-cosmological "Big Bang Echo" is actually the average temperature of the quantum vacuum fields. I know you're going to think I'm nuts (and you're not usually shy about telling me that), but this is where my ZPE model has led me. The release of WMAP2 may provide a critical falsification to that ZPE model. After all, if our movements relative to the vacuum fields do not result in measurable effects, then the vacuum fields cannot be the semi-Machian reference frame that I believe them to be. I may be nuts, but at least my model makes a prediction (one of many actually) and can be falsified.
     
  14. May 21, 2005 #13

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award

    Thus far, the CMB anisotropies are a good fit to the inflation scenario. I agree the delay in releasing WMAP Y2 is frustrating. I suspect it is due to the enormous amount of data to process and funding cuts. It could also be as you suspect - inexplicable anomalies in the data. It could also be due to systematic errors, as the NASA project director has suggested. Anyways, I trust they will release both the raw and error corrected data. That is the usual procedure.
    Perhaps, but a causal related explanation of how the average temperature of the quantum vacuum field is necessary. It is also necessary to explain how it has decreased over time. There are good observations that suggest a correlation between the CMB temperature and redshift.
    Quantify your predictions. It is not sufficient to say they will not precisely agree with existing models. I predict the Preakness will not finish according to the betting line. Do you see a problem if I claim the odds of them finishing in the actual order, after the race is over, are fantastically improbable? That is what Arp does, in my opinion.
     
  15. May 22, 2005 #14

    turbo

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    If there was no Big Bang, it is not necessary to explain how the CMB decreased over time. Remember that some pretty smart guys (including Einstein) modeled the Universe as Steady-State, until the idea of "redshift=expansion" gained supremacy.

    The CMB is often cited as the "proof" of the Big Bang and the most important prediction of standard cosmology. However, many phycisists (including in the 19th C) calculate the temperature of "empty" space in a Steady State Universe, summing the contibutions of all distant sources:

    http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cach.../26+gamow+CMB+prediction+"steady+state"&hl=en

    If the anisotropies in WMAP1 are relics of a VERY distant BB, they will be present in the same locations and at the same intensities in the WMAP2 data. Even the very smallest anisotropies (when projected back 13Gy) subtend such huge areas of the universe, that they cannot possibly have conspired to change in the course of a year.

    In my ZPE model, the ground state of the vacuum energy is such that the temperature of "empty" space can never be zero. Our movement relative to the vacuum field reference frame will cause us to sense a slight increase in the vacuum temperature in the direction of our movement. Such movements relative to the vacuum field include the motion of our galaxy (responsible for the large dipole anisotropy) the rotation of our galactic arm, the motion of the Sun through the galactic arm, and the motion of the Earth relative to the Sun. If I am right, anisotropies in WMAP2 caused by the larger movements will agree in general with those of WMAP1, but the anisotropies caused by the smaller movements (Earth around the Sun) will not overlay accurately. When the data is analyzed, these small anisotropies will be seen to be artifacts of the motion of the WMAP probe relative to the reference frame of the vacuum fields as it follows the Earth around the Sun in L2. An antenna facing in the direction of motion of the probe will see higher average temperatures than an antenna facing away from the direction of motion. If this is true, I hope that the WMAP team do not treat this effect as a "systematic error" that needs to be normalized out of the data.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2005
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Looking at neutron stars
  1. Neutron Stars (Replies: 6)

  2. Neutron star (Replies: 12)

  3. Neutron star (Replies: 9)

  4. Neutron Star (Replies: 14)

Loading...