Type Ia supernovae are a mystery because no one can predict when or where one might occur. But astronomers are hedging their bets on V445 Puppis. A so-called “vampire white dwarf” that underwent a nova outburst after gulping down part of its companion’s matter in 2000, now, it appears this double star system is a prime candidate for exploding. “Whether V445 Puppis will eventually explode as a supernova, or if the current nova outburst has pre-empted that pathway by ejecting too much matter back into space is still unclear,” said Patrick Woudt, from the University of Cape Town and lead author of the paper reporting the results. “But we have here a pretty good suspect for a future Type Ia supernova!”
This is the first, and so far only nova showing no evidence at all for hydrogen, and provides the first evidence for an outburst on the surface of a white dwarf dominated by helium. “This is critical, as we know that Type Ia supernovae lack hydrogen,” said Danny Steeghs, from the University of Warwick, UK, “and the companion star in V445 Pup fits this nicely by also lacking hydrogen, instead dumping mainly helium gas onto the white dwarf.”
Click here to watch a movie of the expanding shell of V445 Puppis.
The astronomers have determined the system is about 25,000 light-years from the Sun, and it has an intrinsic brightness of over 10,000 times our Sun. This implies that the vampire white dwarf in this system has a high mass that is near its fatal limit and is still simultaneously being fed by its companion at a high rate.
“One of the major problems in modern astrophysics is the fact that we still do not know exactly what kinds of stellar system explode as a Type Ia supernova,” said Woudt, “As these supernovae play a crucial role in showing that the Universe’s expansion is currently accelerating, pushed by a mysterious dark energy, it is rather embarrassing.”
Woudt and his team used the ESO’s Very Large Telescope (VLT) to obtain very sharp images of V445 Puppis over a time span of two years. The images show a bipolar shell, initially with a very narrow waist, with lobes on each side. Two knots are also seen at both the extreme ends of the shell, which appear to move at about 30 million kilometers per hour. The shell — unlike any previously observed for a nova — is itself moving at about 24 million kilometers per hour. A thick disc of dust, which must have been produced during the last outburst, obscures the two central stars.
As Steeghs said, one defining characteristic of Type Ia supernovae is the lack of hydrogen in their spectrum. Yet hydrogen is the most common chemical element in the Universe. Such supernovae most likely arise in systems composed of two stars, one of them being the end product of the life of sun-like stars, or white dwarfs. When such white dwarfs, acting as stellar vampires that suck matter from their companion, become heavier than a given limit, they become unstable and explode.
The build-up is not a simple process. As the white dwarf cannibalizes its prey, matter accumulates on its surface. If this layer becomes too dense, it becomes unstable and erupts as a nova. These controlled, mini-explosions eject part of the accumulated matter back into space. The crucial question is thus to know whether the white dwarf can manage to gain weight despite the outburst, that is, if some of the matter taken from the companion stays on the white dwarf, so that it will eventually become heavy enough to explode as a supernova.
Source: ESO
I wonder if a star going nova really does apply for the title “mini-explosion” =D
If this does explode it might give us better estimates on the use of SNIs as a cosmic standard candle.
LC
A space kablooee. Can’t wait!
Curious that a star exploding has the same hourglass shape as a star forming.
How does the accepted model explain that?
Quoting from BA (about the same topic):
Someone over at BA also said that it would be visible for a VERY long period of time, even to the unaided eye. This would be a sight to remember.
Someone also hoped that it would blow up on Dec21 2012 — that would be fun, all those screaming doom-criers running around 😀 .
This thing just has to blow up 😉 There is so much to learn from it. Someone must go and tell the star. Or maybe it is enough to beam someone over there to look if it still exists. If not, we know that it “will” blow up in the next 25,000 years.
Hm. Think again: This is still too long. God dammit, blow up, you frakkin’ idiot 😉 😀
DrFlimmer,
We need some telescopes trained on it 24hr to capture it’s light curve as it goes off. Doesn’t have to be expensive.
@Anaconda: it’s not exploding (as a supernova) yet … and may not do so, ever.
An ‘hourglass’ shape is a very common one, and can be produced by several different mechanisms (remember that the ‘shape’ in an astronomical image is merely a 2D distribution of the intensity of electromagnetic radiation detected).
Gomez’s Hamburger is one example (similar mechanism to V445 Puppis); M82 is another (rather different mechanism); and 3C272.1 a third (very different mechanism, although one may not consider to have a classic hourglass shape!)
DrFlimmer, I appreciate the explanation, but isn’t convincing, gravity would act in a spherical fashion and Nereid2’s attempt at explaining why a star close to exploding from old age and a star just forming would look alike.
I imagine that the similarity has to do with the objects being similar – as has already been pointed out, both types of objects are surrounded by thick disks, and have material flowing out rapidly…
V445 Puppis are among th so-called pre-Asymptotic Giant Branch (pre-AGB) stars, approximately between 5M? and 11M?s.
These kind of objects are generally describe as the the Bipolar Planetary Nebulae. It is presumed that the gaseous shells surrounds will only feature prominently in particular areas, which in turn, become formed shapes of unusual structures of the nebula shell.
They sometimes either asymmetric, symmetric or mirrored. Uncertain mechanisms exist for these strange structures, but many theorists now suspect these phenomena are strongly influenced by either fast stellar rotation, and display other secondary effects such as magnetic fields, or being associated as close binary systems.
In evolutionary terms, these observed structures are related to the initial conditions of envelope ejection by the pedestrian stellar winds. They are influenced, among many other other reasons, to magnetic fields, stellar rotation, binaries, etc. Consequently this concept means expelled gas tends to flow in preferential directions along the poles, perpendicular to the rotational axis of motion. Although this may seem very complicated superficially it is fundamentally quite simple.
Simplistically, if the surrounding nebula originates as some spherical, evenly spaced symmetrical bubble, then the evolutionary process for the nebulosity can be basically just be expressed as an increasing ballooning bubble expanding at the rate of the expansion velocity of the shell. As the bubble enlarges in time, the material of the shell joined with the expanding shock front, increasing in size but reducing the mean shell thickness.
Furthermore, the expelled shell from the central star now favours certain directions and differences in thickness, producing some maxima along the equatorial axis and another minima at both opposing poles. As the energetic charged particles strike the expanding three-dimensional circumstellar shell(s), the irregularities of the internal pressure combined with the dispersal of the matter from the AGB phase, cause significant polar thinning. In stages, the shell stays intact, but as it enlarges, the polar regions of the envelope simultaneously weaken, then tear it apart.
Suddenly the once restricted internal winds break through doing so first at each pole, tearing a small hole of the shell’s membrane. In these cases, the visual consequences on the observed shell are astonishing. The simple bubble structure metamorphoses into these far more complex objects. Then, and quickly, the impeded outflow of the inner shell is freed. Travelling at about 1,000 km.s^-1, with temperatures of 10^7 K to 10^9 K, the highly ionised gases suddenly escapes to produce ferocious hypersonic winds. These winds will ultimately destroy the neat spherical symmetry of the bubble, forming the familiar generalised bipolar shape.
Slowly at first, the edges of the broken shell are pushed aside, then stretched into hollow shapes similar to wine glasses with its open opposing holes at either end. This evolves further to look more like drawn champagne flutes
This overall generalised scenario is dependant on the properties of the PNN which will play a more significant role in determining the shape and evolution of the luminous shell(s). I.e. Mass, rotation, magnetic field strength, the central star’s UV-energy output, composition of the gases in the denser nebulous atmosphere, (super)wind, strengths, etc.
—————————
Apologies for the length of the reply… its complicated!
In a verbal paper I’ve presented on these objects, the best quote I’ve found supporting the theory on these objects was written by the specialistt in the field, Bruce Bruce Balick best explains this shell thinning phenomena, in detail;
You can find the paper at the ADS I.e.
Astrophys.& Space.Sci., 216, 13-22 (1994)
NOTE: I could go into more detail, but I suppose i be accused of hijacking the thread.(I’m not interested in Anaconda or Sorely replies, and I will not answer their questions!
To clarify one point.
When I wrote; “V445 Puppis are among the so-called pre-Asymptotic Giant Branch (pre-AGB) stars, approximately between 5M? and 11M?s.”
This is related to the progenitor, was mass was between 5 and 11 solar masses. These form heavy white dwarfs (WD), similar to the WD-oxygen story in Universe Today a few days back.
Sorry for the confusion.
Hon SB Crumb,
What you write is in line with how a lot of physics is done. You might have a dominant spherical process, but therre are perturbations or complicating processes. So the spherical term is perturbed by Bessel functions and so there are dipole terms and higher. These processes indicate how there are substantial dipolar processes at work, which likely in this case are due to MHD physics.
LC
@Anaconda: First, let’s address the “a star close to exploding from old age”.
Recall that Type Ia SNe are (as far as we can tell) the nuclear detonation of a white dwarf (WD) star … and that the trigger for the detonation involves the acquisition of mass (hydrogen, helium, in some mixture) by transfer from a close binary companion.
The progenitor (of the Ia SNe – the almost-but-not-quite-at-the-limit white dwarf – would slowly dim, grow cold, and fade away … if it were not for its close companion.
Next let’s look at “a star … and a star … would look alike”.
AFAIK, no white dwarfs have been resolved, let alone imaged (i.e. every WD is indistinguishable from a point source. Similarly, no T Tauri star, or other pre-main sequence star, has been resolved (I am less sure of this though).
What you see in various astronomical images (other than points) is light (or IR or UV or x-rays or microwaves or …) from diffuse gas (or, sometimes, dust) that surrounds either the WD or very young star (the gas may be ionised, or neutral, or a mixture of both).
Do you see the distinctions I’m making? Do you appreciate why it is important to be precise?
(to be continued)
The Wikipedia page on Planetary Nebula has a brief discussion of how the complex and often bipolar structures of planetary nebula may come about via the interplay of various processes. The cause of the interesting morphologies can be to do with asymmetries in the progenitor star or system, the interaction of out-flowing material moving at different speeds, the presence of magnetic fields, the presence of planets etc. The page has an interesting computer simulation showing the effect of a small stellar asymmetry leading to bipolar outflows.
There are studies supporting variously all of these claims – some are more favored than others, but nobody would dispute that a lot more work is going to be needed to nail down the relative importance of each of these mecahnisms.
Lawrence B. Crowell Says:
“What you write is in line with how a lot of physics is done. You might have a dominant spherical process, but there are perturbations or complicating processes. So the spherical term is perturbed by Bessel functions and so there are dipole terms and higher. These processes indicate how there are substantial dipolar processes at work, which likely in this case are due to MHD physics.”
Magnohydrodynamics is certainly at play in the scenarios seen. The problem of course is the hugh diversity in forms amount bipolar outflows. The spherical model seems most important when the star throws it atmosphere away from the star. The whole visible shell we see is a consequence of the mass loss taking way 80% of the star.
Its very simple, but clearly looking at these nebulous objects shows, that as the star converts into a hot Wolf-Rayet [WR] UV-source, other mechanisms come into play. I.e. A fast spinning white dwarf, the engine for the MHD.
I believe the evolution of these objects occur in many stages over a relatively short period of time. Placing them in an orderly sequence, at least for the theorists, is far from simple.
It is ashamed this object is so far away (~8-odd kpc. away), and the apparent size of the features is so small.
The other point, which I did not state before, is the material when the nova outburst of V455 Pup still lies well inside the nebula shell (as said in the paper) In the future no doubt this expanding shell will destroy some of the lovely features of the bipolar structure. Such ideas might explain why these bipolar structures are so fleeting.
My words before this were simply aimed to explain the general cause of the observed bipolar outflow.
A 1 solar mass white dwarf would have a radius of about 5,000 km (earth has a mean radius of 6,370 km).
According to C. Pinte et al 2008 ApJ 673 L63-L66, the inner radius of a T-Tauri disk is about 0.42 AU, and according to M. Küker, Th. Henning and G. Rüdiger in Astrophysics and Space Science Volume 287, Numbers 1-4, who’s models, incidentally, accounted for magnetic influences on the proto-star and accretion disk, a 1 solar mass T-tauri object would/should have a radius of about three solar radii (which would make it near enough to 2×10^9m).
Meanwhile, the stars that have been imaged directly (AFAIK) are Sirius, Altair, and Betelgeuse (and of course, our sun) Sirius and Altair are 1.7 solar radii, so, we would expect to be able to directly observe a T-Tauri object within 20 ly, assuming they are intrinsically bright enough (which, as I understand it, they aren’t).
It’s actually an interesting exercise to try to think of all the ways a star (other than the Sun) may be imaged (at least in the UV/visual/NIR wavebands), other than as a point source.
There are several which will yield basic info such as radius, some measure of limb darkening, and some measure of gross shape – speckle interferometry, intensity interferometry, deconvolution of eclipse light curves (in eclipsing binaries), stellar occultations (by the lunar limb), more?
The light version of radio LBI (long-baseline interferometry) is just starting, and may produce reconstructed images of stellar discs (albeit with rather low S/N), and then there’s the technique for reconstructing starspots …
Great posts HSBC and LBC (and others). Complicated stuff, indeed, I will have to read it once or twice, again 😉 .
Does anyone know if there is a spectrum available of the outflow? If it is not exactly perpendicular to the line-of-sight, one should be able to detect Doppler shifts. This would clearly prove beyond any doubt that we have an outflow.
@Hon. Salacious B. Crumb, Of course the physics is seriously complicated. The dipolar structure here might be a precursor for a dipole supernova. I can’t comment on the structure of SN1s in detail, but some supernova events have dipole physics as well. So when the star explodes some instability, such as a dipolar MHD prescuror, might induce Rayleigh-Taylor instabilities or some other physics. These dipole terms might amplify in the shock wave physics of a supernova. So the whole thing might explode in a dipolar configuration. I am not theorizing, but making a plausible conjecture.
To be honest I hope that does not happen. That would probably throw a huge monkey wrench on our standard candle calibration of SN1s and cosmological distances. At the end we have to observe and see what nature tells us. If this explodes it would be a fortunate thing, for we might get some detailed information on the evolution of SN1s.
LC
Anaconda raises a very interesting point.
If we wish to engage in a science-based discussion, what constitutes a convincing explanation?
Here’s my take.
An explanation, in astrophysics, is convincing if it can be shown to be consistent, and can be shown to be based on objective, independently verifiable observations and experimental results.
By ‘consistent’ I mean both internally consistent and consistent with all well-established theories that are relevant to the specific explanation.
A corollary is this: explanations, in astrophysics, must be quantitative.
Waht do others think?
@LBC: the asymmetric nature of supernovae, of all kinds, is a serious research topic (for example, ADS gives 40 hits with both words in the title, from 2005 to now!), and the evidence for some asymmetry, in at least some supernovae, is very strong.
Given the star role Ia SNe play (note that it’s really only Ia which are used as primary standard candles), a great deal of work has been done – and continues to be done – on any unaccounted for systematics … of which asymmetries are but one. I’ll see if I can dig up a good, recent review paper on this topic …
In the meantime, it’s possible to test many hypotheses concerning the impact of asymmetries on Ia light-curves, without knowing the nature, or cause, of any such asymmetries. For example, if the asymmetries of Ias have no preferred direction, and if the Hubble relationship is valid, then Ia asymmetries will show up as scatter in the estimated distance modulus (for constant z) … and as the sample of high-quality Ia light-curves increases, confidence on the constraints on any underlying asymmetries increases correspondingly.
@Lawrence B. Crowell
Some interesting points. Admittedly, dipole supernovae and the shells outcomes I am not so familiar with. Most of my reading has been to do with planetary nebulae and their mimics, and the behaviours of mass lass during the AGB phase.
My basic understanding in the outcomes of supernova when they blow is that the rotation of the core plays a big role in their fate – The destruction of the core is always asymmetrical to the magnetic pole, and if a neutron star is formed, for example, the poles spew material as jets – the pulsars.
It is also the rotational mechanism that can provide the energy for the core collapse – related to the magnetic field generation.. I only roughly understand these issues for supernovae.
Regardless, the energies are colossal.
I’ll have to do a bit of reading to get up to speed.
Thanks for the input, as it leads down (yet another) path of study!
Cheers
I found one: “Spectropolarimetry of Supernovae“*, published in the 2008 Annual Review of Astronomy and Astrophysics.
The abstract:
Being a review, it contains 143 references; even though it was published only a little over a year ago, it already has 21 citations (according to ADS).
* The link is to the arXiv preprint abstract
@ Nereid2;
Thanks very much for the paper link.
I’ve downloaded it, and I’ll have a read of it.
Your link for some reason didn’t work, so here it is again….
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.1054
Thanks HSBC; I don’t know quite how I messed up the HTML codes; let me see if I can get it right this time …
Spectropolarimetry of Supernovae
Nope, still wrong; once more unto the breach dear friends, once more …
Spectropolarimetry of Supernovae
Anaconda:
I have a several papers on this subject, but here’s one for starters: Brane cosmology: an introduction.
Interesting exposition here, thanks all, I’ve learned a lot.
One of those complications that may destroy symmetry (so it’s dumb to predict absolute symmetry from gravitational systems as EU religionists do) is the asserted binary companion and the likewise asserted accretion process.
For me, a side effect of theories or models is that they are explanatory. Foremost they must be testably predictive to qualify as valid.
[And so with testability consistency is assured: you can’t meaningfully test inconsistent predictions, which in turn follows from any inconsistency of the theory. Because contradictions allows you to claim anything.]
This, I believe is what you mean by being quantitative. To be precise, I contend that also predictions of entities that can be cast to qualitative functions are eligible assuming one can make a quantitative test. (I.e. binomial distributions qualify.)
The explanatory part is vital to compare equally predictive theories for parsimony et cetera, and of course to be able to continue research.
For a treatment where explanations is explained [sic!], I recommend “The Fabric of Reality” of Deutsch. He rightly notes that predictivity isn’t enough, because a “black box” predictor is rather useless in real life. (But that is an unfortunate strawman as ironically no real theory is such. Deutsch likes philosophy, more’s the pity.)
All the explanation is appreciated.
But any analysis & interpretation of the observation & measurements is dependent on the model one applies to data.
Applying a different model to the same observations & measurement will result in different conclusions.
Mention has been made of magneto-hydro-dynamics, in other words, the study of electrified plasma dynamics.
Electromagnetism in plasma flows is scale independent with no limit established (confirmation of scale-independence has been observed to at least 14 orders of magnitude).
The explanations provided thus far are primarily of the gravity “only” model with some reference to MHD.
But if one applies an electromagnetic model to the data, one can easily come to different conclusions.
Z – pinch phenomenon are well understood and documented in plasma physics laboratories:
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Pinch
If one applies that model of the phenomenon then one comes to a different conclusion from the primarily gravity “only” model’s conclusions.
To refresh my question: How does a near to exploding star have the same shape as a star forming region (why the beginning and ending are similar) ?
The answer is easy to explain: The processes governoring the processes are the same. The Z- pinch process constrains both how a star forms and how it ends. In the ending senario, the current is increased until the circuit overloads and explodes, i.e., exploding double layers.
The http://arxiv.org/pdf/0811.1054 paper is interesting. I hope that these deviations from sphericity are not terribly large for sn1’s. That could well give a cos^2(@) dependency, for @ = angle of the jet with respect to the observer.
LC
@Anaconda: the answer to your (refreshed) question is simple: there are two stars in V445 Pup (not one), and the shape of the primary is nothing like that of a star-forming region (the high-mass, white dwarf is spherical).
On to something new …
What is “an electromagnetic model”?
I mean, “the data” are pixel intensities … representing the flux of electromagnetic radiation detected in the visual waveband!
But, but, but … how do you – Anaconda – know this?
I mean, the observations are *quantitative* (flux, by wavelength, by time), so unless and until your word picture can be turned into at least an order of magnitude estimate – and that estimate shown (objectively) to be consistent with the observations – all there is is unfounded speculation, right?
And I’m sure you’d be among the first to say that unfounded speculation most certainly is NOT science, wouldn’t you?
Anaconda:
You keep neglecting one ‘little’ detail: A LABORATORY “Z-PINCH” REQUIRES A BLOODY POWER SUPPLY; PULL OUT THE MAINS PLUG, NO MORE FRIGIN’ Z-PINCH!
So, “[t]o refresh [and rephrase] my question”: What is the source of that ubiquitous ‘electric current’ that steadily maintains the “Z-pinch” over millions of years?
EVIDENCE AND CITATIONS, PLEASE! THANK YOU!
Can we please vote anaconda off the blog?
@ Ivan3Man:
What causes the so-called “big bang”? Point being, that not everything is known, if it was then it wouldn’t be cutting edge Science, now would it?
@ Nereid2: You write of two bodies (stars), but has that actually been observed & measured as such or is that an interpretation of the data?
Apparently not.
From the post: “A thick disc of dust, which must have been produced during the last outburst, obscures the two central stars.”
And:
“Such supernovae most likely arise in systems composed of two stars, one of them being the end product of the life of sun-like stars, or white dwarfs.”
To highlight: “…most likely arise in systems composed of two stars…”
So, even the researchers acknowledge there is no observation & measurement of two stars, rather, it is an assumption based on the gravity “only” model — get it, the model dictates the analysis & interpretation and, thus, the conclusions.
It is a “but for” test. But for the assumption of the two stars, there would be no way that the gravity “only” model could explain the hourglass shape.
The Pasma Cosmology, “electromagnetic model”, analysis & interpretation and conclusion doesn’t need the assumption of two stars.
Remember Occam’s razor: The simplist explanation probably is the best explanation.
“The Pasma Cosmology, “electromagnetic model”, analysis & interpretation and conclusion doesn’t need the assumption of two stars.”
That’s because it has it’s own set of assumptions, like an interstellar and intergalactic power supplies that have so far not been observed.
@ Nancy Atkinson
Anaconda’s posts are again “Personal Theory”.
Please remove them, for all our sakes, as they are against the basic precept “…promote your personal theories. ”
Thank you.
@ ND:
To some extent you are right, although, the question has to be raised, how hard have conventional astronomers looked for such “power supplies” since and as “power supples” aren’t within their model?
(Could these power supplies be beyond our observational capability? Or could they be within our observational capability, but unrecognized as such?)
And, not findng something hasn’t stopped conventional astronomers from assuming “dark” matter, “dark” energy, and even “dark” flow to save their model.
And, actually, there is indirect evidence of power supples, in that there are filaments that apparently connect the galaxies:
“Astronomers have known since the early 1990s that galaxies cluster in filaments and sheets surrounding vast voids in space. Now, an international team of astronomers has found that spiral galaxies, like the Milky Way, line up like beads on a string, with their spin axes aligned with the filaments that outline voids.”
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/default.aspx?c=a&id=4215
And there are other indirect evidences.
As I stated to Ivan3Man’s question or was it a demand, not having all the answers apparently doesn’t invalidate a model.
Crumb, they aren’t “personal theories”.
Sigh.
Anaconda, do you remember me saying that behind everything you read, in (astro)physics, there’s a truly staggering amount of background? That there are hundreds, possibly MILLIONS, of observations?
Did you think that the ONLY things known about V445 Pup are those contained within this UT article?!?!?
V445 Pup is a (classical) nova, a kind of variable star that has been studied for centuries; there are >900 records in ADS with “V445 Pup” in the title alone!!!
What does this mean?
Among other things, it means that “[t]he Pasma Cosmology, “electromagnetic model”, analysis & interpretation and conclusion” (whatever that might be) needs to account for all the (centuries-worth) observations of (classical) novae … the photometry, the spectroscopy, the light-curves, … the whole kit and kaboodle.
Do you have a reference – to a paper, preferably, which at least outlines how this magical idea of yours accounts for a decent subset of all the relevant astronomical observations (not only of V445 Pup, but also of novae)?
@Anaconda: surely even you must acknowledge that this is about as direct a declaration that what you have presented is your own, personal, theory as one could imagine?
These are your own, personal, interpretations of word-level summaries of detailed, quantitative observational results (and your own, personal, interpretations of some plasma physics material).
But this is a question which can easily, and quickly, be settled … simply provide a reference (to a paper, published in a relevant peer-reviewed paper) which presents a model of (classical) novae as being powered by a ‘z-pinch process’ (and which accounts for all the relevant astronomical observations, quantitatively).
If you can, then what you have presented is not your own, personal theory; if you can’t, then it is (and so your comments need to be deleted).
Fair enough?
Your aberrant and destructive behaviour is no longer acceptable.
We played nice, we’ve played hard-ball, we’ve even tried to guide you to a more balanced approach.
You won’t listen, and you won’t learn.
My advice to anyone who posts here, should begin pointing out that Anaconda’s view expressed here are his own and have not been remotely proven.
I would also personally suggest that;
Note: I’ve been so disgusted with the propaganda methods by “Anaconda”, that I have already begun writing a suitable article to be printed on arvix “Popular Physics”, that will expose the tactics of this individual and EU supporters.
Maybe quoting Anaconda and dragging his name through the mud might “quelling his enthusiasm” somewhat – if you get my drift. .
One way or another, Anaconda, this is going to end.
Oh, I forgot.
The number of citations might be truly “astronomical”
To follow on from my last comment, about the enormous about of material on novae …
… there are literally hundreds of papers on novae being binaries; many are eclipsing binaries, many are spectroscopic binaries (DQ Her is particularly well-studied).
Once you, Anaconda, have had a chance to review these hundreds of papers (and the detailed, quantitative, observations on which they are based), if you still wish to claim that (classical) novae are NOT binaries, please write up your findings as a paper, and submit it (to ApJ, say) … your paper will overturn many decades of research, and you may well get a call from Stockholm not long afterwards …
Scratch that, there are thousands of papers on the binary (star) nature CVs (cataclysmic variables, of which classical novae are but one kind) … one ADS search I did turned up over 100,000 hits*!
* not all are papers, of course, and not all are necessarily on CVs being binaries, …
Oh miss Nereid2!
How dare you question the great insight and knowledge of that astrophysical denizen known here as “Anaconda”
He is absolutely right in everything he does and says. Astronomers would be absolutely lost without his genius. Burn all the textbooks – there wrong – sack all the astrophysicists, those terrible heathens who dare to question his unquestionable authority.
Please, I ask you, next time show some more respect!
Today, an interesting article was released on arvix, entitled, “Thermonuclear explosions of rapidly rotating white dwarfs – II. Detonations” http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3545
Much of the earlier (sensible) discussion to this article relates to it.
From the paper, they say; “In this work, we revisit the scenario of promptly detonating carbon-oxygen (CO) WDs.”
(Part 1 immediately precedes this one)
The earlier slightly more general article is;
“Thermonuclear explosions of rapidly rotating white dwarfs – I. Deflagrations”
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3540
@ Nereid2;
This article says on pg, 1
(Sound familiar??)
You can’t get more up to date than this – hours mind you -not days or material two or three decades ago!
(Pity deflagration doesn’t work with some people, here. It’s probably illegal to do so)
Is “angular momentum” related to the energy contained in a rotating body, or is this just another gravity “only” model??
Without trying to overrun these comments, there is a critical point stated in the first paper presented above, where the authors conclude;
This goes well in what Lawrence B. Crowell has said in an earlier comment here. Thank you Lawrence for piquing my interest in this interesting topic!
I’m left wondering about the overt hostility? And the explicitly stated desire to suppress?
Nereid2 requests:
So here is a non-inclusive series of Plasma Cosmology papers:
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/papers.html
More peer-reviewed papers (not all are cosmological).
http://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/peer-reviewed-papers
No, these are not “personal theories”.
Anaconda said;
“No, these are not “personal theories”.
Yes they are.
…and what the hell has cosmology got to do with it?
Idiot!
@ Nancy Atkinson
Anaconda’s posts are again “Personal Theory”.
Please remove them, for all our sakes, as they are against the basic precept “…promote your personal theories. ”
Thank you.
“And the explicitly stated desire to suppress?”
Playing the %&#@ing victim again.
We just want to suppress your absolute &@#%ing stupidity.
@Anaconda: there’s nothing personal about plasma physics … but the idea that (classical) novae are z-pinches most certainly is!
To repeat: please cite a paper, published in a relevant, peer-reviewed journal, which presents a model for novae being z-pinches.
Have I ever said that this is sad?
Btw: Only as a side-note. Anaconda, there are physical reasons that we can’t tell where the Big Bang comes from. You wouldn’t understand them, because they are in the realm of quantum mechanics.
On the other hand, it was you who said that there are questions science will never know the answers for. So, this is a nice excuse for you, why there are no power supplies in space for your magical currents. But why don’t you accept the same argument for the Big Bang? Why is it proper for PC but not for the BB? You do not apply the same rules and standards for everything.
This is dishonest, non-credible and NOT scientific.
Ok Anaconda.
Where is the observational evidence in novae for Kolmogorov type power spectra?
As far as I know, it has only been produced in the lab here on Earth. It has been observed in few astrophysical phenomena, let alone is nova. What was the wavelength of that power spectrum again?
Show us the citation, please, that directly refers to novae!!
Anaconda likely source of his crazy views or from the IEEE Transsactions of Plasma Science, Vo.l 35, 4, Aug (2007)
Thornhill, W. “The Z-Pinch Morphology of Supernova 1987A and Electric Stars”
The conclusion and the abstract says;
‘If the bipolar Z-pinch pattern is introduced to explain supernovae and planetary nebulae, a new electrical theory of stars is required.”
As yet, such a “new electrical theory of stars” is pure speculation at best, and remains totally unproven on an astrophysical level.
Engineers trying to prove astrophysical phenomena is nuts.
This can be viewed at;
http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?tp=&arnumber=4287093&isnumber=4287017
Note: You cannot download the paper. Wonder why?
Intersting find, HSBC.
As chance would have it, I have a copy of that document, and a most remarkable document it is!
Have you ever seen an astrophysics paper, on stars (of any kind) that is completely devoid of numbers? Well, this one by Thornhill comes close; the mechanisms (or processes) proposed (to be responsible for SN1987A) are described only with words … no equations, not even any numbers*.
It gets worse.
There seems to be no attempt to show any connection between ‘theory’ and observations, except ‘bunny rabbit pictures’ (‘oh look, this cloud looks like a bunny rabbit!’).
It gets even worse.
The foundation of the idea presented is, yep, you guessed it, Electric Sun … and yep, you guessed it, no equations, no calculations, no estimates, no attempt to match ‘theory’ to observations.
In short, the very antithesis of science.
FWIW, IIRC, the publication of this document caused some consternation among IEEE members …
* one exception: ’28’ and ’56’
Figured. Thornhill is the core source of the problem here. I’ve been gathering evidence, and it is no doubt the source of much of Anaconda’s central protestations – he almost paraphrases it, but sadly doesn’t understand it – and as you say here – nor does Thornhill.
I also love the description of the idea of the presumed “new plasma cosmology.”
Keep that paper at hand – Sorley and Anaconda use it as their manifesto.
Where else did he get the quote;
“The answer is easy to explain: The processes governoring the processes are the same. The Z- pinch process constrains both how a star forms and how it ends. In the ending senario, the current is increased until the circuit overloads and explodes, i.e., exploding double layers.”
Not only is he a fraud and dishonest, he’s now also a plagiarist as well!
HSBC: that text string is not in the Thornhill document, nor is any decent-sized contiguous subset.
According to Google, the only place on the internet with it is here, in this UT story comment section.
Perhaps the EU cult has gone underground? Perhaps, instead of posting stuff in the open, on the hollowscience or thunderdolts websites, leading cult members get emails from the cult leaders, replete with text strings like this?
I’ve actually seen these seen these words on Thuberbolts.info, which is conducted by Thornhill.
The words “exploding double layers” apparently are attributed to Alfen.
What is interesting is the article “Electric Sun Verifies”
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/thornhill.htm
Checkout this
http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/051011elec-nova.htm
Tom Bridgman demolishes the first, here
The second reads very much like the IEEE document … mostly “bunny rabbit science”.
Dr Flimmer,
In one sense we might consider the question of “where did the big bang come from” as maybe inappropriate. However, the configuration for the universe is clearly involved with quantum mechanics. The universe has a vacuum energy associated with a Ricci curvature. This manifests itself in what we call dark energy. The vacuum quantum field configuration for this universe is such that it can quantum tunnel some element of this vacuum energy into a spacetime “bubble.” This vacuum configuration the sets the inflation of this bubble and there is an associated spacetime cosmology — a new universe. This is the whole idea of the multiverse, which at least seems to have some merit to it as at least telling us something about the quantum nature of the partition function or path integral of the universe. So we might of course presume that our observable universe is due to a vacuum bubble tunneling in the string/M-bulk to inflate into spacetime we now call our cosmology. So we then have some idea of what is the origin of our whole spacetime universe, though this is not exactly for everything. However. in the entire superspace these bubbles may have a range of time directions, so in total there is a timelessness to the system. What we observe as time is a local orientation of fields, similar to say an induced Hall current by a magnetization fluctuation. The recent findings of B-modes in the CMB by the Planck spacecraft are supportive of inflationary cosmology. Yet inflationary cosmology as a purely local theory has serious deficiencies, which are corrected for by extending this into supergravity & strings with multiverse interpretations. These are very fascinating things to work on and to ponder.
Of course many regard these as over speculative, yet in general our perspectives on the universe have consistently expanded. It was only 500 years ago that in the western world it was though the universe was centered around the Earth, as the biggest thing in it, with concentric spheres bearing the celestial realm extending maybe some 10s of thousands of kilometers out. At the time of Newton the universe consisted of the solar system and the “fixed stars” out at uncertain distances, Eiinstein saw the universe as encompassing the Milky Way, then came Hubble, then with inflationary cosmology are pocket regions or universes, and the multiverse and then … . The universe refuses to be bounded by what we can impose.
Lawrence B. Crowell
Hey folks — don’t feed the trolls and they might go away.
The question that raised this series of interesting comments was whether Z – pinch processes related to stars near exploding (instant post) and star processes in general was “my personal theories”.
The research by Crumb and Nereid2 shows it is not “my personal theory”.
Ironically, considering the subtext of the discussion, I associate myself with the final sentence in Lawrence B. Crowell’s comment:
“The universe refuses to be bounded by what we can impose.”
Obviously, we differ on almost everything else, but at least we can agree on that one sentence.
I add the following passage and source link to Crumb’s and Nereid2’s research:
“Space plasma researchers and pulse power engineers have long speculated that the progenitor of intense auroras, protoplanetary and planetary nebula, and supernovae is the Z- pinch, as both display the temporal, morphological, and radiation properties that are found in high-energy density plasma produced in laboratory and extreme high current explosive test experiments.” — A. L. Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory
http://plasmascience.net/tpu/downloads/Editorial-IEEETPSAug07-CosmicPlasma.pdf
These are not my “personal theories”.
@ Lawrence B. Crowell
Thanks a lot. My knowledge about these topics (of which you are obviously an expert 😉 ) is rather rudimentary. My intention was to state that quantum mechanics “helps” us to avoid things like singularities. At some point Heisenberg’s uncertainty principle wants to play, too. But I also think that, before we can really dig into such problems, we need a theory of quantum gravity.
My point was to show that Anaconda treats the different “theories” with different standards. It is useless to try to explain the implications of QM to him. He will neither listen nor learn.
According to his knowledge, BB and PC face at some point a fundamental problem. But he accepts it for PC and not for the BB. And this is dishonest!
That was my intention.
Still: Thanks for the explanation. Truly fascinating!
Nancy Atkinson is right. Anaconda is looking for a heated debate. He loves it. And we keep engaging him out of habit. His drive is to rub into other people’s faces on how wrong they are and he thrives on this. It’s personal and it’s clear from his dishonest tactics. I think it’s time to cut Anaconda loose and let him live in his delusions of scientific adequacy.
DrFlimmer says “My point was to show that Anaconda treats the different “theories” with different standards. It is useless to try to explain the implications of QM to him. He will neither listen nor learn.”
Yes because he has taken sides when there should be none in science. For him there is an us vs them. It’s belief for him. And this kind of mentality is infuriating and drives some of us to debate him.
For what it’s worth, here is an image that resembles the image at the head of the post:
The image provides a visual example of a cylindrical Z – pinch for the hypothesis outlined by Dr. Anthony Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, in the proceeding link:
http://www.holoscience.com/news/img/Planetary%20nebula%20M2-9.jpg
@Torbjorn Larsson OM: I’m not familiar with Deutsch, but I certainly agree that a black box predictor is both useless (as science) and does not exist (at least in astrophysics).
You commented on “quantitative”; perhaps it’s worth expanding a bit on it …
First, I want to be clear that I’m not talking about any other part of science, just astrophysics (which, perforce, includes a great deal of physics … but not all of it).
Second, I want to emphasise the key role of objective, independently verifiable astronomical observations … an (astrophysics) explanation can only be convincing if addresses all such, relevant, observations (this is, thus, a necessary, but not sufficient, condition; consistency is also necessary).
But why must all convincing explanations be quantitative?
Because the observations that any such explanation seeks to satisfactorily address are themselves quantitative!
Take what almost all of astronomy is about … the detection of photons/electromagnetic radiation. At its most basic, an astronomical observation is a 2D, time-varying, SED (spectral energy distribution) (polarisation may also be applicable) … and it’s all data, quantitative data.
Turn this around … an explanation along the lines of “the progenitor of [phenomenon A] is [mechanism B], as both display the temporal, morphological, and radiation properties that are found in [phenomenon C]” is not a convincing explanation, and can never be (unless and until “the temporal, morphological, and radiation properties” are quantified).
I agree that to be convincing, an explanation also needs to have a (successful!) predictive component …
@ND: yes, that’s the classic description of a troll … and the most important thing to remember, concerning trolls, is to not feed them.
@Anaconda: my last attempt to engage you in a discussion …
I repeat my offer, made many times, now: I am more than willing to have a science-based discussion with you; however, I will only do so if you agree to put the time and effort in to establishing common understanding on which any such discussion must be based. To that end, I have proposed – also several times now – that we first work on consistency as an essential component.
If you’re OK with this, then please say so explicitly; if not, or if you don’t respond explicitly, then I will not respond to any further comments you may make, here in UT story comments.
With one exception: I am interested to hear your comments on what I wrote concerning ‘convincing explanation’ (in astrophysics).
ND is largely right. Unless Anaconda is restricted by the powers at UT he will continue this. It is about endorphines, which give people a certain rush when they feel they have scored some sort of coup. Maybe if he is just ignored this will tamp down.
Dr Flimmer, I am sort of an expert. I read the papers and have in the past published a few on these issues. I read the papers by those who regularly publish on these matters. I will say that to be honest there is a lot of confusion out there. Yet this is to be expected from a topic like this at the frontiers of knowledge. I am working on a sort of “Magnum Opus” on this, which might in the end crash and burn for all I know. I think there is an underlying basis to current string and M-theoretic models.
LC
@ Nereid2:
Nereid2 wrote: “With one exception: I am interested to hear your comments on what I wrote concerning ‘convincing explanation’ (in astrophysics).”
First, if you looked at the link from which the cited passage was drawn, you would know it was a summary statement from a caption for two images side-by-side that led off the article.
Obviously, it was not meant as a quantitative exercise. Rather, it was offered to demonstrate that the Z- pinch approach is not my “personal theory”.
Second, regarding your “quantitative” passage:
Yes, ultimately quantitative precision is desirable, even necessary for high resolution physical understanding and predictive power.
But the failure to apply the correct model is fatal.
Qualitative understanding has its place in the building steps to ultimate scientific understanding.
It does not matter how precise the quantitative observations & measurements are if the wrong model is applied to the observations & measurements — something already stated in my comments on this post.
If the qualitative understanding is faulty then faulty analysis & interpretations and conclusions will result.
Also, if the observations & measurements relationship to the physical forces acting on object is misinterpreted then it doesn’t matter how precise the quantification is — it will still be wrong.
Also, if the presumed physical forces that are quantified do not represent the active physical forces on the object, again, quantification alone will not result in a correct physical understanding of the object.
The above statements are different ways to say the same thing, Namely: if the model is wrong, quantified precision won’t correct it.
Astronomy has made a number of assumptions and those control the conclusions.
And even when the observations & measurements by astronomy’s own conventions falsify the model, ad hocs are added to save the model from being falsified.
As regarding your offer: It is hollow. it is simply an offer to accept your model and accept the analysis & interpretation that flow from that model and to accept what certain observations & measurements mean and agreeing to your definition of which observations & measurements are important and which are not.
That is not discussion, that is dictation and non-productive.
I don’t accept your model and its corresponding conventions. And apparently you don’t accept my model and its corresponding conventions.
So, it comes down to which model makes more sense based on the scientific evidence and known physical relationships.
Of which we have sharp disagreements.
The surprises and anomalies reported by astronomers and fudge factors required to make the conventional model work suggest proper weight is presently not being applied to the various observations & measurements and other observations & measurements are being misinterpreted at this point in time by astronomers.
So far, considering what is known of the solar system by in situ observation & measurement and what is known of plasma behavior as learned through plasma physics experiments as suggested by Dr. Anthony Peratt, Los Alamos National Laboratory, in the above linked article by same and others’ work, the Plasma Cosmology model is the correct model.
Once the correct model is applied, correct analysis & interpretation will flow from present quantified observation & measurement and new ideas for further observations & measurements will flow from that to test the validity of the prior conclusions resulting in increased quantification which will produce higher resolution understanding & predictive power.
@Anaconda: thanks for responding so quickly, and, in the case of my offer, so clearly.
I also appreciate your comments on my few words on ‘convincing explanatioin’.
One last thing, perhaps, for you to consider: how does one go about deciding if a model* is “correct”? or, perhaps, is “wrong”? Is there a method – or, maybe, methods – by which any such decision can be said to be objective? independently verifiable?
Have a nice life.
* OK, two: what is a “model”?
Here is another interesting and very relevant to the discussion here arivx paper;
“Magnetic Field Evolution of White Dwarfs in Strongly Interacting Binary Star Systems” Potter and Tout
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0911.3657
Yet another gravity “only” mode…
Anaconda:
I am aware of that, but what I meant by “magical”, when I referred to the “Z-pinch”, was that, on this planet Earth, the Z-pinch requires some source of power: in lightning, it is convection currents building up a static charge in clouds; in the laboratory, it is from a generator and/or bank of capacitors — but what about in space…?
I suggest that you read this article, “The Con-Artist Physics of “Ocean’s Eleven”“, from which this extract (emphasis mine) is taken from:
The same principle of physics applies to the vacuum of space in the Universe.
Furthermore, since you did not answer my question, the reason why it’s so bloody difficult, if not impossible, to achieve fusion with a Z-pinch is that the plasma within a Z-pinch quickly becomes unstable and breaks up before it can compressed to these levels, and applying the current more quickly, with a large bank of capacitors, simply makes it break up faster. The analogy is like trying to squeeze jelly in your clenched fist: the tighter your fingers — like the magnetic field lines — try to squeeze the jelly, the more it will squeeze out from between your fingers; it is the same problem with plasma, which is why it results in instability.
That’s why I referred to the ‘cosmic Z-pinch’ as “magical”; how is it that this phenomenon can just occur spontaneously in space and ‘power’ the “Electric Sun” and stars, but controlled fusion cannot easily be achieved in perfectly controlled laboratory conditions here on Earth?
Nevertheless, you still expect us to buy your bloody “he’s not dead, he’s ‘resting'” parrot!
My god. That’s it. Anaconda is the parrot shop owner! Then what does that make us? I’m not buying the talking slug!
Ha! EU/PC would not voom if you put 5 million volts through it! (said with an English accent of course)
Err… my post above was meant for the “X” Marks Puzzling Galactic Bulge thread, but never mind, I wrote it out on WordPad, so I’ll just repost it over there…