Neutron Star

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by RajeshTrivedi, Apr 7, 2015.

  1. BennettLink Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    The fields are expected to decay over about 10^5 yr, and that decay is thought to be releasing the energy that drives explosions and other phenomena observed in these objects.

    The intense magnetic field rapidly spins down these objects, so they are rotating slowly now with periods of 4-8 s, typically.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. BennettLink Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    There is no evidence that magnetars produce jets, though they do produce explosions.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Ahhh, OK thanks Professor.
    I was thinking along the lines that since the hypothesis of what causes these polar jets with BHs...that is angular momentum and twisted magnetic field lines, may also apply to Magnatars. But as you say, since they have only been seen in isolation, it wouldn't apply anyway.
    Appreciate all the other answers also...thanks.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Just found an interesting article.....

    Astronomers See a Magnetar Form
    by FRASER CAIN on JANUARY 8, 2004

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Image credit: NASA

    A team of astronomers were lucky enough to observe the rare event of a neutron star turning into a magnetic object called a magnetar. Ten magnetars have been seen to date, but this object, a transient magnetar, is brand new. A normal neutron star is the rapidly spinning remnant of a star that went supernova; they typically possess a very strong magnetic field. A magnetar is similar, but it has a magnetic field up to 1,000 times as strong as a neutron star. This new discovery could indicate that magnetars are more common in the Universe than previously thought.

    In a lucky observation, scientists say they have discovered a neutron star in the act of changing into a rare class of extremely magnetic objects called magnetars. No such event has been witnessed definitively until now. This discovery marks only the tenth confirmed magnetar ever found and the first transient magnetar.

    The transient nature of this object, discovered in July 2003 with NASA’s Rossi X-ray Timing Explorer, may ultimately fill in important gaps in neutron star evolution. Dr. Alaa Ibrahim of George Washington University and NASA Goddard Space Flight Center in Greenbelt, Md., presents this result today at the meeting of the American Astronomical Society in Atlanta.

    A neutron star is the core remains of a star at least eight times more massive than the Sun that exploded in a supernova event. Neutron stars are highly compact, highly magnetic, fast-spinning objects with about a Sun’s worth of mass compressed into a sphere roughly ten miles in diameter.

    A magnetar is up to a thousand times more magnetic than ordinary neutron stars. At a hundred trillion (10^14) Gauss, they are so magnetic that they could strip a credit card clean at a distance of 100,000 miles. The Earth’s magnetic field, in comparison, is about 0.5 Gauss, and a strong refrigerator magnet is about 100 Gauss. Magnetars are brighter in X rays than they are in visible light, and they are the only stars known that shine predominantly by magnetic power.

    The observation presented today supports the theory that some neutron stars are born with these ultrahigh magnetic fields, but they may be at first too dim to see and measure. In time, however, these magnetic fields act to slow the neutron star’s spin. This act of slowing releases energy, making the star brighter. Additional disturbances in the star’s magnetic field and crust can make it brighter yet, leading to the measurement of its magnetic field. The newly discovered star, dim as recent as a year ago, is named XTE J1810-197.

    “The discovery of this source came courtesy of another magnetar that we were monitoring, named SGR 1806-20,” said Ibrahim. He and his colleagues detected XTE J1810-197 with the Rossi Explorer about a degree to the northeast of SGR 1806-20, within the Milky Way galaxy about 15,000 light years away in the constellation Sagittarius.

    Scientists pinpointed the location of the source with NASA’s Chandra X-ray Observatory, which provides more accurate positioning than Rossi. Checking archive data from the Rossi Explorer, Dr. Craig Markwardt of NASA Goddard estimated that XTE J1810-197 became active (that is, 100 times brighter than before) around January 2003. Looking back even further with archived data from ASCA and ROSAT, two decommissioned international satellites, the team could spot XTE J1810-197 as a very dim, isolated neutron star as early as 1990. Thus, the history of XTE J1810-197 emerged.

    The inactive state of XTE J1810-197, Ibrahim said, was similar to that of other puzzling objects called Compact Central Objects (CCOs) and Dim Isolated Neutron Stars (DINSs). These objects are thought to be neutron stars created in the hearts of star explosions, and some still reside there, but they are too dim to study in detail.

    One mark of a neutron star is its magnetic field. But to measure this, scientists need to know the neutron star’s spin period and the rate that it is slowing down, called the “spin down”. When XTE J1810-197 lit up, the team could measure its spin (1 revolution per 5 seconds, typical of magnetars), its spin down, and thus its magnetic field strength (300 trillion Gauss).

    In the alphabet soup of neutron stars, there are also Anomalous X-ray Pulsars (AXPs) and Soft Gamma-ray Repeaters (SGRs). Both of these are now considered to be the same kind of objects, magnetars; and another presentation at today’s meeting by Dr. Peter Woods et al. supports this connection. These objects periodically but unpredictably erupt with X-ray and gamma-ray light. CCOs and DINSs appear not to have a similar active state.

    Although the concept is still speculative, an evolutionary pattern may be emerging, Ibrahim said. The same neutron star, endowed with an ultrahigh magnetic field, may pass through each of these four phases during its lifetime. The proper order, however, remains unclear. “Discussion of such a pattern has surfaced in the scientific community in recent years, and XTE J1810-197’s transient nature provides the first tangible evidence in favor of such a kinship,” Ibrahim said. “With a few more examples of stars showing a similar trend, a magnetar family tree may emerge.”

    “The observation implies that magnetars could be more common than what is seen but exist in a prolonged dim state,” said team member Dr. Jean Swank of NASA Goddard.

    “Magnetars seem now to be in a perpetual carnival mode; SGRs are turning into AXPs and AXPs can start behaving like SGRs anytime and without warning,” said team member Dr. Chryssa Kouveliotou of NASA Marshall, who is receiving the Rossi Award at the AAS meeting for her work on magnetars. “What started with a few odd sources, may soon be proven to encompass a huge number of objects in our Galaxy.”

    Additional supporting data came from the Interplanetary Network and the Russian-Turkish Optical Telescope. Ibrahim’s colleagues on this observation also include Dr. William Parke of George Washington University; Drs. Scott Ransom, Mallory Roberts and Vicky Kaspi of McGill University; Dr. Peter Woods of NASA Marshall; Dr. Samar Safi-Harb of the University of Manitoba; Dr. Solen Balman of the Middle East Technical University in Ankara; and Dr. Kevin Hurley of University of California at Berkeley. Drs. Eric Gotthelf and Jules Halpern of Columbia University provided important data from Chandra.
    from:
    http://www.universetoday.com/9180/astronomers-see-a-magnetar-form/

    Wow! I didn't know that Magnatars could show so many faces!
    And this article was from 2004.
     
    brucep likes this.
  8. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Prof Bennett Link

    Thank you, and welcome on-board, this thread has taken a very educative turn due to your arrival.

    Regarding upper mass limit of the BH, there is a thermodynamic treatment in following paper, which I was referring to.....from the paper I am not able to figure out if the same is peer reviewed or not, you are a better judge about the subject...

    http://cds.cern.ch/record/519241/files/0109057.pdf

    On the questions, further to your specific comments...

    1. I am not able to comprehend that when the NS collapses from 4/3Rs to Rs and then to 0, why the causality violation condition will not arrive ? Is it because of some unknown change in the compressibility (state of matter) or may be it would explode, and some part would get in its Rs ?

    2. About the upper mass limit, the detailed discussion is on the acquired upper mass of the BH, what about the original core collapse mass ? is there any upper limit on this aspect ? The reason is higher the core mass, higher the Rs and hence for a very high core the degeneracy may not come by when the core > Rs ? It may come by only when the core becomes < Rs...
     
  9. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    You think that is a bad thing? In a forum with far higher general standards than this one, very often when someone posts a link(s) to an article in a subscription based and/or pay-per-view journal, the complaint invariably comes back "that's behind a paywall - no way will I fork out $$ just to see if it makes sense." Very often a little searching will find the arXiv equivalent - but very often it will not. Surely you are aware the trend to open-access has been taking hold for an entirely good reason - making scientific progress as widely accessible as possible. Having to pay typically $30-40 just to read a single article is a huge disincentive to that end. Even formerly pure subscription based prestige journals now offer if not out right encourage authors to make their article open-access (by charging higher publishing fee). I know that owing to have spent a few days recently scouring through many of the pure or hybrid open-access physics journals out there.
    I suppose there is a tenuous connection between archaeology and astronomy/astrophysics (ancient records of e.g. supernova), but it sort of seems odd that an astronomical/astrophysics journal is critically reviewed in an archaeological blog. Anyway, charging authors a fee is overwhelmingly the norm for science journals - not just open access. There are a few open-access journals that charge no article publishing fee.
    However what alarmed me about SCIRP was the policy of up-front fee charging - before any 'peer review' or acceptance had taken place! Could find no mention of at least a partial refund in the case of article rejection. Best I know, that dubious policy seems unique to SCIRP.
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
  10. BennettLink Registered Member

    Messages:
    24

    Q-reeus-

    I am a strong advocate for open access; scientific results should be available to everyone. The main astronomy and astrophysics journals that I listed have open access after 1-2 years. Many journals give the author an option to pay a bit more for immediate open access. It used to be that you could not see any of the scientific literature unless you went to a library with a subscription, usually very expensive for the library. But even then, all that was required was a trip to the library with a subscription. So, in effect, there has always been open access, just not open on-line access which people have come to expect.

    I was cautioning against journals and publishers, such as SCIRP, that claim "open access", but let their authors pay to avoid the peer review process. Those kinds of journals are worthless, and are a publishing vehicle for authors whose work would never survive the peer-review process, such as crackpots.

    The positive progress towards open access has been forced almost completely by the creation of the arXiv. Though not true in all fields, most people in astronomy and astrophysics put their work there, while also submitting their work to a publication with peer review. Publishers realized that they risked becoming obsolete when anyone can read the arXiv for free.

    Best,

    Bennett
     
    Q-reeus likes this.
  11. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    Wasn't aware of that. Good to know 'patience' is rewarded.
    Yes, I remember the days and nights spent scouring catalogs and 'readers' at Uni libraries. Rightly we expect far less time & distance consuming means nowadays.
    Figured that was your real angle, but for me at least something got lost in the translation.
    Three cheers for arXiv. Glad this has all gotten clarified. Best I add my own (belated) welcome to you Prof. Link!
     
  12. BennettLink Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
     
    Last edited: Apr 27, 2015
    paddoboy and OnlyMe like this.
  13. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Hi Professor [or any of our other online experts]....Before I head off on a scheduled busy day, just one more general question on Neutron stars and White Dwarf stars.
    Which is hotter, and which would maintain its heat longer before radiating it away?
    I know a WD takes many millions, even billions of years to cool down, [possibly longer then the current age of the Universe] and become a Black dwarf or cinder, and as yet we have never been able to discover a Black cinder after it has lost all its heat.
    On the other hand, finding such a beast would be notoriously difficult I would imagine.
     
  14. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    First and foremost, I was not aware of any aspect of any publishers reputability at the time of my first submission. The name and the site sounded pretty good, and I am sure out of thousands of papers, there must be some real good stuff out there.

    It is incorrect to say that they charged upfront fee, this was charged only when paper was cleared for publication, I sent the paper online, got a mail after couple of weeks suggesting certain changes after review, I sent the file after making those changes, they accepted and asked for fee, which was very nominal.

    Many a times during googling, we are referred back to online payment stuff to read even a single paper, and charges are really pinching for a single article....These things must change.
     
  15. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525
    Prof Bennett,

    1.
    .........Special Relativity asserts that measurement of the speed of light will always be c, in any reference frame. That ensures causality. GR, the generalization of SR to account for gravity, makes the same assumption, and so is causal by construction...........


    There is no dispute about above. But please kindly throw some light, how do we handle the situation when our computations lead to a situation wherein such violation may take place...

    I repeat the existing question.........the figure of 4/3 Rs is calculated based on causality condition and if the core falls below 4/3Rs, then mathematically it gives rise to a condition wherein causality appears violated.....but that cannot happen........so logical conclusion is that either core does not become smaller than 4/3Rs, or something else happens like explosion or deformation of core or ......?*1

    2.

    ..............Little to nothing is known about how these super massive black holes were formed in the first place.......

    This rests the second question. Thank you.


    *1 : Pl refer to Ehrenfest paradox, it is settled with sound explanation, so SR/GR (and nature of course) cannot allow violation of light speed in the context, and there has to be reasonable explainable mechanism.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  16. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    When you first raised the issue about publishing your "hypothesis"in another thread, I at least mentioned about reputability of some publishing companies, and so to did others.
    Yes, you were well aware of that fact.

    On your paper in general, and as I have mentioned many many times, in essence you are claiming GR is invalid due to many violations of what it tells us.
    On the critique of your paper and the critique of the many other invalid points you have put, by many other professional experts, in at least half a dozen threads, you really just seem unable to accept the logic that shows your anti BH stance to be unsupportable. And again, that is the essence of all this railing against mainstream cosmology..And your view that BHs do not exist.
    So to reinforce that stance, you have manufactured many scenarios obvious in past threads, from the fact in your opinion we cannot assign angular momentum to the Kerr metric, to your denial against the fact that once the Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory, to refuting the fact that gravity inside BHs overcome all other forces including the strong nuclear.
    Of course Professor Link would not be aware of those other claims, so maybe the time is now right to raise them again, and highlight your agenda and your apparent mission here to invalidate GR.
    Nothing wrong with that in itself, but you are far from being an expert in BH cosmology, and you stubbornly refuse to accept all legitimate criticism of your stance.

    You need to overcome your stubborn streak, and accept that your paper along with your other many claims are in error, and unsupportable.
     
  17. Q-reeus Banned Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,695
    I will agree with both those points, and admit their Information for Authors page at http://www.scirp.org/aboutUs/ForAuthors.aspx is quite impressive and seems to tick all the right boxes. However as per your experience and Prof. Link's remarks born of familiarity with the range of journals out there, claims and reality do not always coincide. There is simply no way your paper should have passed external peer review, and surprised it needed to go further than Editor's desk. Think about sending them a please explain message maybe linking back to this thread!
    Err yes I unreservedly retract my claim against SCIRP on that matter. Had somehow misread the following lines that appear under http://www.scirp.org/Journal/APC.aspx?JournalID=490
    Interpreted that to mean "We don't request - we require - and at time of submission." It's made clear elsewhere there that publication fee is only due after acceptance. My bad.
     
  18. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525

    I need not discuss anything substantial on the subject with you.......GR is valid or invalid, all of you miserably failed to pin point...what and how of GR got invalidated, you had no idea till prof intervened....

    You organized the pointed question answer from Prof Hamilton, but you did not organize how and why of sound speed > c appearing in BNS, because it is not......you also did not arrange the answer for the question how and why 4/3Rs will be overcome during collapse towards singularity....
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  19. RajeshTrivedi Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,525

    Since, Brucep analyzed the path time from r = 2M to r= 0 for such mass collapse and made his point that it would take around 3.03 Days around 72 Hrs.......leaving aside how umbh/smbh/bh are formed, one question arises out of this calculation of Brucep...

    M = 40,000,000,000 solar mass.
    Rs = 2.9 M = 1.16 X 10^11 Kms = 116000000000 Kms
    Density when the core is at Rs = 0.0122 Kg / M^3

    (Note : This is not BH density, this is density of object when its size was 2M)

    (density of Air = 1.22 Kg / M^3...........100 times heavier !!)

    (assuming uniform distribution, non uniform density will give distribution parts having less than above density)

    The question is....how a gravitational object having density as low as 0.0122 Kg/M3 (Extremely rarefied) fall inside its own Rs..........clearly suggesting that a 40000000000 solar mass UMBH cannot form directly, that implies upper limit on the original mass of BH which can get formed due to core collapse.....It is also to be understood that for core mass > 3.24 Solar Mass (or some value around that) the NDP will manifest itself fully inside EH only, and the relativistic formula of causality violation < 4/3 Rs is applicable only in its domain for smaller cores. (obviously for this huge object in Brucep example the 4/3Rs value is meaningless, because causality will come by at much lower level that is at around 20000 Kms or so (while Rs is 116000000000 Kms) when NDP is actually overtaken and in the process at least making a transient BNS type structure....

    Another interesting question, when the object takes 72 Hrs from r = 2M to r = 0, so for such a large duration it will have an outer surface (p = 0), how ? Prof Bennett guides us that inside EH, calculations do not give p = 0, so the collapse has to be very dynamic...kind of fraction of second with huge explosion, it cannot be 72 Hrs......

    The best answer is we know a little to nothing about UMBH/SMBH (or should I say even the stellar size BH) formation.......that rests the controversy.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  20. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543
    Substantial or not, your overall anti mainstream cosmology claims were all refuted by many professors, and many reputable links which I supplied.
    You refuse to accept that fact.
    No I did not. So? I pointed out many of your errors in thinking, [some I have listed] and in all cases my points were supported by reputable links and all Professors that contributed.
    That leaves your paper and your other previous claims as nonsense.
    Grasping at straws again? We know enough about stellar BHs and even some SMBHs, to reasonably and logically conclude what GR predicts at least up to the Planck/Quantum level where GR fails.
    We know with confidence for instance, that any evidence of an ergosphere and angular momentum, can logically and reasonably be applied to the BH as a whole within the EH.
    We know enough about BHs and GR to realise that any photon emmitted just this side of the EH, directly radially away, will appear to hover there forever, never getting away and never secumbing from the local frame of reference.
    We know enough about BHs and GR to conclude that when a masses Schwarzchild radius is reached, further collapse is compulsory.
    We know enough about BH physics to understand that once inside the EH and on a path towards the Singularity, that gravity overcomes all other forces, including the strong nuclear.

    All this accepted cosmological/BH knowledge, although pretty basic, has all been refuted by you, even in the light expert opinion telling you, you are wrong.
    Professor Link being the latest.

    And of course the E-Mail I received myself from Professor Hamilton refuting all the claims you have made and supporting what all others here have been telling you
    Barry,

    > The question being debated is simply, can we logically and reasonably assign angular momentum to a ring singularity/mass, and the spacetime within the EH proper?

    A black hole is a place where space is falling faster than the speed of light.
    http://jila.colorado.edu/~ajsh/insidebh/waterfall.html
    The horizon is the place where space falls at the speed of light.
    Inside the horizon, space falls faster than light. That is why
    light cannot escape from a black hole.

    Light emitted directly upward from the horizon of a black hole
    stays there forever, barrelling outward at the speed of light
    through space falling at the speed of light. It takes an infinite
    time for light to lift off the horizon and make it to the outside
    world. Thus when you watch a star collapse to a black hole,
    you see it appear to freeze, and redshift and dim, at the horizon.

    Since gravity also propagates at the speed of light, gravity,
    like light, cannot escape from a black hole. The gravity you
    experience from a black hole is the gravity of the frozen star,
    not the gravity of whatever is inside the black hole.

    > Or are we only allowed to assign angular momentum [frame dragging] to the ergopshere?

    All the gravity, including the frame-dragging, is from the frozen star.

    > Is it not logical that if we observe frame dragging, we should be able to assume that we have a rotating mass?

    Indeed you have a rotating mass.

    > And is not angular momentum conserved by the mass that has collapsed to within its Schwarzchild radius to give us a BH?

    Yes.

    > Other questions that have arisen are...
    > Can we have massless Black holes held together by the non linearity of spacetime/gravity?


    A black hole has mass, whatever it might have been formed from.

    It is possible to form a black hole from gravitational waves
    focussed towards each other. Gravitational waves propagate
    in empty space, and locally cannot be distingished from empty space.
    Nevertheless they do curve space, and do carry energy.

    Hope this helps,
    Andrew
    [the parts in red were my questions which you totally denied]

    And another from Mitch Begalman directly on your paper and similar to Professor Link's reply although briefer.
    Re: Neutron stars/Black holes
    Mitch Begalman (mitch@jila.colorado.edu

    This is complete nonsense, since it is not based on any relativistic ideas of gravity. It seems to be based on the simple packing of rigid spheres, but physical spheres could not remain rigid inside the event horizon, since this would require the material composing the spheres to have an internal sound speed greater than the speed of light, which directly contradicts relativity. The fact that the author did not begin the paper by stating this (exceeding the speed of light) as a premise implies a deep ignorance of the subject of the paper.

    And yet you reject all there replies.
    That says a lot about you in actual fact and something that has been evident for some time, and which I have put down to stubborness, an Inflated ego, and delusions of grandeur.
     
  21. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    27,543

    And you have also been told that BH density is generally a meaningless concept for obvious reasons.
    The larger a BH is, the less dense they are.
    A BH is essentially just critically curved spacetime, with all the mass confined between the quantum/Planck realm and the classical point singularity.
     
  22. OnlyMe Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,914
    Rajesh, there is a real problem with the implications in your assertions about the relationship between the speed of sound and the speed of light above. Initially I read the causality issue as arising from this same comparison. It is not reasonable or logical to compare the speed of sound and the speed of light in any context other than theoretically. The reason I say this, is because sound and light or sound waves and EM radiation have nothing of substance or manner of propagation in common. Sound is a mechanical transfer of energy from one atom or molecule to another, where even in the densest materials composed of atoms and molecules, the individual parts still have some independent freedom of movement. It is not realistic to assign the same kind of kinetic transfer of mechanical energy to the constituent parts of an atom, independent protons and neutrons. The mechanics..., or kinetic interactions of gravitationally compressed subatomic particles would be entirely dominated by the gravitational pressures and strong nuclear force, even perhaps to some limited extent the weak nuclear force, but that may be a stretch. Sound and sound waves are not something that has any practical application once the form of matter involved is no longer dominated by the electromagnetic properties of whole atoms.

    While it is true that we can imagine things like superfluids or ideal fluids and solid materials, we have no real world examples of these... They remain idealized theoretical constructs. Conceptually useful, but not representing anything we know to be real.

    When you developed a model that uses a comparison of a theoretical speed of sound and the speed of light, as a test.., where the the speed of sound has no meaning relative to the composition of the involved mass/matter, any conclusions become nonsensical.

    As I mentioned earlier, questioning the validity of the predictions of GR inside of an event horizon is not really an issue. The problem is attempting to describe any physical composition of mass/matter that is inconsistent with the predictions of GR, without first presenting a model of gravitation that agrees with GR outside the event horizon and supports alternate predictions about the characteristics of gravitation inside the event horizon. As has been pointed out repeatedly, this is in essence an objective of work being done to develop a QTG.., but as yet there has been no real success.

    We can continue to say, as has been echoed in past threads by external reference, that it is not unreasonable to logically and/or intuitively, associate what exists inside of an event horizon with the spacetime and kinetics of objects outside of the event horizon, we just cannot at present explain, other than theoretically, how they interact or are connected... Even while GR predicts there to be no outbound communication across an event horizon.

    Note: this discussion has in the past lead to the concept of fossil fields and/or essentially self propagating gravitational fields, but both of these are theoretical attempts, to reconcile issues that have no basis in observation or experience. Again with the exception of the influence of dark matter, we have no evidence that any gravitational field exists in the absence of a massive object... Imagination is one of our greatest gifts, but we must always remain aware of the difference between what we imagine and what we know to be real as a function of observation and experience.
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015
  23. BennettLink Registered Member

    Messages:
    24
    Hi Rajesh,

    You can learn a lot about the reputation of a publisher by googling them. If a publisher engages in questionable practices, you will quickly find an article about it.

    Another thing is to look at the "impact factor" of the journal with a google search. A good journal has an impact fact of at least four.

    Would you be willing to post your referee's report in this forum?

    Best,

    Bennett
     
    Last edited: Apr 28, 2015

Share This Page