Friction of the vacuum could slow the rotation of pulsars

The only "confirmation bias" in this whole thread, is that shown by yourself and the god, and your "anti gravitational wave" approach as well as anti 21st century cosmology approach, evident in this and many other threads.
Again let me reiterate:
[1] The Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system orbital degradation is as confirmed and positive as any scientific theory is, and is explained by gravitational radiation.

[2] Other possible effects such as speculated in the OP, and as speculated by expletive deleted are considered and certainly possible, but neither invalidate the gravitational wave component.

[3]If either you or the god are claiming anything different as "factual," you are both obviously in the wrong section.

[4] Please inform this forum in a sentence whether what I claim above is or is not the case, and as I tried previously to get from you with a series of questions, and which you side stepped.

[5] Claims that this thread is not about gravitational waves as you claim, is preposterous in the extreme.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ The God:

Please read my above latest to paddoboy. It will explain where his confusions lay to date. Take care not to use the irrelevant-to-my-point magnetic aspects (already covered as per my earlier posts) to make any calculations for 'braking' effects on the BINARY PERIOD parameter! I explained that the pulse rate delays/advances TIME OF ARRIVAL data DURING AN OBSERVATION is what is used to determine the BINARY PERIOD, irrespective of the actual pulse rate of NS itself at that stage of its evolution. I trust you will not be confused between the entirely two different aspects as paddoboy has been to date! Best.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

@ paddoboy:

Did you even read and understand properly my above post explaining where you are conflating and confusing two distinct aspects, paddoboy? If you don't read and understand my responses, and even your own references, correctly without bias and emotional fervor, how are your misunderstandings ever to be dispelled?

As for the following:

In order:

[1] The only person dragging "gravitational waves" claims and distractions into this NON-gravitational wave aspect discussion is YOU, paddoboy. Hence your biased reading and understanding problem to date.

[2] But the aspect I point to has NOT BEEN treated at all. Haven't you been reading understanding at all? Paddoboy, do you now understand what I just explained to you about how the pulse rate is used in TIME OF ARRIVAL studies during BINARY PERIOD dynamics in order to determine that BINARY PERIOD dynamics decay and NOT the pulse rates per se? Read it.

[3] The only 'claim' I made was in my observation that I could not find, in any relevant study/paper re Hulse-Taylor case, a proper consideration and quantification of the 'braking' effect on the BINARY PERIOD (not the individual pulsar rate) of the specific aspect I pointed out and explained (but you keep conflating and confusing with all the other aspects I already knew were covered).

[4] What you claim is not the case. I explained where your conflations and confusions lay. It's up to you now to review instead of cursorily misreading or ignoring what I actually posted and what is in your own references that you keep reading with emotional fervor and confirmation biased preconceptions instead of clear and objective mind. Read it all again, properly.

[5] This demonstrates your bias and obsession with 'justifying' your premature and scientifically unwarranted "gravitational waves confirmed etc" beliefs and trust in inerrancy of what you have read that makes claims which have yet to be properly scrutinized in the context of the aspect I raised; which aspect, if finally properly considered and quantified and found to be significant, may then make all those gravitational waves claims, based on Hulse-Taylor etc interpretations to date, redundant. And this THREAD is NOT about any gravitational wave aspect. Please leave your biases and beliefs in that area for the appropriate threads, paddoboy.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

As far as those two points are concerned, arguing cogently and Ignorance, I believe the following utterences shows both those "qualities" brilliantly!

 

@ paddoboy:

Dear paddoboy, regardless of everything that has been said in our exchange, it boils down to this sincere and friendly question to you:

Do you now understand what I just explained to you about how the pulse rate is used in TIME OF ARRIVAL studies during BINARY PERIOD dynamics in order to determine that BINARY PERIOD dynamics decay REGARDLESS of what the pulse rate per se of a NS-pulsar happens to be during an observation for ORBITAL PERIOD determination?

No animosity or personal dislike involved in that question, paddoboy; just a sincere wish to get my point across and reach mutual understanding according to the posted explanations. Thanks. Best.

 

I'm finished replying to you and the god in this thread due to your misinterpretation and dishonest approach, particularly in your continued ignoring of relevant matters that show the validity of all I am saying and as per the points I have listed to illustrate that.
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::

Previous claims in this thread, by expletive deleted are absolutely preposterous, particularly that this isn't about gravitational waves and that the many papers that I have linked to do not discuss magnetic field interactions.
Let me show that as fact and not just rhetoric as carried on by expletive deleted.
His first contribution to this thread was the post that by itself, supports everything that I have said, particularly re his denial of gravitational waves as entirely blinkering his views and opinions, and the lack of any credibility therein.
Post 23:

Then my reply to that at post 25:

That says it all, and supports all my accusations re anti gravitational wave agendas which expletive deleted now says is off topic.
It also aligns perfectly with his own preconceived general denial of 21st century cosmology [and also the god's] which was amply illustrated in the redshift thread, with more than myself trying to correct him, and the DM debacle, again with a number of posters trying to get him to support what he was claiming.
I then continued with linking to papers in post 26 and 27, supporting the fact as per the H/T system verdict, and the fact that magnetic fields were most certainly discussed. Even though I was not obliged to as obviously his implications at 23 was the issue that needed to be supported.
In other words the onus, obviously was his to support what he was claiming/insinuating/implying.
That he has not done and that he is unable to do.

In that regard, and in line with the above evidence I have supplied, I see this "debate" as a non entity and just a evangelistic type repeat after repeat of his many anti 21st century cosmology gospel.

My case is made: The Hulse Taylor Binary Pulsar system and the first evidence of gravitational waves stand as confirmed as any scientific theory can be.
It will not be invalidated just as no scientific theory will be invalidated from a science forum.
With that said, I now happily depart from this thread and leave it in the hands of expletive deleted and the god to continue with their crusade.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ paddoboy:

Dear paddoboy, I have never said that magnetic fields weren't considered at all, I said that a SPECIFIC type of mutual binary NS magnetic field interaction seemed not to have been considered or quantified in Hulse-Taylor etc type systems, as I explained. The aspect I pointed to is DIFFERENT from all those OTHER magnetic field-spin etc aspects which I already said WERE covered. So please don't keep mischaracterizing what I said and didn't say, ok? Thanks.

And again, in the rules for OFF-topic posts, your posts repeating all those known claims and links about "gravitational waves" is OFF-topic in this thread; since only AFTER the NON-gravitational aspects have been resolved will we know and be able to discuss what ramifications they may have for "gravitational waves" hypotheses and claims which can then be discussed in the appropriate threads for discussing gravitation and gravitational wave aspects in light of any ramifications from the results of the discussion in THIS NON-gravitation/gravitational wave thread. OK?

Now, dear paddoboy, did you read my previous post to you? If you missed it, here it is:

Dear paddoboy, please set aside any emotion or prejudice when reading that and other posts from me or any of your own references.

Thanks. Best.

 

Just quickly, keep up with the good work Plasma, and apologies for my part in the debacle that has turned this thread into a discussion on unsupported fantasies.
Keep em coming!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

@ paddoboy:

Dear paddoboy, it is with the utmost kind and friendly feeling towards you that I remind you of a few things which may have escaped your notice:

1) Plazma's OP in this thread was about NON-gravitational wave topic.

2) The thread's OP is a speculative hypothesis yet to be tested by using NS pulsar timing; so it is as yet "unsupported fantasy", as you put it.

3) My own NON-gravitational observation in this NON-gravitational thread was to do with the very real (not fantasy) physics of extreme magnetic field interactions between TWO NS (irrespective of their pulsar timing rate); and went to the observation of the so-far un-refuted (by you or anyone else) fact that the Binary Period effects have not been properly considered or quantified in relevant Hulse-Taylor type scenario studies/papers, as I explained.

4) Everything was going swimmingly in Plazma's NON-gravitational topic thread/discussions UNTIL YOU brought "the debacle" ingredients, in the form of repeated (ad nauseam) assertions:
- ( a ) about things which were either not in evidence in the literature AND/OR,

- ( b ) about things that were based on your misreading, misunderstanding and ignoring of my responses and also in your own references.

5) Your misunderstandings persists, and is most obviously demonstrable by the fact that you still haven't given any indication that you understand the subtle distinction implicit in the following crucial question I posed twice for your further consideration in the hope that your deeper contemplation of the different aspects involved will dispel your conflation and confusion; that crucial question was:

Dear Paddoboy, please therefore take the necessary time to consider fully, dispassionately and objectively, the different aspects involved, and why one is not the other (as you seem to conflate repeatedly in responding to my specific point that differentiates between the two above blue-highlighted aspects pointed out for your benefit).

Thanks. Best until next time, paddoboy.

 

I am confused. Seriously.

The orbital decay is due to loss of angular momentum, in the form of GW radiation, and finally inspiralled merging in millions of years. Thats what original HT study is about.

OP raised an issue that binary system energy loss can be due to friction of vacuum, that would also cause orbital decay. The quantum?

Now, suddenly I do not know what you are claiming. First and foremost we are able to see only one NS, not both. You seem to be indicating erroneous measurement or consideration in calculating the orbital period. If so, pl write briefly once again, no need for lengthy posts. I am sure you must have written somewhere in those voluminous posts, but be kind enough to write it in few lines only.

 

@ The God:

Yes, but what causes that loss and how that energy is radiated away from the system (as far as that process/loss affects the Binary Orbital Period and not the spin-pulse rate of "a" NS itself) is what we are discussing; the gravitational/grav-wave possibilities have been hypothesized but now we are discussing NON-grav etc possibilities in this thread).

And that's ONE of the NON-grav etc possibilities being dicussed, as per the OP; but is mainly concerned with the spin rate of each respective NS affected by friction because that spin rate is so HIGH. The orbital motions are a separate thing, which may or may not be affected by the OP vacuum friction angle.

However, I then posted an observation about ANOTHER NON-grav etc possibility! It is that which I have pursued with paddoboy, trying to point out the extreme mutual magnetic field interaction that could produce high 'braking' forces that affect both the individual spins AND also, more relevantly, the BINARY ORBITAL PERIOD decay observed in Hulse-Taylor etc cases.

Yes! That's what I have been trying to stress to paddoboy!

And it is the TIME OF ARRIVAL of the clock-like pulses that CHANGE as the TWO NSs orbit each other. It is THAT TOA data that we use to determine/interpret orbital PERIOD and its decay rate; the ONE pulsar's rate as such is merely the clock signal which we use FOR the observation of the BINARY dance cycle.

No no. The calculations using the TOA data during any orbital cycle is what it is, and any orbital period estimate is based on said data as observed. That has NEVER been in dispute by me. The attribution AS TO MAIN CAUSE OF whatever orbital period/decay rate so determine by those observations, that is what my point relates to. Enter the possibly strong braking forces and concomitant E-M energy radiation losses that the INTERPLAY of the TWO NSs' extreme magnetic fields! That is where I came in.

OK now? To summarize:

NOT in dispute by me: The observed orbital period concerned, as determined via single NS pulse signal TOA data.

NOT in dispute by me: The individual NS pulsar rate as observed at any stage.

NOT YET SETTLED: The mutual extreme magnetic field interplay BETWEEN the TWO NSs, and the question of whether, after proper consideration and quantification of THAT particular 'possible cause', it will prove significant enough to account for the major part of the ORBITAL PERIOD decay rate only (regardless of what is happening to the spins/pulses etc of each of the NSs as such).

The situation is easily conflated and confused. That's why it may have been missed all this time since Hulse-Taylor exercise. I trust that the above response differentiates the subtleties enough to reduce your confusion. Best.

 

1. GW is due to binary system.
2. You seem to be raising one more interesting point, or it comes out from your above posts, that NS with a solar mass or so is spinning at very very High speed, well that can certainly cause tremendous amount of loss if vacuum friction is present.

Bring one more NS and make it binary and surely the magnetic field interaction could slow it down, but that would be one time till stable orbit is locked.

 

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

excuse me.

 

Somewhat unclear statement.
What I mean is that a high speed spinning NS can dissipate huge energy due to vacuum friction.

 

Excused..You can stay away.

 

Excused..You can stay away.

 

@ The God:

That is the idea behind the Authors OP in this thread; in which they suggests using the SINGLE NS-pulsar's Rotation (ie, SPIN) data as determined by its pulse rate per se, to see if the NS-pulsar's SPIN (Rotation) slows according to whatever assumptions/model 'templates' for that are brought to the exercise insofar as Hypothesized "Quantum Vacuum Friction" effect is concerned re SPIN rate changes over time.

But note well, that is a totally different aspect to that which I have been observing about, re the BINARY Orbital Period data obtained by studying the BINARY motions OF that NS-pulsar's; and determining the decay rate in that binary system orbital period, based on the changes in the Time Of Arrival of the pulsar signal (whatever rate that signal may be due to the SPIN of the NS-pulsar itself) as the NS-pulsar moves in ORBIT around the BARYCENTER of the BINARY systems it's in (again, this is not to be confused with the Rotation/Spin aspect of the respective NS-pulsar itself).


You appear to be concentrating on the OP aspect re Rotation/Spin as affected by hypothetical "Quantum Vacuum Friction".

Whereas I have been concentrating on my observation that no relevant Hulse-Taylor studies/papers ever properly considered or quantified the very REAL and EXTREME mutual magnetic field interactions which must be there because any plasma/mass-transfer etc processes affecting the magnetic field strength has passed and the binary is a 'clean' and 'long settled and stable' clock like system (hence the magnetic field strengths and interactions are at its highest, and any REAL----not hypothetical----'braking' forces arising between any two strong magnetic fields can only get stronger and radiate more and more energy away as the system decays into even closer mutual orbit dynamics).

I leave the ROTATION/SPIN and hypothetical "Quantum Vacuum Friction" studies etc to the OP, you, and whoever else wishes to pursue that angle.

My main interest at present is mainly in the BINARY SYSTEM and its Orbital Period decay rate; and how that may be affected by the REAL interaction of extreme magnetic fields in the 'clean' Hulse-Taylor type scenario; and as determined from time to time via the TIME OF ARRIVAL data of pulsar signal (whatever that individual NS-pulsar spin/rotation rate may be when observing for TOA data purposes).


I trust that any conflations and confusions re the NS-pulsar SPIN/ROTATION aspect and the totally different BINARY ORBITAL PERIOD of TWO NSs aspect is now dispelled?

Anyhow, I still would be very grateful for anyone who can point me to any study/paper that has actually considered and quantified the aspect I spoke of, which, so far, seems to have not been properly treated before they arrived at the interpretations and conclusions as to main cause of Hulse-Taylor etc orbital period decay/energy loss rate observed.

Thanks. Best.

 

I do not consider the vacuum friction as hypothetical....

And it is not. This will be a key player in defining gravity one day...keeping the concept of spacetime alive is a major hurdle.

 

@ The God.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I actually have to agree with you on the "spacetime" concept as being less than useful in trying to arrive at a cogent and physically real and consistent explanation of gravity in regards to what causes it in entities and process terms (and not just in observational descriptive and abstract mathematical model terms).

As for the above mooted "Quantum Vacuum Friction", it too is fraught with possible conflation problems and any Hypothesis and Test and Explanation attempts must first carefully define what they are actually treating in their exercise.

For example:

1) The Vacuum can be used to refer to the currently Active Energy Content IN the space region under study and this Active Energy Content (be it in the forms of transient 'virtual' intermediate states or in the forms of persistent 'real' energy field features and perturbations we call 'real particles'. This specific concentrations and distributions of said 'active energy content' may vary according to what is currently occurring of that kind within that region.

Whereas:

2) The Space can be used to describe whatever Passive State underlying 'space fabric' exists in any region regardless of the amount, distribution or activity due to Active Energy content or processes currently applying to the region.


If you think about it, the 'friction' can only arise in Vacuum context; from interactions between the virtual and real contents and dynamics of the Active Energy that happens to currently be in the space region under study.

Whereas NO 'friction' can result from the underlying 'passive space' fabric; which, according to many scientifically tenable views of mainstream thought, must be like a 'superfluid' state where there is effectively NO 'friction' possible if it indeed has the relevant necessary kind of natural a-priori physical superfluid-like properties for propagating the Active Energy perturbations without interfering with those 'active' energy motions and evolutions in form and concentrations, distributions etc.

In short:

- if you are talking 'friction' from Quantum Vacuum, yes that is a plausible thing, but yet to be conclusively demonstrated to arise in the ordinary or relativistic motion regimes (even in SR the only real differentiating factor in twin-like scenarios is the ACCELERATION inputs to distinguish which Twin was actually affected and which wasn't in fact;

- BUT if you are speaking of 'friction' from the underlying 'space fabric', then NO such 'friction' can arise-----UNLESS some Active Energy feature (whether virtual/transient or real/persitent) can be made to, or is able naturally, to travel through said underlying passive superfluid space fabric at a rate FASTER than the Natural underlying transition speed capability for propagating the active energy properties along from one point to the next along the 'passive' space fabric path.



Anyhow, The God, that's the possible distinction that I see you and others pursuing that aspect may have to eventually make and identify as to respective properties and possibilities that may properly lead to actually finding/proving "Quantum Vacuum Friction" which may be possible in the context of 1) above but not in the context of 2) above.

I only explained my thoughts on that for your benefit, The God. I hope it may be useful in your own efforts at arriving at and understanding what gravity and all other forces ultimately are in their relevant context of active energy vacuum and/or passive space fabric. My best wishes for success in your efforts on that and everything else you pursue scientifically.

Thanks for your kind attention. Best.

 

Sorry for the late "like" Plasma, I have been otherwise involved with various anti gravitational wave entities.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

While the concept of vacuum friction is certainly interesting and possibly a logical contributing factor to orbital degradation, so also is the possibility of magnetic field interactions, also but again despite screams and noise to the contrary, certainly not exclusive of gravitational waves as per the excellent Hulse Taylor binary Pulsar result.

The following paper again demonstrates, that indeed magnetic fields interactions were most certainly considered and in detail and not really considered as having any great effect as implied.


http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1086/310340/fulltext/

Magnetospheric Interactions of Binary Pulsars as a Model for Gamma-Ray Bursts
MARIO VIETRI

ABSTRACT
I consider a model of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-ray bursts in which they arise right before the merging of binary pulsars. A binary pulsar moving through its companion's magnetic field experiences a large, motional electric field

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

=

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/c, which leads to the release in the pulsar's magnetosphere of a pair cascade and the acceleration of a wind of pure pairs. The energy and energy deposition rate of the wind are those of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

-ray bursts, provided the pulsars have a field of

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1015 G. Baryon contamination is small and dominated by tidal heating, leading toMbaryon

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

10-6 M

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, as required by the dirty-fireball model of Mészáros, Laguna, & Rees.

interesting extracts:
"Third, fully general relativistic numerical simulations show that two neutron stars can collapse to black holes even before any merging actually takes place"

"I consider, for sake of simplicity, two identical pulsars of mass M = 1 M

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, with dipolar magnetic field of strength B0 = B15× 1015 G at the pulsar surface and spin period T = t10× 10 s, separated by a distance R = R7× 107 cm. During their orbits, the pulsars move across the lines of force of each other's magnetic fields. This induces a motional electric field

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

=

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

/c, where B is the companion's field".

"Because none of the axes involved in this problem need be aligned, the electric field of equation (1) will in general have a component along the magnetic field lines of the pulsar that feels such E-field. Thus free charges are accelerated along magnetic field lines to relativistic energies, limited by curvature radiation (Sturrock 1971). Equating the acceleration rate with the energy losses per unit time, = 2e2c

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

4/3R

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

, where Rc is the radius of curvature of the line of force being followed, I find a limiting Lorentz factor for electrons of "


"The above condition can be rewritten as
scaled to the moment when the pulsars are just about to merge, with a small correction accounting for the

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

1

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

2 term, and with R0 = 3RNS because, for larger values, the magnetic field energy decreases very quickly. The above luminosity is most likely self-regulating.

The total luminosity released by gravitational wave radiation"


"Thus the orbital decay is still dominated by gravitational radiation, for which , with . Then, from equation (7), I find: the wind actually increases quickly enough to look like a burst. Integration of equation (7) over an orbital decay dominated by gravitational radiation yields, for the total energy release, "