Slashdot Mirror


Brown Dwarf Stars May Be Missing Cosmic Link

An anonymous reader writes "It may be that brown dwarfs are the 'missing step' between the radio emissions we see generated by the planet Jupiter and what are received from pulsars. Brown dwarfs are, of course, 'failed' stars. They emit extremely strong beams of radiation, like a standard star, but are behaving on the whole more like a pulsar. 'Greg Hallinan from the National University of Ireland in Galway and his colleagues used the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico to observe a very cool, rapidly rotating brown dwarf called TVLM 513-46546. A bright flash from the brown dwarf was observed roughly every two hours, and are very similar to those observed from pulsars. But this whole system is on a much slower and smaller scale, so it is easier for astronomers to decipher what is going on. For some time, scientists have wondered if there were similarities between this type of emission and the periodic radio beams from pulsars. Observations of TVLM 513-46546 could provide the first direct evidence for such a link."

36 comments

  1. I'm not the most politically correct guy by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Funny

    Brown dwarfs are, of course, 'failed' stars. but even I know that's not a very nice way to refer to Gary Coleman.

    --
    How we know is more important than what we know.
    1. Re:I'm not the most politically correct guy by eebra82 · · Score: 1

      This is easily the best comment I have ever read on Slashdot. I salute you, because it is actually the first time a Slashdot post made me laugh physically.

      Also, you may have saved Michael Richard's life because he can no longer make this joke up and use it in his future shows.

  2. Then again... by wombatmobile · · Score: 1

    Brown Dwarf Stars May Not Be Missing Cosmic Link

    1. Re:Then again... by DemonThing · · Score: 1

      Indeed, my brown dwarf stars don't seem to have any trouble finding theirs.

  3. The're missing allright by had3z · · Score: 1

    All the dwarfs i've seen are white and have a red beard.

    1. Re:The're missing allright by HerrEkberg · · Score: 2, Funny

      Which means that you are either Irish or play too much World of Warcraft.

    2. Re:The're missing allright by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What about Winklebottom, and Figgleforth?

    3. Re:The're missing allright by salimma · · Score: 1

      All the dwarfs i've seen are white and have a red beard.

      Ah, he's not a GNOMEr ..
      --
      Michel
      Fedora Project Contribut
  4. I had hoped... by VanessaE · · Score: 1

    When I first glanced at "cosmic missing link" part of the subject, I thought "finally, they've found an answer to all this dark matter/energy" business. Then I read the summary. *sigh*

  5. "missing step"? by khallow · · Score: 2, Informative

    I'm unclear why there should be a "path" between Jupiter and neutron stars. By this, I mean there's no continuous range of density between the two. On the neutron star side, the jump from a star supported by electromagnetic repulsion to one supported by the strong force is a substantial jump in density and there's no intermediate step. On Jupiter's side, there's a profound change when going from no fusion (or to be honest, trivial amounts of fusion since fusion can in theory happen extremely rarely even at room temperature due to quantum mechanical tunnelling) to deutronium fusion and to regular fusion are big jumps as well.

    1. Re:"missing step"? by mikael · · Score: 3, Informative

      I guess it's astronomical philosophy. Choose any two objects in the universe, and you should be able to find something inbetween. The more interesting objects occur at the critical point between two states (like the Schwarzschild radius for a black hole or the Chandrasekhar limit for supernovae). Objects just below these limits will often demonstrate numerous failed attempts to cross the threshold (A star might repeatedly attempt to go supernova by gaining mass from its companion, blow off some layers, only to fizzle out, then repeat the process months later). These observations give the chance to build more accurate models.

      --
      Vintage computer adverts: http://www.vintageadbrowser.com/computers-and-software-ads
    2. Re:"missing step"? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess it's just that those brown dwarfs have similarities both to pulsars and Jupiter, which is interesting for working out the theory of radio wave emission.

    3. Re:"missing step"? by khallow · · Score: 1

      Doh! Yes, I meant that.

  6. Meanwhile by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Red Dwarf Stars are still looking for new jobs...

  7. Missing link? by Lithdren · · Score: 2, Funny

    Evolutionists and their crazy mixed up theories!!

    Clearly Brown Dwarf Stars are not the missing link between man and ape! This is just further proof that god created everything.

    Im so white, it hurts! Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Its funny. Laugh.

    1. Re:Missing link? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Its funny. Laugh. No, it's not. And you know what? I'm kind of fed up with how these days every slashdot discussion with a "hard" science topic gets cluttered with extremely bad jokes. Please go away.
    2. Re:Missing link? by Lithdren · · Score: 1

      Why post something like that as an AC?

      If you dont like the 'funny' posts, you can filter them out. Personally, I enjoy a good laugh, it keeps my day moving forward.

      But of course, you're a troll, and I should keep from feeding you. I just care about all of gods animals, be they a beautiful swan, or an ugly bridge-dwelling troll. So feed well, little friend. Feed well.

  8. What next? by mrbluze · · Score: 1

    Brown holes?

    --
    Do it yourself, because no one else will do it yourself. [beta blockade 10-17 Feb]
  9. Gary Coleman??? by oPless · · Score: 1

    what'chu talkin' 'bout, Willis?

  10. Sounds more like a dating story and sex scandal by holywarrior21c · · Score: 2, Interesting
    It may be that brown dwarfs are the 'emissions' we see generated by the Jupiter and what are received from pulsars. Brown dwarfs are, of course, 'failed' stars. They emit extremely strong beams. standard star, but are behaving on the whole more like a pulsar. University of Ireland in Galway and his colleagues used the Very Large Array radio telescope in New Mexico to observe a very cool, rapidly rotating 'brown dwarf' and he called TVLM 513-46546. the brown dwarf was observed roughly every two hours, and are very similar to those observed from pulsars. But this 'whole system' is on a much slower and smaller scale, so it is easier for astronomers to 'decipher' what is going on. For some time, scientists have wondered if there were similarities between this type of emission and the 'periodic beams' from pulsars. Call TVLM 513-46546, it could provide the first direct evidence for such a 'link'

    --

    i am not ur daddy

  11. Best first post ever by Tyrsenus · · Score: 1

    Slashdot has never made me laugh harder. It's a shame the maximum score is only 5.

  12. 'failed' stars.... by Himring · · Score: 1

    Brown dwarfs are, of course, 'failed' stars.

    18 of 19 posts? This is, of course, a failed thread....

    --
    "All great things are simple & expressed in a single word: freedom, justice, honor, duty, mercy, hope." --Churchill
  13. Title ? by smoker2 · · Score: 2
    Maybe the title would make more sense if it were arranged correctly :

    Instead of "Brown Dwarf Stars May Be Missing Cosmic Link" it should read "Brown Dwarf Stars May Be Cosmic Missing Link". (Assuming of course there is supposed to be an analogy to the missing link between humans and apes)

    The way it currently reads, it seems that these stars actually have something missing from their make-up, which is not the point.
    12 year olds editing /. again ?

  14. When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? by pln2bz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    This is actually a great article because, if you read and think about what it's saying closely, it's hard not to wonder if it's possible that neutron stars could be pulsing for electrical reasons rather than spinning. We've observed pulsars to be pulsing at such phenomenal rates that it was necessary to postulate the existence of a new form of matter, neutronium, in order to explain the fast rotational velocity. But the idea that the flickering could be the result of electrical sparking between a binary star pair, as plasma does within the laboratory, was passed over in favor of a theory that depended upon matter that had never been observed to exist within the laboratory.

    Why? Because the notion that electricity flows through space to such an extent that it can create visible lightning bolts between two stars is not an acceptable notion for mainstream astrophysicists. And yet, we know that matter within the plasma state is an electrical phenomenon within the laboratory. We know that the luminosity graphs we see coming from pulsars, unlike a rotating body, very closely match the behavior of lightning in that it possesses a fast rise and a slow decay (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2005/arch05/050 527variablexray.htm). We know that we identify many of the pulsars to actually be members of binary star pairs. We've observed that this flickering can glitch, as it has with the Vela Pulsar. We've even observed lightning-like filaments being emitted from this same pulsar (http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/04092 0pulsar.htm). One wonders why we continue to so strongly hold onto the belief that the flickering for pulsars is due to rotation instead of electrical activity even as it is supposed that the flickering of brown dwarfs is now observed to be the result of electrical activity at its poles. The very fact that pulsars are emitting radio emissions, which is presented within this article to be a mystery, suggests that the flickering is due to electrical activity. Our data regarding pulsars, which is at least enough to prevent us from forming any consensus opinion on the cause of pulsar flickering, appears to be taking a back seat to the theory that their flickering must be the result of spinning.

    It will be very interesting to see what happens over time to TVLM 513-46546. In the Electric Universe view, these objects are not stars in their death throes, but rather gas giant planets that can potentially turn into objects as bright as our Sun, given more charge density. It is very possible that we could see this gas giant turn into a star right before our eyes. Given enough charge density, the plasma can change modes from the normal glow mode into the arc mode. Or, if the distance between it and its binary companion is decreasing, we may see the rate of flickering decrease. In the electrical view, we've observed this type of thing before for another nearby star, Betelgeuse. Look at the "hot spot" on that star at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Betelgeuse. This is what one would expect to see with EU Theory if the star is transitioning between the normal glow and arc modes. What's important to note is that we may see dramatic changes for the star take shape over the course of just years, and that these changes can violate the mainstream stellar evolution theories. It's easy when a star is far away to suppose all sorts of hypothetical explanations for our observations. But when we can see detail, as for this brown dwarf, it places additional constraints on our speculations.

    --
    "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    1. Re:When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

      We've observed pulsars to be pulsing at such phenomenal rates that it was necessary to postulate the existence of a new form of matter, neutronium, in order to explain the fast rotational velocity.

      No. Rotation is necessary to explain the extraordinary predictability of the pulse rate, as well as the random precipitous changes in pulse rate of some pulsars. Impact of infalling matter with a degenerate matter surface in the presence of an ultra-strong magnetic field also explains the short time-scale, decay curves, and spectrum of pulsar flares.

      But the idea that the flickering could be the result of electrical sparking between a binary star pair, as plasma does within the laboratory, ...

      No. A two-star spark-gap oscillator would (1) exhibit repeating variations in the pulse rate as the stars orbit, rather than the secular rate of change observed in pulsars; (2) require absurd (non-physical) stability of the interstellar medium to obtain the observed predictability of the pulse rate; (3) produce bright atomic emission lines from the electrical arc rather than the observed continuous spectrum; and (4) flare on a time scale (minutes, hours) consistent with the dimensions of the arc rather than the observed microseconds (implying a flare size of

    2. Re:When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      That you imagine that a forum titled "Bad Astronomy" is going to act as an objective resource for evaluating out-of-the-mainstream astrophysical theories says quite a bit.

      One hopes that you formed your opinion on the basis of at least one person that *supports* the theory, and that you are not asserting that a consensus judgment is enough to disprove a theory.

      It's hardly objective to do, as most people on this forum have done, which is to

      (a) not read what the theory says;

      (b) proposee that *calculations* by advocates of other theories (like on BAUT) is both comprehensive and definitive in disputing *observations* that support EU Theory;

      (c) ignore anomalous data regarding the mainstream theories, much of which cannot be resolved without inferring the existence of particles and forces which we cannot observe within the lab; and

      (d) ignore the fact that 95% of the universe's matter under mainstream theories appears to be unaccounted for.

      If you read what EU Theory has to say, it explains exactly how and why space plasma is being incorrectly modeled. That mainstream astrophysicists on BAUT don't believe in electricity in space should come as no surprise. This is what they are taught in college to believe. All scientists depend upon proper training in order to produce the right results.

      There is plenty of noise surrounding the EU issue on Slashdot that is interfering with an intelligent conversation about the science. By being a part of that noise, you are inserting yourself as a part of the decision-making process for spectators without actually asserting or demonstrating any expertise whatsoever. I recommend that you investigate the issue in greater depth before commenting on it further. Science is not a static process. It shouldn't surprise you to realize that the study of plasma may one day evolve into the mainstream theory. These types of things can happen. To assert that the idea is "loony" adds nothing to conversation.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    3. Re:When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      5.) Require some mode of energy to maintain the potential difference after successive sparks.

    4. Re:When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Thank you for your thoughtful responses to my posting. After forwarding your response to the theorists themselves, I've received a detailed response for you that should help to clarify and move the debate forward. I hope that you will afford as much time to consider their response as they have in carefully responding to your challenge. It's unfortunate that such a delay is necessary to respond that few people will actually notice that a response has been posted. For this reason, I hope that in the future, you opt to propose that issues associated with Electric Universe Theory are debatable rather than settled. It's easy to deny that something can be possible, as you have done, but when somebody can respond to every one of your assertions, it may be that you have misled some people into thinking that the issue is settled when in fact it is not.

      Here is the response:

      The critic noted above says: "Rotation is necessary to explain the extraordinary predictability of the pulse rate." But that is the issue to be settled, not a confirmed principle to be announced to the unwashed. The statement implies that a rotating beam sweeping by the Earth is the only way to produce the detected regular and rapid electromagnetic pulse from a pulsar. This assertion is not only contradicted by electrical experts (see below), it requires one to accept theoretical speculations divorced from anything observed or even physically plausible. A star rotating at up to 642 times per second or more? To "explain" the observed pulsation, astronomers must imagine a theoretical compression of matter beyond anything modern science or technology can achieve or classical physics would allow. Restricted to the gravity-only universe, mainstream astronomers and cosmologists are guessing at answers so far from observation and experiment as to remain untestable. In a rational world, how do speculations refute an electrical view based on well-demonstrated principles?

      When the critic suggests that a rotating star is necessary to produce the observed "random precipitous changes in pulse rate of some pulsars" he is reversing common sense, since changes in pulse rate are the last thing one would deduce from an imagined super-dense, rapidly rotating star, whose pulses are due to a "lighthouse" effect of an electromagnetic beam. The original model did not anticipate such glitches in the pulse rate; it precluded them. The later observation of glitches in the pulse rate required them to add untested conjectures to previous speculations.

      Nor is the supposed "infalling matter" either seen or measured. It is something imagined in an intellectual vacuum to account for observations that can be readily explained in terms of things closer to home. (Again, see below).

      The critic writes, "Impact of infalling matter with a degenerate matter surface in the presence of an ultra-strong magnetic field also explains the short time-scale, decay curves, and spectrum of pulsar flares."

      Read the above too quickly and you might suppose that astronomers have witnessed and measured "infalling matter" and developed an analysis of its "impact" to relate it to electromagnetic data. Not true. Rather, they have formulated imagined conditions with arbitrary, untested attributes, so any arbitrary figures that will make the model work are accepted. In the minds of its formulators, the model becomes increasingly "real" the longer they gaze at their computer screen.

      How reliable is a model based on things beyond the reach of observation and experiment? How reliable is a model that sees only the magnetic fields, ignores the electric currents that create magnetic fields, and ignores the laboratory-based work that can account directly for the electromagnetic signals?

      A peer-reviewed paper by Kevin Healy of the Very Large Array Operations Center and Anthony Peratt of the Los Alamos National Laboratory presents firm experimental evidence showing that the dominating, observed characteristics of pulsars are accurately predicted by electrical oscillati

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    5. Re:When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      I'd like to invite you to observe the detailed response to the electric pulsar conversation posted by the Electric Universe Theorists at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231727&cid=188 87297 (based upon thread start at http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=231727&cid=188 26531) so that you may observe that there is indeed a legitimate debate.

      I think you will find that this response is not the senseless ranting one would expect of a "loony". My hope is that you will in the future respect that a group of scientists who can deliver such responses deserve more than name-calling.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    6. Re:When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In the case of the objects originally mentioned in the article, i.e. 3 brown dwarfs that are pulsing, the period of rotation has been directly measured by means independent to the radio data to be the same as the periodicity present in the radio data. This is achieved by measuring the broadening of spectral lines caused by Doppler shifting of the surface of the brown dwarf as it rotates and also by measuring the optical period due to the rotation in and out of view of magnetic spots on the surface of the brown dwarf. Therefore, we can assert that the radio emission is not flickering. Instead, the periodic pulses are produced when extremely narrow beams of steady emission originating at the poles of the brown dwarf sweep Earth. The same principle is directly observed for the coherent radio emission detected from the magnetized planets in our solar system and by analogy is thought to apply to pulsars.

  15. Brown huh? by Trogre · · Score: 1

    Well I'm pretty sure that one or more Red Dwarf Stars form a missing Comic Link.

    --
    "Nine times out of ten, starting a fire is not the best way to solve the problem." - my wife
  16. When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning? NO! by giafly · · Score: 1

    When Your Light Bulb Flickers, Is it Spinning?
    No. Electric Universe crackpot loonies
    --
    Reduce, reuse, cycle
  17. Teach The Controversy!!! by rewinn · · Score: 1

    Some people believe in stellar evolution; others believe stars are designed by intelligences. After all, how could they form such pleasing constellations and delightfully spherical shapes by mere random chance?