backtop


Print E-mail del.icio.us 47 comment(s) - last by Risforrocket.. on May 23 at 12:31 AM

Pulsar has wrong orbit around wrong type of star

A pulsar is a rapidly spinning and extraordinarily dense object created when a massive star explodes as a supernova. Pulsars, a rare type of neutron star, have very strong magnetic fields that channel beams of light and radio waves out like a lighthouse as the star spins.

Scientists say that all of the pulsars discovered so far have shared the same type of orbit. Pulsars have so far only been found orbiting in a perfectly circular orbit around a white dwarf star. Due to the fact that all known pulsars share the same type of orbit, scientist are baffled by a recently discovered pulsar called J1903+0327 located around 21,000 light years from Earth.

What has astronomers so confused about the new pulsar is that it has a highly elongated orbit around a star very similar to our sun. David Champion, an astronomer with the Australia Telescope National Facility, said in a statement, “What we have found is a millisecond pulsar that is in the wrong kind of orbit around what appears to be the wrong kind of star. Now we have to figure out how this strange system was produced.”

A millisecond pulsar gets its name from the fact that it spins on its axis around 465 times per second. Typical pulsars rotate around 10-20 times per second by comparison. The new millisecond pulsar was discovered using a radio telescope in Puerto Rico.

Scott Ransom from the National Radio Astronomy Observatory told Reuters in a telephone interview, “The big question is -- how in the heck did this thing form, because it doesn't follow our standard models of how these things form. If you were to ask any astronomer if we would have found a system like this, they would have said no. So this is a very big surprise.”

Scientists currently know of about 100 pulsars in binary star systems. Speculation from the scientists is that a third star -- possibly a neutron star or white dwarf -- may be orbiting with the other two stars. If a third star is part of the bizarre pulsar formation this would be the first pulsar in a three star system.



Comments     Threshold


This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

How much of the universe have we seen?
By Burnc4 on 5/19/2008 3:12:35 PM , Rating: 1
quote:
What we have found is a millisecond pulsar that is in the wrong kind of orbit around what appears to be the wrong kind of star


Considering the size of the universe what makes him think it is orbiting the wrong kind of star.




By dv8silencer on 5/19/2008 3:17:16 PM , Rating: 5
I do not think he really meant it as "wrong" or "right". As a scientist he was probably "layman-izing" it.


By drebo on 5/19/2008 3:28:34 PM , Rating: 5
Like he said in the quote...under the current models of how pulsars work and are formed, this IS the wrong kind of star.

He did not say that it was impossible to revise the current models...only that this new pulsar does not fit them, and thus is a confusing and new phenomenon.


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By GhandiInstinct on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
By lagomorpha on 5/19/2008 3:45:29 PM , Rating: 5
10% of the universe seems pretty generous.


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By awer26 on 5/19/2008 4:42:45 PM , Rating: 5
10%? We don't even know how big it is. Once we find where it ends we can talk about percentages ;)


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By Ringold on 5/19/2008 10:24:46 PM , Rating: 2
My understanding -- probably wrong -- is that it was infinite. For example, if we looked at one direction and saw the first star form after whatever that period was called where all light was scattered, that would be the edge of the observable universe from here. But if we then traveled there, we could look back and see the point in space where the sun is, but could look on along the same vector that we traveled and see a whole part of the universe previously impossible to observe from earth.

Therefore, infinite universe.

I think.

Unless the universe is curved? Then we'd come back eventually?

I'm going back to watching The Tudors before I fry something.


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By StevoLincolnite on 5/20/2008 12:46:04 AM , Rating: 3
Mu Understanding is that we are in a bag, full of other Galaxy's - Men in Black Style.


By SiliconJon on 5/20/2008 6:19:28 PM , Rating: 2
Ifinitely infinite, I agree - pardon the poor double-positive.

So the universe, or omniverse as I prefer to call it, is about (the limit of x as x approaches 1/infinity) known to us.

Been a while since I had calculus...did I express that correctly?


By mindless1 on 5/22/2008 8:08:30 PM , Rating: 2
The universe is to us now, like the earth was before man had civilized himself and began travelling. Then they could look out and see a finite space but no boundary, and so it is today. All man's theories aside, we really can't know so long as we're confined on this planet and by travelling at anything less than many times the speed of light.

I tend to suspect the universe is not infinite, that it is curved. Infinite things tend only to exist as self constructed theories and we know of no way there would be an edge to the universe, AFAIK. We may be like goldfish in a very big tank, never really understanding what it would mean to be outside of it. Wouldn't it be strange if we ever managed to reach what we thought was the edge and found a giant cat staring at us hungrily?


By Risforrocket on 5/23/2008 12:31:41 AM , Rating: 2
Actually, our universe is finite but unbounded. That is, unbounded from our perspective within our dimensional reality, that is, awareness.

Think of our universe as a donut with us living on the surface. Vast, with no boundary, yet finite.


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By Amiga500 on 5/19/2008 5:14:40 PM , Rating: 2
Ha ha ha....

You ever seen the hubble deep field?

Unless the universe is curved like the surface of the earth - how many years did man think the earth was flat - there is absolutely no chance we've seen anything like 1 tenth of it!


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By GhandiInstinct on 5/19/08, Rating: 0
RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By Adonlude on 5/19/2008 8:07:06 PM , Rating: 2
I don't believe we will ever truly know or understand the universe. Just like you can't get a 386 to run Vista you probably can't get our feble minds to process the nature of the universe.

Even if we are capable we would have to keep from destroying ourselves long enough to figure it out.


By Adonlude on 5/21/2008 9:28:41 PM , Rating: 2
And before someone comes back and says "Well maybe YOUR feble mind won't be able to process it..."

I know feble is spelled feeble :0)


By MicahK on 5/20/2008 11:23:31 AM , Rating: 2
Actually the universe is composed of only about 4% matter, and the rest is dark matter and dark energy, which gets its name from the fact that we can't "see" it.

As for what percentage of the 4% we've seen, I have no clue, and it really depends on your definition of "seen." Most binary systems orbit so close, you can't resolve both stars in a telescope, so what is in fact two stars, just looks like one. So their existence is determined from gravitation effects, which causes spectroscopic and photometric changes which we observe and then fit with our current models. And models are constantly evolving as we discover new phenomenon such as this...

So as to what lies out there, I bet there are tons of star systems that will challenge our current models and this is probably not that unique at all, just exciting because it is the first one we've observed...


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By Reclaimer77 on 5/19/08, Rating: -1
RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By xxsk8er101xx on 5/19/2008 3:49:50 PM , Rating: 2
models are never accurate they are there to help understand 'it' better. As we discover more about 'it' the model changes to reflect 'it'. Where 'it' could be anything.

To say we've seen 1/10th of the universe implies we've seen 10% when that is inaccurate. It's more like 0.1^40%

Science is not static and is always changing as new facts are observed and calculated.

The scientific community has failed to explain science and how science works by "layman-izing" it. Now we got people believing in junk science like psychics and global warming.


RE: How much of the universe have we seen?
By geddarkstorm on 5/20/2008 1:56:41 PM , Rating: 4
Exactly. The common man seems to have the problem of holding the perception that reality runs via the models and math we (scientists) have invented, as if they are an immutable base code we're programming the universe with. The truth is, math and models are no different than any other language, and are used to simply describe to ourselves and others what we have observed, and then help us express what we expect so see next if we change only a few variables. The scientific method makes sure that what we are describing is what we are actually observing, and math lets us quantitate that observation and add a level of objective confidence.

But in the end, science is still the language and description of observation: the universe works however it darn well pleases, we study that working and express it as "science", not the other way around. We have only barely begun to find and communicate what's out there. It is a very subtle yet fundamentally difference from the way our culture seems to perceive things. So, while it may seem to our culture that something totally new, like this, that blows away our current models based on previous observations is going to turn science on its head and undo the very pillars of the universe--in reality, finding something new, detailing it, incorporating it into previous observations, rewriting and fleshing out models, is the very heart and soul of science.


By bernardl on 5/20/2008 11:27:37 PM , Rating: 2
Totally accurate and relevant post.

Regards,
Bernard


By mezman on 5/19/2008 3:44:22 PM , Rating: 2