arXiv gleanings

I try to keep an eye on because interesting new pulsar papers generally appear there first. But there are often abstracts that catch my eye, whether because they have neat ideas, because they talk about neat object, or because they just seem peculiar. This week's batch had a few of each.

Ideas like this have been floating around for a while. Magnetars are pulsars whose emission is powered by abnormally strong magnetic fields — perhaps a thousand times stronger than normal pulsars. The standard explanation is that these fields, like those of ordinary pulsars, are produced by some sort of dynamo process during stellar formation and sustained by currents in the core of the star. Just why magnetars should have stronger fields, in this model, is unclear; perhaps it's as a result of rapid initial rotation, though there are problems with that idea. This paper, though, suggests that instead of a dynamo, the field is generated in a phase transition in the star's core where it becomes, essentially, a permanent magnet. Something analogous happens when you cool a piece of iron down to room temperature: the magnetic moments of nearby iron atoms align, so whole regions develop bulk magnetic moments. In iron, under normal circumstances, these regions are still quite small and randomly-oriented, so that macroscopic lumps don't spontaneously become magnetized. But in principle if the cooling were done right, the whole lump could become one domain. In magnetars, these authors suggest, the whole core forms one domain. It's a little hard to argue since it's really unclear what kind of matter is in the core; its density is far above even nuclear density, so we have no experimental data, and theoretical predictions are all over the map. So the permanent-magnet idea has been around for a while. This paper looks interesting because they suggest that observations may support this model. 

The three observational points they claim as support are the mismatch in characteristic ages, the high masses, and the increased spin-down after flares. Characteristic ages are, essentially, obtained by dividing the period by its rate of change, giving a rough time for the period to double. These ages are known to be quite far off for most pulsars for which another age estimate is available (from a supernova remnant or a historical supernova, mostly), but usually they're larger than the real age. For the few magnetars for which other age estimates are available, apparently the characteristic age is too small; this is explained by their model. Their model also says, basically, that pulsars with high masses turn into magnetars because the cores condense into a pemanent-magnet state. Since some magnetars seem like they should have high-mass progenitors, they claim this is plausible. But they make no mention of millisecond pulsars, some of which are known to have very high masses, and which have very low magnetic fields (perhaps a millionth of magnetar fields); these would seem to present a problem for this model. The increased spin-down after flares they attribute to a high internal magnetic field leaking out during the flare and producing increased spin-down. But the timing behaviour of magnetars is extremely complicated, and increased spin-down after flares seems in many cases to resemble "glitch recoveries" seen in other pulsars. All together, I'd like to see a little more evidence for the model. Fortunately they make some predictions, which the magnetar observers will hopefully be able to test.

Anil Bhardwaj, Ronald F. Elsner, G. Randall Gladstone, Thomas E. Cravens, Carey M. Lisse, Konrad Dennerl, Graziella Branduardi-Raymont, Bradford J. Wargelin, J. Hunter Waite, Ina Robertson, Nikolai Ostgaard, Peter Beiersdorfer, Steven L. Snowden, Vasili Kharchenko
Chandra image of Northern Canada from Bhardwaj et al. 2010

X-rays are difficult to observe — you need a space telescope, and photons are few and far between (one count per second is quite a bright source). But X-ray astronomy is a very productive field, largely because the things that produce X-rays tend to be spectacular: neutron stars, accretion disks, galaxy clusters, solar flares. So it's interesting to see that more modest objects — planets, comets, and rings — also produce interesting X-rays. The X-rays come from phenomena like aurorae, shock waves, and the Io plasma torus.

T.E. Girish, S. Aranya

I was puzzled by the title of this paper, but it really is about photovoltaic power generation — solar cells — around other stars. How does stellar type affect solar cell efficiency? What is the best kind of solar cell for use around an M-type star? What about binary stars like Sirius and Alpha Centauri? In fact the paper starts with "There is an increasing demand for the interstellar space missions since several planetary systems are recently discovered around other stars[1]."

F. V. Hessman, V. S. Dhillon, D. E. Winget, M. R. Schreiber, K. Horne, T. R. Marsh, E. Guenther, A. Schwope, U. Heber
The naming scheme as applied to hypothetical systems; from Hessman et al. 2010.

These authors are unhappy with the current naming scheme for exoplanets (simply append a letter, assigned alphabetically in order of discovery, to the name of the star) and want to come up with a better one. The introduction of the paper is basically a survey of incompatible usages in the literature, but what really revealed limitations in the current system was the discovery of a number of rather complicated systems: a good naming scheme should distinguish between planets orbiting a pair of stars and planets orbiting each of the stars in a pair. The system they propose manages to avoid renaming any but the weirdest current systems, and the names are not particularly worse than the current ones, though in complicated systems they do use parentheses.

No comments: