Faster-than-light neutrinos: keeping time

There's been a recent announcement of evidence that muon neutrinos may travel faster than light. That would be really weird - in particular it would pose serious problems for Einstein's theories of relativity. But even the discoverers aren't ready to claim that; they just describe their results and say they're puzzling. Personally I think it's unlikely they're right, but figuring out why not may be very interesting.


Faster than Light? par CNRS

Fortunately for us, they have posted a preprint of their paper on arxiv.org. All images below are from that paper.

I can't say much about the particle physics, or the details of instrument calibration, but I can address one possible way people have suggested the result may be wrong: inaccuracies in the time standards at the two endpoints.

Least squares and timing noise, part 2

Simulated time series

In my previous post I described a new paper about fitting pulsar parameters in the presence of timing noise using a general least-squares method. It seems like a good approach, but I'd like to look at it in more detail. So: python to the rescue!

Least-squares and timing noise

Figure 4 from the paper: residuals and spectrum

Working with long-term pulsar timing data sets is a nuisance because of so-called "timing noise". Not only is this noise above and beyond the usual observational uncertainties, perhaps because it is torque noise, it tends to be strongest at low frequencies (it is very "red"). Often so much so that leakage from the very lowest frequencies dominates at all analysis frequencies. Various people, myself included, have tried various approaches for dealing with this noise, but a recent arxiv paper shows real promise:

Pulsar timing analysis in the presence of correlated noise

W. Coles, G. Hobbs, D. J. Champion, R. N. Manchester, J. P. W. Verbiest

Pulsar timing observations are usually analysed with least-square-fitting procedures under the assumption that the timing residuals are uncorrelated (statistically "white"). Pulsar observers are well aware that this assumption often breaks down and causes severe errors in estimating the parameters of the timing model and their uncertainties. Ad hoc methods for minimizing these errors have been developed, but we show that they are far from optimal. Compensation for temporal correlation can be done optimally if the covariance matrix of the residuals is known using a linear transformation that whitens both the residuals and the timing model. We adopt a transformation based on the Cholesky decomposition of the covariance matrix, but the transformation is not unique. We show how to estimate the covariance matrix with sufficient accuracy to optimize the pulsar timing analysis. We also show how to apply this procedure to estimate the spectrum of any time series with a steep red power-law spectrum, including those with irregular sampling and variable error bars, which are otherwise very difficult to analyse.

I'd like to look at it in more detail and try some of the techniques on test data.

Radio vortices

Quantum mechanics, no one will be surprised to hear, is weird. In particular, photons can carry angular momentum - circularly polarized light can set objects spinning. But it turns out that light can carry orbital angular momentum as well. It's really not very clear to me quite what this means in terms of photons. In terms of classical waves, it's weird but I think I get it: if you look at the spatial distribution of the light in a beam, you may find that the phase is constant across the whole beam. But you might also find that the phase varies. Now, it has to be continuous, but you can imagine that as you make a circle around the beam center, you find the phase increases by an integer multiple of two pi. This gives you a continuous phase in a way that is topologically different from the constant-phase situation. As I understand it, this is what is called wrapping number.

Now this would just be another weirdness from the world of (classical!) waves except that there seem to be applications for it. In particular there's a paper on the arxiv about using this for communications purposes.

arXiv gleanings

I try to keep an eye on arxiv.org 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.

Millisecond pulsar X-rays

Neutron stars are so tiny and so dense that the natural temperature scale for them has them glowing in the X-rays. What's more, they serve as powerful accelerators of electrons, which then naturally produce X-rays. So it turns out that X-ray telescopes provide a very interesting view of pulsars. In light of this, when we discovered my pet source, J1023, we took an X-ray observation of it. It's taken us considerable time to analyze the results and put together a paper describing them, but I think the result will be a valuable contribution to the literature. (More importantly for me, it should make a chapter of my PhD thesis.) The result is the cumbersomely-named "X-ray Variability and Evidence for Pulsations from the Unique Radio Pulsar/X-ray Binary Transition Object FIRST J102347.6+003841".

Much of the paper is devoted to details of data analysis, which I will spare you. But I think the gist is interesting, and not too hard to summarize. 

Light echoes

Occasionally some astronomical event — a gamma-ray burst, a supernova, a magnetar flare, or whatever — will go off, lighting up the sky more or less spectacularly and then fading. Normally that's the end of that event, and we're left to wait for the next one. (In particular, this means that if you study this sort of thing, you need to be prepared for one of these things to happen at any time, so that you suddenly need to write target-of-opportunity proposals, analyze data, and release preliminary results in a tearing hurry. This typically happens while you're supposed to be on vacation.) Once in a while, though, we see a peculiar phenomenon called "light echoes".

A "light echo" arises a little like an ordinary (sound) echo: some event happens producing a bright flash (loud noise) and in addition to the light (sound) making its way to you directly, some of the light (sound) goes in a different direction, bounces off something, and makes its way from the other object to you, arriving a little later. From the place I usually stand to watch the summer fireworks competition, you hear the big skyrockets go off, then a second or two later you hear the echo from a nearby building. Of course, on human time and distance scales, the light from the fireworks reaches us instantaneously, so it's obvious that both the original sound and its echo are delayed. In an astronomical setting, we only receive light, and it takes very much longer. But it's still possible to receive a delayed echo, and studying these echoes can be very informative.

(Photo, courtesy of ESA, to the right is X-ray dust echoes around the magnetar 1E 1547.0-5408, one of the objects people in the group here at McGill study. This interesting dust-echo work is from another group, though. The echoes are from a massive X-ray outburst, which we think was caused when the extremely strong internal magnetic field stresses cracked and twisted a piece of its crust; this twisted the external magnetic field, and the twisted magnetic field produced and accelerated massive numbers of electrons and positrons, which blasted out a torrent of X-rays. At least we think that's how it happened; we saw the torrent of X-rays.)

Spuds

From the arxiv: The Potato Radius: a Lower Minimum Size for Dwarf Planets, by Lineweaver and Norman.

This article is kind of neat, not least for the charming way it uses "potato" (and its adjectival variant "potatoid") as a technical term. The point of it is to try to work out how big an object has to be for it to be round.

Ablation

From the arxiv: Momentum Transfer by Laser Ablation of Irregularly Shaped Space Debris, by Liedahl et al.

I don't have a whole lot to say about this one, but how could I ignore a paper about Giant Space Lasers? They're talking about using them to clean some of the junk out of low Earth orbit. While it would take a great deal of power to completely vaporize space junk, all you really need to do is give it enough of a shove (~100-200 m/s) that it starts to dip into the atmosphere (~200 km altitude), where it will slow down and burn up. Just how much of a shove you can get by zapping it with a laser so that some evaporates is not easy to predict, hence the paper.

The particular kind of Giant Space Laser they're talking about is left to some degree unspecified, but it's clear that you want short pulses, so that you get explosive vaporization (gas flow velocity of ~1000 m/s) rather than gentle heating, and they're talking about 10 J pulses (producing 0.1-1 m/s change in velocity for a 1 g target). So it's an awful lot of short powerful pulses. They also mention, in the usual understated scientific way, the possibility of "structural modification" of the debris — that is, the possibility that the bolt or paint flake or whatever will be blown to pieces or bent out of shape by the laser (in addition to the ~10% of the mass that will be outright vaporized). They suggest laboratory experimentation, to which I say, can I help zap random pieces of junk with a high-powered laser and see what happens? Please?

(Photo to the right is of a NASA laser ranging experiment, not actually zapping space debris. Unfortunately.)

Glitches and flares

Recently on the arxiv: Searching for X-ray Variability in the Glitching Anomalous X-ray Pulsar 1E 1841-045 in Kes 73, by Zhu and Kaspi.

Pulsars normally spin down very regularly — like clockwork, as the saying goes, and many pulsars spin down as regularly as a good atomic clock. But some pulsars, once in a while, will suddenly start spinning more quickly. This sudden (instantaneous as far as we can measure) spin-up is called a "glitch", and its full explanation remains mysterious. Generally, all we see is that the pulsar is suddenly spinning faster: no heating of the crust, no sudden X-ray emission, no radiative changes at all, just a suddenly-faster pulsar.

Anomalous X-ray pulsars (AXPs) are one kind of "magnetar", pulsars whose magnetic field is so enormous that its decay powers the X-ray emission of the star. They exhibit many peculiar behaviours, and are a major field of study in pulsar research. AXPs will occasionally become much more active for a while: they become much brighter, they emit random blasts of X-rays, and they do other peculiar things. It seems as if they may glitch every time they become active like this. If we want to find some sort of relationship between glitches and these active periods, it would be valuable to know whether an active period happens every time AXPs glitch, or whether AXPs sometimes have "quiet" glitches, like normal pulsars. That's what this paper tries to answer.

Moon rot!

Recently on the arxiv: Long-term degradation of optical devices on the moon, Murphy et al. This paper talks about the retroreflectors left on the Moon by the Apollo and Lunokhod missions, and observes that they have dropped in effectiveness by a factor of ten since they were placed. So far from the moon being a hostile but static place, something has been steadily degrading these mirrors.

Among the things the Moon missions left behind were arrays of retroreflectors. Like street signs, bicycle reflectors, or those weird-looking radar octahedra, these take incoming light and beam it back to where it came from. These are useful scientific tools, because you can fire lasers at them and time how long it takes the pulses to come back, in the process measuring the Earth-Moon distance. The current best setup, APOLLO, measures the distance to the nearest millimeter, which lets us test theories of gravity, detect a liquid core to the Moon, and watch the Moon recede from us (well, at 38 mm/year).

The moon is very far away (unlike the International Space Station, which orbits at an altitude of only a hundred kilometers). So when you beam a laser at it, even if you use a telescope to collimate the beam, it's spread over 7 km when it reaches the Moon. Then any imperfection of the retroreflector, or simple diffraction, spreads the return beam over an even larger area (20 km); your telescope picks up as much of the returned light as it can, but APOLLO sends out pulses of 10¹⁷ photons and gets back only about one photon per pulse. These tremendous losses are a challenge, so the authors of this paper (who work on APOLLO) monitor the efficiency of the system.

What they noticed, spurring this paper, was that the efficiency dropped substantially — by a factor of fifteen — near the full Moon. Now, obviously the full Moon is very bright, so background photons make detection more challenging, but it is easy to measure the background and estimate how much harder it makes detection; this effect is far from enough to explain the dip. By itself, a dip at full Moon isn't that exciting; since the Apollo 15 retroreflector is pointed at the Earth, a full Moon is when the Sun is illuminating it nearly face-on, so thermal effects might explain it (and in fact since it works by total internal reflection, it only serves as a reflector out to about 17° from the vertical, while the dip is about that wide, at 30°; the authors don't mention this, so it may be coincidence).

To investigate this dip in efficiency, though, the authors of the paper went back and looked at older observations. In the initial years, lunar laser ranging was done with the 2.7m Macdonald Observatory Smith Telescope. But rather than compete for time on this large telescope, in 1985, the program switched to using smaller, dedicated telescopes. Unfortunately these smaller telescopes couldn't see the reflections near full Moon, so there's no data from 1985 to 2006, when APOLLO went online. But comparing the APOLLO data to the MST data, they find that the dip at full Moon was not present at first, and gradually grew as time went on. What's more, if they looked at the return rate away from full Moon, they found a uniform decay; right now the retroreflectors are returning about a tenth what they did initially.

So what's happening to the retroreflectors? How are they getting worse? It's obviously not rain or wind, the moon being devoid of either, let alone the kinds of organic decay you see here on Earth. As with almost all real science, the authors cannot offer a definitive answer, but they do discuss some possibilities.

First of all it's worth pointing out that the huge drop in efficiency doesn't mean the reflectors are absorbing all that extra energy; they are almost certainly reflecting it but in the wrong direction. They're cube corner reflectors, and if you distort the shape of a cube corner reflector it doesn't reflect light back in quite the same direction it came in. The authors find it would take about 4°C temperature difference across each cube to produce the full-Moon losses they see. So if for some reason the reflectors are now absorbing a small fraction of the blazing unfiltered sun at full Moon and being heated by it, that could explain the dip in effectiveness. But why are these mirrors absorbing more and more of the sunlight?

The authors' most plausible answer, to my eye, is dust. The surface of the Moon is covered with dust, made by thermal weathering of rocks and by micrometeorite impact. This dust does not of course blow around the way terrestrial dust does, and in a vacuum a tiny dust grain should fall as fast as a rock, so it initially seems difficult to explain how much dust could get on top of the reflector. There are micrometeorites, though, and there is an effect I hadn't heard of before: dust particles become electrostatically charged through irradiation and are either levitated or thrown upward in "fountains" by electrostatic repulsion. We think. What we do know is that observations from the lunar surface show the optical effect of dust above the ground. So however this dust gets up there, some of it can plausibly fall on optical equipment left there by astronauts.

A layer of dust on the surface would also naturally explain the general decay in effectiveness even when not being heated by the Sun. So it looks like perhaps things left exposed on the lunar surface get covered with dust fairly rapidly. This I find interesting in its own right, but there are also various plans to build telescopes on the lunar surface, since these would share the advantage of the Hubble space telescope of images undistorted by atmosphere, while being able to rely on gravity to hold things in place, and possibly even being able to be built out of lunar materials. If they rapidly become coated with dust, those plans will have to come up with some scheme for cleaning the optical elements.

A Missing Link

We've been pretty sure that low-mass X-ray binaries turn into millisecond pulsars for a while now. But no one had ever seen the one turn into the other. Thanks to the drift-scan survey, now we have.

The system, J1023, is currently behaving just like a normal millisecond pulsar: it spins very regularly, and we see radio pulses every cycle. But in 2001, before anyone had any idea there might be a pulsar there, optical observations showed that it was flickering, blue, brighter than usual, and had double-peaked emission lines. All of these are signs of hot gas flowing in the system, and the double-peaked lines in particular are a pretty clear indication that the system had an accretion disk. Unfortunately nobody knew to point an X-ray telescope at J1023 while it was doing this, but it seems pretty clear in retrospect that it was an X-ray binary at the time.

In 2002, observations showed the emission lines were gone, the brightness and color were back to 1999 levels, and the flickering was tailing off to nothing. So the optical story stands today: no sign of an accretion disk. But there is clearly a radio pulsar there, and we're able to make some extremely good measurements of the system because of it. We know that the pulsar is 7.2 times as massive as its companion, for example, and if the pulsar has a typical neutron star mass of 1.4 solar masses, the system is 1.3 kiloparsecs away (about 4200 light-years) and we're seeing it at an angle of 46 degrees.

The image above is a pair of artists' renditions of it (well, sort of, I did most of the work using the software binsim and I'm hardly an artist, though Joeri van Leeuwen improved them significantly). They assume the pulsar's mass is 1.4 solar masses, and show the system as we think it was in 2000 and now. The hot disk of matter, present in 2000 but absent now, produced the optical emission that was observed, but (we think) it was blown away when a drop in the accretion rate allowed the radio pulsar to turn on, producing not just the beam of radio waves pictured in the image but also a powerful wind.

Since we know the system went through one roughly two-year active phase, it seems entirely possible that it will do so again within the next few years. If that happens, we'll be able to watch the formation of an accretion disk in a system where we have very good measurements of the orbit and system geometry from pulsar timing. That's never been seen before, and will be very exciting.


While I was the one who found this source, everyone involved in the drift-scan survey did essential work in making it possible for me to find it, and I worked with many other people to carry out the follow-up observations, so let me thank all my collaborators: Ingrid H. Stairs, Scott M. Ransom, Victoria M. Kaspi, Vladislav I. Kondratiev, Duncan R. Lorimer, Maura A. McLaughlin, Jason Boyles, Jason W. T. Hessels, Ryan Lynch, Joeri van Leeuwen, Mallory S. E. Roberts, Frederick Jenet, David J. Champion, Rachel Rosen, Brad N. Barlow, Bart H. Dunlap, and Ronald A. Remillard.
The paper describing the discovery has just been published in Science, and can also be read on arxiv.org.

Falling free

There was a rather neat paper on arxiv.org today: The Flow Of Granular Matter Under Reduced-Gravity Conditions, by Hofmeister et al. They point out that while we understand the movement of, say, sand fairly well under terrestrial gravity, objects like the Moon and Mars are covered with fine powdery regolith, and we don't really understand how it moves under the lower gravity there. This includes, for example, the steepest stable slope, obviously important for understanding the dunes on Mars. So they did some experiments in reduced gravity - which is much harder than it sounds.

Gravity is tricky stuff. It's such a weak force, you can't manpiulate it by moving sources around, like you can with electricity and magnetism. You basically need to use whole planets to make any appreciable amount of gravity. But you can fake it with accelerations - and in fact it turns out that "fake" isn't the right word, since accelerations are indistinguishable from gravity. So if you want to do some experiment in higher than normal gravity, you can put it in a centrifuge. But if you want less than normal gravity, that's not so easy.

There are basically four ways to get reduced gravity. The first is to fake it: many experiments (wind tunnel tests for example) are done on scale models. The scaling requires cleverness, because (for example) the surface-to-volume ratio of a toy airplane is very different from that of a real airplane. So you also need to scale things like air speed and air density appropriately. So if you're studying some gravitational phenomenon, fluid flow perhaps, you may be able to build a model scaled so that the needed gravity for the model is one Earth gravity. This only works for systems with pretty simple physics, though, for which you understand the scaling.

The second way to get reduced gravity is to do your experiment on the ISS. Unfortunately, it costs hundreds of thousands of dollars per kilogram to get anything up there, so this is rather a last resort.

There is also the famous "Vomit Comet", which flies along parabolic trajectories to provide about half a minute of microgravity to those aboard. This is great for training astronauts (and wealthy space nerds) but it's very difficult to keep residual accelerations small enough for precision experiments.

This brings us to the system Hofmeister et al. used: drop towers. In principle they're very simple: you put your experiment in a box, then drop it from a tall tower. For as long as it takes to fall, you have microgravity. If you want to double the time, you can even fling it up from the bottom. Of course, the devil is in the details; for example you want to evacuate the tower so there aren't residual accelerations from air drag, and you need to plan on the capsule being pushed a few centimeters to the side by the Coriolis force. Plus, of course, you need to stop it non-destructively when it reaches the bottom. But all these problems are tractable, and in Bremen there is a drop tower that can give up to nine seconds of free-fall.

Hofmeister et al. used the Bremen drop tower for their experiment. Perhaps perversely, in order to get the reduced but non-zero gravity they needed, they put their experiments in a centrifuge inside the capsule. They hooked up a high-speed camera, and were able to track each grain of sand as it slid down the slopes. They found that the steepest stable angles and velocity patterns of the flows were rather poorly described by existing theory. So it looks like the theorists have some work ahead of them before they can understand the Martian dune fields.

Best final sentence of an abstract ever

The edge of locality: visualizing a black hole from the inside

Authors: Andrew J S Hamilton, Gavin Polhemus (JILA)

(Submitted on 27 Mar 2009)

Abstract: We illustrate and discuss the view seen by an observer inside the horizon of a Schwarzschild black hole. The view as the observer approaches the central singularity is of particular interest because, according to ideas arising from "observer complementarity," points in opposite directions along the observer's past lightcone are at "the edge of locality," where standard flat-space quantum-field-theory commutation rules may be at the brink of failure. Near the singularity, the observer's view is aberrated by the diverging tidal force into a horizontal plane. The view in the horizontal plane is highly blueshifted, but all directions other than horizontal appear highly redshifted. We argue that the affine distance provides a canonical measure of distance along a light ray from emitter to observer. Since the affine distance is not directly measurable by the observer, we also consider perceptual distances, and argue that the trinocular distance (binocular distance is inadequate) provides an estimate of affine distance that would allow tree-leaping apes to survive in highly curved spacetime.

Boldface mine.