Jump to content

Talk:Magnetospheric eternally collapsing object

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Intuition01 (talk | contribs) at 06:41, 15 November 2008. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Was this article lifted?

This article is remarkably similiar to the recent NewScientistSpace.com news article at this address:

http://www.newscientistspace.com/article.ns?id=dn9620&feedId=online-news_rss20

It seems pretty clear that one is a copy of the other.

what this article must address

What is a highly redshifted rotating magnetic dipole? -- CannibalSmith 12:06 GMT 28 July 2006

Well it's not a monopole (only north or only south magnetic) just a plain magnet.
And gues it turns so fast it's starting to redshift (i'm not sure how fast an object can rotate, but i'll gues it's all a in single quantum state so altough it's huge it might interact as if it was one particle. (so how fast can a single particle spin?)
If it's not acting like a single particle, then i think the fastest rotation is the speed of light, redshift would then mean close to the speed of light. anonymous

How exactly do magnetic fields affect neutral particles?

The article's description of how matter is prevented from falling into a MECO is incomplete. A very strong magnetic field may affect charged particles, or neutral particles (like neutrons) that are composites of charged particles, but uncharged fundamental particles (like neutrinos) wouldn't be flung away in this manner. These are produced in copious quantity by stellar collapse that reaches the neutron star stage or farther, so their effects won't be negligible. --Christopher Thomas 19:14, 29 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]




REPLY TO ABOVE QUESTION BY DARRYL LEITER (CO-DISCOVERER OF THE MECO WITH STANLEY ROBERTSON:

THE HIGHLY REDSHIFTED MECO SURFACE IS DYNAMICALLY BALANCED OUTSIDE OF ITS SCHWARZSCHILD RADIUS BY THE INTRINSICALLY MAGNETIC, SYNCHROTRON RADIATION GENERATED, COMPTON SCATTERING FORCE WHICH ACTS ON THE PAIR DOMINATED PLASMA WITHIN THE MECO SURFACE. FOR THE CASE OF NEUTRINOS THE PHOTON->NEUTRINO SCATTERING FORCE IS WEAKER THAN THE PHOTON->ELECTRON-POSITRON FORCE BUT THIS WEAKER FORCE WOULD ALSO ACT TO EVENTUALLY REPEL THE NEUTRINOS EVEN IF THEY WERE ABLE TO PENETRATE THE MECO PHYSICAL SURFACE BALANCED OUTSIDE ITS SCHWARZSCHILD RADIUS. HENCE IT IS NOT THE INTRINSIC MECO MAGNETIC FIELD ALONE WHICH CREATES THE HIGHLY REDSHIFTED, EDDINGTON LIMITED MECO SURFACE. RATHER IT IS THE EDDINGTON LIMITED PHOTON SYNCHROTRON LUMINOSITY GENERATED BY THE MAGNETIC FIELD WHICH DOES THE JOB VIA THE PHOTON-PARTICLE INTERACTIONS WHICH COME INTO PLAY.

Shouting is not necessary. Really. Disengage your Caps Lock key please.
So, photon->neutrino interaction is "weaker" than photon->electron? Indeed it is - ~10^13 times weaker! I don't believe that photon fluxes which purportedly keep charged particles from infalling can keep neutrinos too. You'll need 10^13 times bigger flux (which would competely blow away charged particles). Something is fishy here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.103.91.47 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

History?

Are there any research papers or articles about MECO theory we could quote or link here? It seems that all coverage on this topic is from the very recent news articles about it. I understand that one of Dr. Hawking's main bets is the existence (or non-existence) of black holes. Surely there's some sort of long and grandiose correspondence documenting this? :) I dunno, just seems like this only recently popped up claiming a long history, but this page is only concerned. --Addama 14:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you're thinking of this. --KSmrqT 19:40, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I know what Addama means about this suddenly popping up...it's that New Scientist article which has sparked it all off. Although I've stumbled across one of Mitra's papers in my meanderings through the arXiv, last year, I think. I don't think I agree with him. But anyway, let us see how all this sudden flurry pans out...
Incidentally, has anyone noticed the name in the article history? At least, and for this he is to be commended, he declared in the article itself that he had been editing it. Byrgenwulf 20:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup strategy

At the moment, this reads like a cross between a description of a MECO, combined with the story of their discovery/theoretical development, combined with a comparison (somewhat onesided) with black holes. All mixed up, higgledy piggledy.

This needs to be changed so that the development of the concept goes in one section, a description of it in the next (without reference to black holes, preferably), and finally a section can compare the two concepts.

I am not particularly interested in doing it, but shall try to fix a few things every now and again. I have also removed the "request for expansion", for now, because the article is positively massive, and there's an IP that comes every night and deposits vast reams of content, which, while undoubtedly well-intentioned and informative, is neither formatted nor structured, and it just keeps getting more and more. Byrgenwulf 15:50, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

removed external links?

The removal of external links is a bit disappointing, as they contained news stories that talked about MECOs. And there's a comment here about an older version of the article being directly lifted from one of them (or vice versa). They are also easier to read that the mess on the article page that needs cleanup. 70.51.9.213 05:15, 6 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs an introduction?

As a non-physicist reading this, I'm finding it almost impossible to get a general overview of what a MECO is. Is it possible for somebody to write an introductory paragraph, giving a non-technical summary? [and before you ask, I'm not in the least bit capable of writing one myself] Danohuiginn 23:56, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm a non-physicist too (chemist) so I added a small introduction to the opening paragraph. I hope my less than perfect grasp of physics didn't introduce any incorrections, so someone please check it. 213.22.31.12 21:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Needs clarification as non-mainstream theory

This article reads a whole lot like a "crackpot" article. For example:

The existence of ECOs/MECOs is certainly not widely accepted at present. But this is not necessarily because of any theoretical inconsistency ...

That's a POV, OR approach to the topic. If it's not widely accepted, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia to speculate *why not* ... especially if the answer is the especially crackpot-y "because the old paradigm is deeply ingrained."

I would make two observations on the reference list. First of all, it's deeply circular. Dr. Mitra's papers, as far as NASA ADS knows, have been cited primarily by Dr. Mitra himself; only his Phys Rev D. article has refereed citations by anyone else, and those citations are both of the form, "It has been established that gravitational collapse is a dissipative process (several citations lumped together) ... " This can hardly be taken to be an endorsement of Mitra's work. One of Robertson's papers recieves a few non-self citations, only one of which can be called an endorsement of (or even a mention of) this model.

This article needs to be rewritten to the tune of "This is a fairly obscure model which has received some support in the literature" rather than "this is the unique and obvious perfect super-solution to gravitational collapse." The article can be substantially shortened; it shouldn't be presenting a more-compelling case for MECOs than is supported by the *refereed* and *cited* parts of the literature. Bm gub 00:26, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It also had some other signs of crankishness, including Unnecessary Capitalization (UC) and Unecessary Abbreviation (UA), as well as the occasional "so-called" thrown in for good measure. I've removed those but I'm not a physicist by any stripe so I'm not able to address the deeper issues this article has. Bryan Derksen (talk) 22:59, 6 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I must say that papers by other authors are emerging, seemingly similar to this model, even if they don't cite Mitra or Robertson. For example, see F. Fayos and R Torres, "A class of interiors for Vaidya’s radiating metric: singularity-free gravitational collapse", Class. Quantum Grav. 25 (2008), #175009. 193.136.141.26 (talk) 21:48, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of previous tendentious edit=

The external link containing the so-called ``criticism by John Baez and Chris Hillman[1]


has been removed to enact the wikipedia policy that ``Tendentious Editing is not allowed [2] :


In 2001, Chris Hillman launched a rather scathing attack against non-existing and fictitious errors on Mitra's work claiming existence of Eternally Collapsing Objects in lieu of finite mass black holes as the penultimate state of continued gravitational collapse, in an internet News Group named science.physics.research, run by his close associates John Baez and Matt McIrvin. This message did not at all touch upon Mitra's work, which was on continued gravitational collapse, it also overlooked Mitra's assertion that the ultimate state of continued collapse would still be (zero mass) black holes and at places, this message bordered on personal attack on Mitra. But since Mitra never followed such internet news groups, he was initially unaware of it. Dr Sabbir Ahmed (Ph.D. MIT, 1997, Theoretical Physics) made Mitra aware of such a ``criticism and exerted him to post a response. But when Sabbir Ahmed tried to post Mitra's response, this News Group moderators (John Baez and Matt McIrvin) refused to admit the same even if they promoted Chris Hillman's attack.

Seeing the doors to be shut in sci.physics.research, later, Sabbir Rahman, forwarded Mitra's response to another group called science.physics.relativity. The following link would lead to Mitra's response

[3]

alongwith a preamble by Sabbir Rahman:

Having made Prof Abhas Mitra aware of the postings to the newsgroup sci.physic.research regarding his work on the non-existence of black holes, he has kindly prepared the following rejoinder. He has asked me to edit the English and forward it to the newsgroup on his behalf. I would request that any questions be sent to Prof Mitra directly - as I understand it he does not have access to newsgroups and has certainly never posted to one before. I have cross-posted this message to sci.physics.relativity as the contents are obviously relevant to this newsgroup as well.

The only changes made to Prof Mitra's original are fairly minor spelling and grammatical changes to clarify the meaning where this may have been unclear. Non-trivial adjustments requiring some element of personal interpretation of the originally intended meaning have been placed in square brackets, though the resulting text has been kept as faithful to the original as possible. The equations and mathematical arguments should, however, have remain unchanged.

For reference, the original posting by Chris Hillman to which this reply is addressed can be found at:

http://www.lns.cornell.edu/spr/2001-07/msg0034336.html

There seems to be some confusion regarding Prof Mitra's academic background. So to clarify these on his behalf: Abhas Mitra is a theoretical high-energy astrophysicist by training. His PhD thesis was entitled "A New Theory of Ultra High Energy Gamma Ray Production in Cygnus X-3" from the University of Mumbai, India. He was a full member of the American Astronomical Society from 1993-95, is a member of the International Astronomical Union and has been a life member of the Astronomical Society of India since 1983. He has published many papers in journals such as Astrophysical Journal, Astronomy and Astrophysics, and Physical Review Letters. He has been an invited speaker on various topics of High Energy Astrophysics in many conferences, and has worked as a referee for the Astrophysical Journal amongst others. As far as research on the physics of the Central Engine of Gamma Ray Bursts is concerned, he happens to be the only individual having publications in refereed journals.

Sincerely,

Sabbir.

Now the point is that if such internet news group postings are to be admitted, soon wikipedia might, partially, turn turn into an encyclopaedia of unverifiable tendentious ``claims and ``counter claims often full of flames, personal attacks, and occasionally vulgar languages. To avoid such a calamity, I have not entered Mitra's defence in the main article; on the other hand, I have removed such links.

It may be noted that, whosoever had inserted that so-called ``criticism by John Baez and Chris Hillman must be aware of the response by Sabbir Rahman and Mitra. Had the intention behind such ``criticism been for science, the ``response by Mitra too should have been inserted. Obviously, this is not the case. Clearly, insertion of this external source was a case of ``Tendentious Editing ([4]).

Such an insertion is similar to the 2001 refusal by John Baez and Matt McIrvin to suppress the defence while promoting Hillman's attack. In fact, having seen such an attitude, one of the readers of science.physics.relativity wrote that[5]:

Vergon:

John Baez & Co. are the Newsgroup equivalent of the Taliban, i.e., religious extremist dictators restricting the rights of others, and who practice a narrow interpretation that they impose on others. Nor do they tolerate criticism.

They do not know the meaning of research, and are a ball and chain around the neck of scientific research.


- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - > Uncle Al > http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/ (see [6])

The tone of this complaint is not professional even though the grouse may be genuine. And this is the danger of allowing internet News Group postings to any forum which would like to host and disseminate knowledge in a professional and neutral manner.

In general one cannot and should not form any serious opinion based on internet group messages. Apart from lack of objectivity and peer reviewing, a few persons (or even a single person) may always post with various aliases to create an an undue positive or negative sentiments. In turn, many unsuspecting readers of wiki might be swayed by such comments to form undue positive or negative impressions ( for instance, I know that Chis Hillman also posts under the alias ``T. Essel).

For a moment, let us consider the popular internet astronomy forum- Bad Astronomy and Universe Today Fourm (www.bautforum.com). Here, one participant strongly defended MECO paradigm and compared Abhas Mitra with Subramanium Chandrasekhar: see [7]

But should we ever include such links to the wiki MECO article to bolster it. My view is strictly NO.

Therefore, in my opinion, no link to internet group messages should be allowed in any serious wiki article.

So, if the message link deleted by me would be reinserted, a floodgate might be opened for favorable and unfavorable links for not only the present article but by many other wiki articles.

Finally, for the unsuspecting genuine readers of wikipedia, let me point out that while the MECO article is based on the physics of Radiative Gravitational Collapse and Relativistic Astrophysics, the supposed critiques, John Baez and Chris Hillman have no working knowledge let alone expertise in such areas. However, they proclaim to be ``experts in almost all topics of relativity discussed in the internet. While John Baez is indeed a Mathematical Physicist in University of California, Riverside , he has absolutely no research experience ([8]) in Gravitational Collapse or Relativistic Astrophysics. On the other hand while Chris Hillman has a Ph.D. in mathematics from University of Washington, he has hardly any research experience in any area including mathematics (except for guided Ph.D. work). Neither is he presently affiliated with any academic institute (though this in itself need not mean much).

Even if it would be argued whether inserted the external link was tendentious editing or not, it was definitely a poorly sourced material which nonetheless made serious allegations.

In general, in my opinion, any wiki article which is supported by verifiable references published in journals/books should be criticized, if indeed needed, by critiques published in verifiable articles/research papers published in journals/books. Just like no new theory (i.e., unpublished or poorly sourced) is allowed in Wiki, no serious criticism, poorly sourced or unpublished, should not be admitted either. 

(Intuition01 (talk) 12:19, 12 November 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Vandalism by Headbomb undone

Having found that, the MECO article cannot be entirely deleted, the 46kb article was reduced to 2 kb by removing most of the crucial physics content supported by reliable references. On the other hand, poorly sourced link containing malicious overtones were restored. Even if the latter action might be debated this near-deletion of the MECO article ammounts to vandalism. Kindly desist from such actions.

A precondition for genuine scientific debate is non- suppress other's referenced contribution. Once such an repressive attitude is controlled, scientific debate is welcome.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Magnetospheric_eternally_collapsing_object&oldid=251920102"