NASA News #3 Cosmic Makeovers and Speed Limits

Ethan's blog was boring this week, but there's an abundance of NASA material following the holiday season lull. I've picked three and given more substantial (and technical) treatments than normal.

NASA's Great Observatories Help Astronomers Build a 3D Visualization of an Exploded Star (link)

The headline is not a lie, as the multi-spectrum image of the nebula is phenomenal.

Of special interest are the core x-ray emissions, shown here in isolation.

In the electric universe (EU) world, this is a canonical plasma torus. In the mainstream viewpoint, it is unexpected and must be explained. In their view, the central star is the source of power for the whole structure and, since the system pulsates at 30 beats per second, the star is assumed to be a pulsar - a rapidly spinning neutron star.

It's worth keeping in mind that every aspect of neutron stars is either theoretical or unknown. The only reason they exist is because scientists could offer no other explanation for rapid oscillations of powerful light sources other than some rapidly spinning star. Everything from that point on is conjecture. They reckon that any object which rotated many times per second must be very compact and dense, thus they proposed it was made of neutronium - a substance of pure neutrons which were chosen to avoid the problems with rapidly spinning and mutually repulsive charged particles like protons. There are problems with neutrons too. For instance, they are known to be quite unstable outside of a balanced atomic nucleus. It is assumed that they act differently when compressed under intense gravity.

The other problem with neutron stars - besides the flights of theoretical fantasy and the suspension of reasonable skepticism - is that all aspects of them are refuted by observations. For one, neutron stars exhibit copious amounts of synchrotron radiation, which is emitted by high-velocity particles when they are accelerated by a magnetic field. Thus, cosmologists state that pulsars have the strongest known magnetic fields in the universe, which are caused by the spinning neutron star - but they have no idea how. Also, pulsars are observed to "glitch" and shift pulsating frequencies. The Crab Nebula's most significant glitch was a noticeable increase in frequency that persisted for two days, before returning to the normal rate.

The theory that the central star powers the whole nebula is refuted by evidence. For instance, several years ago a study on Crab Nebula gamma rays showed that they were emitted some distance away from the central star. This observation is actually congruent with the X-ray image shown above, since most of the x-rays come from the plasma torus and jets.

With all that background, the NASA statements can be read with some level of amusement.

This neutron star is the super-dense collapsed core of an exploded star and is now a pulsar that rotates at a blistering rate of 30 times per second. A disk of X-ray-emitting material, spewing jets of high-energy particles perpendicular to the disk, surrounds the pulsar. The infrared light in this image shows synchrotron radiation, formed from streams of charged particles spiraling around the pulsar's strong magnetic fields. The visible light is emission from oxygen that has been heated by higher-energy (ultraviolet and X-ray) synchrotron radiation. The delicate tendrils seen in visible light form what astronomers call a "cage" around the rich tapestry of synchrotron radiation, which in turn encompasses the energetic fury of the X-ray disk and jets. These multiwavelength interconnected structures illustrate that the pulsar is the main energy source for the emission seen by all three telescopes.

Somehow, the existence of "tendrils" - their term for plasma filaments - are proof that the nebula is powered by a central neutron star.

These nested structures are particular to the Crab Nebula. They reveal that the nebula is not a classic supernova remnant as once commonly thought. Instead, the system is better classified as a pulsar wind nebula. A traditional supernova remnant consists of a blast wave, and debris from the supernova that has been heated to millions of degrees. In a pulsar wind nebula, the system's inner region consists of lower-temperature gas that is heated up to thousands of degrees by the high-energy synchrotron radiation.

In all likelihood, the Crab Nebula is not so different from other supernovae. Even this description hints at the problems of those, such as the outer "debris" being heated to millions of degrees by collision with interstellar gases (which is asinine, since the thin plasmas don't behave like normal gases). In their model of a pulsar wind nebula, the synchrotron radiation heats up the system and causes secondary emissions. But the synchrotron radiation is already a secondary effect of the neutron star's magnetic field. This all amounts to what I call Backdoor EU, as the nebula is the result of magnetic fields and electric currents in either case, but the neutron star comes with all sorts of added complexity, since they are always striving to explain observed electric effects as having a basis in conventional, gravity-driven dynamics (but they get very unconventional anyway).

"It is truly via the multiwavelength structure that you can more cleanly comprehend that it's a pulsar wind nebula," Summers said. "This is an important learning objective. You can understand the energy from the pulsar at the core moving out to the synchrotron cloud, and then further out to the filaments of the cage."

Synchrotron cloud is a way of not saying magnetic field. The term pulsar wind nebula should be interpreted as an inadvertent admission that the mainstream models of supernovae and pulsars are failed. The wind nebula is a way to take the EU explanation but wrap it in conventional terms. Under EU, the plasma torus & jets, the synchrotron radiation, and the pulsating are all easily understood. If you've ever had the pleasure of sitting under a flickering fluorescent light, then you've experienced a pulsating plasma.

What this articles exemplifies is very good astronomy coupled with very bad science. The visualization of the nebula from several advanced observation platforms is an incredible application of technology. It may seem wasteful then that the results are shoe-horned into a false understanding of the cosmos, but eventually the dam will have to burst.

Astronomers Spot Distant Galaxy Group Driving Ancient Cosmic Makeover (link)

An international team of astronomers funded in part by NASA has found the farthest galaxy group identified to date. Called EGS77, the trio of galaxies dates to a time when the universe was only 680 million years old, or less than 5% of its current age of 13.8 billion years.

More significantly, observations show the galaxies are participants in a sweeping cosmic makeover called reionization. The era began when light from the first stars changed the nature of hydrogen throughout the universe in a manner akin to a frozen lake melting in the spring. This transformed the dark, light-quenching early cosmos into the one we see around us today.

Those first two paragraphs of the NASA article make the claims. For a more technical analysis, we'll look at the referenced article (pdf).

We obtained deep NB [narrow band] imaging observations of the Extended Groth Strip (EGS) field (RA14:19:16 DEC +52:52:13), as part of the DAWN survey. This is a uniquely deep survey given its sensitivity as well as area coverage, with a primary objective of identifying galaxies at redshift z = 7.7.

The study was setup explicitly to find z = 7.7 galaxies. The narrow band observations were calibrated to detect a wavelength that is equivalent to a know UV emission line of hydrogen that has been redshifted into infrared. They also considered other observations of the candidate galaxies in visible and near-infrared spectra.

The data reduction was primarily done using the NEWFIRM science data reduction pipeline. However, for generating the final stack of all the images produced by the pipeline (sky subtracted, cosmic rays cleaned, re-projected) we used our own scripts to remove bad frames that were visually inspected in order to maximize the signal-to-noise ratio of astronomical objects.

This is vague and questionable. What scripts were used, and what data was considered to be bad? Would an independent researcher be able to duplicate their findings given the same data?

Each of our candidates had to satisfy all of the following criteria: 1) 5σ detection in the NB filter, 2) 3σ significant narrowband excess (compared to the F125W image), and 3) non-detection (< 2σ) in the individual optical images (F606W, F814W). Criteria 1 & 2 ensure real emission line sources while criterion 3 eliminates most low-redshift sources.

To clarify the criteria 1) the signal in the target wavelength must be very strong, 2) if the signal is much stronger than the near-IR signal, it must indicate emissions lines, and 3) if visible light is not detected, it is proof of a high-redshift source.

The second and third criteria both depend on assumptions. There are objects in the sky that shine brightly in infrared only, such as CW Leo, which is interpreted to be a highly obscured red dwarf star located right here in our own galaxy.

To measure the photometric redshifts, we made use of spectral energy distribution (SEDs) templates. We obtained the best-fit SEDs using EAZY which provides photometric redshift probability distribution p(z) by finding the best-fitting combination of redshifted galaxy spectral templates to the observed photometry.

The most abused word in all of astrophysics is measurement. Here they say the redshift is measured, which is not true. They have used modeling software to determine redshift probabilities based on the data. The data is a strong signal at a wavelength of a strong emission line of hydrogen as it would be observed at a redshift of 7.7, and several weak & null signals. The result then is a redshift of 7.7, as would obviously be the result for such a setup. What else would be possible? This all amounts to data laundering. A few photometric data points have been transformed into a spectral signal model, from which a redshift has been "measured." If CW Leo was much dimmer, it may well be assigned a 7.7 redshift by this method.

The paper goes on to provide direct spectrographic data which seems to confirm the redshift, and some other analysis. If the spectrographic data is sound, why bother with the faulty probability modeling at all? Why not go straight to the spectrograph for candidates that fit their criteria? I suspect the authors felt compelled to make some novel contributions besides simply matching a finding in one project with data from another.

Famous Black Hole Has Jet Pushing Cosmic Speed Limit (link)

For years, astronomers have observed radiation from a jet of high energy particles – powered by the black hole – blasting out of the center of M87. They have studied the jet in radio, optical, and X-ray light, including with Chandra. And now by using Chandra observations, researchers have seen that sections of the jet are moving at nearly the speed of light.

Anytime cosmologists talk about observations pushing theoretical limits, there is almost certainly an error. In this case, the limits have actually been broken, and are explained away as an illusion of general relativity. Further, the cosmic speed limit is said to have been broken (or nearly so) by the infamous M87 black hole. It's always fun to watch them explain why black holes are the opposite of black - emitting copious amounts of the most powerful types of radiation - and the opposite of holes - pushing matter away at the highest possible velocities. As usual, they take time to explain the basic premises of why black holes are neither black nor holes.

When matter gets close enough to a black hole, it enters into a swirling pattern called an accretion disk. Some material from the inner part of the accretion disk falls onto the black hole and some of it is redirected away from the black hole in the form of narrow beams, or jets, of material along magnetic field lines. Because this infall process is irregular, the jets are made of clumps or knots that can sometimes be identified with Chandra and other telescopes.

There are no magnetic field lines in nature. Saying that particles are accelerated along magnetic field lines shows that they are grasping to explain the unexpectedly coherent jets which extend millions of light years into the cosmos.

By observing the changes in the jets over time, they estimated their velocities and came up with some surprising numbers.

The researchers used Chandra observations from 2012 and 2017 to track the motion of two X-ray knots located within the jet about 900 and 2,500 light years away from the black hole. The X-ray data show motion with apparent speeds of 6.3 times the speed of light for the X-ray knot closer to the black hole and 2.4 times the speed of light for the other.

Anyone's initial reaction to such a statement would be that something is wrong with the measurements. However, NASA has explained the aberration as an artifact of general relativity.

“One of the unbreakable laws of physics is that nothing can move faster than the speed of light,” said co-author Brad Snios, also of the CfA. “We haven’t broken physics, but we have found an example of an amazing phenomenon called superluminal motion.”

Superluminal motion occurs when objects are traveling close to the speed of light along a direction that is close to our line of sight. The jet travels almost as quickly towards us as the light it generates, giving the illusion that the jet’s motion is much more rapid than the speed of light. In the case of M87, the jet is pointing close to our direction, resulting in these exotic apparent speeds. 

That's a lot of complexity, when other factors could be at play. For one, the galaxy may be closer than believed, with a larger angle of jets. Or, it may just be that the image analysis is junk, which I believe to be the case. The NASA article links to related paper (pdf).

Chandra HRC-I observations were examined for evidence of proper motion in the jet of M87. Any changes are expected to be subtle at the resolution of Chandra as movement at the speed of light over a 5 yr time span in M87 would produce a shift of only ∼ 0.02′′. In the difference map (Figure 1, bottom left), the outward shift of a knot with constant brightness would produce positive residuals (blue) at its outer margin and negative residuals (red) at its inner margin. These features can be seen in the difference image of Knot D, providing clear evidence that it has moved outward along the axis of the jet. No other knot shows such clear evidence of movement, although this may be attributed in part to significant changes in brightness, such as those seen in HST-1 and Knot A.

Assuming that the motion of the knots is equal in velocity to the movement of the particles (which is questionable), then those motions would be very "subtle" over 5 years at the resolutions provided by Chandra. So what we see is the normal process, where signals are massaged out of noisy data by statistical methods, and then those outcomes trumpeted as actual data. In this case, only one of the knots - Knot D - was observed to have clearly drifted in the expected direction, thus it was used for the analysis. (Some people would call that cherry-picking the data.) The knot nearest the galactic center, HST-1, was analyzed using statistical modeling techniques.

The proper motion results from Section 4 provide two equally probable interpretations of the system. The first interpretation is that the measurements are due to motion of the X-ray knots, while the second assumes that brightening and/or fading of substructure within the knots gives the appearance of motion at Chandra’s resolution.

Supposedly this is resolved by comparing to archival Hubble imagery and showing that the knot drifts were congruent in both datasets. What question that is supposed to answer is beyond me, but it does raise another: what is the point of the x-ray imagery then, if it merely confirms what was already observed by Hubble?

Interestingly, the conclusions section takes on an assumption we challenged earlier.

Our determination of the minimum magnetic field strength from the synchrotron cooling model relies on the same electron population being responsible for the X-ray emission at both observing epochs, requiring the knot material to move at relativistic speeds between the observations. This is noteworthy because it implies that the speeds of the jet knots reflect bulk relativistic motion of jet plasma, not just of a disturbance, such as a wave or shock front in the jet. To avoid this conclusion, the jet plasma emitting at the initial knot position would have to cool even faster than assumed, requiring a substantially greater magnetic field. Since the required field strength would then be larger than the equipartition value, this seems unlikely. The simplest conclusion is that the motion of the jet knots directly reflects the bulk speed of the jet plasma

Suddenly they're worried about simplest conclusions! The trend these days is that the scientists are perpetually being shown to have underestimated the effects of magnetic and electric fields. The simplest conclusion is actually that the estimates of equipartition values (performed in 2005) are not accurate. The insistence that knot velocities and particle velocities must be the same is not sound. There's no reason why they can't be an artifact of the larger plasma sheath structures, rather than the individual particles themselves (except their need to validate the black-hole accretion theory). For instance, the northern lights put on mesmerizing displays of dancing wisps of glowing and pulsating atmospheric plasmas. No one believes that the observed movements reflect the velocities of the inbound particles. It's understood that they are an artifact of the electric circuit as a whole.

Also significant is what is missing from the paper. Despite the bold headlines of a cosmic speed limit being "pushed," and the PI claiming, “Our work gives the strongest evidence yet that particles in M87's jet are actually traveling at close to the cosmic speed limit”, there is never a calculation for a near-c value. The calculations are for greater-than-c values, and it's just assumed that they are really near-c and the math would work out of anyone bothered to do it. While the results - if accurate - are evidence of relativistic jets, that much has been known since the mid 1950s when the synchrotron radiation was measured. The results here don't seem to offer any refinement on what is known about them.

We'll finish by analyzing how they finished.

The preference for the synchrotron cooling model together with the agreement in positions and speeds between the X-ray and optical/UV emission provide a strong case that the observed knot speeds reflect the relativistic speed of the jet plasma, not just of a disturbance propagating along the jet.

No, this is not a strong case at all. This paper has taken weak signals, cherry-picked data where it fit expectations, and applied statistical modeling where it didn't. The argument for particle speeds equaling knot speed is based on estimates of magnetic field strength made a decade and a half ago. Most importantly, there is nothing in the paper about particles being determined to be moving near the speed of light, and yet that is the headline that NASA promoted. That is, even if the paper wasn't junk, the NASA headline would still be a lie.