|
|
These data, looked at from afar, clearly show an oscillation with a period of roughly two days. Measure the period as accurately as you can and estimate the uncertainty in the deduced period: the correct value probably lies between and days. Explain how you arrive at this conclusion. The solution: Much judgment is involved in determining the period, and that is the main point of this exercise. The most straightforward attempt is to count the number of periods over the entire interval. But obviously there are some intervals such as at t = 121 days when no maximum is observed. Somehow one has to "correct" for such problems by mentally adding maxima to be counted, based on the rest of the plot. That way students may well determine there are 27 to 30 peaks in 40 days, for a period of 1.3 to 1.5 days. To avoid the "correction", perhaps it is better to select a part of the plot where maxima are very clear, such as between days 129 to 136. But then the time interval for a whole number of periods is difficult to measure accurately. For instance, the high data points with counts of 6 to 8 per second are probably not exactly at the midpoint of the entire peak when one takes into account the data points just before or afterwards. Similarly it is difficult to find the midpoint of a steep slope. Different individuals or groups tend to find values of the period in the range 1.4 to 1.8 days. Which method is better? Should the resulting P simply be averaged? It is not obvious. Didactics: It is useful to give one copy of the graph (and a tool to measure lengths) to each group of three to five students. Let them work out the period before they receive any description of the radiation or the object that emits the radiation. The groups should talk quietly enough so that neighboring groups cannot hear the answers discussed. When (almost) all groups are finished, ask for the periods from one group, then ask whether any groups have different periods. Let the students suggest reasons for the differences in period derived by different groups. The end result should be the realization that the derived period has an inherent uncertainty, and an estimate of the magnitude of the uncertainty. Once the discussion is finished, students may be told: If one Fourier-analyzes a much longer data set, one obtains a "signal" in a small range of periods centered on a period of 1.7 days. The astrophysical setting: (not really needed for this practical problem) : The object Her X-1 is so named because it was the first x-ray source observed in the part of the sky that includes the star constellation of Hercules. It was first carefully observed in the early1970's by the X-ray satellite with the Swahili name Uhuru. The satellite was so named because it was launched off the coast of Kenya on December 12, 1970, on the anniversary of the country's independence. Her X-1 is a binary star: a normal star and a neutron star orbit around each other. The neutron star is an x-ray pulsar with a rotational period of 1.24 sec. (Problem 3.4 includes a diagram for a pulsar.) The x-ray data in the graph are taken with low time resolution, so that the pulsar signal is averaged out. Clearly, there is a period of roughly two days. This is the period at which the two stars orbit about each other. Why the x-ray emission? A binary pair of stars necessarily has angular momentum. If gas from a normal star escapes toward a neutron star, it has angular momentum relative to that neutron star, and cannot fall directly toward it. Instead, the gas swirls about the star, gradually spiraling inward. The gas becomes part of an "accretion disk", centered on the neutron star. In this disk, each part of the gas moves very nearly at the Keplerian velocity around the star, but there is also a very small component of velocity inward. The small inward velocity has a major physical implication: the gas must lose angular momentum. Viscosity is far too small. Probably turbulence within the gaseous disk acts like a viscosity, gradually transporting angular momentum outward, thus allowing the gas to migrate inward. (The turbulence, in turn, may be caused by magnetic fields.) Inevitably, as the gas sinks deeper into the gravitational well of the neutron star, some of the orbital kinetic energy is turned into heat. The detailed process by which this occurs is not known, though some kind of viscous heating is probably involved. The gas in the disk is heated to tens of millions of degrees and so radiates largely in x-rays (h We observe the orbital period in the x-rays because we view different parts of the accretion disk as it revolves, with the neutron star, around the other star. Sometimes we see the "top" of the disk, sometimes the edge, sometimes the "bottom" of the disk. Finally, when the gas has swirled very close to the star, the star "grabs" the gas (probably by magnetic forces) so that the gas falls the remaining distance onto the neutron star. The orbital kinetic energy which the gas had just before infall is released in the form of heat on or near the surface of the neutron star, and this heat is radiated away as x-rays. Probably the gas is funneled onto the neutron star near its magnetic poles. Then we see a "pulsating" x-ray source because the rotation of the neutron star repeatedly carries the x-ray emitting region into and out of our view. An x-ray pulsar is thus analogous to a radio pulsar.
The problem: Gas spirals slowly toward a (non-magnetic) neutron star, forming an accretion disk, and then falls a short distance (by much less than a neutron star radius) onto the neutron star. What is the ratio of the energy radiated away by the gas while in the accretion disk to the energy released by the gas upon falling onto the neutron star? (Assume that gas in the accretion disk at any one time is in a practically circular orbit satisfying Kepler's third law.)
The theoretical answer: One.
Interpretation: Why "one"? Every Keplerian orbit involves a kinetic energy equal to half the gravitational energy released while the gas approached from far away, starting approximately at rest. Therefore, each element of gas in a Keplarian orbit has converted half the gravitational energy to heat and radiation. Specifically, this is valid for those elements of gas just ready to fall onto the star. Once they have fallen onto the star, the entire gravitational energy must have been converted to heat. Since half of that heat was accounted for in the accretion disk, the second half must be heat released on the neutron star.
Interpretation: This situation may be approximately true in the class of x-ray sources called Low Mass X-ray Binary Sources. However, in many other accretion disks, including objects like Her X-1, magnetic fields are important. The physics of these accretion disks is still a very active subject of research.
The setting: The Crab Nebula is the gas ejected by a supernova explosion seen on Earth in the year 1054 A.D. Even now, centuries after the explosion, the nebula is still filled with highly relativistic electrons and with electrical currents and their magnetic fields. The energies inherent in these phenomena cannot be left over from the explosion. Apparently, energy is supplied continuously, at the rate of about 1.2x105Lo (Lo = solar luminosity). What is the source of this enormous energy?
|
|
|
F. Pacini (of Italy) suggested that the energy needed for energizing the Crab Nebula might come from the slowing-down of a rotating neutron star at the center of the nebula. But how would one detect a neutron star? One year later, in 1967, pulsars were discovered. Pulsars are beacons of radiation that sweep past us. Presumably the beacons are attached to some rotating compact object, such as a neutron star. Initially the pulsars were detected in the radio range, and one pulsar was promptly observed at the center of the Crab Nebula, sweeping past us 30 times per second. Pulsars have a very precisely defined period, but over many years the period increases, indicating that the rotation of the central object gradually slows down. The energy made available by the slow-down of the pulsar in the Crab Nebula, if the central object is a neutron star, neatly accounts for the energy needed in the Crab nebula. This agreement is one of the main reasons that pulsars were promptly identified with neutron stars, thus providing good evidence that neutron stars exist. The problem: Write down the kinetic energy of rotation, E, of a neutron star in terms of M, R, and the rotational period P. Assume uniform density. Then write an equation for the rate of change of rotational kinetic energy, dE/dt, in terms of M, R., P, and dP/dt, where dP/dt measures the slow-down of the rotation (with dE/dt The solution: The moment of inertia of a homogeneous spherical object is I = 2/5 MR2. The rotational energy is E = 1/2 I |