Runaway pulsar has astronomers scratching their heads

[Calilasseia]

The actual scientific paper tells a somewhat different story.

Jets from rotation-powered pulsars have so far only been observed in systems moving subsonically trough their ambient medium and/or embedded in their progenitor supernova remnant (SNR). Supersonic runaway pulsars are also expected to produce jets, but they have not been confirmed so far. We investigated the nature of the jet-like structure associated to the INTEGRAL source IGR J11014-6103 (the "Lighthouse nebula"). The source is a neutron star escaping its parent SNR MSH 11-61A supersonically at a velocity exceeding 1000 km/s. We observed the Lighthouse nebula and its jet-like X-ray structure through dedicated high spatial resolution observations in X-rays (Chandra) and radio band (ATCA). Our results show that the feature is a true pulsar's jet. It extends highly collimated over >11pc, displays a clear precession-like modulation, and propagates nearly perpendicular to the system direction of motion, implying that the neutron star's spin axis in IGR J11014-6103 is almost perpendicular to the direction of the kick received during the supernova explosion. Our findings suggest that jets are common to rotation-powered pulsars, and demonstrate that supernovae can impart high kick velocities to misaligned spinning neutron stars, possibly through distinct, exotic, core-collapse mechanisms.

[pErvinalia]

Those are actions at a distance, but they don't require superluminal speeds, as far as I know.

Of course they do. They are instantaneous.

edit: Ok, see below.

[pErvinalia]

Well how do you explain gravity, or electro-magnetic fields? Those are instantaneous action at a distance.

Bollocks. Both travel at the speed of light. Look it up. It took me two minutes to check. In case you can't be bothered spending that much time on googling it for yourself, just click on this and this.

tl;dr, so I'll have to take your word for it. Although, it doesn't make sense to me. Well, for gravity, it does, as it is hypothesised that there is a particle involved (albeit massless, I think). But I didn't think there are particles involved in electromagnetic fields. If there are, then yes, they probably will be limited to the speed of light. What's an electromagnetic field particle called? (I'm not expecting it to be a photon, as that's an electromagnetic particle, not a field particle).

[Hermit]

Well how do you explain gravity, or electro-magnetic fields? Those are instantaneous action at a distance.

Bollocks. Both travel at the speed of light. Look it up. It took me two minutes to check. In case you can't be bothered spending that much time on googling it for yourself, just click on this and this.

tl;dr, so I'll have to take your word for it. Although, it doesn't make sense to me. Well, for gravity, it does, as it is hypothesised that there is a particle involved (albeit massless, I think). But I didn't think there are particles involved in electromagnetic fields. If there are, then yes, they probably will be limited to the speed of light. What's an electromagnetic field particle called? (I'm not expecting it to be a photon, as that's an electromagnetic particle, not a field particle).

So you didn't even click on the links. OK, I'll deliver the information to you on a platter. First line from the first link: "Electromagnetic radiation (EM radiation or EMR) is a form of radiant energy, propagating through space via photon wave particles. In a vacuum, it propagates at a characteristic speed, the speed of light." Second line from the second link: "The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c." Both articles go on to explain why this is so, but if you find that reading the first line or two of them is tl;dr I don't expect you'll check that out yourself.

[pErvinalia]

Well your first line of the EM thing doesn't explain what you think it explains. Thats talking about the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. Not the propagation of the particle/wave/field/whatever of an electromagnetic field. So blow that our your cranky arse.

The second one I agree seems quite clear, although, I think gravitational waves/particles are only theorised at this point in time. If that theory is based on an observation that gravity is affective at light speed only, then that answers that. I wonder what the measurements actually are?

By the way, i found an actual relevant link concerning the propagation of electromagnetic fields -

" In quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is quantized and electromagnetic interactions result from the exchange of photons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

[Hermit]

Well your first line of the EM thing doesn't explain what you think it explains. Thats talking about the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. Not the propagation of the particle/wave/field/whatever of an electromagnetic field.

LOL. How do you think electromagnetic fields are created? That's right; through electromagnetic radiation.

By the way, i found an actual relevant link concerning the propagation of electromagnetic fields -

" In quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is quantized and electromagnetic interactions result from the exchange of photons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Have you read it? If so, can you tell me what it says about the speed of the magnetic field?

[pErvinalia]

Well your first line of the EM thing doesn't explain what you think it explains. Thats talking about the propagation of electromagnetic radiation. Not the propagation of the particle/wave/field/whatever of an electromagnetic field.

LOL. How do you think electromagnetic fields are created? That's right; through electromagnetic radiation.

Umm, no, that's wrong. Particles (i.e. and waves) are created from fields. Time to brush up on your physics.

By the way, i found an actual relevant link concerning the propagation of electromagnetic fields -

" In quantum physics, the electromagnetic field is quantized and electromagnetic interactions result from the exchange of photons."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetic_field

Have you read it? If so, can you tell me what it says about the speed of the magnetic field?

I'm agreeing with you, dipshit. Although, I'm still not convinced you know what a "field" is.

[Hermit]

C ya L8er.

*plonk*

[pErvinalia]

Umm, ok.

Anyway, the interesting thing about gravity is that it seems a different concept (to a non-physicist like me) depending on whether you view it via relativity or via a quantum concept. Gravity is understood to have infinite range, which correlates nicely with the GR view of gravitational mass involving the bending of space time. That to me implies an instantaneous effect. But when you try and look at it with a quantum perspective, you start talking about the transference of particles. Although, the graviton is hypothesised to be massless, so could that mean it could go faster than the speed of light?

Interesting stuff, and I'm not sure that it's known whether gravity is instantaneous or not*. I suppose we'll know it definitively when and if a theory of quantum gravity is described.

* Edit: Some dudes reckon they've measured it. Speed of light. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

Edit2: But - "In November 2013, Y. Zhu announced that he observed the speed of gravitational force, calculating the variations of the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites perturbed by the Sun. It is shown that the gravitational force of the Sun acting on the satellite is from the present position of the Sun. It indicates that the speed of gravitational force is much larger than the speed of light in a vacuum." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_g ... asurements

[Hermit]

* Edit: Some dudes reckon they've measured it. Speed of light. - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_gravity

That's one of the two links I gave you over an hour earlier. Nice to see you are on the ball. You know, the ones you said were tl;dr?

[pErvinalia]

Apparently you didn't read it all, though.

ETA:

[Hermit]

Apparently you didn't read it all, though.

ETA:

Second line from the second link: "The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c." Both articles go on to explain why this is so

Do go on.

Wait. Better not. This exchange is too tedious already. Take your meds instead, and go to bed.

[FBM]

I think I see why the forum has been slowly becoming less fun over the years. So many discussions become ego-fuelled, one-upsmanship challenges rather than collaborative efforts at fostering each others' understanding.

[pErvinalia]

Apparently you didn't read it all, though.

ETA:

Second line from the second link: "The speed of gravitational waves in the general theory of relativity is equal to the speed of light in vacuum, c." Both articles go on to explain why this is so

Do go on.

Wait. Better not. This exchange is too tedious already. Take your meds instead, and go to bed.

As I said, you haven't read the whole article. Once again:

Edit2: But - "In November 2013, Y. Zhu announced that he observed the speed of gravitational force, calculating the variations of the orbit of the geosynchronous satellites perturbed by the Sun. It is shown that the gravitational force of the Sun acting on the satellite is from the present position of the Sun. It indicates that the speed of gravitational force is much larger than the speed of light in a vacuum." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_of_g ... asurements

Any chance you might spend more than 10 seconds considering this stuff?

[pErvinalia]

I think I see why the forum has been slowly becoming less fun over the years. So many discussions become ego-fuelled, one-upsmanship challenges rather than collaborative efforts at fostering each others' understanding.

Absolutely, and think which ego started it. It's one thing to get fired up over a political position, it's another to be a social retarded arsewipe over fucking theoretical physics.