5 ms·

Heh, neutron stars have magnetic fields too https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/526281/why-do-neutron-stars-have-such-powerful-magnetic-fields https://p

Heh, neutron stars have magnetic fields too https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/526281/why-do-neutron-stars-have-such-powerful-magnetic-fields https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/526281/why-do-ne...

raattgift 3y ago
> Heh, neutron stars have magnetic fields too While you're still able to edit your comment, you might consider something like quoting the relevant part of the article at the top: "Some stars, though, have much more powerful fields [...] neutron stars have magnetic fields 1 trillion times stronger than the Sun’s. As the massive [progenitor] star collapses, its magnetic field lines are packed into a much tighter space, and the field strength increases. But then there are magnetars: These neutron stars have fields 1,000 times stronger [...] and, given that most stars aren’t all that magnetic to begin with, those are more difficult to explain." Or indeed, from the subtitle near the very top: "and it might explain the origin of highly magnetic cinders known as magnetars" and then suggest your physics SE link (or rather, the accepted answer) for more information on the magnetic fields of neutron stars -- including theories about their origin as "fossils" of the progenitor star (like, but not quite as magnetic as, the star discussed in the article, which may offer support for the "fossil" theory) and internal dynamics during the collapse into the neutron star, or even after the neutron star has formed. The accepted answer there <https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/526296/revisions https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/526296/revisions > is a decent short read that is related to, and expands upon, the paragraph extracted above. However the answer and comments there are now several years old now, and are about an area of active research -- for example, one of the linked academic papers was less than a year old on the date the answer was submitted. Or, perhaps you (and others) might do something like that next time, to do justice to an interesting and relevant link. Finally, here is a link to the (open access) PDF of the paper published in Science, courtesy of the European Southern Observatory (and several of the authors' Canadian and European funding agencies): <https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso2313/eso2313a.pdf https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/e...>
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- junon 3y ago
  Or you, being the person who clearly cares more about this topic than OP, could do it if you so chose instead of being condescending about it.
  - dunder_null 3y ago
    I think it’s not about condescension but rather attempting to curate a high valued discussion within the comments section.
    - wruza 3y ago
      It’s clearly about both. Don’t forget people post under different circumstances and may not have enough time or focus for quality highlights. Also, demanding curation barely motivates anyone. Just add what you think is missing.
    - dustingetz 3y ago
      most of us are on mobile
- ttul 3y ago
  Rephrased in a kinder tone: I appreciated you sharing that relevant link about neutron stars and magnetic fields. Since the article is discussing a star with an unusually strong magnetic field that may help explain magnetars, readers might be interested to learn more details about neutron star magnetic fields too. To help make the connection clearer, you could consider quoting a relevant excerpt from the article like: "Some stars, though, have much more powerful fields [... ] neutron stars have magnetic fields 1 trillion times stronger than the Sun’s." Then your physics stack exchange link provides some great additional details on theories about the origins of neutron star magnetic fields. The accepted answer there gives a nice short overview that expands on the article's point about how the star's collapse amplifies its field. There's always more to learn about these complex astrophysical processes! I think your link makes a great addition, especially if you frame it as following up on the article's points. Let me know if you'd like any help editing your comment to connect the dots more clearly. Just wanted to provide a friendly suggestion, since I know I also appreciate feedback on how to improve my own comments sometimes.

raattgift 3y ago

> Heh, neutron stars have magnetic fields too While you're still able to edit your comment, you might consider something like quoting the relevant part of the article at the top: "Some stars, though, have much more powerful fields [...] neutron stars have magnetic fields 1 trillion times stronger than the Sun’s. As the massive [progenitor] star collapses, its magnetic field lines are packed into a much tighter space, and the field strength increases. But then there are magnetars: These neutron stars have fields 1,000 times stronger [...] and, given that most stars aren’t all that magnetic to begin with, those are more difficult to explain." Or indeed, from the subtitle near the very top: "and it might explain the origin of highly magnetic cinders known as magnetars" and then suggest your physics SE link (or rather, the accepted answer) for more information on the magnetic fields of neutron stars -- including theories about their origin as "fossils" of the progenitor star (like, but not quite as magnetic as, the star discussed in the article, which may offer support for the "fossil" theory) and internal dynamics during the collapse into the neutron star, or even after the neutron star has formed. The accepted answer there <https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/526296/revisions https://physics.stackexchange.com/posts/526296/revisions > is a decent short read that is related to, and expands upon, the paragraph extracted above. However the answer and comments there are now several years old now, and are about an area of active research -- for example, one of the linked academic papers was less than a year old on the date the answer was submitted. Or, perhaps you (and others) might do something like that next time, to do justice to an interesting and relevant link. Finally, here is a link to the (open access) PDF of the paper published in Science, courtesy of the European Southern Observatory (and several of the authors' Canadian and European funding agencies): <https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/eso2313/eso2313a.pdf https://www.eso.org/public/archives/releases/sciencepapers/e...>

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
junon 3y ago
Or you, being the person who clearly cares more about this topic than OP, could do it if you so chose instead of being condescending about it.
- dunder_null 3y ago
  I think it’s not about condescension but rather attempting to curate a high valued discussion within the comments section.
  - wruza 3y ago
    It’s clearly about both. Don’t forget people post under different circumstances and may not have enough time or focus for quality highlights. Also, demanding curation barely motivates anyone. Just add what you think is missing.
  - dustingetz 3y ago
    most of us are on mobile
ttul 3y ago
Rephrased in a kinder tone: I appreciated you sharing that relevant link about neutron stars and magnetic fields. Since the article is discussing a star with an unusually strong magnetic field that may help explain magnetars, readers might be interested to learn more details about neutron star magnetic fields too. To help make the connection clearer, you could consider quoting a relevant excerpt from the article like: "Some stars, though, have much more powerful fields [... ] neutron stars have magnetic fields 1 trillion times stronger than the Sun’s." Then your physics stack exchange link provides some great additional details on theories about the origins of neutron star magnetic fields. The accepted answer there gives a nice short overview that expands on the article's point about how the star's collapse amplifies its field. There's always more to learn about these complex astrophysical processes! I think your link makes a great addition, especially if you frame it as following up on the article's points. Let me know if you'd like any help editing your comment to connect the dots more clearly. Just wanted to provide a friendly suggestion, since I know I also appreciate feedback on how to improve my own comments sometimes.