Concept

Glitch — where it appears

A sudden increase in a pulsar's rotation rate, by a fraction between 10⁻¹¹ and 10⁻⁵, followed by a partial recovery over days to months. It happens mostly in young pulsars and is unpredictable, and the standard reading is a transfer of angular momentum from an interior superfluid to the crust.

Named by 4 essays across one field — each of them below, with the objects they name alongside it.

Two measured numbers, and everything else on the page derived from them. 25 pulsars in the plane of period against period derivative, at their catalogued values. Only the two axes are measurements; the three families of contour are models. Constant surface field runs at slope −1 because B ∝ √(PṖ), constant characteristic age at slope +1 because τ = P/2Ṗ, and the two families cross the population at right angles — which is why a single dot fixes both. The Crab sits at 3.8·10¹² G and 1257 years, and its true age is 972; the millisecond pulsars at the lower left have fields ten thousand times weaker and characteristic ages of billions of years, because they were spun back up by a companion long after they died. The line at the lower right is the death line, B/P² below which the model says no pair production and therefore no radio emission — and J2144−3933 is drawn below it, an 8.5-second pulsar that is radiating anyway.

A clock that runs down and says what it is

A pulsar hands over two measured numbers, a period and its derivative. Everything else usually quoted about it — an age, a magnetic field, a luminosity — is derived from those two through a model, and the one measurement that tests the model refutes it.

stars · Pulsars $Three ways for a timing model to be wrong, and three shapes that say which. Timing residuals over 6 years for the Crab pulsar, one curve per kind of error in the model, in microseconds. A position error of 1.2 mas leaves a sinusoid of period exactly one year — measured off the drawn curve as 1.000 — with amplitude (a/c)·δθ·cos β = 2.7 μs, because the error is being projected onto a baseline that is the Earth's own orbit and nothing about the pulsar. An unmodelled proper motion of 0.9 mas/yr leaves the same sinusoid with an envelope growing linearly: twice as large at 6 years as at 3. An error of one part in 10⁹ in Ṗ leaves a parabola, the second integral of a frequency drift, whose second derivative is constant to 4e-12 across the span — and that fractional error is deliberately minute, because anything larger produces a residual thousands of times the other two and draws them as flat lines. The shapes do not resemble each other, which is the whole reason a pulsar is an instrument rather than a clock: fitting them simultaneously delivers a position, a proper motion and — from the annual curvature term, not drawn here — a parallax, all from the arrival times of pulses and no image of anything. What is left when every known shape has been removed is the science: glitches, red noise, and the correlated residual between pairs of pulsars that a timing array exists to find.$

A clock read against a model of everything in between

A pulsar delivers arrival times and nothing else. Everything else is a model, and what is measured is the difference between the model and the arrivals — a residual whose shape says which term is wrong, and whose annual sinusoid is a position measured from pulses rather than from an image.

stars · Pulsars $14 glitches, and the 1.5 per cent of Vela that is not slowing down. Accumulated fractional spin-up against time for a Vela-like pulsar over 40 years, in parts per million. The underlying spin-down has been removed, so a perfectly braking pulsar would be a flat line at zero. What is drawn instead is a staircase: 14 sudden jumps of a few parts per million, each rising in less than a minute and then relaxing partway back over a couple of months, leaving a permanent step behind. Nothing outside the star can deliver angular momentum on a timescale of seconds, so the source is internal, and the only internal component that could have any to give is one that has not been slowing down with the rest. That is a neutron superfluid: it carries its rotation in quantised vortices, the vortices pin to the crustal lattice and cannot migrate outward, and so the superfluid keeps the spin it had while the crust brakes past it. The reservoir grows until the pinning fails somewhere, and a glitch is the unpinning. The straight line through the staircase is the glitch activity, 0.68 parts per million per year, and it converts directly into an interior measurement: the crust cannot on average take more than the superfluid stores, so the decoupled component must hold at least 2τ_c times the activity of the star's moment of inertia, which here is 1.5 per cent. It is a lower bound rather than a value, and it is one of the very few quantitative statements about the inside of a neutron star that needs no equation of state at all. The individual glitch times and sizes here are drawn from a seeded generator rather than a catalogue; what is real is the staircase's shape, the partial healing, and the arithmetic that turns a slope into a fraction.$

The part of a star that never slowed down

A pulsar's spin decays smoothly for years and then jumps upward inside a minute. Nothing outside can deliver angular momentum that fast, so something inside has been storing it — and the rate at which the jumps accumulate is a lower bound on how much of the star is not braking with the rest.

stars · Pulsars

A formula everyone uses, and the number no pulsar has. Above: the braking index measured for the 4 pulsars whose spin-down has been followed long enough to give a second derivative, against the value a magnetic dipole rotating in vacuum requires. That value is exactly 3, and it is what every catalogued field strength and every characteristic age assumes. Not one measurement reaches it: they run from 1.4 to 2.839, and all of them fall short in the same direction, which is the signature of a systematic rather than of noise. Below: what that costs. The age a spin-down history gives is the period divided by (n − 1) times its derivative, so the ratio to the quoted characteristic age is 2/(n − 1) — 5.00 for Vela. The numbers are not thereby useless: an exponent recovered from the data is exactly the kind of correction a measurement can absorb. What has gone is the claim that the field strength printed beside a pulsar is a measurement of a field. It is a measurement of a spin-down rate, read through a model the same pulsar refutes.

The exponent no pulsar has

Every field strength in the pulsar catalogue comes from one formula, which assumes the star is a magnetic dipole rotating in a vacuum and therefore that its spin-down obeys an exponent of exactly three. Where that exponent has been measured it is 2.51, 2.84, 1.4 — never three, and always short.

stars · Pulsars

Named alongside it

The objects these essays reach for when they reach for this one.

Neutron star Spin-down Braking index Characteristic age Moment of inertia Pulsar timing Timing residual Barycentric correction Crust Death line Dispersion measure Entrainment

All concepts