Astronomy & Celestial Mechanics
the sky, computed
Series

Synchrotron radiation — the series

2 essays on one idea, from the one that introduces it to the one that assumes the rest.
  1. Three slopes: 2.5, −0.75 and −1.25, and only the middle one is about the electrons. A radio source's spectrum across five decades of frequency, computed for an electron population with index p = 2.5 in a uniform field. Nothing in this curve is a temperature, because a power law has no scale and therefore nothing a thermometer could read. The straight section between the two bends has slope −0.75, measured here off the drawn curve, and the electron index follows from it and from nothing else: α = (p − 1)/2, so a flux ratio between two frequencies is a measurement of the energy distribution of particles in a place no detector will ever visit. The two bends are the other two measurements. Below 80 MHz the source is opaque to its own radiation and rises as ν^2.5 — a slope fixed at 5/2 by the geometry alone, whatever the electrons are doing — and the frequency at which that happens gives an angular size for a source nothing has resolved, because the turnover is where the brightness temperature meets the electrons' own. Above 12 GHz the spectrum steepens by 0.50: the electrons that radiate at high frequency lose their energy fastest, so the top of the distribution has already emptied, and the frequency of the break is a clock. What no part of this curve gives is the magnetic field. Only the field and the particle density together enter the emission, and every field strength ever quoted for a radio source comes from assuming the two share the energy equally.

    A spectrum with no temperature in it

    Every spectrum in this collection so far has been a thermometer. A radio lobe's is a power law, and a power law has no scale — so there is nothing for a thermometer to read, and what the shape carries instead is the energy distribution of the particles that made it.

    part 1 · starlight
  2. The field nobody measured, and the reason the number is quoted anyway. The energy content of a radio source against the field strength assumed for it, both logarithmic. A synchrotron luminosity constrains only the product of the relativistic electron content and the field: a bright source can be many particles in a weak field or few in a strong one, and no observation of the radiation distinguishes them. The two curves are the two costs. Assuming a weak field is expensive in particles, because the particle energy needed rises as the field to the minus three halves; assuming a strong one is expensive in the field itself, which rises as B². Their sum has a minimum at 5.0e-5 gauss, and at that minimum the particle energy is exactly four thirds of the field energy — which is where the word equipartition comes from, and it is a property of where a curve turns rather than a statement about nature. The estimate is quoted because it is robust: the minimum-energy field goes as luminosity to the two sevenths, so an order of magnitude of ignorance about the luminosity is a factor of 1.93 in the answer. It is also, for the same reason, nearly uninformative — a number that hardly moves is a number that hardly measures.

    A minimum that was mistaken for a principle

    A radio source's brightness fixes the product of its particle content and its field, and nothing about the radiation separates them. What is quoted instead is the field that makes the total energy least — and at that field the particles happen to carry four thirds of what the field does, which is where the word equipartition comes from and why it is not a physical assumption at all.

    part 2 · starlight

All series