Talk:Hulse–Taylor pulsar

Name (2006)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I think this article should be renamed "PSR B1913+16," but I don't know how to do it. 137.22.113.196 23:06, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Period

The figure in this article is useless. It doesn't contain units... How much has the period decreased by now? For sure not by 25 seconds(That's much more than the period itself). Where does it come from anyway? -cs —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.56.120.67 (talk) 08:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I think it is confusing. I thought I understood it, but I am not so sure anymore (and thus removed my previous comment). I think that the emission of gravitational waves makes the periastron change, so that it happens at a different time in the orbit. The period of the orbit itself changes much less. To answer your question, the period decreases about 76 μs/year, so it has changed an extra 76 μs/year * 38 years ≈ 2.9 ms by now. --jbc (talk) 23:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see how "cumulative" could have a slope of zero at the time of discovery. So if by chance it was discovered in 1980, it would have a non-zero slope?. I thought that kind of behavior would have to be self-similar, and not a simple parabola.Sinan Karasu. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.237.251.167 (talk) 17:24, 22 September 2013 (UTC)

The confusion is caused thus: It's not "cumulative period shift", but rather "cumulative periastron time shift"! That explains why it's not 2.9 ms, but rather 40 seconds. It also explains why it starts with near-zero slope: "In January 1975, it was oriented so that periastron occurred perpendicular to the line of sight from Earth". In 2017 (180/4.2 years later) is should again show near-zero slope.

    Please change the diagrams y-axis caption
    from: "cumulative period shift (s)"
    to: "cumulative periastron time shift (s)"

That should help against the frequent confusion with the decay of the orbital period. It also reproduces exactly the wording in the source, [3], for this graph's y-axis.

Thanks, Karl Missouri (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

I have adjusted the figure. However the source [3] is also not correct, as it contains a typo in the y-axis legend which should be labelled as having units of ms, rather than s. With the unit of ms, the graph clearly represents the time displacement of periastron on the basis of a constant rate of change of period (i.e. the rate of change of period can be considered as the 2nd derivative of time displacement, hence the parabolic shape) and is numerically consistent with the values given both in the article text and source paper [3]. ChumpusRex (talk) 20:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC) This argument is incorrect - The equation for periastron epoch shift is S = (P' * t^2)/2P - where S is total shift, P is the orbital period (7.75 hours in this case), P' is the time derivative of orbital period (-76 μs/year) and t is the duration of observation (30 years). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C5:488C:5900:A1E3:1FE6:6A97:848F (talk) 22:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Distance Measurement

Someone needs to research how the distance was determined to this object. It cannot be seen in the visable. Was this long baseline interferometry from radio telescopes? This would be an interesting addition to the article.Trojancowboy (talk) 22:34, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Companion?

Can someone add more info on the non-pulsar in this binary? 76.66.197.2 (talk) 12:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 22 February 2016

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: To be moved. Note: will require admin assistance. (non-admin closure)  — Amakuru (talk) 20:13, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

---

PSR B1913+16 → Hulse–Taylor binary – Per WP:COMMONNAME. Outside of people working in pulsar timing, this binary pulsar is pretty much always referred to as the "Hulse-Taylor binary". TR 11:07, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

• Support, common sense and common name. An important discovery which won Hulse and Taylor the Nobel Prize, so including their names in the title makes the page more accessible. Randy Kryn 20:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. In my experience, "Hulse-Taylor binary" is by far the most widely used name for this object. Astro4686 (talk) 03:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:36, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
• Support Any accepted name in a human language is a better article title than PSR B1913+16.--agr (talk) 12:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tidal effects?

Can the 0.2% disparity between the observed and predicted effect be caused by tides raised on both bodies? Neutron stars rotate very rapidly so they are prone to tidal braking by orbiting objects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 145.108.130.118 (talk) 08:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Semi-Major Axis

What is the source of the data? It appears to differ greatly from the magnitudes given by various research papers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.168.195.202 (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Hulse–Taylor binary. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160308044739/http://enscience.me/pulsar/ to http://enscience.me/pulsar/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:47, 7 January 2018 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: https://archive.org/details/astronomyencyclo0000unse/page/54/mode/2up. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)

For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. MrLinkinPark333 (talk) 02:26, 7 December 2020 (UTC)