The Critical Theoretical Choice
The critical choice between the NS-Capture and NS-Creation theories is to determine which one of these two theories explains the cause of supernova explosions (SNE’s).
Because the theories are complementary: i.e. one says the SNE creates the Pulsar, and the other says the Pulsar creates the SNE; then only one of them can be true. Basically, we are asking: was the neutron star pulsar present when the star exploded, or was it the explosion/implosion that created the neutron star pulsar.
One can provide arguments to support either theory, and then the discussion can focus on which theory is “better”.
However, if one of the theories can be proved to be false, then the other must be true.
Therefore, one of the main objectives of this web site is to prove that the NS-Creation theory is false. This is not to say that absent any other context NS-Creation cannot be made to be a desirable choice, but it must be able to explain ALL neutron star pulsars, not just the ones that are isolated and spinning down in supernova remnants.
According to NS-Creation a pulsar is created as a result of a supernova explosion, in particular, a fast spinning pulsar. We can refer to this fast pulsar at the instant of creation as FP(0), which means that the pulsar was created with some initial spin rate and period, but that after that instant, the fast pulsar begins to to spin down, which we represent as FP(-).
According to NS-Capture, a supernova explosion is caused by the capture of a passing neutron star that subsequently spins up to become a fast pulsar, which ultimately destroys its companion in a supernova explosion. We can assume that the fast pulsar continues to accelerate before the SNE, and therefore, we can refer to it as FP(+). However, at the instant of the explosion of the companion GS, the fast pulsar will stop accelerating and begin to slow down as an FP(-). But, at the moment of the explosion when the acceleration goes from + to -, the FP is temporarily in the transition state, namely FP(0).
Therefore, both the NS-Creation and the NS-Capture theory predict that there is an initial fast pulsar state, FP(0), from which the pulsar then begins to spin down, FP(-).
Since both theories predict the same initial state after the SNE, the behavior after the SNE should be the same for both theories, and we shall see that it is.
Therefore, if we are to distinguish between these two theories, we must focos on the pre-SNE behavior.
In the pre-SNE state, NS-Creation states that the FP simply does not exist, which is obvious for this theory, because the theory asserts that the SNE creates the FP.
In the NS-Capture pre-SNE state, the opposite is true: the FP(+) exists within the atmosphere of the GS companion. However, what we observe in X-ray binaries is slow pulsars that are speeding up on their way to becoming fast pulsars. i.e. in the vicinity of a GS, an SP(+) will evolve to become an FP(+). That is observed fact, not a theoretical conjecture.
The x-ray binaries actually demonstrate how one can turn a non-spinning neutron star, NS(0) into and SP(+), and then an FP(+).
This critical fact, the spinning up of an SP(+) to an FP(+), is observed. We know it happens because we can see it happening.
As will be shown, this one observation will prove that the NS-Creation theory must be false.
Let us now expand on these concepts a bit in order to show how to logically represent the essential concepts of both theories.
In Cen X-3 and the BeXB’s, each of which consists of a giant star being orbited by a relatively slow X-ray pulsar that is spinning up, we have the necessity of explaining the presence of the neutron-star/X-ray-pulsar that is orbiting its giant companion.
If we apply NS-Creation theory, to produce the NS in the binary, we, of necessity must start with a binary consisting of 2 giant stars, one of which explodes in a supernova, leaving a fast pulsar in a binary orbit with the other giant star.
We can represent this state transition analytically as:
[GS+GS] => [GS+SNE(FP(0))] => [GS+FP(-)+SNR] => [GS+FP(-)]
which says that initially there are two GS’s in a binary system, one of which experiences an SNE and in the process creates an initial state FP(0). The FP begins to slow down, but remains in a binary orbit with the GS, and as soon as the SuperNova Remnant sufficiently dissipate, we should be able to the FP(-) slowing down in orbit around the GS.
By contrast, if we apply the NS-Capture theory, we originally have a solitary giant star (GS) that encounters a solitary neutron star (NS(0)), which results in a binding collision creating a binary consisting of a GS plus a spinning-up neutron star which is an SP(+) that will evolve to a fast spinning-up pulsar (FP(+)).
We can represent this analytically
[GS, NS(0)] => [GS+NS(0)] => [GS+SP(+)] => [GS+FP(+)]
In other words, both the NS-Capture theory and the NS-Creation theory result in a binary system consisting of a giant star (GS) plus a fast pulsar (FP). The left hand notation, [GS,NS(0)], represents a GS and an unrelated, but soon to be encountered NS(0). The second notation replaces the “,” with a “+”, which represents an initially captured (bound) NS(0) in a closed orbit around the GS.
The only difference is that NS-Creation predicts an FP(-), whereas NS-Capture predicts an FP(+). Why does NS-Creation predict an FP(-)? Because that’s the very definition of NS-Creation, one of the GS’s experiences a GS=>SNE(FP(0)]=>FP(-).
Actually, in order to explain the observed X-ray binaries represented by [GS+SP(+)], the NS-Creation theory requires the following transition:
[GS+FP(-)] => [GS+SP(-)] => [GS+NS(0)]
In other words NS-Creation theory requires a process that is the exact opposite of the observed process of [GS+SP(+)] that is observed in Cen X-3 and the BeXB’s. i.e. NS-Creation theory requires observation of [GS+SP(-)] systems in order to explain the existence of [GS+SP(+)] systems.
Both NS-Creation and NS-Capture require a supernova explosion to explain the transition: [SNE] => [FP(-)]. Therefore our choice is between one of the following 2 processes to explain supernova explosions:
[GS] => [SNE(FP(0))] => [FP(-)] NS-Creation
[GS+FP(+)] => [SNE(FP(0))] => [FP(-)] NS-Capture
The difference is that:
NS-Capture provides the FP to cause the [SNE] of the GS, whereas
NS-Creation requires the GS to cause [SNE] to create the FP.
In both cases the [SNE] is the destruction of the GS.
NS-Creation says the [SNE] creates the FP.
NS-Capture says the FP causes the [SNE].
Our purpose on this website is to examine the evidence that supports or opposes the two theories.
It is also the point of view on this website that NS-Capture is the true theory and NS-Creation is a false theory, and that there is overwhelming evidence to support this conclusion.
The main weakness of the NS-Creation theory is the fact that there is no evidence to support the process of slowing down a fast pulsar in the presence of a giant star companion.
However, there is observed evidence that a slow pulsar in the presence of a giant star spins faster in time.
Therefore NS-Creation theory requires the exact opposite behavior of a pulsar in a binary system than the behavior that is actually observed.
Furthermore, from review of the P/P-dot diagram, it is clear that there should be evidence of pulsars slowing down in binaries with giant companions, but there is zero observational evidence of such systems.
In addition, it is well known that accretion is the mechanism that is caused by the presence of the neutron star in a binary with the giant star. i.e. “accretion” means that the gravitation of the NS(0), SP(+), etc. pulls in material from the GS along the NS’s magnetic field lines toward the central NS. It is this process that spins-up the NS into a pulsar.
Therefore, NS-Creation requires a known observed process NOT to take place in order to create the precursor to an X-ray binary, such as Cen X-3 and the BeXB’s. i.e. the FP(-) created by NS-Creation must be allowed to slow down to the SP(-) and NS(0) states in order to provide the conditions of the [GS+SP(+)] BeXB’s.