How old are pulsars?

[ToSeek]

Age Discrepancy Throws Pulsar Theories into Turmoil (http://www.aoc.nrao.edu/pr/pulsarage.html)

Some are younger than expected while others are older - very confusing!

[Kaptain K]

Two thoughts come to mind:
1) What are the "error bars" of the two methods of estimating the age of the pulsar. i.e. If the age is 85,500 years +/- 25,000, both estimates would (just barely) fit.
2) A radial component of the velocity would affect the age estimate.

_________________
When all is said and done - sit down and shut up!

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Kaptain K on 2002-03-12 12:16 ]</font>

[David Hall]

Is it possible that since the pulsar was supposedly within the supernova remanant for the first few thousand years, that interactions between it's magnetic field and the gasses around it caused it's spin to slow down at a much faster rate than currently measured? That would make it seem older than it really is.

Caveat: I'm nowhere near an expert here. Just making a guess.

[NottyImp]

Quote: "Previous estimates of pulsar ages have assumed that all pulsars are born spinning much faster than we see them now, that the physical characteristics of the pulsar such as its mass and magnetic-field strength do not change with time, and that the slowdown rate can be estimated by applying the physics of a magnet spinning in a vacuum."

Pretty big assumptions, I would have thought. Could matter accrete to the pulsar from the super-nova cloud, effectively slowing it's rotation by a conservation of angular momentum argument?