Talk:3C58

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

WikiProject Astronomy This article is within the scope of WikiProject Astronomy, which collaborates on articles related to astronomy, and WikiProject Astronomical Objects, which collaborates on articles related to astronomical objects.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the assessment scale.

This article has been rated but has no comments. If appropriate, please review the article and leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
This article has been automatically assessed as Stub-Class by WikiProject Astronomy because it uses a stub template.
  • If you agree with the assessment, please remove {{WPAstronomy}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page.
  • If you disagree with the assessment, please change it by editing the class parameter of the {{WPAstronomy}} template, removing {{WPAstronomy}}'s auto=yes parameter from this talk page, and removing the stub template from the article.

[edit] Synchrotron

What's a synchrotron nebula as referred to in this article's introduction? I was looking it up here on Wikipedia but it had no article for it. And synchrotron alone just lead to a scientific device? Would be nice if a guide of some sort (explanation or article for it) could be added to Wikipedia. -- Northgrove 02:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

The name seems to refer to emission nebulae caused by synchrotron radiation from particles accelerated by a pulsar. There is also this article: pulsar wind nebula. The term pulsar wind term seems to be more common on ArXiv and other places and some objects even get the prefix PWN. However, synchrotron nebula also apparently refers to any nebula exhibiting synchrotron radiation, like some things observed in radio galaxies and so forth - i.e. it's a superset that includes pulsar wind nebulae. So perhaps an article for synchrotron nebula is needed, but I have no clue what to put in it from looking around on Google. Meowist 20:16, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

3C58 is the name of the remnant, not the pulsar. 82.239.117.104 15:29, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] poor placement of "quark star" mention

There should probably be some indication that the theory that this may be a quark star is due to the early mentioned thing about it being cooler than it should be, rather than placed with an intervening comment between them and with no mention that the two are related. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.148.183.20 (talk) 06:48, 16 November 2007 (UTC)