Dear Taichi, Thank you for tuning down your message. My view of science and Astronomy seems to be different than yours. Sometimes observations are way behind theory (as is the case in stellar oscillations) and sometimes they are ahead of theory. An example to the latter is the Stolz and Schoembs relation for positive superhump excess found in 1981 and first explained only in 1985 by Osaki. The relation between the ratio of negative superhump deficit to positive superhump excess I've recently found (Retter et al. 2002) is another example of an observational relation that hasn't been understood so far by theory. Even if it lacks any theoretical background it is still interesting and important. In summary, my belief is that I don't have to back up an observational relation / connection by theory to justify it. Yes, it is very good when you can do it but sometimes you can't. Nevertheless, I have tried (see gzipped postcript file attached - proc. of Sitges conference on classical novae) to give a preliminary explanation to the possible connection between the transition phase in classical novae and intermediate polars. It is not a very detailed model as Nir Shaviv has developed, and off course it may be wrong. My discussion with you lead me to think that I may be able to combine my ideas with Shaviv's model. The changes in the winds from the white dwarf should have a stronger effect on the accretion disc in intermediate polar as the inner part is truncated. Maybe the accretion disc in intermediate polar is destroyed and rebuilt several times during the oscillations. At this stage, I can only guess. The power spectrum of the nights at high luminosity are noisy while these at low luminosity show better the periods. This is consistent with the presence of winds that are stronger at high state, while the binary is reveals at low state. If we observe the binary the photosphere is probably at about the size of the white dwarf. More on the philosophy of science. Nir Shaviv model is a good model since it describes well some observational features and explains some unsolved problems, however, it doesn't mean that it is the correct model. And, it hasn't been attacked so far by further observations. It is certainly possible that someone comes tomorrow with a different model that explains better the observations. It is not the bible, and it may be completely wrong. Thank you for your comment on RR Pic. I'm familiar with this case. I don't think that it kills my idea since first every good model can afford one / few exceptions. RR Pic is also a recurrent nova not a classical nova, so it is different. In addition, there are intermediate polars in which the spin period is seen only in the optical; in others - only in the X-ray and in a specific (still controversial) case (V533 Her) only in circular polarization. Finally, CVs are variable stars, so maybe in the future someone finds the spin period of RR Pic in the optical/X-ray in a better run. As someone who has found new periods in existing data, I can also speculate that the data on RR Pic might have been badly analysed. I have to prepare a 7-d run on the 4-m AAT telescope starting next week, so I'm afraid I don't have more time at the moment to answer all your questions from previous messages. I'll try to do it in the future. Regards, Alon Retter ----------------------------------------------------------------------- On Sat, 3 Aug 2002, Taichi Kato wrote: > Re: V2540 Oph - detection of period/s > > Dear Alon, > > I am not criticizing you as a person. If you could properly answer > my questions regarding your idea (and other related questions), and > explain (so that everyone can understand the mechanism) the details of > underlying physics, I would be only too happy. What theoreticians have > requried you may have been the same. What I request is not apology or > something like that. > > The only other problem is your attitude in calling for observations > (requiring much time and efforts) without a substantial physical basis. > I don't want to make VSNET a "Center for Backyard Astro-non-physics". > This applies to all similar proposals, not only yours. > > By the way, have you considered RR Pic? This nova is another historical > example of well-developed oscillations. According to an intensive photometric > study (e.g. Haefner and Schoembs (1985) A&A 150, 326), no evidence of > coherent modulation (i.e. IP-type signal) was found. It looks clear > that this star has no indication of the IP-type nature comparable to > DQ Her. The same conclusion seems to come from X-ray observations. > Wouldn't this example has already overthrown your idea? > > Regards, > Taichi Kato > >
proc_transition.ps.gz
VSNET Home Page 
Return to Daisaku Nogami
