Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 cited by

Dispersion measure: Confusion, Constants & Clarity

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2007.02886 v1 pith:HBBBSPSA submitted 2020-07-06 astro-ph.HE

classification astro-ph.HE
keywords mathcalfactorconstantsdispersionmeasureprimarycolumnconfusion
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal
0 comments
abstract

The dispersion measure (DM) is one of the key attributes of radio pulsars and Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs). There is a mistaken view that the DM is an accurate measure of the column density of electrons between the observer and the source. To start with, the DM, unlike a true column density, is not a Lorentz invariant. Next, the DM also includes contribution from ions and is sensitive to the temperature of the plasma in the intervening clouds. Separately, the primary observable is the dispersion slope, $\mathcal{D}\equiv \Delta{(t)}/\Delta{(\nu^{-2}})$, where $t(\nu)$ is the arrival time at frequency, $\nu$. A scaling factor composed of physical and astronomical constants is needed to convert $\mathcal{D}$ to DM. In the early days of pulsar astronomy the relevant constants were defined to parts per million (ppm). As a result, a convention arose in which this conversion factor was fixed. Over time, several such conventions came about -- recipe for confusion. Meanwhile, over the past several years, the SI system has been restructured and the parsec is now exactly defined. As a result, the present accuracy of the conversion factor is below a part per billion -- many orders of magnitude better than the best measurement errors of $\mathcal{D}$. We are now in an awkward situation wherein the primary "observable", the DM, has incorrect scaling factor(s). To address these two concerns I propose that astronomers report the primary measurement, $\mathcal{D}$ (with a suggested normalization of $10^{15}\,$Hz), and not the DM. Interested users can convert $\mathcal{D}$ to DM without the need to know secret handshakes of the pulsar timing communities.

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Forward citations

Cited by 3 Pith papers

Reviewed papers in the Pith corpus that reference this work. Sorted by Pith novelty score. OpenAlex reports about 17 citations worldwide. Full citation record

  1. PSRDISP: A novel approach to modeling dispersive processes in single-pulsar noise analysis using epoch-wise dispersion measures

    astro-ph.IM 2026-07 unverdicted novelty 6.0 of 10

    PSRDISP is a Gaussian-process framework that fits dispersion-measure and solar-wind noise directly to epoch-wise dispersion measures, recovering injected signals in simulated pulsar data.

  2. Cross-validation of six dispersion measure estimation methods for FRB 20240114A

    astro-ph.HE 2026-07 accept novelty 6.0 of 10

    Cross-validation of six DM methods on 2874 FRB 20240114A bursts shows morphology-driven scatter and residual second-to-minute apparent DM fluctuations that cannot be real line-of-sight plasma changes.

  3. RRAT-like behaviour of PSR B0656+14 observed with I-LOFAR

    astro-ph.HE 2025-07 conditional novelty 5.0 of 10

    PSR B0656+14 shows random, memory-less bright pulses at 110-190 MHz, requiring over 47,500 pulses to build a stable profile, resembling rotating radio transients.

Pith tools