Like others, the article seeks to avoid the use of the term "electric current" -- instead opting for terms like "large particle fluxes" and "winds", which partly create the confusion which is then discussed. The sensitivity to the notion of cosmic electric currents appears in this case to even apply when large magnetic fields are readily available.

Re: "For me the most interesting question is, why is this the only magnetar with a nebula?"

The mystery is slightly lessened once the features of laboratory plasmas are considered: The plasma only glows given a particular charge density. Further, the event is likely not as rare as theorists here assume, as they've yet to consider instances where nebulae are currently thought to be illuminated by sunlight striking gas.

As observations of nebulae improve, it will become apparent that nebulae are composed of plasma filaments which can enter the plasma glow mode.

Rotation of the Universe falls outside the center or growing from the center outward at 100 km / sec up to 270,000 km / sec.
At the same layers in diameter increasingly smaller than the outside toward the center. For compounds are formed cyclones which do not need to have (and cyclones on Earth) significant weight or value effects are large. Also in explosion star remainder of the material from the center further accelerates (or slows down) and creates high-value effects.
However, the beautiful sounds, behavior parts of matter, like apartheid, where the laws of physics are not equal.

How do they determine the strength of the magnetic field of a neutron star?

How do they determine the strength of the magnetic field of a neutron star?

In this paper it seems they used the spindown. Most pulsars spend their lives increasing in period which is believed to be due to the emission of dipole radiation as their strong magnetic field rotates it induces very long wavelength dipole radiation. We don't observe any of this as at very long wavelength it is absorbed in the ISM. The period and the period differential give you an estimate of the minimum magnetic field or the actual magnetic field if you can estimate the angle of inclination between rotation and magnetic field.

sub; scientific Edge on Culture-Cosmology Vedas Interlinks
Wind-drives- at a corner- typical N-W to Hemispherical mode -beyond a structure like Red-Rectangle.
Typical distances between 2400 LY to 24-26,000 LY.Supernova-dMVT process.evidently magnetic fields are involved- operate in Neutral mode .Very few persons understand this mode- that is how Temple structures help space-cosmology studies
Think Tanks-cosmic Function of the Universe
The Concept of Big-Bang needs revision and Paradigm shift.
The Origins- Cause effect define Cosmic Pot Energy of the Universe
cosmology vedas interlinks- 15 Books available at LULU. See illustrations
pS Many thanks for the data information

Hi IMP-9. :)

...as their strong magnetic field rotates it induces very long wavelength dipole radiation. We don't observe any of this as at very long wavelength it is absorbed in the ISM.

Appropriately modify/apply that reasoning/known physics (re magnetic component-energy of e-m energy/field effects associated with massive spinning/orbiting features as Neut. Stars/BHs), and you will 'get' what I've LONG been pointing out about the type of energy which a binary system are 'radiating away' to account for observed decreasing system mass/orbital period decrease.

In other words: it's NOT 'g-w' but 'e-m' RADIATION which accounts for the Hulse-Taylor observations!

Once we realize this known physics explains observations of Hulse-Taylor example, then we don't 'need' to interpret NS and/or BH BINARY SYSTEM spindown 'events' as G-w radiators, but E-M-w radiators anymore!

PS: Your comments contain 'clues' to CMB radiation 'origins' etc WITHOUT Hypothetical 'BBang' etc. :)

Once we realize this known physics explains observations of Hulse-Taylor example

But you haven't shown that. What you have there is a hypothesis, you have not shown that it can explain the data. There exist very high quality timing datasets for a few binary pulsars, I suggest you try to build a self-consistent model before making any bold claims. GR has been shown to fit this the Hulse-Taylor binary to about 2 parts in a thousand (as well as the knowledge of observational quantities allows). You don't get to replace a model with a hypothesis which doesn't have the same explanatory power. If you seek to replace the existing interpretation then you need to do better or almost as good with fewer parameters. A simple information criterion can then be used.

And no, the CMB isn't galactic, we know that from the observation of the Sunyaev–Zel'dovich effect.

Hi IMP-9. :)

Once we realize this known physics explains observations of Hulse-Taylor example

But you haven't shown that. What you have there is a hypothesis, you have not shown that it can explain the data. There exist very high quality timing datasets for a few binary pulsars, I suggest you try to build a self-consistent model before making any bold claims.

Are you even aware of the (electro-)MAGNETIC FIELD ENERGIES involved in such NS features/dynamics?

If not, you are missing the whole point of what I already explained re the kind of 'radiation; which takes energy from that system and produces the mutual 'orbital decay' observed. The energy radiated takes GRAVITATIONALLY EFFECTIVE 'energy-mass' AWAY from that system. That is how 'gravity-effect 'leaves' a system like that.

Re CMB: Yes, like I said; space expanses/processes/contents are 'mixmaster' for radiation 'signals', including full gamut of 'scattering' increasing/decreasing CMB energies. :)

Hi Phys1. :)

I was not aware of the SZ effect, thanks IMP-9.

GR has been shown to fit this the Hulse-Taylor binary to about 2 parts in a thousand

Enough accuracy to convince any knowledgeable, psychologically stable person.

You weren't aware of a LOT of important relevant astronomical/cosmological KNOWN science facts and understandings. Which is why your obviously 'emotional' cheap shots at me fall flat on your own ignorance/misunderstandings. About time you started to listen instead of ignore, deny and insult etc, isn't it, mate?

Please read my reply to IMP-9 above re Hulse-Taylor and all such binary systems having been MISS-interpreted as 'supporting Gravity-wave' speculation/claims. And please try to avoid reading confirmation bias getting in the way of fair and objective understanding this time. :)

Hi Phys1. :)

I have been pointing out for years and years now all sorts of processes which produce the 'mixmaster' effect on all radiation signal wavelength/frequencies observed 'here', after traveling billions of light years, from whatever far distance source/event is being observed and whatever is already long diffused from past eons as 'background' CMB.

That you even asked that question/imply I haven't already mentioned all sorts of scattering/emission/absorbing factors which produce the 'mixmaster' effect, means that you missed it all! Either because you never saw it or because you were ignoring me.

Either way, please do not in future assume just because you never saw it, it never happened. Thanks.

Re Hulse-Taylor binary system and (electro-)Magnetic field/energy. The energy contained is humongous around one NS. Multiply that by two; and realize known interactions between such; and realize that E-M friction/radiation saps a lot of orbital energy etc. See it now? :)