Science > Physics > Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ?
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"blackboab" |
| Date: |
12 May 2007 10:20:42 AM |
| Object: |
Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam. This enables them to stay within
the bounds of e=mc2.
But what are the chances that such a tightly focused beam hits earth.
It must be vanishingly small.
.
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 10:24:42 AM |
|
|
On May 12, 8:20 am, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam. This enables them to stay within
the bounds of e=mc2.
You are misunderstanding. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with it.
But what are the chances that such a tightly focused beam hits earth.
It must be vanishingly small.
It is.
Look at what range we can see these objects, then consider how many
objects might exist in that large, large amount of enclosed volume.
Small odds times a huge number...
.
|
|
|
| User: "blackboab" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 10:32:29 AM |
|
|
On 12 May, 16:24, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 12, 8:20 am, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam. This enables them to stay within
the bounds of e=mc2.
You are misunderstanding. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with it.
But what are the chances that such a tightly focused beam hits earth.
It must be vanishingly small.
It is.
Look at what range we can see these objects, then consider how many
objects might exist in that large, large amount of enclosed volume.
Small odds times a huge number...
what are the figures , roughly ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 10:55:40 AM |
|
|
On May 12, 8:32 am, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 May, 16:24, Eric Gisse <jowr...@gmail.com> wrote:
On May 12, 8:20 am, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam. This enables them to stay within
the bounds of e=mc2.
You are misunderstanding. E=mc^2 has nothing to do with it.
But what are the chances that such a tightly focused beam hits earth.
It must be vanishingly small.
It is.
Look at what range we can see these objects, then consider how many
objects might exist in that large, large amount of enclosed volume.
Small odds times a huge number...
what are the figures , roughly ?
No idea. They occur very far away. That we know - the closest is on
the order of 3 billion light years. We don't know exactly what forms
them.
There are ideas - I like the idea of something cute happening with a
charged black hole.
Could be a type of supernova that requires special conditions to form
- asymmetric supernovae are not unheard of. The remnant of such gets
an incredible kick - thousands of kilometers/second relative to the
original star.
IIRC, the soft GRBs have been associated with supernovae at least
once. As in, we saw the GRB then pointed a telescope at it and saw the
supernova.
But at any rate, the major issue is we don't know for sure whether or
not the bursts are beamed [seems likely] or omnidirectional. The
differences in energies are utterly huge.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 12:26:52 PM |
|
|
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
.
|
|
|
| User: "blackboab" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 12:57:45 PM |
|
|
On 12 May, 18:26, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
do they come at the earth in all directions ?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 02:28:59 PM |
|
|
On May 12, 10:57 am, blackboab <blackb...@gmail.com> wrote:
On 12 May, 18:26, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
do they come at the earth in all directions ?
Yes. The distribution of GRBs [soft,hard] has been found to be
isotropic.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 01:11:34 PM |
|
|
blackboab wrote:
On 12 May, 18:26, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
do they come at the earth in all directions ?
Yes
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 02:28:53 PM |
|
|
On May 12, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
Both soft *and* hard?
I think it is accepted that soft GRBs have a supernova origin, but I
didn't think a consensus has been formed on the origin of hard GRBs
yet...
I'd like to think with all the deep field imagery out there, we would
have had at least one before-and-after set of images for a hard GRB.
.
|
|
|
| User: "OG" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 08:10:00 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1178998133.281620.283300@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
On May 12, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great
distances.
Both soft *and* hard?
I think it is accepted that soft GRBs have a supernova origin, but I
didn't think a consensus has been formed on the origin of hard GRBs
yet...
I'd like to think with all the deep field imagery out there, we would
have had at least one before-and-after set of images for a hard GRB.
What would you expect to see? My understanding is that most of these GRBs
are from very old events (typically 9 billiion years). Even if we had a
'before' image, the source would so distant that the entire host galaxy
would cover tiny fractions of an arc minute, so we would not have any hope
of seeing anything particularly related to the source (assuming that GRBs
are caused by (at most) 2 stellar sized objects).
..
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 08:15:15 PM |
|
|
In article <5an6riF2passbU1@mid.individual.net>,
"OG" <owen@gwynnefamily.org.uk> wrote:
What would you expect to see? My understanding is that most of these GRBs
are from very old events (typically 9 billiion years). Even if we had a
'before' image, the source would so distant that the entire host galaxy
would cover tiny fractions of an arc minute, so we would not have any hope
of seeing anything particularly related to the source (assuming that GRBs
are caused by (at most) 2 stellar sized objects).
For a start, it would be interesting to see what the source population of
galaxies for them is like.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 05:51:27 PM |
|
|
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 12, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
Both soft *and* hard?
I think it is accepted that soft GRBs have a supernova origin, but I
didn't think a consensus has been formed on the origin of hard GRBs
yet...
I'd like to think with all the deep field imagery out there, we would
have had at least one before-and-after set of images for a hard GRB.
Eric--Thanks for waking me up! The very short bursts are thought to
arise from collisions between a black hole and a neutron star or between
two neutron stars.
http://www.physlink.com/News/051009GammaRayBursts.cfm
I'll have to look for the pre prints
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 06:03:59 PM |
|
|
In article <Pxr1i.110795$_c5.19124@attbi_s22>,
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 12, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
Both soft *and* hard?
I think it is accepted that soft GRBs have a supernova origin, but I
didn't think a consensus has been formed on the origin of hard GRBs
yet...
I'd like to think with all the deep field imagery out there, we would
have had at least one before-and-after set of images for a hard GRB.
Eric--Thanks for waking me up! The very short bursts are thought to
arise from collisions between a black hole and a neutron star or between
two neutron stars.
http://www.physlink.com/News/051009GammaRayBursts.cfm
I'll have to look for the pre prints
http://kipac.stanford.edu/collab/seminars/grb_journal_club/061215/
References a lot of papers on afterglows.
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 06:15:32 PM |
|
|
Phineas T Puddleduck wrote:
In article <Pxr1i.110795$_c5.19124@attbi_s22>,
Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 12, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
Both soft *and* hard?
I think it is accepted that soft GRBs have a supernova origin, but I
didn't think a consensus has been formed on the origin of hard GRBs
yet...
I'd like to think with all the deep field imagery out there, we would
have had at least one before-and-after set of images for a hard GRB.
Eric--Thanks for waking me up! The very short bursts are thought to
arise from collisions between a black hole and a neutron star or between
two neutron stars.
http://www.physlink.com/News/051009GammaRayBursts.cfm
I'll have to look for the pre prints
http://kipac.stanford.edu/collab/seminars/grb_journal_club/061215/
References a lot of papers on afterglows.
Thanks PTP!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Phineas T Puddleduck" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 06:20:54 PM |
|
|
In article <oUr1i.49949$n_.41004@attbi_s21>, Sam Wormley <swormley1@mchsi.com>
wrote:
http://kipac.stanford.edu/collab/seminars/grb_journal_club/061215/
References a lot of papers on afterglows.
Thanks PTP!
No problem. I have to do some reading on it for revision ;-)
--
COOSN-174-07-82116: Official Science Team mascot and alt.astronomy's favourite
poster (from a survey taken of the saucerhead high command).
Sacred keeper of the Hollow Sphere, and the space within the Coffee Boy
singularity.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Autymn D. C." |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 10:24:36 PM |
|
|
On May 12, 3:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 12, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
Both soft *and* hard?
I think it is accepted that soft GRBs have a supernova origin, but I
didn't think a consensus has been formed on the origin of hard GRBs
yet...
I'd like to think with all the deep field imagery out there, we would
have had at least one before-and-after set of images for a hard GRB.
Eric--Thanks for waking me up! The very short bursts are thought to
arise from collisions between a black hole and a neutron star or between
two neutron stars.http://www.physlink.com/News/051009GammaRayBursts.cfm
I'll have to look for the pre prints
It can't be black holes, as they are impossibil [as are black bodies].
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+doubt+deathblows
They are dark stars, as far as preonic collapsars.
-Aut
.
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
13 May 2007 01:10:09 AM |
|
|
On May 12, 8:24 pm, "Autymn D. C." <lysde...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
On May 12, 3:51 pm, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
Eric Gisse wrote:
On May 12, 10:26 am, Sam Wormley <sworml...@mchsi.com> wrote:
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam.
Given the observational data...
o redshift
o brightness
o duration
o conservation laws
supports the idea of focused beam of supernovae or hypernovae. With
billions of galaxies are the rates of supernovae... we would expect
a reasonable number of observations of these events at great distances.
Both soft *and* hard?
I think it is accepted that soft GRBs have a supernova origin, but I
didn't think a consensus has been formed on the origin of hard GRBs
yet...
I'd like to think with all the deep field imagery out there, we would
have had at least one before-and-after set of images for a hard GRB.
Eric--Thanks for waking me up! The very short bursts are thought to
arise from collisions between a black hole and a neutron star or between
two neutron stars.http://www.physlink.com/News/051009GammaRayBursts.cfm
I'll have to look for the pre prints
It can't be black holes, as they are impossibil [as are black bodies].
http://google.com/groups?q=Autymn+doubt+deathblows
They are dark stars, as far as preonic collapsars.
-Aut
shuuuuuut up
nobody cares about what you have to say
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: Gamma Ray Bursts, Rees' Theory : what are the odds ? |
12 May 2007 07:24:58 PM |
|
|
blackboab wrote:
Martin Rees' Theory about gamma ray bursts posits the notion that the
bursts are in a tightly focused beam. This enables them to stay within
the bounds of e=mc2.
But what are the chances that such a tightly focused beam hits earth.
It must be vanishingly small.
From private email...
http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/GR/gravity07/Vitor.pdf
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
What's Wrong Cat Got Your tongue? You people stopped Damning my Model...
What is physics? (flash anim)
Account of what is concretely, physically (and not abstractly, mathematically) the universe, and of what we have to do in :
What is this story of Gabriel Oyibo? Need someone to confirm
What's New - Friday, June 25, 2004 - Bob Park
Re: What form of matter will last the longest?
better understand what makes a heart go wrong
What's New -- Friday, September 3, 2004
| What's up with the pentaquark?
What is a dimension II
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 25 Feb 05 Washington, DC
WHAT'S NEW Robert L. Park Friday, 20 May 05 Washington, DC
What is the medical term for crackpottery and delusions of self-grandeur?
What if the metric committee had chosen w/g, or f/a as the standard for mass?
What is the purpose of quantizing space?
|
|
|
