Cosmic explosion spotted in neighbouring galaxy

May 28, 2014
Cosmic explosion spotted in neighbouring galaxy

(Phys.org) —NASA's Swift satellite reported an enormous explosion occurred this morning at 8.15 AEST in our neighbouring galaxy, Andromeda. This explosion is known as a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB), one of the most powerful explosions in the Universe.

The exact cause is unknown but thought to be an from when two Neutron Stars collide. These Neutron Stars are the dead cores of massive stars, with the mass of our Sun crushed into the size of a small city. When they merge together, the explosion is so powerful it can be seen from across the Universe.

Swinburne University of Technology astronomer Dr Alan Duffy says these GRBs explosions are so large that if they occur within our galaxy they can potentially trigger mass extinctions on Earth.

"Telescopes around the world are currently trained on the Andromeda galaxy looking in all wavelengths of light to learn more about this once-in-a-lifetime event.

"The explosion seen in light will also potentially be visible in gravitational waves, a key prediction of Einstein, ending a long quest to detect these ripples in space time. Unfortunately the world-wide facility for detecting these events, LIGO, is currently shut down for an upgrade, missing out on the explosion and a potential Nobel Prize winning discovery.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This animation shows the merger of two neutron stars from a horizontal perspective. Theory predicts that these kinds of collisions would not produce a long afterglow because there isn't much "fuel" -- dust and gas -- from the objects and in the region to sustain an afterglow. Credit: NASA

"The night sky seen in high-energy light is continuously flashing as titanic explosions, bright enough to be seen from across the length of the Universe, erupt and travel to us. It's a violent world out there.

"The most astounding aspect of today is that colliding Neutron Stars exploded in less than a second, shining out in Gamma Rays which have travelled undisturbed for 2.5 million years until hitting NASA's Swift satellite, within minutes telescopes across the globe were tracking it and an hour later people around the world were following it on Twitter. It's been hectic.

This video is not supported by your browser at this time.
This animation shows the merger of two neutron stars from a vertical perspective. Credit: NASA

"Typically the Universe moves slowly, with enormous galaxies swirling around in slow motion as measured by human standards and then just occasionally something will go bang and it's a race against time to record and learn everything you can," Dr Duffy said.

"Whatever this explosion ultimately was caused by, and they are many exciting and exotic possibilities, it's made a lot of astronomers have a very exciting day."

Explore further: Video: Neutron stars rip each other apart to form black hole

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Earth's gold came from colliding dead stars

Jul 17, 2013

We value gold for many reasons: its beauty, its usefulness as jewelry, and its rarity. Gold is rare on Earth in part because it's also rare in the universe. Unlike elements like carbon or iron, it cannot ...

Hubble monitors supernova in nearby galaxy M82

Feb 26, 2014

This is a Hubble Space Telescope composite image of a supernova explosion designated SN 2014J in the galaxy M82. At a distance of approximately 11.5 million light-years from Earth it is the closest supernova ...

Image: Hubble sees a spiral home to exploding stars

Apr 09, 2014

(Phys.org) —In this  Hubble image, we can see an almost face-on view of the galaxy NGC 1084. At first glance, this galaxy is pretty unoriginal. Like the majority of galaxies that we observe it is a spiral ...

Recommended for you

Image: Chandra's view of the Tycho Supernova remnant

Jul 25, 2014

More than four centuries after Danish astronomer Tycho Brahe first observed the supernova that bears his name, the supernova remnant it created is now a bright source of X-rays. The supersonic expansion of ...

Satellite galaxies put astronomers in a spin

Jul 24, 2014

An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the Observatoire Astronomique de Strasbourg (CNRS/Université de Strasbourg), has studied 380 galaxies and shown that their small satellite galaxies almost always ...

Video: The diversity of habitable zones and the planets

Jul 24, 2014

The field of exoplanets has rapidly expanded from the exclusivity of exoplanet detection to include exoplanet characterization. A key step towards this characterization is the determination of which planets occupy the Habitable ...

User comments : 84

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) May 28, 2014
"Whatever this explosion ultimately was caused by, and they are many exciting and exotic possibilities, it's made a lot of astronomers have a very exciting day."


One distinct possibility is synchrotron radiation caused by electric discharge in plasma, unfortunately due to ignorance of real plasma properties collisions of fictional objects and other "exotic" phenomena must be suggested to explain such things.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (13) May 28, 2014
These things are simply not so far away in space or time, else the chance of detection are likely near zero. The odds are astronomical (!) that we happen to have the ability to detect such events in a time window of a few days or minutes within millions of years.
billpress11
1.3 / 5 (6) May 28, 2014
Quote from article: "This explosion is known as a Gamma Ray Burst (GRB), one of the most powerful explosions in the Universe."

The question I have is exactly what is the source of the energy for this, "one of the most powerful explosions in the Universe."?

Wouldn't most of the stars energy have been expended during the supernovae faze? Kinetic energy from the collision wouldn't seem to create nearly enough energy to power this type of explosion, or would it?

yyz
5 / 5 (17) May 28, 2014
This would be a great event for astronomers around the world....except this was a false alarm and there was no "cosmic explosion" in M 31: http://www.univer...e-alarm/

I'm left wondering why Alan Duffy and Swinburne University decided to jump the gun and issue a press release based on inaccurate preliminary info just hours after the nonevent? They and PhysOrg out to retract/remove this nonstory.

Let's see if PO picks up the Universe Today story.
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (16) May 28, 2014
You mean an astrophysicist was wrong? Say it ain't so...
Maggnus
4.6 / 5 (11) May 28, 2014
One distinct possibility is synchrotron radiation caused by electric discharge in plasma, unfortunately due to ignorance of real plasma properties collisions of fictional objects and other "exotic" phenomena must be suggested to explain such things.
Or, and just as likely as this crap, it could be pixie dust shat by flying unicorns dropping onto giant alien built gyroscopes.

Good ole canthingforhimself, always making up sciency sounding babble!

except this was a false alarm and there was no "cosmic explosion" in M 31
Nice catch yyz, and kudos for the link here.

Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (12) May 28, 2014
One distinct possibility is synchrotron radiation caused by electric discharge in plasma, unfortunately due to ignorance of real plasma properties collisions of fictional objects and other "exotic" phenomena must be suggested to explain such things.
Or, and just as likely as this crap, it could be pixie dust shat by flying unicorns dropping onto giant alien built gyroscopes.

Good ole canthingforhimself, always making up sciency sounding babble!


@ Maggnus-Skippy, that man is stuck on his lightening bolts aint't he? Did you know that on one time he told ol Ira that the Grand Canyon was scooped out by a lightening bolt? It is true that he told me that. Even my ol podna Zephir-Skippy couldn't top that one no.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (10) May 28, 2014
@ Maggnus-Skippy, that man is stuck on his lightening bolts aint't he? Did you know that on one time he told ol Ira that the Grand Canyon was scooped out by a lightening bolt? It is true that he told me that. Even my ol podna Zephir-Skippy couldn't top that one no.
This one I like is the volcanoes erupting on Io are not related to its tidal heating, instead it is giant electrical currents from Jupiter. Originally the Thunderbolts crew predicted that Galileo would be destroyed by passing too close to Io - of course, when that didn't happen the "prediction" mysteriously disappeared from the website.......
yyz
4.6 / 5 (10) May 28, 2014
"You mean an astrophysicist was wrong?"

Uhhh, what astrophysicist would that be? Did you miss this statement by Swift project scientist Phil Evans:

"Interestingly, the Swift team never claimed it was [a GRB]; indeed, I haven't seen any professional communication claiming that this was a GRB,"

This was nothing more than an internet rumour unfortunately promulgated by people like Alan Duffy and now by PhysOrg.
MrPressure
May 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
MrPressure
May 28, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Uncle Ira
3.5 / 5 (11) May 28, 2014
You mean an astrophysicist was wrong? Say it ain't so...


@cantdrive-Skippy if you read up on the google you find out that they wrong about things from time to time. Just like everybody else gets stuffs wrong sometimes. What you don't understand to good is that when they get part wrong they move on the next idea or fix what's wrong with their idea.

What I mean Cher, it is a lot easier for ol Ira to trust in a science-Skippy who spend a lot of years in the college and admits when he gets something than it is to trust some couyon on the internet-Skippy who didn't go to the college but never ever not even the one time ever got anything wrong never.

I might be ignorant, but I ain't stupid. Which one of those two Skippys would you Cher put more of the faith in?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
4.2 / 5 (11) May 28, 2014
"Wouldn't most of the stars energy have been expended during the supernovae faze? Kinetic energy from the collision wouldn't seem to create nearly enough energy to power this type of explosion, or would it?"

As long as there's mass, there is plenty of energy.

For example, they have the common analogy that a tablespoon of neutron star matter would weigh as much as a mountain. That also means if you were to take that matter out of that ultra-dense environment and bring it to Earth, that table spoon of matter would literally explode into the size of a mountain because all of the electrons, no long burdened by gravity, would pop back into there normal configurements. Same as bringing deep-sea fishes to the surface, they "pop" because of the lack of pressure.
That much energy bound in a singular object like neutron stars makes them the second most energetic object in the universe. A gram falling there hits with the force of nuclear bomb. Imagine another what another neutron star would do.
billpress11
4.4 / 5 (5) May 28, 2014
Steve, I understand that matter and energy are interchangeable, but by what process would matter in two colliding neutron stars change into energy?

Also your analogy, "that table spoon of matter would literally explode into the size of a mountain because all of the electrons, no long burdened by gravity," is not as simple as you make it seem. You are leaving thermodynamics out of the equation. Sure the fish may "pop" but it would still contain the same amount of energy or calories of heat until some is added from an outside source. Wouldn't the same would go for the neutrons in a neutron star? When pressure is released no more energy is created than what was used to create the pressure in the first place.

I also do not follow your reasoning that a neutron star is the second most energetic object in the universe, wouldn't it contain much less energy and potential energy than the star that created it by going supernova?

RealScience
4.5 / 5 (8) May 28, 2014
@billpress: Here is a rough picture:

In most neutron stars mergers, two neutron stars are in very tight orbits around each other.
In a 15 km orbit around a two-solar-mass object, the orbital velocity is ~~135,000 km/sec, or 45% of the speed of light. And it's things more massive than the sun that are moving that fast...

The gravitational energy released in going from a 15 km orbit around a neutron star to a black hole is even greater than the kinetic energy! Most of the energy gets locked up in the black hole, but more than 5% of swirling matter falling into a black hole can be released as energy, which with two 2-solar-mass neutron stars would be 20% of the mass of the sun released as energy in a few seconds.

This is roughly two orders of magnitude more than a classic type 1a supernova explosion, but roughly the same magnitude as core collapse supernova.

(In contrast the sun will convert only ~~0.1% of its mass to energy in its entire ~~10-billion-year life.)
billpress11
3 / 5 (2) May 28, 2014
RealScience, I like your explanation but I do not understand how any more energy is created by their gravitational attraction than what is released? In other words it would take the same amount of energy to separate them as to what is released. Wouldn't this be limited to the release of only kinetic energy?

You stated about 5% of the mass is released as energy but what I would like to know is how is this mass converted into energy, by what process? The only method I am aware of is by neutron-antineutron annihilation which would not be the case if two neutron stars collided.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (4) May 28, 2014
@billpress: Here is a rough picture:

In most neutron stars mergers, two neutron stars are in very tight orbits around each other.
In a 15 km orbit around a two-solar-mass object, the orbital velocity is ~~135,000 km/sec, or 45% of the speed of light. And it's things more massive than the sun that are moving that fast...

(In contrast the sun will convert only ~~0.1% of its mass to energy in its entire ~~10-billion-year life.)


For even more perspective: (from wiki) " the Sun fuses about 620 million metric tons of hydrogen each second."
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (16) May 28, 2014
Good ole canthingforhimself, always making up sciency sounding babble!


That which Alfven studied 80 years ago and had to explained to astronomers some 60+ years ago after ignoring real laboratory experiment as they usually choose to do...And that which is inexplicable for some still, apparently...

http://plasmauniv...ron.html
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) May 29, 2014
after ignoring real laboratory experiment as they usually choose to do...And that which is inexplicable for some still, apparently
@cd
we've already been through this a bazillion times: astrophysicists study plasma physics. it is REQUIRED. You've even made these remarks about specific studies which the physicist specifically replied that
1-they studied plasma physics
2- it was included in the study and you were too stupid to see it, and
3- you were being blatantly stupid ignoring the data in front of your nose.
remember J. Hlavacek-Larrondo ? http://phys.org/n...firstCmt

continually spreading the same BLATANT LIE over and over is NOT going to make it more true... it only makes you look more and more like an idiot who cannot comprehend the basics of science, let alone anything complicated like physics
http://plasmauniverse
IS PSEUDOSCIENCE
if it were REAL science, you would have linked MIT, or a legit lab or study.
Bob Osaka
4.8 / 5 (4) May 29, 2014
Interesting this non-event happened while LIGO was down. The article said nothing about VIRGO interferometer also down for upgrades. LISA and DECIGO have yet to be assembled for launch leaving us with the GEO 600 in Germany to detect, confirm or deny, gravity waves. A single source should not only be met with skepticism but disbelief. False positives happen all the time.
So in this case, we didn't get caught with our pants down, napping or daydreaming out the window. We missed the bullet, dodged the train.
Let's be clear, we still have our collective pants down (embarrassing isn't it) we are sleeping, we have an attention deficit, and we'd better wake up because a bullet or train could be headed our way right now.
Captain Stumpy
4 / 5 (4) May 29, 2014
Interesting this non-event happened while LIGO was down...
@Bob Osaka
Please see YYZ comment. 4th from top
This would be a great event for astronomers around the world....except this was a false alarm and there was no "cosmic explosion" in M 31: http://www.univer...e-alarm/

I'm left wondering why Alan Duffy and Swinburne University decided to jump the gun and issue a press release based on inaccurate preliminary info just hours after the nonevent? They and PhysOrg ought to retract/remove this nonstory.

Let's see if PO picks up the Universe Today story.
@yyz
I have a profile on Universe today as well as sciforums
truck captain stumpy
cantdrive85
1.4 / 5 (13) May 29, 2014
astrophysicists study plasma physics. it is REQUIRED.

Yep, they study THEORETICAL plasma physics. Alfven, Peratt, et al. study and promote experimental based plasma physics, there lies the basis of the disconnect you're too stupid to see.

"Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice." Heinlein's Razor
Bob Osaka
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2014
@Captain Stumpy
Thank you, yes I had already read it.
Perhaps I should have used a double negative as in: Interesting this non-event didn't happen while......
My point being: Had this been a real GRB our infrastructure for measuring accompanying gravity waves is at this moment, inadequate.
Captain Stumpy
4.6 / 5 (11) May 29, 2014
Yep, they study THEORETICAL plasma physics... promote experimental based plasma physics, there lies the basis of the disconnect you're too stupid to see
@cd
lets examine the level of YOUR OWN stupidity and disconnect from reality:
GIVEN that astrophysicists study PLASMA physics AND
GIVEN plasma physics is a study that includes experimentation, as shown here:
http://www.pppl.gov/ as well as here http://www.physic...-physics
then we can CONCLUDE that your arbitrary personal conjecture is supported by ZERO evidence, while my links show empirical data, proving that:
1- you can't read very well
2- you are stupid and can't LEARN
3- you are STILL spreading LIES
4- your EU is nothing but PSEUDOSCIENCE LIES and you are no better than a religious acolyte spreading fallacies

YOU'VE just PROVED that you are stupid, as this has been proven to you more than twice

This is not malice, this is REALITY.
...wish you could join us. Too bad you didnt leave a forwarding addy
yyz
4.6 / 5 (10) May 29, 2014
"...after ignoring real laboratory experiment as they usually choose to do"

Sorta like how cantdrive ignores magnetic reconnection experiments conducted by astrophysicists, plasma physicists and engineers at the Princeton Plasma Physics Laboratory:

http://mrx.pppl.gov/

http://mrx.pppl.gov/Publications/publications.html

"study and promote experimental based plasma physics" unless those experiments reveal something cantdrive's religion says doesn't exist(see links above). OK, got it.

@Captain Stumpy, I post as jc hanford over at Universe Today. I don't have a sciforum account(yet) but do occasionally lurk there.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (14) May 29, 2014
When astrophysicists prove nuclear scientists wrong and produce magnetically confined fusion as their theoretical models insist is possible, I'll eat crow. Until then they would do well to study up and understand the properties of electric currents in plasmas, double layers, and Langmuir bursts if they want to scientifically "solve" the previously described processes of the pseudoscientific "magnetic reconnection".

Modernmystic
4.5 / 5 (10) May 29, 2014
When astrophysicists prove nuclear scientists wrong and produce magnetically confined fusion as their theoretical models insist is possible, I'll eat crow. Until then they would do well to study up and understand the properties of electric currents in plasmas, double layers, and Langmuir bursts if they want to scientifically "solve" the previously described processes of the pseudoscientific "magnetic reconnection".



http://en.wikiped...n_energy

We absolutely have produced nuclear fusion energy by magnetic confinement, this is by no means new knowledge....

We can't make it "pay off" practically yet, but we CAN hand HAVE produced it...period.

How do you like your crow? I prefer mine medium rare.
Maggnus
4.5 / 5 (8) May 29, 2014
When astrophysicists prove nuclear scientists wrong and produce magnetically confined fusion as their theoretical models insist is possible, I'll eat crow. Until then they would do well to study up and understand the properties of electric currents in plasmas, double layers, and Langmuir bursts if they want to scientifically "solve" the previously described processes of the pseudoscientific "magnetic reconnection".

Hey dumdum, they are building ITER right now. How would you like your crow?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 29, 2014
Update - false alarm caused by Tues storm outage. Source is previously known and not as energetic as first reported.
Uncle Ira
4.4 / 5 (7) May 29, 2014
Update - false alarm caused by Tues storm outage. Source is previously known and not as energetic as first reported.


Yeah it go into the drawer with the cantdrive-Skippy's other science stuffs, did you hear the one about the Grand Canyon getting dug out by a lightening bolt wielding electrical engineer machinist or something like that thing?
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2014
Update - false alarm caused by Tues storm outage. Source is previously known and not as energetic as first reported.


Yeah it go into the drawer with the cantdrive-Skippy's other science stuffs, did you hear the one about the Grand Canyon getting dug out by a lightening bolt wielding electrical engineer machinist or something like that thing?


Zues
Maggnus
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2014
Update - false alarm caused by Tues storm outage. Source is previously known and not as energetic as first reported.
You've been too seeked by yyz - he noted this yesterday.
TheGhostofOtto1923
3.8 / 5 (4) May 29, 2014
"Swinburne University of Technology astronomer Dr Alan Duffy says these GRBs explosions are so large that if they occur within our galaxy they can potentially trigger mass extinctions on Earth."

-So shouldn't we be adding this to the list of 'the most dangerous things to humanity' in the other thread? More reason for self- sustaining underground colonies on other planets and moons.
RealScience, I like your explanation but I do not understand how any more energy is created by their gravitational attraction than what is released?
-You must realize that scientists have some very well-developed theories on where this energy comes from, and that explanations that you may be able to understand should be found somewhere on the net.

So the question is, why are you asking for half-assed explanations from the dumfuks here when you could be looking it up for yourself? Are you lazy? Are you trolling because you are bored? Any ideas??
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 29, 2014
Update - false alarm caused by Tues storm outage. Source is previously known and not as energetic as first reported.
You've been too seeked by yyz - he noted this yesterday.

I saw that. was just adding the report I read on NBC news.com
He must have an inside source...:-)
billpress11
not rated yet May 29, 2014
Ghost, any ideas? Yes, seems like matter antimatter annihilation would describe the high percentage of gamma rays emitted.

http://en.wikiped...ay_burst

"The means by which gamma-ray bursts convert energy into radiation remains poorly understood, and as of 2010 there was still no generally accepted model for how this process occurs.[86] Any successful model of GRB emission must explain the physical process for generating gamma-ray emission that matches the observed diversity of light-curves, spectra, and other characteristics.[87] Particularly challenging is the need to explain the very high efficiencies that are inferred from some explosions: some gamma-ray bursts may convert as much as half (or more) of the explosion energy into gamma-rays.[88]"
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) May 29, 2014
seems like matter antimatter annihilation would describe the high percentage of gamma rays emitted

But it would not easily explain the very high energy emission or why there continuum dominates over lines. There is no shortage of ways to create gamma rays, the problems are the specifics.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (6) May 29, 2014
One distinct possibility is synchrotron radiation caused by electric discharge in plasma


Is it a possibility? You have no idea. In the same breath as you accuse others of incompetence you make a completely blind assertion. You have no idea if that could explain anything, what you have is blind faith. No neutron stars cannot exist and electricity explains bimodality, light curves, preflares, the link with host galaxies, afterglows and their absence... You just have no idea how. This is why you follow a religion not a science.
yep
1.4 / 5 (10) May 30, 2014
Just scale up the plasma discharge.
example:http://phys.org/n...tar.html
Lightning is an example arc discharge the the sun an example of glow.
http://physicswor...ng-flash
http://space.io9....49723614
http://phys.org/n...215.html
Science is religion built on a mathematics and a big bang priori.
Models in a lab get us closer to reality than all the theoretical black magic your "real science" imagines. http://ieeexplore...3D848100
Magic Neutron stars and magic Pulsars as well as after glows or there absence can be explained by plasma and electromagnetic fields.
Primer Fields
https://www.youtu...lyiW-xGI
The third video solves the double slit experiment. Pretty awesome!
IMP-9
4.3 / 5 (6) May 30, 2014
Just scale up the plasma discharge


That doesn't solve anything. That's a mechanism of producing radiation, we have lots of those. What we don't have is detailed models which explain and predict the observations of GRBs. What you have is a guess. You can assert your lab experiment is superior all you like but that isn't astrophysics. A lab experiment only tells you about physics, it doesn't tell you this is actually occurring in stars, for example. What you have is a claim that this is a discharge. That's a hypothesis, not a theory.

You claim everything I mentioned is explained, you haven shown it does reproduce these, or the hundreds of other observations. So it's you who suffers from a priori assumptions.
big_hairy_jimbo
4 / 5 (1) May 30, 2014
My guess is that when two neutron stars collide, their combined mass creates a single object who's density causes further collapse, forming a stellar mass black hole. I suspect it's the sudden collapse that releases the Gamma rays. The unknown is what is the exotic matter inside the black hole. A Quark star, a Plank Star??? The collapse from Neutron star to this exotic matter star (read Black Hole) releases gamma rays. Perhaps the exotic matter is Quark Gluon Plasma which is what is thought to have existed just after the Big Bang.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (4) May 30, 2014
Okay, latest news is - it was a false alarm and didn't happen.
Why is this article still up?
billpress11
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2014
seems like matter antimatter annihilation would describe the high percentage of gamma rays emitted

But it would not easily explain the very high energy emission or why there continuum dominates over lines. There is no shortage of ways to create gamma rays, the problems are the specifics.

There may not be a shortage of ways to create gamma rays but in the quantities radiated from a gamma ray bursts there is.

Also I see no problem explaining the continuum of frequencies radiated from a gamma ray burst. For example say moon size of antimatter collided with an earth size chunk of matter.
The antimatter would all be turned into gamma rays which would heat the left over matter which would then radiate in a continuum of high and lower frequencies.

TheGhostofOtto1923
3 / 5 (2) May 30, 2014
Ghost, any ideas? Yes, seems like matter antimatter annihilation would describe the high percentage of gamma rays emitted
Yeah. After looking it up and finding out what real scientists know and do not know, you come back here and ask the same question, thinking you'll somehow get a more satisfying answer from dweebs and amateurs.

Does this really make sense to you?

As I said, the scientists making these claims have calcs to back them up, and they ARE available somewhere on the net. I suggest looking in the refs at the bottom of the wiki article.
rockwolf1000
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2014
@Otto

" dweebs and amateurs."

Guess that's why he picked you!
RealScience
4 / 5 (4) May 30, 2014
... it would take the same amount of energy to separate them as to what is released. Wouldn't this be limited to the release of only kinetic energy?

If the energy were perfectly distributed in the material, then the only significant escape would gravity waves. How, like a rock dropped into a pond, a small portion of the mass can end up with a larger portion of the energy, and 'splash' out of the gravity well. And yes, kinetic energy is indeed the main initial release (much greater than the rest mass of the ejected material).

You stated about 5% of the mass is released as energy but what I would like to know is how is this mass converted into energy, by what process?...


You mean other than kinetic energy?
Neutron star crusts contain some atomic nuclei (mostly alpha particles) and electrons. There are several potential mechanisms for extracting gamma rays from these charged particles (e.g., inverse Compton scattering), but this is still an open question.
mytwocts
5 / 5 (2) May 30, 2014
There was no GRB. Retract the story. Now.
http://heavymetal...m31.html
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) May 30, 2014
Quantity isn't a huge problem, any mechanism can be scaled up.

The antimatter would all be turned into gamma rays which would heat the left over matter which would then radiate in a continuum of high and lower frequencies.


The gamma ray spectrum is however non thermal, it is not characteristic of a hot body. Secondly you will not get thermal emission at the highest observed energies, here is no way it would get hot enough. You will not produce secondary photons orders of magnitude more energetic than the original ones. It also doesn't explain why lines don't dominate.
billpress11
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2014
IMP-9, Gamma rays can ionize any element. When an atom is ionized as it recaptures its electrons it radiates lower frequencies of radiation including heat and many other frequencies depending of the element. Lines wouldn't dominate because all the remaining different elements would be radiating in a near continuum frequencies. Matter antimatter annihilation would create nearly all frequencies in collisions between unequal amounts. This is just what is observed in GRB including the time frame or length of the burst.

http://en.wikiped...amma_ray

"Gamma rays are ionizing radiation, - - -"
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) May 30, 2014
When an atom is ionized as it recaptures its electrons it radiates lower frequencies of radiation including heat and many other frequencies depending of the element


Which would produce x-ray lines, not gamma ray continuum. Wrong energy and lines do not make a power law continuum. Lines do not suddenly become continuum and there is no reason there would be a power law.
billpress11
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2014
When an atom is ionized as it recaptures its electrons it radiates lower frequencies of radiation including heat and many other frequencies depending of the element


Which would produce x-ray lines, not gamma ray continuum. Wrong energy and lines do not make a power law continuum. Lines do not suddenly become continuum and there is no reason there would be a power law.

Sure it could produce x-rays lines and lines from all elements still present. After the initial gamma ray ionization of the remaining elements then during the reionization process nearly all frequencies would be radiated away along with the gamma rays as well as tell tell line as to the origin of the elements remaining.

Are you claiming that gamma ray photons can only be absorbed as gamma ray photons?
What about the Compton Effect?

billpress11
1 / 5 (1) May 30, 2014
Gamma ray photons can end up producing nearly every frequency by way of the Compton Effect and reionization.

http://en.wikiped...attering

Compton scattering is an inelasticscattering of a photon by a free chargedparticle, usually an electron. It results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of the photon (which may be an X-ray orgamma ray photon), called the Compton effect. Part of the energy of the photon is transferred to the recoiling electron. Inverse Compton scattering also exists, in which a charged particle transfers part of its energy to a photon.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (3) May 30, 2014
Sure it could produce x-rays lines and lines from all elements still present.


That's the problem. It would produce x-ray lines, not gamma rays. The common effect can certainly cause broadening but it doesn't magically turn lines into a power law. The emission process you described would create x-ray lines, there are no high energy gamma ray lines like that. So the high energy emission is not explained. You can point at scattering all you like but unless you can mathematically demonstrate why a power law would form up to ultra high energies then this is just guesswork. It doesn't explain the high energy emission and it doesn't explain the power law continuum.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) May 30, 2014
IMP-9, you are trying your best to create problems where there aren't any. Matter antimatter annihilation STARTS out with gamma rays. All the other frequencies are created later by way of the Compton Effect and reionization. That is almost exactly what we observe in GRB.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) May 31, 2014
You aren't even listening to the problem. The problem with explaining GRBs has never been just finding a source of gamma rays, that's easy, the problems lie in the details. You change your mind about what is occurring every time I tell you something cannot work, forgive me for losing track. As I said. You have not described the production of the ultra high energy gamma rays (far in excess of those created in annihilation) and you have not shown why lines magically turn into a power law. You claim scattering will do this, I see no evidence of that. Yes it will redistribute the energy but why a power law? We do not see other energies created later, it starts with a power law.
bluehigh
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2014
Antimatter is such a general term. Is it anti hydrogen, anti helium, anti dark stuff? What are the annihilation characteristics of disimilar anti stuff contact? Say a bunch of anti hydrogen dances around a neutron star? Lots of high energy, high velocity protons?

billpress11
1 / 5 (2) May 31, 2014
IMP-9, I don't even know what you are talking about when you keep mentioning the "power law". Educate me on that by providing me some links.

Also provide me some links that matter antimatter does NOT create ultra high energy gamma rays while GRB's do.

Furthermore, why do you think Wiki makes this statement?
http://en.wikiped...ay_burst
"The means by which gamma-ray bursts convert energy into radiation remains poorly understood, and as of 2010 there was still no generally accepted model for how this process occurs."

I tell you why, there is not any generally accepted source of such quantities of gamma rays.
There is no limit to the quantity of gamma rays from matter antimatter annihilation!
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (2) May 31, 2014
IMP-9, I don't even know what you are talking about when you keep mentioning the "power law". Educate me on that by providing me some links
billpress11
you are kidding right?
Uncle Ira
3 / 5 (4) May 31, 2014
IMP-9, I don't even know what you are talking about when you keep mentioning the "power law". Educate me on that by providing me some links
billpress11
you are kidding right?


He must be, because I didn't know what a power law either. But after I googled that rascal, it was easy to find out what it is.

@ Bill-Skippy, google the "power law" and it keep you busy for as much time as got reading about him. If ol Ira is reading it right, it is a thing that goes smoothly according to a formula from one number to the next without making the big jumps.
billpress11
1 / 5 (1) May 31, 2014
IMP-9, I don't even know what you are talking about when you keep mentioning the "power law". Educate me on that by providing me some links
billpress11
you are kidding right?

IMP-9 keeps claiming that matter antimatter annihilation violates the powers law, I want him to explain where it does. He's just throwing up a red-herring to explain why he originally claimed gamma rays could not create heat and lower frequencies or radiation.

http://en.wikiped...attering
"Compton scattering is an inelasticscattering of a photon by a free chargedparticle, usually an electron. It results in a decrease in energy (increase in wavelength) of the photon (which may be an X-ray orgamma ray photon), called the Compton effect. Part of the energy of the photon is transferred to the recoiling electron. Inverse Compton scattering also exists, in which a charged particle transfers part of its energy to a photon."

Show me where this violates the powers law?
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) May 31, 2014
A power law is the form of the spectrum at high energies for a GRB. It means flux is proportional to energy to some power index. Annhilation does not emit a power law, scattering of lines does not create a power law. Given you don't even understand basic terminology you clearly haven't solved the problem.

Annilation does not produce sufficently high energies. Nucleons have masses of GeV GRBs emit photons at hundreds and thousands of times those energies. Not explained.

Lastly the quote you have states there are problems with details and no one mechanism is accepted to be the cause. Note this includes annhilation and it does not mean these mechanisms are incapable of simply producing gamma rays at these energies. The problems lie in more complex study.
billpress11
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
IMP-9, and you clearly haven't shown anyone how the Compton Effect violates any power law.
I can assure you if one creates a power law for the Compton Effect it will NOT violate any power law formula. If it would violate the formula, the formula is wrong. How can I state this, easily because the Compton Effect does NOT violate the conservation of energy and momentum law, period.

Your statement claiming annihilation does not create high enough energies again is TOTALLY false. How can I state that, simple there is NO source of energy that comes even close to matter antimatter annihilation. Show me one, fusion is not even in the same ballpark.

While the Wiki quote leaves a lot out, it is accurate, energy and momentum are conserved. No one mechanism is accepted for several reason. Presently there is no accepted method of creating so much energy in such confined area. Why, it is generally assumed the universe is made almost entirely matter so annihilation could not be the source.
IMP-9
5 / 5 (5) Jun 01, 2014
You are talking nonsense. If you make a power law, yes it will be a power law, tremendous deduction. The question is how you produce one from annihilation lines. Given you don't even understand what a power law is you should research this before claiming it's easy.

there is NO source of energy that comes even close to matter antimatter annihilation


This is wrong and not answer. I state these energies are not high enough, claiming they are the highest doesn't answer that. Secondly it's wrong. Bremsstrahlung and synchrotron can produce photons from accelerated particles in shocks for example. The LHC exceeds annhilation energies, it could be used to produce photons of much higher energies than annhilation. Cosmic rays are observed at higher energies still. These can produce higher energies than annhilation.

It is assumed the universe is matter because there are no large annhilation structures observed. Creating energy isn't that difficult. And you still need a source.
billpress11
1 / 5 (2) Jun 01, 2014
Quote IMP-9: "It is assumed the universe is matter because there are no large annhilation structures observed. Creating energy isn't that difficult. And you still need a source."

No large annihilation structures is not proof that half the universe in not antimatter. The vast distances between galaxies and, or galaxy clusters would make contact between the two types of matter rare. It may be happening right before our eyes in the form of GRB's.

The energy contain in ever the most energetic cosmic rays would pale when compared to the energy release between even small amounts of matter antimatter annihilation.
And nothing could even come close to small star size collisions. After all does a cosmic ray turn into pure energy? No, but matter antimatter does! Can even the most energetic cosmic ray release as much energy as a GRB? I think even you know the answer to that.

I gave you the source in every posting I have made, you cannot seem to understand it. What is your source?
yyz
5 / 5 (3) Jun 01, 2014
billpress,

Sorry, annihilation radiation cannot account for ~100 GeV photons; not even close:

http://www.skyand...heories/

http://arxiv.org/abs/1305.1494
yep
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
"What you have is a claim that this is a discharge. That's a hypothesis, not a theory."
Chew on that 10-100 GeV while you read those links posted above and watch the Primer fields videos. Then check out Dr. Pierre Marie Robitaille's Liquid Metallic Hydrogen model of the sun and his work on the solar atmosphere which explains the mechanisms behind supernovas. You may even find it enlightening.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
XYZ, thanks for the two very interesting articles. Both articles do not rule out matter antimatter annihilation as a source for the original energy. In fact they make it even more likely. There is really no theoretical upper limit on a photon's energies that can be created by matter antimatter annihilation.

Below is a link that may shed some light on one possible origin for the 100 GeV photons.

http://www.wired....melaser/

"In the new study, the physicists shot xenon atoms with FLASH, an x-ray laser that uses intense photons in the extreme ultraviolet energy range, about forty times the energy of visible light. The xenon atoms lost a whopping 21 electrons at once, which indicates that it was hit by 50 photons simultaneously. Not only that, but the first electrons to pop off were from an inner region of the atom, like if you peeled an onion starting with the second layer."
IMP-9
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
The vast distances between galaxies and, or galaxy clusters would make contact between the two types of matter rare.

Not really no. Contact would be rare but as you expand the scale of these antimatter regions the area of the boundary increases hugely. There are a several studies on the fact we would detect antimatter regions though annihilation lines if they existed even far away. Why would we see nothing and then suddenly a GRB? Doesn't make sense.

The point you are not understanding is that a small amount of anti matter may contain lots of energy but it's one particle annihilating to produce one photon. There are no particles with enough mass to produce these photons. A cosmic ray on the other hand can give large amounts of it's energy to a photon but since it is vastly more energetic that simple rest mass it can produce higher energies. An x-ray laser is irreverent, we are talking much, much greater energies.
billpress11
1 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
IMP-9, sure it makes sense and is possible. You probably have read about uneven supernova explosion that accelerate the remain part of the star to the escape velocity of the host galaxy haven't you? Well there is a potential source for a huge matter antimatter collision billions of years from now.

As for annihilation not being able to create photon with the energy observed from some GRB's, read the link I provided in my previous posting. The energy contained in a single photon is no longer limited to hf, it can be many multiples of that.

Your fabled cosmic rays do not ever turn into pure energy unless a matter cosmic ray would collide with an antimatter cosmic ray. This would be extremely rare but possible.
If that happened what would be the energy released? The energy contained in both cosmic rays or the energy contained in both cosmic rays plus E=MC squared?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Shouldn't matter/antimatter collisions create non-smooth spectra? The energy held in an anti-electron/proton or anti-whatever particle is quantized so there should be distinct peaks there.

From what I read the spectrum of GRBs is pretty smooth.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
"What you have is a claim that this is a discharge. That's a hypothesis, not a theory."
Chew on that 10-100 GeV while you read those links posted above and watch the Primer fields videos. Then check out Dr. Pierre Marie Robitaille's Liquid Metallic Hydrogen model of the sun and his work on the solar atmosphere which explains the mechanisms behind supernovas. You may even find it enlightening.
Enlightening? Perhaps, if one considers fantasy and pseudo-scientific posturing "enlightening". It's funny how those who fall for the bunkum that is the EU model of the universe almost instinctively grasp any other "theory" that purports to challenge the so called "mainstream science".

For anyone interested, Dr Robitaille has a biomedical Ph.D. He has been trying to push a metallic hydrogen model of the sun for a few years now. Actual astrophysicists have noted unresolvable observational problems with the "model". Just like EU.

Remind anyone here of another, similar, theory?
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
IMP-9, sure it makes sense and is possible. You probably have read about uneven supernova explosion that accelerate the remain part of the star to the escape velocity of the host galaxy haven't you?
Um, this is wrong.
Well there is a potential source for a huge matter antimatter collision billions of years from now.
How so?

billpress11
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Well Maggnus some astronomers seem to think so. Here is one example below, do an internet search you will find others.

http://www.cfa.ha.../2014-09

Entire Star Cluster Thrown Out of its Galaxy
The galaxy known as M87 has a fastball that would be the envy of any baseball pitcher. It has thrown an entire star cluster toward us at more than two million miles per hour. The newly discovered cluster, which astronomers named HVGC-1, is now on a fast journey to nowhere. Its fate: to drift through the void between the galaxies for all time.

"Astronomers have found runaway stars before, but this is the first time we've found a runaway star cluster," says Nelson Caldwell of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Caldwell is lead author on the study, which will be published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters and is available online.
billpress11
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014


Shouldn't matter/antimatter collisions create non-smooth spectra? The energy held in an anti-electron/proton or anti-whatever particle is quantized so there should be distinct peaks there.

From what I read the spectrum of GRBs is pretty smooth.


I think I have read the spectrum is smooth also. While I cannot really answer your question I can think of several ways why the spectrum might be smooth. The Doppler Effect from the velocity of the matter antimatter collision. Also the heat contained in the colliding matter an antimatter. A third one could be the elements involved in the collision. There could be others also including the fact that matter antimatter annihilation would create many extremely high energy gamma rays the could form matter antimatter pairs which could go through another annihilation process, etc,etc until the spectrum is smooth.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2014
I think I have read the spectrum is smooth also. While I cannot really answer your question I can think of several ways why the spectrum might be smooth. The Doppler Effect from the velocity of the matter antimatter collision. Also the heat contained in the colliding matter an antimatter. A third one could be the elements involved in the collision. There could be others also including the fact that matter antimatter annihilation would create many extremely high energy gamma rays the could form matter antimatter pairs which could go through another annihilation process, etc,etc until the spectrum is smooth.


Skippy, is there some reason you so obsessed with this anti-matter idea you have? So far four of the smartest peoples on this forum has gave you the reasons that your idea probably isn't so good. Why you don't just accept that your idea doesn't stand up to the closer looking at?
antialias_physorg
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
The Doppler Effect from the velocity of the matter antimatter collision.

This should not smooth out the poeaks - just shift them. Especially with GRBs which are short.
There could be others also including the fact that matter antimatter annihilation would create many extremely high energy gamma rays the could form matter antimatter pairs

...which would be of the same type - so the spectral lines would still be the same.
Also the heat contained in the colliding matter an antimatter.

That is a very minor contribution compared to the annihilation energy. At best it might broaden the spectral lines somewhat - not erase them.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
Well Maggnus some astronomers seem to think so. Here is one example below, do an internet search you will find others.
Might want to read that one again, it does not say what you think it says. A "mere" supernova explosion does not have enough energy to impart escape velocity to a companion star. Nor even to "accelerate the remain part of the star".

In this case, the cluster appears to have had a close encounter with the multiple million S-mass black hole at the centre of the galaxy it is now escaping from. That is a WHOLE different process, and you may want to google it before making such assumptions in the future.
billpress11
1 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
AP, you may be correct on all your arguments against my ideas. That is okay, they were only thrown out as ideas. It may be that matter antimatter annihilation in innately smooth, I don't know.

Ira, you may be correct about these 4 smartest people they very likely are smarter than I. But that is not proof they are right or that I am wrong, we may both be wrong.

As for being obsessed, I don't think I am as obsessed as you and the 4 you mentioned. They are trying to defend a religious like belief in a universe made entirely of matter. I am only proposing other possible explanations for what is observed.
billpress11
1 / 5 (1) Jun 02, 2014
Maggnus, how the stars get out of their host galaxy is really irrelevant. The point I was making was that it would be possible for star size chunks of matter the migrate from a matter to an antimatter galaxy. Here is another link that indicates star size chunks of mass could possibly travel between galaxies.

http://www.univer...ernovae/

"The fourth candidate, SN 2005nc, the team selected because there was no nearby galaxy they could assign as a possible parent. They suggested this was due to an extremely distant host galaxy, too faint to resolve with previous studies. The basis for this assertion was that the supernova came with a gamma ray burst that indicated an origin some 5-6 billion light years distant. Due to the associated GRB, the Hubble telescope swung in to take a look. These archival pictures failed to reveal any objects that could readily be identified as host galaxies leaving the team to presume the host was simply too far away to resolve."
Uncle Ira
4.3 / 5 (6) Jun 02, 2014
As for being obsessed, I don't think I am as obsessed as you and the 4 you mentioned. They are trying to defend a religious like belief in a universe made entirely of matter. I am only proposing other possible explanations for what is observed.


I don't think it is a religious subject no. I think it is a subject they know a lot about. Because they know more than you or me then maybe they understand why your idea is not really the good one. They even try to explain their reasons for not thinking your idea is the really good one. But you keep struggling to rescue your idea, instead of just saying "oh, I did not know that".

That's why I said about the obsessed. It reminds me of the green deckhand who is always "suggesting" or "guessing" to fix a problem with my engines, and after the tenth or ninth, reason he still thinks he's on to something, and he don't even know the right names of the parts and which ones are connected to one or each the other.
Maggnus
5 / 5 (4) Jun 02, 2014
Maggnus, how the stars get out of their host galaxy is really irrelevant.
Hey, you made the statement. Then argued when I pointed out the mistake.
The point I was making was that it would be possible for star size chunks of matter the migrate from a matter to an antimatter galaxy.
Well, ok.
Here is another link that indicates star size chunks of mass could possibly travel between galaxies.
Word of advice - read carefully what you are posting to support your statements. That link says nothing like what you claim it does.
billpress11
1.5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
Maggnus, that is good advice. I did not argue with you. I accepted your point and merely pointed out it was irrelevant.

Ira, I have not been pointing out one reason after another. I have been claiming that GRB could be caused matter antimatter collision from the start to this posting right here. It is your smart ones who have not been able to counter any of the claims I have made from the energy of a photon to how a large chunks of matter an antimatter can come into contact. They have not even come up with any proof that the universe is made of matter alone. Without that proof it is entirely plausible that it is half and half.

I did not say it was religious belief either, I stated they defend it like a religious belief, with faith not with facts.

As for your deck hand he must be smarter than you because it is apparent you have not come with the fix or he would not have to come up with 9 or 10 fixes. You must have run out of fixes long before he did. You should be thanking him.
Uncle Ira
3.7 / 5 (3) Jun 02, 2014
As for your deck hand he must be smarter than you because it is apparent you have not come with the fix or he would not have to come up with 9 or 10 fixes. You must have run out of fixes long before he did. You should be thanking him.


What you think Skippy, them big engines tell Ira what is bugging them when they don't do right? Oh no Cher, them suckers has lots of moving parts and components. It take some peoples hours to figure out just what a particular problem might be, and the best way to fix him.

And that ain't easier with some 19 or 18 year old kid standing around and interrupting with suggestions. He usually suggest something with the injectors when the problem in one of the fuel pumps, or suggest that the problem might be in the oil pump when it's something not right in the supercharger. He has all kind of silly suggestions, but between you there and me here, I think he just like to say the names of the parts and not care what they do or not do right.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jun 02, 2014
All I want to know is - why is anyone speculating on something that has not happened? Instead focusing on a "what if"?
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jun 03, 2014
@Gyre - because GRBs do happen, even if this nearby one was a false alarm, so the discussion evolved into a discussion of GRBs in general.
yep
not rated yet Jun 04, 2014
"Concepts which have proved useful for ordering things easily assume so great an authority over us, that we forget their terrestrial origin and accept them as unalterable facts. They then become labeled as 'conceptual necessities,' etc. The road of scientific progress is frequently blocked for long periods by such errors." - Einstein

Magnus a list for you to appreciate and a little irony with Subrahmanyan Chandrasekhar on there. http://amasci.com...tml#list

Einsteins quote is a reminder that a different perspective without the preconceptions can change the paradigm, so to discount someone because they do not have accreditation is ill-considered. Maybe see for yourself what Robitaille is saying and take it on those merits. Also please watch David LaPoint's Primer field videos I would love to hear your take on them.
And also RealScience if you have not seen them yet.
The wire graph on the third one is incredibly cool.
RealScience
5 / 5 (1) Jun 04, 2014
@yep - it's a good list - I was familiar with most of them but a few were new to me. It should be required study for anyone who dismisses ideas simply because they are outside the main stream.

I generally root for a non-mainstream idea as long as it is actually fits with the evidence. Not because non-mainstream ideas are more likely to be right, but because we learn more when a non-mainstream idea turns out to be right than when the mainstream idea is right.

I also never discount someone due to a lack of accreditation - over half of my work has been in fields where I do not have a degree. But just because an idea sounds crazy or goes against the mainstream or comes from someone without accreditation doesn't make it right, either.

It comes down to looking at the evidence with an open mind (there are some frequent posters here who repetitiously post an idea and then ignore the evidence against the idea when others point it out - that's not open-minded, either).