Cosmic whistle packs a surprisingly energetic punch

Cosmic whistle packs a surprisingly energetic punch

Penn State University astronomers have discovered that the mysterious "cosmic whistles" known as fast radio bursts can pack a serious punch, in some cases releasing a billion times more energy in gamma-rays than they do in radio waves and rivaling the stellar cataclysms known as supernovae in their explosive power. The discovery, the first-ever finding of non-radio emission from any fast radio burst, drastically raises the stakes for models of fast radio bursts and is expected to further energize efforts by astronomers to chase down and identify long-lived counterparts to fast radio bursts using X-ray, optical, and radio telescopes.

Fast , which astronomers refer to as FRBs, were first discovered in 2007, and in the years since radio astronomers have detected a few dozen of these events. Although they last mere milliseconds at any single frequency, their great distances from Earth—and large quantities of intervening plasma—delay their arrival at lower frequencies, spreading the signal out over a second or more and yielding a distinctive downward-swooping "whistle" across the typical radio receiver band.

"This discovery revolutionizes our picture of FRBs, some of which apparently manifest as both a whistle and a bang," said coauthor Derek Fox, a Penn State professor of astronomy and astrophysics. The radio whistle can be detected by ground-based radio telescopes, while the gamma-ray bang can be picked up by high-energy satellites like NASA's Swift mission. "Rate and distance estimates for FRBs suggest that, whatever they are, they are a relatively common phenomenon, occurring somewhere in the universe more than 2,000 times a day."

Efforts to identify FRB counterparts began soon after their discovery but have all come up empty until now. In a paper published November 11 in Astrophysical Journal Letters the Penn State team, led by physics graduate student James DeLaunay, reports bright gamma-ray emission from the fast radio burst FRB 131104, named after the date it occurred, November 4, 2013. "I started this search for FRB counterparts without expecting to find anything," said DeLaunay. "This burst was the first that even had useful data to analyze. When I saw that it showed a possible gamma-ray counterpart, I couldn't believe my luck!"

Discovery of the gamma-ray "bang" from FRB 131104, the first non-radio counterpart to any FRB, was made possible by NASA's Earth-orbiting Swift satellite, which was observing the exact part of the sky where FRB 131104 occurred as the burst was detected by the Parkes Observatory radio telescope in Parkes, Australia. "Swift is always watching the sky for bursts of X-rays and gamma-rays," said Neil Gehrels, the mission's Principal Investigator and chief of the Astroparticle Physics Laboratory at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center. "What a delight it was to catch this flash from one of the mysterious ."

This is a collage of 4 images including two animations: Top left: Binary-neutron-star merger (credit: Dana Berry, Skyworks Digital)Top right: Supernova (credit: G. Bacon, STScI)Bottom left: Magnetar (credit Robert S. Mallozzi, UAH/NASA MSFC)Bottom right: Blck-hole accretion event (credit: M. Weiss, NASA/CXC)This image collection shows four models of powerful cosmic events that might have produced the fast radio burst FRB 131104. Two common fast-radio-burst models that predict accompanying gamma-ray emission invoke magnetar flares or binary-neutron-star mergers. A magnetar is a highly magnetized neutron star, the dense remnant of a collapsed star. Binary-neutron-star mergers occur when two neutron stars spiral together and merge, forming a black hole. Two cosmic sources of bright and long-lived gamma-ray emission, not known to produce fast radio bursts, are supermassive-black-hole accretion events and some types of supernovae. A black-hole accretion event occurs when a star comes too close to the supermassive black hole in the center of a galaxy. A supernova occurs when a massive star runs out of nuclear fuel; its core collapses and the star explodes, shining for a month or more with the light of ten billion stars. Credit: Top left: Binary-neutron-star merger (credit: Dana Berry, Skyworks Digital)Top right: Supernova (credit: G. Bacon, STScI)Bottom left: Magnetar (credit Robert S. Mallozzi, UAH/NASA MSFC)Bottom right: Blck-hole accretion event (credit: M. Weiss, NASA/CXC)

"Although theorists had anticipated that FRBs might be accompanied by gamma rays, the gamma-ray emission we see from FRB 131104 is surprisingly long-lasting and bright," Fox said. The duration of the gamma-ray emission, at two to six minutes, is many times the millisecond duration of the radio emission. And the gamma-ray emission from FRB 131104 outshines its radio emissions by more than a billion times, dramatically raising estimates of the burst's energy requirements and suggesting severe consequences for the burst's surroundings and host galaxy.

Two common models for gamma-ray emission from FRBs exist: one invoking magnetic flare events from magnetars—highly magnetized neutron stars that are the dense remnants of collapsed stars—and another invoking the catastrophic merger of two neutron stars, colliding to form a black hole. According to coauthor Kohta Murase, a Penn State professor and theorist, "The energy release we see is challenging for the magnetar model unless the burst is relatively nearby. The long timescale of the gamma-ray emission, while unexpected in both models, might be possible in a merger event if we observe the merger from the side, in an off-axis scenario."

"In fact, the energy and timescale of the gamma-ray emission is a better match to some types of supernovae, or to some of the supermassive black hole accretion events that Swift has seen," Fox said. "The problem is that no existing models predict that we would see an FRB in these cases."

A Cosmic Whistle: The Sound of the fast radio burst FRB 131104. Credit: Penn State University

The bright gamma-ray emission from FRB 131104 suggests that the burst, and others like it, might be accompanied by long-lived X-ray, optical, or radio emissions. Such counterparts are dependably seen in the wake of comparably energetic cosmic explosions, including both stellar-scale cataclysms—supernovae, magnetar flares, and gamma-ray bursts—and episodic or continuous accretion activity of the supermassive black holes that commonly lurk in the centers of galaxies.

In fact, Swift X-ray and optical observations were carried out two days after FRB 131104, thanks to prompt analysis by radio astronomers (who were not aware of the gamma-ray counterpart) and a nimble response from the Swift mission operations team, headquartered at Penn State. In spite of this relatively well-coordinated response, no long-lived X-ray, ultraviolet, or optical counterpart was seen.

The authors hope to participate in future campaigns aimed at discovering more FRB counterparts, and in this way, finally revealing the sources responsible for these ubiquitous and mysterious events. "Ideally, these campaigns would begin soon after the burst and would continue for several weeks afterward to make sure nothing gets missed. Maybe we'll get even luckier next time," DeLaunay said.


Explore further

Fast radio burst 'afterglow' was actually a flickering black hole

More information: "Discovery of a Transient Gamma-Ray Counterpart to FRB 131104," J. J. DeLaunay et al., 2016 Nov. 20, Astrophysical Journal Letters iopscience.iop.org/article/10. … 7/2041-8205/832/1/L1 , On Arxiv: arxiv.org/abs/1611.03139
Journal information: Astrophysical Journal Letters

Citation: Cosmic whistle packs a surprisingly energetic punch (2016, November 11) retrieved 20 July 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-11-cosmic-surprisingly-energetic.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
403 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Nov 11, 2016
Hi all. :)

I'm wondering if a-LIGO setup would be sensitive to the passing energy-waves 'signal' of these bursts?

The "downward-swooping whistle" signal could also be mistaken for the a-LIGO experiment's 'modeled' BH-BH-merger "Ringdown signature'.

In which case we may be actually observing EM radiation-waves rather than 'gravitational waves' signatures via a-LIGO 'events'.

Moreover, the signals coming from supernovae and/or magnetar events etc would indicate that the 'evidence for expansion' is even less reliable because the data/interpretation, by Perlmutter et al, would not have allowed for all the variability in local (there) conditions/effects (even before the signals reached us through all that plasma it must have gone through to get here).

What do you think? All relevant comments on-science/logic (preferably sans insults, name-calling and/or other personal irrelevances) most welcome. :)

These newer mainstream observations/revisions are just what was needed! :)

Nov 11, 2016
They really have no idea how far away such events are occurring, so the energy estimates are just guesses, like much of present astronomy. Black holes, magnetars, neutron stars, all just theoretical and can never be proven to exist.

Nov 12, 2016
Sub: enlighten spirit of science
1. Black-hole psychology misleads -so also this type of merger through simulation.
2. Even in High-voltage laboratory ,one can observe partial discharges- distance related burst strike at far-away- applicable during testing and Research.
similar Phenomena can be seen -Nozzle Flows-synthetic testing of -sF6-Airblast arcs - observed by me at University of Sydney long time back.
However, this logic cannot be extended at Galactic plane- No gravity zone.
3. LIGO- gravity waves do not attend to temple-tanks-Vision mode observations -and Electromagnetic phenomena at ground mat for interaction.
Obviously the subject calls for Paradigm shift through Cosmology vedas interlinks

Nov 12, 2016
Plasma regulated Electro-magnetic phenomena in magnetic Fields environment.
see my books at LULU-Plasma vision of the universe-1993 and Cosmic -PREM Universe-1995
http://archive.or...osmology
15 Books at LULU. http://www.lulu.c...ight/jna

RNP
Nov 12, 2016
@RealityCheck
I'm wondering if a-LIGO setup would be sensitive to the passing energy-waves 'signal' of these bursts?

The "downward-swooping whistle" signal could also be mistaken for the a-LIGO experiment's 'modeled' BH-BH-merger "Ringdown signature'.

In which case we may be actually observing EM radiation-waves rather than 'gravitational waves' signatures via a-LIGO 'events'.


Have I understood you correctly? Are you asking whether LIGO would detect a burst of EM?
If so, then you should go and look at the design of the LIGO instrument and try to understand how gravitational wave detectors work ( see https://www.ligo.caltech.edu/ ). You will see that they do NOT (can not) detect EM.

Sorry, but I can make no sense of the rest of your post.

Nov 12, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Thanks for your polite response. :)

My posts elsewhere demonstrate I fully understand premise, setup and capabilities/procedures etc of a-LIGO experiment; including parametric instability aspects, compensatory interventions etc to maintain/regain 'lock' when countering undesirable/extraneous events/signals not related to sought-for 'gravitational wave' events/signals.

Anyhow:

A 'compact' system's energy/mass content determines its gravitational-well parameters. At great distances, such a system can be treated as point-source-like when measuring the direction/strength of its applicable gravitational-energy/effect 'gradient'. For said system to 'lose' gravitational-energy/effect 'strength', it must 'lose' energy/mass content. Gamma radiation of such great energy takes away 'mass/gravity' effects WITH IT. Said gamma-ray energy's grav/mass effects may transiently perturb Earth's OWN mass/gravity 'field/structure' to affect a-LIGO's own mass/gravity parameters? :)

RNP
Nov 13, 2016
@Reality Check
Gamma radiation of such great energy takes away 'mass/gravity' effects WITH IT.
Said gamma-ray energy's grav/mass effects may transiently perturb Earth's OWN mass/gravity
'field/structure' to affect a-LIGO's own mass/gravity parameters? :)


By what physical process do you think gamma rays could "perturb Earth's own mass/gravity 'field structure'".


Nov 15, 2016
@not based in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL
My posts elsewhere demonstrate I fully understand premise, setup and capabilities/procedures etc of a-LIGO experiment
and i can prove that false with one quote with reference link for validation:
we may be actually observing EM radiation-waves rather than 'gravitational waves' signatures via a-LIGO 'events'
http://phys.org/n...tic.html

as noted by RNP -
By what physical process do you think gamma rays could "perturb Earth's own mass/gravity 'field structure'".
feel free to add actual details or data that can be validated or corroborated

.

.

.

[crickets]

imagine that

.

silence

Nov 21, 2016
Hi CS, Phys1, RNP, antialias et al. :)

What did you think of Prof. Paul Steinhardt's lecture explaining how and why "Inflation" is pseudoscience that has been contaminating the cosmology literature/thinking for far too long? Do you agree that BB hypothesis/interpretations etc etc which depend on such pseudoscience 'fixes' should be discarded asap and the alternatives re-considered properly without all the bias/false claims etc etc which have been built-into the 'science' and the 'modeling' etc for so long now? Will be back another day to see your reactions/comments on this (finally) honest, objective mainstream review of this flawed 'science' that has been allowed to contaminate proper science for so long. See you all when I next visit. Cheers. :)

Nov 22, 2016
Hi CS
@not based in reality fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL

until you can provide at least the 4 fatal flaws in the BICEP experiment along with the justification that validates your claims, then it is moot to discuss anything science with you becuase:

1- science requires evidence

2- you can't provide evidence for your claims

feel free to argue against this or post any long winded soliloquy as you usually do, but the simple fact of the matter is: you're not here for science

Nov 22, 2016
Hi CS et al. :)

Please see my reply posted today to RNP in thread:

http://phys.org/n...ics.html

Thanks. Cheers. :)

Nov 23, 2016
Please see my reply posted today to RNP
Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)

Please see my reply posted today to you in the same thread:

http://phys.org/n...ics.html

FOAD or ANHERO
Cheers. :)

Nov 23, 2016
Re: Post above, "Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)"
------------------------------------

Screaming nasties across the playground does not mean you "win".

How do we rid ourselves of those who cannot control their emotions?

Nov 23, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
Screaming nasties across the playground does not mean you "win"
then why do you keep doing it?
How do we rid ourselves of those who cannot control their emotions?
we've already asked the MODS to ban you... but that hasn't worked yet

hey! did you figure out how to use Google yet, mr. "The Pope speaks Portuguese"-kam??
http://phys.org/n...und.html

or are you gonna lie again about your "I really did work on rocket planes"? http://phys.org/n...its.html

you haven't mentioned WMD on this thread yet... why not?

tell you what:
you start posting valid claims and references, links or evidence for your claims and i bet people stop outing you as a chronic liar

care to take that bet?

or are you gonna threaten me and the site with litigation again?
http://phys.org/n...ens.html

Nov 23, 2016
Well, gosh, I worked on both of our NF-104s. Go look it up. We had three, but Yeager wrecked one before I got there.

This a discussion of cosmic phenomena, not a place for nasty personal attacks.

Nov 23, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR-kam
This a discussion of cosmic phenomena
so.. is that why you keep lying?
Posting unsubstantiated claims?

note: you did not prove your above comment with evidence

so, i guess you are gonna threaten me and the site with litigation again?
http://phys.org/n...ens.html

per your own request...

Nov 23, 2016
Hi CS. Please cease your personal irrelevant insulting noise. Thanks. :)

Nov 23, 2016
Hi CS
Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)

have you decided to actually post real science or content that you viewed in the studies yet?

that won't go away, troll-girl

over 5 million characters
5 million times that your keyboard could have linked the 4 fatal flaws & 4 other flaws that apparently only you can see

statistically speaking, that is far too great am argument that you're posting either:
1- pseudoscience
2- delusional bullsh*t

there have been papers written up on the BICEP problem, and you still can't produce even just the 4 "fatal" flaws you *claim* to have seen

http://phys.org/n...ics.html

so since you're still not posting content or evidence - i'm gonna go ahead and report you, ok?

i mean... over 5 million characters of wasted effort, time and content and still not one shred of evidence?

FOAD or ANHERO

thanks :)

Nov 23, 2016
"Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL

FOAD or ANHERO"
-------------------------------------------

"Screaming nasties across the playground is a sure way to win a technical argument.

Nov 24, 2016
Hi CS. :)

So, CS, have you viewed/understood Prof Paul Steinhardt's lecture?...wherein he outlined how/why "inflation" and hence Big Bang itself was flawed all along; known to be flawed (by those who actually OBJECTIVELY saw/said so all along); despite bogus 'mainstream' theorists'/paper-writers' etc dishonest/naive claims/pretense of 'supporting evidence' getting past 'peer review' for so many decades; to thoroughly contaminate/derail real cosmology science for far too long; used to unfairly/unscientifically dismiss/ignore viable alternatives because of the BB-bias built into all cosmology 'exercises' and 'interpretations of data' by BB/Inflation etc proponents unwilling to face reality from the start (for decades).

If you use "TL:DR" to avoid honestly addressing that and honestly stating whether or not you now agree that Inflation etc is bogus (as Prof Steinhardt has shown it to have been all along), then you'll demonstrate subjective rather than objective agenda.

Go! :)

Nov 25, 2016
Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)
If you use "TL:DR" to avoid honestly addressing that
not going to use it, but i will point out that it is far easier than what you've done
shorter too

answered here: http://phys.org/n...axy.html

and here: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

5993 posts wasted
5,993,000 potential characters wasted
minimum of 17,979 minutes, or 299.65 hours wasted in evasive distraction from the fact that you can't produce the 4 fatal flaws from the BICEP2 papers freely published

that is just one single scientific paper, published by others and freely accessible to everyone, that you made a claim about and still denigrate without evidence to date

12.48541 days wasted with still no evidence :-)

i can't be wrong - it's on google

Nov 25, 2016
Hi CS. :)

As my response to your above noise, I ask you to please note my responses to your same personal crap in threads:
http://phys.org/n...axy.html

I trust this is the end of your irrelevant/personal noises and that you will in future address the science/logics/history points made, CS.

Thanks. Cheers. :)

PS: Speaking of science/logics/history, you have yet to state whether or not you understood Prof Paul Steinhardt's lecture ( link provided to you before); and whether or not you agreed/disagreed with Prof Paul Steinhatrdt's objective review/conclusion that "Inflation" was always flawed nonsense from the start, without any real supporting evidence in either logics or physics terms. Yes/No, CS? :)

Nov 25, 2016
ERRATA:

The second link (provided again below) dropped out when I was editing my above post to CS.

http://phys.org/n...ics.html

Cheers.


Nov 26, 2016
Hi delusional narcissistic Dunning-Kruger ranting pseudoscience posting fodera-head the blatantly lying POS TROLL :)
ERRATA:
this one word describes the past 6,000 PLUS posts with no evidence
also answered here: http://phys.org/n...ics.html

over 6 million characters and still no evidence, content or proof

you can have the last word now that you've proven my point with regard to your chronic lies and lack of intellect, lack of evidence and lack of character

reported

RNP
Nov 26, 2016
@RealityChack
Prof Paul Steinhatrdt's objective review/conclusion that "Inflation" was always flawed nonsense from the start


To add to Captain Stumpy's dismissal of your behaviour: It has been pointed out to you numerous times that Prof Paul Steinhatrdt did not say any such thing. You are deliberately mis-represtening what he said. This is therefore a despicable LIE, and one that you keep repeating despite this being obvious to everybody that watches the video. This is shameful.


Nov 26, 2016
Stumpy:
What a nasty man!

What happened to you in life to make you like that?

Is that why you have to hide in the woods and use a pseudonym?

Can't we get rid of this offensive tone?

Nov 26, 2016
@STOLEN VALOR LIAR_kam
Is that why you have to ... use a pseudonym?

and gkam is your birth name?

LMFAO

per your own request to clean up the site from proliferation of sniping, off content abuse and stupidity with no science content or evidence - reported

Nov 26, 2016
Hi RNP. :)

Mate, you're in denial! And desperately at that, because you approve CS's delusional/prejudicial denials of past correctness on may part which embarrassed him and others when they ignored/denied/attacked the messenger instead of actually checking the truth out for themselves about the flaws in Bicep2 'offering' by 'reputable source'.

RNP, seriously, you are being badly influenced by lies and prejudicial delusions from those who bot-downvote regardless of correctness on the part of their victims; and who also are actually totally ignorant of subtle/complex scientific/logical matters which are being discussed by others irrespective of 'source reputation' (which doesn't matter one whit when 'offering' is OBJECTIVELY WRONG).

Bicep2 fiasco was 'enabled' by those impressed by 'reputation' rather than objective discovery using PROPER/UNBIASED science method/practice.

How long does it take to learn that lesson from Bicep2 fiasco, mate? Stop denying. Listen. Learn. :)

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more