Astronomy / Space Mystery behind the fast radio bursts (FRBs)

Varrag · Apr 1, 2015

Interesting article (from credible source

), talking about the latest investigations of mysterious FRBs. Is it some bizzare natural phenomena which we're unable to explain, or perhaps a sign of some powerful alien civilization's activity? Why the number 187.5?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...f-strange-radio-bursts-from-space.html?page=1

Slo-Mo-Shun · Apr 1, 2015

I found myself reading this and thinking, okay, its an early April jape. Now I am not too sure as version 1 was published on the 17th March according to the paper download area of Cornell. Even found myself staring at the data expecting to see something would allow me to sit back with a self satisfied knowing smile. Unfortunately that was not the case, it seems real, which of course is most disconcerting. Talk of Perytons (a mythical creature but also a man made radio signal) got me thinking aha, but no it didn't lead anywhere. So if the signals prove to be from outside the solar system I think that they are bizarre indeed.

edd · Apr 1, 2015

Varrag said:
Interesting article (from credible source ), talking about the latest investigations of mysterious FRBs. Is it some bizzare natural phenomena which we're unable to explain, or perhaps a sign of some powerful alien civilization's activity? Why the number 187.5?

http://www.newscientist.com/article...f-strange-radio-bursts-from-space.html?page=1

New Scientist do make it sound like 187.5 is something of a magic number by just giving it as a naked value like that, but it's important to remember it's got units - cm^-3 parsecs.

Varrag · Apr 2, 2015

Reasonable question which is usually pulled out on these sort of things is: why an alien civilization, no matter how advanced it may be, would want to waste so much energy to transmit FRBs? But then again, what do we know? If it's a type II civilization (let alone type III), it's peanuts for them. Perhaps fast radio bursts are just imprints of their version of activated frame shift drives

Of course, I'd rather try to look up for a natural source before anything else. FRBs are puzzling, that's for sure.

Surfinjo · Apr 2, 2015

And they seem to come from far outside the galaxy.

It is kinda obvious that there will be life elsewhere in the universe. It is equally obvious that a very small number of those will have achieved some levels of technological achievement, along similar lines to that which has been achieved by Europe, (A very small part of the entire Earth).

But it is essentially irrelevant simply because of the enormous distances mean it will be permanently impossible for any meaningful contact to be made.

These signals may indeed have been artificially produced rather than a natural phenomena, but coming from outside our galaxy, they will probably be hundreds if not thousands of millions of years old. I have a feeling that, in that amount of time, whatever may have created them has long since evolved to a level where it will have little interest in what may be happening here and now.

Stigbob · Apr 2, 2015

When pulsars were first discovered they called the signal source LGM1 (little green men), wait and see what those clever science boffins come up with my monies not on aliens (just yet).

Personally I think its CMDR Nutter (ED's greatest explorer) flushing his on-board toilet after a microwave Lavian Bhuna that's been "maturing" in his fridge for a few months.

Time Streamer · Apr 2, 2015

OMG. I think i dropped my nuts somewhere. I didn't knew such things were happening..

Slo-Mo-Shun · Apr 2, 2015

Surfinjo said:
But it is essentially irrelevant simply because of the enormous distances mean it will be permanently impossible for any meaningful contact to be made.

As far as as communications go I agree with you Jo.

I suspect there will be a perfectly reasonable mess up (damn the profanity filter) somewhere. Remember the faster than light neutrinos, the BICEP2 proof of cosmic inflation or even the gas/dust cloud approaching Sgt A * , all proved to be something very different than what was first reported. And by the way, theres nothing wrong with that, research is full of these happenings. Do some research, report your findings, do further research, refine your conclusions etc.

Surfinjo · Apr 2, 2015

Yes, you are of course correct.

If these signals do indicate anything, then it should be investigated, thoroughly.

I apologise if I gave the impression that they could be ignored. It was an error on my part and would have been totally unscientific.

Thank you for pointing out my error.

Slo-Mo-Shun · Apr 3, 2015

I wasn't attempting that at all Jo. I was simply pointing out that the likely next paper from the researchers will describe a naturally occurring (or man made) phenomena that probably caused the bursts.

JeffRyan · Apr 3, 2015

Zorgal, "What multiple should we use?"
Fringle, "Dunno, when were you born?"
Zorgal, "On the 18th day of the 75th year of Jirglefu."

Dr Wookie · Apr 3, 2015

That graph in the new scientist article could be misleading... it simply plots a number times a constant vs that number, rather than any physically meaningful quantity. There is information there, but not necessarily substance. The paper the article is based on is better for this.

Alarm bells ring for me because 9 out of 10 detections in the history of mankind and the universe were made by the same telescope, without obvious advantages. It could be some interesting new astrophysical phenomenon, but the authors need to be able to rule out more mundane stuff. It could be the result of neutron star merger, but is highly unlikely to be black hole evaporation.

The authors of the cited article conclude that the source of the signal us probably human

JeffRyan · Apr 3, 2015

Dr Wookie said:
That graph in the new scientist article could be misleading... it simply plots a number times a constant vs that number, rather than any physically meaningful quantity. There is information there, but not necessarily substance. The paper the article is based on is better for this.

Alarm bells ring for me because 9 out of 10 detections in the history of mankind and the universe were made by the same telescope, without obvious advantages. It could be some interesting new astrophysical phenomenon, but the authors need to be able to rule out more mundane stuff. It could be the result of neutron star merger, but is highly unlikely to be black hole evaporation.

The authors of the cited article conclude that the source of the signal us probably human

I was reminded of Jocelyn Bell...

Varrag · Apr 9, 2015

I've been reading a bit more about this... if I understood well, large dispersion meassure (DM) for fast radio bursts tells that the source cannot be within our galaxy - for galactic radio objects (such as pulsars) DM is necessarily much smaller. On the other hand, intergalactic medium would randomize DM to such a degree that the odd pattern we are noticing (multiplies of 187.5) shouldn't be possible. Which then suggests that the source must be in the Milky way, perhaps pretty close to us. This contradiction is one of the major problems with FRBs.

It also worth noting that radio astronomers are eagerly awaiting more FRBs, because eleven recorded so far (ten on Parkes, one Arecibo) might be too small sample to draw definite conclusions; pattern could disappear once this sample is enlarged.

Zieman · Apr 9, 2015

Varrag said:
It also worth noting that radio astronomers are eagerly awaiting more FRBs, because eleven recorded so far (ten on Parkes, one Arecibo) might be too small sample to draw definite conclusions; pattern could disappear once this sample is enlarged.

Wonder if the new Chinese bigger than Arecibo telescope will detect some when it is operational?

Varrag · Apr 9, 2015

Zieman said:
Wonder if the new Chinese bigger than Arecibo telescope will detect some when it is operational?

Hope so. If all FRBs were recorded only by Parkes, some sort of malfunction or latent error with this particular radio telescope, creating false readings, should have been seriously considered. Fact that Arecibo picked up one FRB too is important.

edd · Apr 10, 2015

Well that's the perytons sorted: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02165

Surfinjo · Apr 10, 2015

It's an interesting phenomena whether artificial or natural.

But simply finding it is hardly the point unless we can actually learn from it.

At the moment, it is just sorta interesting.

Varrag · Apr 10, 2015

edd said:
Well that's the perytons sorted: http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02165

Parkes has picked up a lot more sygnals in the past years, very similar to FRBs, which were later dismissed as perytons. Those ten, plus one from Arecibo, are confirmed FRBs (as in - not being connected to terrestrial artificial sources).

Surfinjo said:
It's an interesting phenomena whether artificial or natural.

But simply finding it is hardly the point unless we can actually learn from it.

Yeah it would be very helpful if we could notice anything, in any part of the electromagnetic spectrum, at the points of the sky from where (confirmed) FRBs came from. Gamma ray bursts were also a complete mystery until one has been associated to supernova explosion which happened at exactly the same place and time (roughly 24 hours later, more precisely). It was a major breakthrough. But with FRBs, absolutely nothing has been seen so far - not even the afterglow. Which is strange because, assuming that the sources are natural, something very energetic must be going on there.