Slashdot Mirror


Powerful Blast Confuses Astronomers

eldavojohn writes "Astronomers are still speculating as to what could have caused an abnormally strong five millisecond burst to be detected six years ago when it completely saturated their recording equipment. From the article: 'The burst was so bright that at the time it was first recorded it was dismissed as man-made radio interference. It put out a huge amount of power (10exp33 Joules), equivalent to a large (2000MW) power station running for two billion billion years.'"

39 of 330 comments (clear)

  1. Due diligence by KingSkippus · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I heard this story on NPR yesterday. I'm inclined to believe that it was...

    Absolutely nothing.

    It happened one time, six years ago, for less than five milliseconds, and no one else in the world can corroborate that it happened. To me, it sounds like either an equipment malfunction or something much more mundane that interfered with the measurement for that split second in time. Science is about repeatable, testable, observable results, not one-off flukes.

    Now, having said that, I think it's probably worthwhile to see if it happens again. As the article says, "The astronomers estimate on the basis of their results that hundreds of similar events should occur over the sky each day." If that is the case, then get to looking, and maybe I'll change my mind once they have more evidence.

    Until then, though, let's not get so caught up in the coolness of the possibility of something we've never seen before that we don't do due diligence and make good science.

    1. Re:Due diligence by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Informative

      To me, it sounds like either an equipment malfunction or something much more mundane

      TFA:

      The signal was spread out, with higher frequencies arriving at the telescope before the lower frequencies. This effect, called dispersion, is caused by the signal passing through ionized gas in interstellar and intergalactic space. The amount of this dispersion, the astronomers said, indicates that the signal likely originated about three billion light-years from Earth.

      So its not just a burst of noise. It has characteristics which say something about where it came from.

    2. Re:Due diligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      The above poster is correct. If you hear a burst of static on the radio, you might just as easily suspect the radio has a loose wire as you would suspect a distant source of interference.

      However, if you pick up Beethoven's 5th Symphony, the odds of it being the loose wire making and breaking contact in exactly the right pattern are incredibly low...to the point you'd be insane if your top theory wasn't a distant transmitter broadcasting the symphony.

      That's a little extreme of an analogy, but in this case there is also an order to the noise that highly suggests a real signal. Of course, there's orderly forms of interference, too, but most of those can be eliminated by comparing them with the signal.

      I don't understand the comment on the rate. If they've only observed one, they can't make any guesses about the rate. The fact that we saw one looking at only a small portion of the sky suggests the rate is reasonably high, but we don't know how much dumb chance was involved.

      As for what it is, it sounds like they may have ruled out this idea, but I was wondering if it might actually be a much more distant gamma-ray burst that's been red-shifted all the way to radio wavelengths.

    3. Re:Due diligence by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I'm inclined to agree. There are very few violent events in Astrophysics that last exactly 5 ms. Even if it's true that the cosmos is vast, and that it is not very likely that someone else was looking at the same exact patch (more like fraction of a pinhead) in the sky at the same exact time, I believe something else should have picked up something. A pure radio radio signal that completely saturates equipment for exactly 5ms? I expect neutrino showers, x-ray waves, visible light - anything, something - to go along with, precede or follow it. Events of that magnitude are messy, and they leave other traces behind.

      There are two possibilities here:
      - Someone got too excited with their data processing software. Some of that stuff was written in the 70s and is held together with spit, duct tape and undergrad students who have never before seen a Fortran77 program, and probably never will again. I don't trust weird stuff that only shows up after heavy duty data processing.
      - Someone picked up a not-so-local radio signal. The atmosphere can do weird things to radio waves.

      Or some aliens were messing around with their cell phones again. In any case, I'll file this under "Postprocessing is a bitch".

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    4. Re:Due diligence by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you differentiate Beethoven's 5th from noise based on a 5 ms sample? You're dealing with a very, very small sample size that has had multiple data processing passes applied to it.

      --
      Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
    5. Re:Due diligence by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      The difference between capturing a bullet with a 24fps and capturing a bullet with a slow-mo camera is the slow-mo camera costs more to replace.
      I, for one, am not made of money, and I'll stick to shooting at 24fps cameras.

    6. Re:Due diligence by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 3, Funny

      How do you differentiate Beethoven's 5th from noise based on a 5 ms sample?

      If it had been a 9 ms pulse, we'd certainly know which symphony it was.

    7. Re:Due diligence by chrisG23 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      How do you differentiate Beethoven's 5th from noise based on a 5 ms sample? You're dealing with a very, very small sample size that has had multiple data processing passes applied to it.

      Easy. You don't. You differentiate between 5ms of unordered information, or 5ms of orderdered information that resembles known ordered information likely to unintentionally occur when monitoring with the particular equipment you are using or because of uncontrolable shit in the environment (-noun 1. the aggregate of surrounding things, conditions, or influences; surroundings; milieu.), and something else. In this case the scientists at present believe they found something else, and, as scientists are prone to do, are trying to explain it.

    8. Re:Due diligence by flappinbooger · · Score: 3, Funny

      Death Star. Luke Skywalker. You know, the movie. Long long ago in a galaxy far far away? 3 billion light years sounds about right!

      --
      Flappinbooger isn't my real name
    9. Re:Due diligence by MousePotato · · Score: 3, Funny

      "Tom, I can name that tune in <1 ms..."

  2. The answer: by JonTurner · · Score: 4, Funny

    God sneezed.

    1. Re:The answer: by I+Like+Pudding · · Score: 4, Funny

      Him Bless Him.

    2. Re:The answer: by liquidsin · · Score: 5, Funny

      would it come off as rude if you told God to "go bless Yourself"?

      --
      do not read this line twice.
  3. wow! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    6EQUJ5

    1. Re:wow! by pintpusher · · Score: 3, Informative

      Wow! this is so not off-topic. wake up mods. try google.

      here, I'll make it easy for you.

      http://www.bigear.org/6equj5.htm

      --
      man, I feel like mold.
    2. Re:wow! by murdocj · · Score: 3, Funny

      Having occasionally read the at -1, I'd have to say thank God for the mod system.

  4. News? by tringstad · · Score: 5, Funny

    So, something happened 6 years ago, and nobody knew what it was.

    They still don't.

    Where's the fucking news?

    --
    "I got a half gallon of Jack, and 2 dozen Ant Traps. I'm about to get wild." -me
    1. Re:News? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

      So, something happened 6 years ago
      Incorrect ... something happened three billion and six years ago.
    2. Re:News? by Vellmont · · Score: 4, Insightful


      So, something happened 6 years ago, and nobody knew what it was.


      No, something happened 3 billion years ago. An instrument recorded it six years ago. Someone re-analyzed the data recently, and discovered something they couldn't explain. They published a paper yesterday.

      Where's the fucking news?

      The "news" is that there's likely something very big going on we don't understand. It's kind of sad that you and others only think it's news once we understand what's going on. Science isn't just the end product you read about in textbooks. It's a process by which we understand the universe. This is part of that process, and if this isn't just radio interference, it's extremely interesting.

      --
      AccountKiller
  5. Time machines at last! by QuickFox · · Score: 3, Informative

    an abnormally strong five millisecond burst to be detected six years ago You know that research into time machines is finally making progress when you get to read combinations of past and future tense like in this report about an event that is to be detected six years ago.
    --
    Terrorists can't threaten a country's freedom and democracy. Only lawmakers and voters can do that.
  6. It's a message from the aliens: by Chemisor · · Score: 3, Funny

    "Die, spammer, die!"

    1. Re:It's a message from the aliens: by n6kuy · · Score: 4, Funny

      That's German for, "The spammer, the", right?

      --
      If you disagree with me on social issues, then it's pretty clear that you are a narrow-minded bigot.
  7. The Great Green Arkleseizure.... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    The Coming Of The Great White Handkerchief is at hand.

  8. You'd think geeks would know immediately by sunwukong · · Score: 4, Funny

    The amount of this dispersion, the astronomers said, indicates that the signal likely originated about three billion light-years from Earth. Lesse, a long time ago in a galaxy far far away ...

    Deathstar I or II?
  9. Confused; instead of donkeys per forthnite etc by viking80 · · Score: 5, Informative

    (10exp33 Joules), equivalent to a large (2000MW) power station running for two billion billion years.'"

    This is basically
    1. 1 sun-month (power of the sun 4x10^26W for a month), or
    2. 0.5% of a supernova

    --
    don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    1. Re:Confused; instead of donkeys per forthnite etc by spoonist · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hmmm.... yeah.... but what's that in Libraries of Congress??

    2. Re:Confused; instead of donkeys per forthnite etc by Quixote · · Score: 5, Funny

      Glad you asked.

      E = mc^2 ; so m = E/c^2 .
      Plug in 10^33 for E, and 3x10^8 for c.
      You get m = 11111111111111111 Kg.
      Assume each book in LoC weighs on average 2Kg to simplify things.
      At last count the LoC had about 20M books.
      Dividing 11111111111111111 by (20,000,000 * 2), we get 277777777.
      In other words, this was equivalent to 277 million libraries of Congress.
      // E&OE

  10. Re:What's a "god"? by DaveWick79 · · Score: 4, Funny

    God doesn't believe in atheists; therefore, atheists do not exist.

  11. Easily explained by sker · · Score: 3, Funny

    I picked up the same thing on my instruments.. it was just a video clip of Hitler introducing the 1936 Olympics... that's all. Nothing to see here. Move along.

    --
    nonsig. unsig. desig.
  12. Re:It was the negative creative energy unleashed by ABoerma · · Score: 4, Funny

    They felt a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

  13. We don't have this phenomenon... by DaftShadow · · Score: 4, Funny

    We don't have atheists like in your country... we do not have this phenomenon. I don't know who's told you that we have this.

  14. Re:Because it's AUSTRALIAN news. by Surt · · Score: 4, Funny

    1,2 : large
    3,4,5 : medium
    6+ : small

    It's the standard scientific ranking system.

    --
    "Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
  15. Re:What's an "athiest"? by Greg_D · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is that a label which cultists apply to those who refuse to join their cult?

    Windows users.

  16. News for Nerds... by Etherwalk · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Because it's something new that they didn't understand. Hence, in the literal form, news. New data! Something that might be a deep and meaningful key to the universe! Or statistically unlikely interference from an old bit of stray noise. I wouldn't say anything that's science is necessarily news for the masses--some people simply don't care when we discover something new unless it impacts their work day or family life.

    But this is news for nerds, not news for Thoreau.

  17. Re:What's an "athiest"? by rbanffy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I use to joke that, while I do not believe there is a God, I lack the faith required to be an atheist.

  18. "Powerful Blast Confuses Astronomers" by autophile · · Score: 3, Funny

    After the blast, astronomers from universities across the country were seen wandering dazedly through the halls and campus greens. The sky-gazers did not seem to know where they were, nor what they were doing there. Some astronomers were found in a parking lot below Mt. Palomar, with car keys in their hands, unable to locate their own vehicles. Some had to be given emergency oxygen because, not knowing their altitude, they had forgotten their oxygen masks.

    Emergency psychiatrists were called in to deal with the situation.

    "I've never seen anything like it," said Dr. Itznada Seegar of the Federal Emergency Psychiatric Adminstration. "These astronomers are, to put it in layman's terms, dazed and confused. You can use that movie reference, right?"

    Dr. Adeep S. Komplacs posited a new cosmic psychic ray. Surrounded by clouds of THC byproducts, he remarked, "I've heard of cosmic rays, but this was one cosmic cosmic ray, dude!"

    As things slowly return to normal, said one Astronomy Department head, "Thank God the effect is wearing off. Now we can get our astronomers' heads back in the clouds."

    --
    Towards the Singularity.
  19. Stupid "Funny" Comments by Fleetie · · Score: 4, Funny

    Fuck me; isn't there any way to filter out ALL comments modded "Funny"? Because they aren't "funny"; they're asinine, and indicative of people who DON'T understand the present subject, and can only grunt like pigs. This is interesting; so STOP with the "funny" comments already. Fuck, and I thought this was a forum for people with some intelligence and knowledge. I thought I was going somewhere interesting, and I wandered into a pig farm, and now I'm stinking and covered in shit and have gruntinnitus. Free clue: If you're intending to post something with the hope that it be modded "funny", then STOP NOW, because you're a sad 'tard that needs at least a damn good kicking, and possibly a bullet in the head - or to escape that, go out and get yourself a fucking girlfriend.

    --
    "Absorbing your worst..."
  20. Re:Ah, the logic of self-delusion. by bhiestand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    yes, but some (NOT ALL!) atheists seem to be making a religion out of not believing in religion and push their beliefs at least as vigorously as your average fundamentalist. Yes, I know what you mean. It's not the Atheists with their Arrogant Bibles that concern me, though. Right now I'm most concerned with the Round-Earth Cult.

    You do realize, don't you, that there's a fundamental difference between shouting "THE SKY IS BLUE!" or "WE DON'T BELIEVE IN GOD, THIS IS WHY YOUR ARGUMENTS ARE WRONG, NOW LEAVE US ALONE!" and shouting things like "If the evidence contradicts my beliefs, the evidence is wrong"? (I know, bad grammar, but I'm too tired to mess with it)

    Anyways, "atheism is a religion like bald is a hair color" says it best here. Atheists may have banded together in vocal groups that act in a similar manner (denouncing the gods of others, etc.), but this does not make them religious. Helium has a pretty good little article on this.
    --
    SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling
  21. Re:Ah, the logic of self-delusion. by bhiestand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This only makes atheists more comfortable when theists realize that non-believers, the most hated group in America, are not members of a religion or cult.

    Nope, sorry.

    When you ask a Jew or a Christian or a Wiccan what an Atheist is, they won't say "someone who doesn't believe." They will say "someone who believes God doesn't exist." It's a fundamental difference.

    And if you ask a Christian how old the earth is, he might say "6000 years", but this does not make him correct. There is, of course, an argument over the definition of atheism. It seems clear to me that atheism should mean a lack of belief, rather than an active disbelief, but we can use the more exact terms of strong and weak atheist.

    Science can neither prove nor disprove the Christian God, nor any tenable modern deity. This means that the default answer is "I don't know", not "that's a fairy tale!" (snip)

    I'm glad we agree. You can't disprove the existence of anything, but it is quite easy to prove the existence of most things. Unicorns, leprechauns, and Big Foot are great examples of things that probably don't exist but can't be disproved. And the default answer, assuming no evidence in either direction, is, indeed "I don't know". Every supernatural "theory" must be evaluated and weighed against the evidence to establish some sort of probability. My evaluation, having read several versions of the Christian bible, is that it is extremely unlikely that the Christian god exists. I started out by saying "I don't know, but I'll look into it." Given the lack of any evidence that should be quite bountiful if their evidence were true, and the inherent logical contradictions involved, I estimate the probably of the Christian God's existence at less than 1%. As such, I'm about 99% certain that that god does not exist. This makes me more certain than Richard Dawkins, but I still admit that I could be wrong, and I would happily re-evaluate the situation if I ever saw new evidence.

    Very few atheists actually go so far as to say "I know that there certainly are no gods", they simply think it's more likely that there's a community of underwear gnomes and a demon that feeds off of socks in the dryer. I would like to see some sources saying that even a sizable minority of believers admit that they don't actually know.

    It's only those few anti-believers that most everyone hates -- "theists" because they're so obnoxious about it, and "not-knowers" because they make them look bad.

    (If you believe that God doesn't exist -- not that it's beyond knowledge, or that you simply don't believe -- then you're a capital-A Atheist, and you have a religion.)

    What angers strong atheists is that theists attempt to discredit or simply deny any evidence that contradicts their beliefs. Why should we leave the Intelligent Design "Theory" alone when they try to discredit or replace our evidence and theories simply because they don't like the direction the evidence points?

    I used to be an apathetic agnostic. The whole argument seemed absurd and like a waste of time to me. Then I got into an argument with somebody, and she asked me whether I specifically believed that the Christian God didn't exist. I said "Oh, I highly doubt that one exists." It was at this point that I realized that I was both an atheist and an agnostic.

    Admitting that I was an atheist and couldn't simply ignore the argument because it was stupid forced me to start really weighing the evidence (and lack thereof) and making up my mind. I have come to the conclusion that the Judeo-Christian god is about as likely leprechauns, but less likely than extraterrestrials visiting earth. Genesis is most certainly a myth, but it's possible that there is some truth in the bible. I don't know whether the Buddha was a higher form of human, or if he was just a glorified philosopher.

    In short, I t

    --
    SWM seeks new sig for a brief fling