Scientists Forced To Reexamine Theories In Light of Massive Gamma-Ray Burst

cold fjord writes "Earlier this year we discussed news of a shockingly powerful gamma-ray burst. Scientists have had time to study the phenomenon, but it's not offering up any easy answers. The Christian Science Monitor reports, 'An exploded star some 3.8 billion light-years away is forcing scientists to overhaul much of what they thought they knew about gamma-ray bursts – intense blasts of radiation triggered, in this case, by a star tens of times more massive than the sun that exhausted its nuclear fuel, exploded, then collapsed to form a black hole. Last April, gamma rays from the blast struck detectors in gamma-ray observatories orbiting Earth, triggering a frenzy of space- and ground-based observations. Many of them fly in the face of explanations researchers have developed during the past 30 years ... "Some of our theories are just going down the drain," said Charles Dermer, an astrophysicist at the Los Alamos National Laboratory in New Mexico ... while typical long-duration bursts last from a few seconds to a few minutes, GRB 130427A put on its display for 20 hours. ... [W]ith GRB 130427A, some of the highest energy photons, including the new record-holder, appeared hours after the blast. "This is hard to explain with our current models," Dermer said. In addition, gamma rays and emissions at visible wavelengths brightened and dimmed in tandem, quite unexpected because theory suggested they come from different regions of the expanding shells of material and thus should have peaked and dimmed at different times. Finally, theorists had posited different mechanisms for generating gamma rays and X-rays that are part of the light show a long-duration gamma-ray burst puts on. The result should have been a fadeout for the two forms of light punctuated by periods where emissions were interrupted. Instead, the two dimmed smoothly. The theoretical edifice GRB 130427A is eroding has been 46 years in the making.' — The 21 November 2013 Science Express has abstracts for four related papers (first, second, third, fourth). More at Sky & Telescope and NASA."

Comments

Question

[Anonymous Coward]

a star tens of times more massive than the sun that exhausted its nuclear fuel, exploded, then collapsed to form a black hole.

If it exhausted its "nuclear fuel," how could it explode?

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

To the explosion.

Unless explosions don't adhere to thermodynamics any more.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Release of gravitational energy.

Star falls in. Meets itself coming the other way.

Big Bang Slam.

Simples.

My problem is thining that a report from something calling itself "Christian Science Monitor" on anything cutting edge in astronomy is entirely suspect.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

gravitational collapse

Re:Question

[bflong]

http://news.discovery.com/space/why-does-a-star-explode.htm

This is the first result for the Google search "Why do stars explode".

Re:Question

[SJHillman]

From what I remember from 6th grade science class:
Stars mainly use hydrogen/helium as nuclear fuel. However, once those run out, it begins to collapse as gravity takes over. The compression forces it to begin fusing heavier elements, which gives it a renewed burst of energy, thus causing it to explode outwards. You could argue that the heavier elements are still nuclear fuel, but it's not the primary fuel of the star throughout its life so that's basically just an argument of semantics.

Alternative explanation: Hollywood has taught us that random objects may explode at any moment, even in the absence of combustibles or pressure.

Re:Question

[ChronoReverse]

Regular star fuel is hydrogen (and helium very late) which undergoes fusion.

When this fuel is exhausted, the star collapses under its own gravity. This can be extremely sudden (even in human terms).

The collapse can only go so far before the star is compressed to its limit. Where this limit is depends on how massive the star is. Unless the star is massive enough to crush right into a black hole, the collapse will also stop suddenly and "bounce back" as the core instantly reheats from the compression. This is the supernova explosion as all the stuff that normally wouldn't fuse goes and fuses anyway (this is where elements past iron come from).

Re:Question

[Pino Grigio]

The "burning" of the fuel is what generates the outward pressure that prevents a star collapsing under gravity, apparently. When it runs out of fuel to burn that outward pressure no longer exists, so gravitational collapse resumes, this time generating enormous energies and pressures. It "rebounds" and throws off its outer layers at stupendously high energy.

That is at least my layman's understanding of approximately how it works.

Re:Question

[alexander_686]

You might then want to read up on it. The Christian Science Monitor has been around for a long time and has a strong record of integrity and high quality reporting. While owned by the CS the news side is segregated from the editorial side like most reputable newspapers. And the news side dominates. One of the better national newspapers of the US.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternative explanation: Hollywood has taught us that random objects may explode at any moment, even in the absence of combustibles or pressure.

Certain aspects of quantum theory teach us the same thing.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The Christian Science Monitor is owned by the 'Church of Christ, Scientist'; however the church doesn't interfere with the magazine.

Despite it's name and provenience, it's actually a well respected and credible organization.

No creationism or other superstitious nonsense there.

Re:Question

[Dishevel]

Gravity compresses the star that compression is what creates the fusion that drives a star. The fusion wants to blow the star up. The gravity and the fusion work together for a while and you have a stable star. Once the fuel gets low the fusion slows. That expansive force dies out and gravity begins to win. It further compresses the star and can start fusing much heavier elements together this however is bad for the health of the star and results in things like supernova explosions when the mass of the star is high enough.

Re:Question

[CRCulver]

My problem is thining that a report from something calling itself "Christian Science Monitor" on anything cutting edge in astronomy is entirely suspect.

Only if you are entirely uninformed about American media. The CSM has no further connection to Christian Science in its editorial policy than the name its bylaws have stuck it with. (Even Mary Baker Eddy's desire that there be coverage of a religious theme has been opened up to any of the world's religions at all). It has won a number of Pulitzers and is one of the most respected publications in the country.

Re:Question

[umafuckit]

If it exhausted its "nuclear fuel," how could it explode?

Briefly, (and I'm not an expert) a star is a balance of inward gravitational pull and fusion-generated thermal energy pushing out. If the fuel runs out the balance is disturbed, stuff falls inwards at vast speeds and a very impressive bang ensues. There are also other ways a star can go nova (e.g involving a small, dense, companion star). Details here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernova

Re: Question

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the Wikipedia.

In larger stars, fusion continues until the iron core has grown so large (more than 1.4 solar masses) that it can no longer support its own mass. This core will suddenly collapse as its electrons are driven into its protons, forming neutrons, neutrinos and gamma rays in a burst of electron capture and inverse beta decay. The shockwave formed by this sudden collapse causes the rest of the star to explode in a supernova

If it's less then 1.4 solar masses then no supernova will occur and the star collapses into a white dawf

Re:Question

[CRCulver]

When this fuel is exhausted, the star collapses under its own gravity.

It's own gravity is due to its own mass. However, if all fuel is exhausted, then what mass remains that the star is still endowed with such immense gravity? That is, what mass does a star have besides the helium and hydrogen that should be all gone at this point?

Re:Question

[tibit]

Once you're heavy enough, you're not statically stable. Without a source of energy, you collapse, and soon thereafter release the gravitational energy as photons.

Re:Question

[umafuckit]

The compression forces it to begin fusing heavier elements, which gives it a renewed burst of energy, thus causing it to explode outwards.

As I recall, stars will continue fusing elements up iron fairly happily. Elements heavier than iron are synthesised during the core collapse of a supernova. Probably someone will correct me, but I think that explosion is just release of gravitational potential energy.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Alternative explanation: Hollywood has taught us that random objects may explode at any moment, even in the absence of combustibles or pressure.

Certain aspects of quantum theory teach us the same thing.

Almost, quantum theory explicitly requires an observer. Hollywood implicitly assumes observers paying $15 a ticket and another $40 for the BlurRay in 3 months. In fact, Hollywood assumes all possible observers will be observing and paying the full rates, so anything short of those predictions are losses due to piracy.

Re:Question

[tibit]

A gravitational collapse's release of energy doesn't need any nuclear reactions. Stuff simply falls down, so it converts gravitational potential energy into kinetic energy. Eventually it hits some other stuff hard, releasing said energy as photons.

Re:Question

[MiniMike]

...what mass does a star have besides the helium and hydrogen that should be all gone at this point?

The hydrogen and helium are not gone, they're just converted (via fusion) to higher number elements which require more extreme conditions to be used as fuel. The fusion reaction is what releases the energy in a star, not a pure conversion of hydrogen to energy.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

It's only gone because during fusion it becomes something else. e.g. 2 Hydrogen atom fuse and create helium. Then it fuses the helium which creates carbon and then carbon becomes iron and then kabooooom can't do shit with iron.

Re:Question

[CRCulver]

I see, so within the heart of the sun there is a huge mix of other elements as fusion products, even though from Earth we just see it as an undifferentiated ball of fire?

Re:Question

[lgw]

You do realize that burning gasoline in your car engine doesn't change the mass of anything, right? That the mass of gas burned + mass of intake air = mass of exhaust?

And must like a catalytic converter will "burn" exhaust further, by subjecting it to different conditions, a star will briefly burn its own exhaust in the immense energy density that briefly exists as the star falls in on itself and reaches peak pressure before rebounding. All elements heavier than iron come from these brief moments in the large supernovas.

Re:Question

[gstoddart]

It's own gravity is due to its own mass. However, if all fuel is exhausted, then what mass remains that the star is still endowed with such immense gravity? That is, what mass does a star have besides the helium and hydrogen that should be all gone at this point?

First of all, I'm not a physicist.

But, the fusion happening in a star means it's taking the hydrogen and helium and turning it into heavier elements like iron and the like. It's not "burning" fuel in the sense of consuming it and leaving smoke, but crazy big nuclear reactions are energetically making heavier kinds of matter (that's what fusion means, things are getting stuck together, as opposed to fission which is ripping things apart).

Once the crazy big nuclear reaction runs out, the forces keeping the star occupying a larger volume stop, and everything collapses in on itself.

Once that happens, it makes a really really big boom. Because eleventy zillion tons of hot iron and other stuff collapsing onto itself is, to make a huge understatement, exceedingly energetic -- to the point that it can briefly kick out things like gamma rays. (Because, as far as I understand, the magnitude of the collapse is well beyond anything we could even ponder and has a mass likely millions or billions of times that of the Earth.)

So the star hasn't exhausted its mass, it has exhausted its fuel. And then a really vast amount of mass collapses in on itself under its own gravity. And then we see some of the most energetic events we can even fathom. And the crazy collapse under gravity pushes matter to even more ridiculous levels of density, and then releases even more energy.

At least, that's my best understanding of it. I'm sure several people will tell me how horribly wrong I am. I already know it's horribly simplified.

Re:Question

[ChronoReverse]

Well, that depends on whether it's a "first generation" star that began as just hydrogen or a second,third,fourth,etc. "generation" star that uses the gas from a previous star's supernova gas cloud thus incorporating some of the elements created during said supernova.

The Sun is still mostly hydrogen and helium but there are trrace amounts of other elements: http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/sun/composition.html

Since the Earth has elements that aren't hydrogen and helium, we know our Sun isn't a "first generation".

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

You are speaking to people who think Steven Colbert and Al Sharpton are credible "reporters".

Re:Question

[tippe]

I'm by no way an expert, but I thought supernovas happen because a star runs out of the the lighter elements (Hydrogen, Helium, etc) which are easy to fuse. When this happens, the star collapses upon itself, greatly increasing internal pressure which causes the heavier elements to undergo fusion. It is this second level of fusion that causes the explosion, since it releases a lot more energy. Only really massive stars can go supernova because only they have enough mass to reach some sort of critical pressure that will allow the secondary fusion. Or, so I thought. I'm sure someone with more knowledge on the subject will come around shortly and set all of us straight...

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"My problem is thining that a report from something calling itself "Christian Science Monitor" on anything cutting edge in astronomy is entirely suspect."
This is typical from people that know nothing at all about science.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Sad but true.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

"quantum theory explicitly requires an observer."

Entirely wrong.

Quantum theory does not require an observer any more than fish require aqualungs.

Re:Question

[invid]

a star tens of times more massive than the sun that exhausted its nuclear fuel, exploded, then collapsed to form a black hole.

If it exhausted its "nuclear fuel," how could it explode?

When they say the fuel is "exhausted", what they really mean is that there is no longer enough to maintain an equilibrium with gravity. There is still a lot left. As gravity sucks down the remaining fuel it increases the pressure, heating it up enough for a big fusion reaction.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Regular star fuel is hydrogen

Yeah, but a star 10 times the mass of the sun is going to need Premium star fuel.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

we just see it as an undifferentiated ball of fire?

We don't see it as an undifferentiated ball of fire though. Spectroscopic analysis can tell you what elements are present at the surface. Helioseismology uses waves propagating through the Sun to determine structure of layers at deeper depths (much like done on Earth) and to determine how much mixing goes on (convection doesn't happen at all depths of the Sun, and different stars can have different convection zones). Things like isotropic ratios and neutrino measurements can add further constraints.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

That the mass of gas burned + mass of intake air = mass of exhaust?

That should actually be:

mass of gas burned + mass of intake air = mass of exhaust + mass equivalent of energy released in the process

For something like gasoline burning, the mass equivalent of the energy released is way too small to measure or notice. For something like fusion, the mass converted to energy can be up to something more like a 0.25%, which is measurable. It can be lost from a star if released as photons or kinetic energy of neutrinos. Still insignificant gravitationally though.

Re:Question

[Ken D]

The fusion of heavier elements actually liberates less energy, and above some point (iron?) fusion of nuclei is a net loss of energy, which is why heavy elements are so much rarer than the lighter elements. They are all 'parasitic' losses of energy that are only produced during supernova.

A "binding energy" chart shows that light elements should be fused to release energy and heavy elements should be split to release energy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Binding_energy_curve_-_common_isotopes.svg

Re:Question

[Whorhay]

Which is where that whole bit about us being made of star dust comes from. It is not that we are formed of the same stuff that constitutes stars but that literally the atoms that make up our bodies, and most of our world were at some point formed inside a star.

Re:Question

[gmclapp]

The fusion process is hydrogen being converted to helium. Mass is not destroyed in this process.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Pedantically, 0.7% of mass is lost, converted to energy by the proton-proton chain process. But your point stands.

Re:Question

[gman003]

Hydrogen fuses to Helium. Helium fuses to Beryllium then Carbon. Carbon can fuse to numerous other elements - Oxygen, Neon, Magnesium, etc.

The problem is that fusing heavier elements gives less and less energy, and require more and more energy to trigger. Sol, for instance, will never start fusing Carbon into heavier elements. This causes the star to form distinct layers, as only deep within large stars does sufficient pressure exist to trigger heavier and heavier fusion.

Once you hit Iron*, it's a net negative - the reaction no longer produces energy. When a star's core fuses all the Silicon it can into Iron, the star stops producing energy. Note that, previously, that fusion energy had been "inflating" the star, keeping the outer layers from collapsing inward under the massive gravitational pull.

So the star collapses. As it does so, it generates a tremendous amount of energy - it's converting gravitational potential energy into anything else. Some of the energy gets used in further fission - this is where most heavy elements are made. But most of it is released in a violent explosion that blows off most of the outer layers, leaving behind a neutron star, black hole, or other weird-ass remnant.

* Technically an unstable isotope of Nickel that decays into Iron, but the end product is Iron

Re:Question

[HiThere]

Well, as normally stated, quantum theory DOES require an observer. It does not require that the observer be sentient. Any electromagnetic interaction will do. Also strong or weak force interactions. Probably gravity, too, but that's just a bit difficult to observe.

Typically experiments use electrons or photons as the primary observers, but nearly anything will work, with varying degrees of sensitivity.

OTOH, as a believer in the Many-Worlds interpretation, I think that the observation just details which of the worlds you have ended up in. And I also believe in multiple pasts as well as multiple futures. (And the only thing special about this present, is that it's the one that you are observing from.)

Re:Question

[Anubis IV]

I actually loaded up the story just to see how many comments it would take this time before someone blasted it as untrustworthy on account of its name. Happens every time CSM comes up. You didn't disappoint.

And yeah, as others have said, they're extremely reputable and have essentially nothing to do with Christian Science, other than carrying their name.

Re:Question

[Cloudy Wheat Beer]

0.7% of the mass of the core of a star is nothing to scoff at. It is an incredibly huge amount of mass that is getting converted to energy every second.

Re:Question

[blue trane]

Everyone knows Lara Logan is the most credible!

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

OK, I gotta interject here. The 0.7% mass loss is small in relation to the 99.3% remaining mass. However the entire energy output of the star, for it's full lifetime, comes from this loss of mass. If there's no conversion of matter to energy, there's no "star", there's just a dead lump of matter floating in space.

0.7% sounds like a rounding error, something so small you can dismiss or ignore it completely. It's not. Due to E = mc^2, that amount of matter results in a whopping amount of energy released.

Scientists prior to 100 years ago did not understand nuclear reactions. At all. Didn't even know they existed. So they calculated how much energy conventional combustion could release in an object the size of the sun. And the answer didn't make any sense because it was way, way, way too low.

Stars as a force in powering our universe are utterly dependent upon that 0.7%.

Re:Question

[Charliemopps]

Whats even more interesting is that even the least dense gas in the sun, Hydrogen plasma, is compressed so ridiculously high because of the intense gravity that it's denser than lead. Think about that, and then think what the iron in the star must be like.

If you want to understand the process, read this:
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/ast122/lectures/lec18.html

Re:Question

[TechnoCore]

Actually, the amount of hydrogen used within a star before it starts to collapse is just a fraction of the total amount the star contains. It is only the hydrogen in the very core that runs out. Hydrogen in outer layers cannot get into the center, since it is blocked by heavier elements over time, and hence cannot fuse. If we (humanity) in the future could come u with a way to stir the star, so more of the outer layers of hydrogen could get into the center, then the Sun could run for more than hundreds of billions years. (Instead of a few billion we have left now)

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Christ, Scientist

Anything that makes me think of Jesus with a lab coat, safety goggles and crazy hair is okay by me.

Re:Question

[Bengie]

a star tens of times more massive than the sun that exhausted its nuclear fuel, exploded, then collapsed to form a black hole.

If it exhausted its "nuclear fuel," how could it explode?

Warning, I could have a few things wrong, but the idea is correct

Stars start fusion hydrogen, which turns into helium. Eventually the star starts to run low on hydrogen and starts to collapse. The collapse increases pressure, which then starts the fusion of helium. This releases even more energy than hydrogen, which causes the star to swell into a red giant. Helium starts to run low, and iron starts to form. This is an endothermic process, meaning it absorbs more energy that it emits.

The star starts to collapse, which speeds up the creation of more iron, which furthers the collapse. This is a vicious feedback loop that keeps happening until the outer shell of the star slams into the iron core. This causes iron to fuse into some heavier elements, but overall causes the entire star to explode in a super nova. Leaving a white dwarf, the left over hot iron core.

Larger stars may cause the core to collapse into a neutron star, even large stars, a black-hole.

Even larger stars will be generating so much energy during fusion, that the photons hit other particles in the star, and spontaneously turn into matter+anti-matter pairs. This causes the outward pressure of the star to decrease for a bit, before the matter pairs, recombine and emit another photon to even out the pressure again. After a while, these cycles work like a capacitor and store up excess energy that turns into more matter, causing the star to further collapse, which creates more energy, which turns into more matter. After a certain point, too much matter+antimatter builds up, and combine at the same time, causing the entire star to blow apart, leaving no core.

Even larger stars do mostly the same thing, but instead of the matter+antimatter pairs recombining then blowing the star apart, they just continue to keep turning into more and more matter causing more and more collapse. Eventually the star just collapses directly into a blackhole with no super nova. This makes for a large backhole because most of the star's mass gets pulled in, instead of blowing off in a supernova, then blasted away by the particle jets.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Which is where that whole bit about us being made of star dust comes from. It is not that we are formed of the same stuff that constitutes stars but that literally the atoms that make up our bodies, and most of our world were at some point formed inside a star.

Nah, that's just what God wants you to think.

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

The hydrogen doesn't stop fusing when a star switches to helium or heavier element fusion. The hydrogen fusion continues in a shell around the helium core. The issue isn't lack of hydrogen fusion, it is how quickly fusion of iron and heavier elements can absorb the energy produced by gravitational collapse or other fusion. Mixing would slow things down a little bit, but as long as there are parts at the temperatures and densities necessary for heavy element fusion, you are going to have a losing process that won't hold back gravity.

Re:Question

[the_other_chewey]

You do realize that burning gasoline in your car engine doesn't change the mass of anything, right? That the mass of gas burned + mass of intake air = mass of exhaust?

... = mass of exhaust + mass equivalent of energy released

That's tiny in the case of gasoline in a car, but far from negligible for the sun:
The sun loses about four million tons per second this way.
(Although, in relative terms, it's negligible for the sun as well...)

Re:Question

[the_other_chewey]

At least, that's my best understanding of it. I'm sure several people will tell me how horribly wrong I am. I already know it's horribly simplified.

I am a physicist, and no: As simplified explanations go, yours is a pretty good one.

Re:Question

[Bengie]

Until it's observed, nothing has happened, just a probability wave of what might happen. Like HiThere said, you don't need a "sentient observer".

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

You use the word "observe", but I'm pretty sure you mean "interact". Unless you're describing every possible interaction in the universe as an "observation", which strikes me as absurd terminology.

Re:Question

[Tenebrousedge]

Quantum physics is indeed absurd, but do read up on the observer effect; there's very little fundamental difference between observing a quantum phenomenon and interacting with it. 'Infinite are the arguments of sages'*, but for the purposes of the layman, not only is an observer a requirement of quantum physics, but before you observe things, they are not just in one state or the other (but unknown to you), they are in a state of superposition, i.e. simultaneously occupying both states. This superposition is as real as any other phenomenon in the universe. "Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it." Another relevant Bohr quote: "Isolated material particles are abstractions, their properties being definable and observable only through their interaction with other systems."

To me the thought that, by observing distant stars or the CMBR, I am interacting with the deeps of time, is pretty cool.

*Apologies to UKL

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

As someone quite familiar with the details of quantum mechanics having published work in condensed matter physics, while interactions and observations are deeply linked in quantum mechanics, the use of "observation" in a lot of pop-sci descriptions of quantum mechanics and other places has turned it into kind of a loaded word. Extrapolations are made and people infer meaning there that is not, and you end up with problems like Heisenberg's microscope being leading people to think the probabilistic nature in quantum mechanics is just a function of limited measurement ability, when it is actually fundamental to the structure of quantum mechanics, regardless of the nature of measurements. Equating observation with interaction, when observation is more of a subset of interaction, leads to other issues that mismatch practical issues of typical bench-top quantum mechanics experiments. You're interacting with photons that came from the CMB, not the CMB, which probably have lost nearly all coherence with other photons from the CMB (regardless of how cool the CMB is).

Re:Question

[Anonymous Coward]

Or to put it another way, you are made from the ashes of dead stars.

never a better time to consult with creation

[Anonymous Coward]

momkind our spiritual centerpeace little miss dna could be the key to slowing our fear based hypenosys media mongrel supported infantocide epidemic

good spirits prevail is the rumour

On the up side ...

[fahrbot-bot]

... my marigolds are doing great.

"I Get to Sit Home... I Get to Smoke Weed..."

[Anonymous Coward]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a_r_v9cYBPY#t=69

This is what the Democrats are stealing your money for, the FSA votes Democrat and you know it.

So you work all day and pay your taxes and your money is used to buy weed for this one.

SO yea, bash on the Republicans and vote statist, real smart there people.

Re:"I Get to Sit Home... I Get to Smoke Weed..."

[blue trane]

Taxes are unnecessary. Fund the govt with Treasury bills. Imagine: instead of paying taxes, you have a free choice to buy t-bills that pay you interest.

Also, how come your taxes argument isn't used against the big corporations that get money from the govt? "Hey, I got money for creating toxic assets!"

this is what happens...

[prettything]

when a deathstar blows up. there'll be another one in a while.

Re:this is what happens...

[Tablizer]

Maybe it's a Birthstar. It creates spocks.

Re:this is what happens...

[prettything]

that appears logical.

Dispersion, anyone?

[tibit]

some of the highest energy photons, including the new record-holder, appeared hours after the blast

One explanation is that the star is "weird" that way. Another explanation is dispersion in the interstellar- and intergalactic medium between the star and us. I mean, come on, we don't really know much about the intergalactic medium's dispersion for such energetic photons, since the only way to observe it would be via gamma ray bursts, right? I know zilch about the subject, so I'd really like to hear from an astrophysicist or two who happen upon this. As far as I'm concerned, the star could be weird, or the medium could be weird, or maybe both. Thanks!

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[tibit]

Let's face it: over 3 billion light years, it doesn't take much dispersion for things to arrive with a 20 hour delay. We're talking parts-per-trillion here.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[lgw]

IANAAP, but impedance is a better word than dispersion. Much like the speed of light through a prism varies by frequency, the speed of light through the interstellar medium (which is called vacuum, but is not some Platonic ideal of vacuum) should vary just a bit by frequency. Of course, that's not going to surprise anyone in the filed, so presumably the numbers aren't quite as expected even accounting for that.

The effect is very small, and I agree this could be telling us about the "vacuum" as easily as it could be telling us about the speed of light in an (ideal) vacuum.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

impedance is a better word than dispersion.

No, it really isn't.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

You could see correlations with distance or how much stuff is in between you and the source if that was the case. GRB 130427A they are talking about in this case is in the top 5 closest GRBs seen list, so it can't be an effect just from vacuum, and would come down to if there is a lot of stuff in the way.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[tibit]

Let's not forget that dispersion is solely due to interaction of photons with electrons in atoms. In ideal vacuum, there's no "small" effect to observe, since there's no electrons (atom-bound or otherwise) for photons to interact with. Case closed.

Of course, back in the real world, over 3 billion years, there's no such thing as a vacuum. There's stuff in there all right. Even the best pseudo-vacuum the universe can throw at us becomes very much non-vacuumy over such distances. Since you're shooting those x- and gamma-rays through 3 billion years worth of non-vacuum, dispersion is to be expected.

I have no idea where did your suggestion for the word "impedance" come from, it makes no sense.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[tibit]

The "a lot of stuff in the way" is a one part-per-trillion effect, so it's not all that easy to tell if there "is" a lot of stuff other than by dispersion! You'll not see it in purely transmissive/absorptive spectral properties unless we have spectrometers that good - ones that have to work from optical all the way to gamma rays, by the way.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[lgw]

Impedance, in the abstract, is that factor that limits the speed that a wave propagates. If light at one frequency (e.g., gamma) is slower than light at another (e.g. visible), then impedance differs by frequency. The speed light moves is limits by (ideal) vacuum impedance, by the absorption and re-emission due to electron interaction (dispersive or otherwise), and by interaction with virtual electron-positron pairs and other vacuum quantum effects. All of these contribute to impedance, dispersion is a specific case.

And I wouldn't blindly assume that dispersion is solely at work here. Perhaps the extreme high energy of the photons in this gamma burst interact with vacuum quantum effects in a different way than visible light due to the remarkably short wavelength.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

and by interaction with virtual electron-positron pairs and other vacuum quantum effects

Those interactions with virtual pairs and effects of being in a vacuum are already taken into account in the properties of photons and other particles. You can't observe what such a particle would be like without such effects since they can't be removed, so the observed nature of such particles is after said effects are already included. Interaction with matter or fields from neighboring matter are a different story.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[lgw]

Yes, but are they the same across all wavelengths? I believe this GRB included the current record for shortest wavelength ever observed in a photon. I don't know how much this-scale-GRB data we have to compare this against.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[Anonymous Coward]

Propagation of a photon through vacuum under field theories like the QED are at the speed of light, and wavelength independent. At high intensities of light, or electromagnetic fields, you can get weird effects that are wavelength dependent, but those field strengths only apply in really extreme environments like near the surface of a pulsar. While stuff like that might factor into the dynamics of a supernova or whatever mechanism creates a GRB, it would not matter a very short distance away and for the vast majority of the travel. Wavelength dependence would come down to either the medium it is traveling through (e.g. a plasma) or new physics.

Re:Dispersion, anyone?

[lgw]

Try reading the thread? The whole discussion is about the facts that "vacuum" isn't vacuum, and what affects the speed of light because it's not just a travelling photon.

Get it through your head...

[Anonymous Coward]

Time is not a constant. Duh.

filibuster

[Anonymous Coward]

NYT 1995 - using the filibuster to stop Clinton judges is wrong.
2005 - "we were wrong." The Dems using the filibuster to stop Bush judges is great.
2013 - using the filibuster to stop Obama judges is wrong.
2017 - we were wrong, The Dems using the filibuster to stop Repub judges is great.

Re:filibuster

[Anonymous Coward]

Filibusters have jumped more than the national debt since Obama became president.

My crack-brained theory:

[Narcocide]

Someone blew it up on purpose.

Re:My crack-brained theory:

[nicoleb_x]

Yep, we may be looking at the results of a long ago war or terrible accident. Of course, maybe we don't know Jack.

not unusual

[slashmydots]

So they're wrong about well established fact again. Wonderful. I'm sure dark matter exists though. The only evidence is math but still. I mean they have a planets with oxygen count for about a 1000 light year radius and can't even tell what's in the atmosphere on a moon inside our own solar system but I'm sure everything else astronomers do is 100% accurate.

Re:not unusual

[Sperbels]

I mean they have a planets with oxygen count for about a 1000 light year radius and can't even tell what's in the atmosphere on a moon inside our own solar system

What moon can't they determine the atmospheric makeup of? It's a pretty straight forward and well understood process...I think most of us learn about it around the age of 10. The light from the sun is reflected off the moon's atmosphere, picked up by a telescope and run through a prism. Certain elements absorb specific wavelengths of light. So you look at the spectrum and see which wavelengths are missing and you know what elements are in the atmosphere.

Re:not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

So they're wrong about well established fact again. Wonderful.

The theory here was never well established fact. It was a long standing theory, because we've only recently had the tools to test it.

Re:not unusual

[similar_name]

There's hardly well established fact in science. There are observations. Theories are explanations of those observations. Given our observations, we make an explanation. That's called a theory. When an observation contradicts that explanation we adjust the explanation or wind up replacing it. That's how progress goes. I agree though, not unusual for science to respond to new observations.

Re:not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

The only evidence is math but still.

So is the evidence in nearly every modern theory in physics, astronomy, and other science fields. Sometimes the evidence is math applied to a large set of data because you can test things on a table top, sometimes it is for a small set of data limited by observation or experiments being expensive.

Re:not unusual

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the really kooky part is when you read about relativity, and realize that not only do we not live in a Euclidean geometry, but that the geometry that best fits our observations has some decidedly weird qualities, like convergent parallel lines, and suddenly things like points at infinity and describing the universe in terms of higher dimensions makes a lot of sense. It's not that the math is prescriptive of reality, but that humans have an extremely limited perspective. If you traveled at the speed of light, you would not think relativity strange, and describing it mathematically would be equally natural.

I'd go on about the advancement of science as being the 'least wrong' explanation, but you're just an anti-science troll dedicated to criticizing matters beyond his ken. I'm more pointing out that the degree to which you misunderstand reality is also far greater than you know. Have a nice life.

"Scientists Forced To Reexamine Theories"

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously? Like they'd sit around in their labs all day doing nothing but now! - oh noes, they are forced to reexamine theories! Yup, that's not at all what science is about.

In other news: Programmers forced to refactor ancient code!

yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[SuperBanana]

The Christian Science Monitor has been around for a long time and has a strong record of integrity and high quality reporting.

Mary Baker Eddy established the CSM because she wanted a news source that wasn't "anti" Christian Science. The major papers of the day ridiculed her, called her a dangerous quack, etc. She was all of those things - and couldn't logic or reason her way out of a paper bag.

You know how people select news sources that fit their world view? Yeah, she went out and *started* a news source that fit hers.

While owned by the CS

And therein lies the problem. You're supporting a cult that believes medicine is the work of the devil, and that if you get sick, it's because you deserved it / didn't pray enough. They're a cult that has latched onto the word "science" to give themselves credibility.

You're supporting a religion whose belief system actively kills people, including children, by teaching that prayer is effective at curing things like a burst appendix.

They are a CULT. STOP SUPPORTING THEM.

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[Anonymous Coward]

This makes about as much sense as calling Christopher Hitchens a Christian because he had "Christ" in his name.

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[Anonymous Coward]

Handily, there's a name for your post. It's called the Genetic Fallacy.

While it is true that the person starting the publication was roundly dismissed for her "science" (and for that matter, roundly dismissed by mainstream Christianity for her "Christianity")... that is completely irrelevant to the quality of the publication today. In spite of, or perhaps even attributable to extra scientific caution in a "defensive" reaction to that history, it is now quite highly-regarded for the scientific soundness of its articles.

Henry Ford was virulently antisemitic. Do you attack acquaintances today who own Ford cars? No need to answer. If (when) we reviewed your daily life, we'd undoubtedly find there is one and only one issue to which you apply this "logic"--religion.

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[dywolf]

again: you know nothing about the paper itself, other than its origin, and you are attacking it based on that, and that alone. you can hate the religious sect all you want, but the paper is SEPERATE and DISTINCT from the religious group. it'd be like hating an internationally recognized and award winning newspaper...because it was owned by L Ron Hubbard who also started scientology. Just because she started both things, does not make one invalid simply becaus eyou consider the other invalid.

and in fact, the paper's reputation is stellar.

Despite its name, the Monitor does not claim to be a religious-themed paper, and says it does not promote the doctrine of its patron church. However, at its founder Eddy's request, a daily religious article has appeared in every issue of the Monitor. Eddy also required the inclusion of "Christian Science" in the paper's name, over initial opposition by some of her advisors who thought the religious reference might repel a secular audience.

Monitor staff have been the recipients of seven Pulitzer Prizes, the most recent in 2002.

1950, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: Edmund Stevens, for his series of 43 articles written over a three-year residence in Moscow entitled, "This Is Russia Uncensored."[8]
1967, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: R. John Hughes, For his thorough reporting of Indonesia's attempted Transition to the New Order in 1965 and the purge that followed in 1965–66.[9]
1968, Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting: Howard James, for his series of articles, Crisis in the Courts.[10]
1969, Pulitzer Prize for National Reporting: Robert Cahn, for his inquiry into the future of our national parks and the methods that may help to preserve them.[11]
1978, Pulitzer Prize Special Citations and Awards, Journalism: Richard Strout, for distinguished commentary from Washington over many years as staff correspondent for The Christian Science Monitor and contributor to The New Republic.[12]
1996, Pulitzer Prize for International Reporting: David Rohde, for his persistent on-site reporting of the slaughter of thousands of Bosnian Muslims in the Srebrenica Genocide.[13]
2002, Pulitzer Prize for Editorial Cartooning: Clay Bennett[14]
In April 2003, after being provided documents by a former Iraqi General, several news organizations (including the Monitor) reported that George Galloway was accused by a U.S. Senate Committee led by Norm Coleman of personally profiting from corruption within the United Nations Oil-for-Food program. The Monitor investigated the matter, concluding that the documents were "almost certainly forgeries," and, in response to a lawsuit by Galloway, apologized in court.[15]

In 2006, Jill Carroll, a freelance reporter for the Monitor, was kidnapped in Baghdad, and released safely after 82 days. Although Carroll was initially a freelancer, the paper worked tirelessly for her release, even hiring her as a staff writer shortly after her abduction to ensure that she had financial benefits, according to Bergenheim.[16] Beginning in August 2006, the Monitor published an account[17] of Carroll's kidnapping and subsequent release, with first-person reporting from Carroll and others involved.

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[dywolf]

also, supporting the paper, DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CHURCH. again. seperate. one does not fund or publish the other, or vice versa.

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[dywolf]

mod this up.
(i would, but i already commented)

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[blue trane]

Wait, I thought prescribing antibiotics is killing children by breeding superrestistant bacterial strains

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[jeffb (2.718)]

While I do like the reporting from the CSM, I don't think your logical analysis here is up to snuff.

GP made the claim that supporting the CSM, by buying it or giving them pageviews, supports an organization that is actively promoting harm. To follow your analogy, if Ford Motor Company today were actively promoting an anti-Semitic (or anti-Christian) agenda, you can bet that people buying their cars would catch grief for it.

Re:yeah, newspaper of a child-killing cult

[Nyder]

Handily, there's a name for your post. It's called the Genetic Fallacy.

While it is true that the person starting the publication was roundly dismissed for her "science" (and for that matter, roundly dismissed by mainstream Christianity for her "Christianity")... that is completely irrelevant to the quality of the publication today. In spite of, or perhaps even attributable to extra scientific caution in a "defensive" reaction to that history, it is now quite highly-regarded for the scientific soundness of its articles.

Henry Ford was virulently antisemitic. Do you attack acquaintances today who own Ford cars? No need to answer. If (when) we reviewed your daily life, we'd undoubtedly find there is one and only one issue to which you apply this "logic"--religion.

If Ford called his cars Jew Haters then you'd have a point. But Ford didn't include his beliefs in his choice of car names. Christian Science Monitor title states it has something to do with a religion, hence the Christian part. If it has nothing to do with the christian religion, then maybe they should go by Science Monitor. or a new name. But thinking people shouldn't associate it with Christians is stupid, as that is part of it's name.

And when I think of Christians and science, I think of the idiots who think this earth is 6k years old.

Just saying.

Mega-Deathstar

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and Gentlemen. You have just witnessed the destruction of the single most powerful weapon the universe has ever known.. The Mega-Deathstar!!

It's only flaw was forgetting to design a safety latch over the self-destruct button, then placing it next to the [ Fire ] button.

* In truth; the design "flaw" was done on purpose by a disgruntled Empire functionary, whose Galaxy was then destroyed by the explosion and quantum chain-reaction.

Re:Mega-Deathstar

[Anonymous Coward]

Ladies and Gentlemen. You have just witnessed the destruction of the single most powerful weapon the universe has ever known.. The Mega-Deathstar!!

It's only flaw was forgetting to design a safety latch over the self-destruct button, then placing it next to the [ Fire ] button.

* In truth; the design "flaw" was done on purpose by a disgruntled Empire functionary, whose Galaxy was then destroyed by the explosion and quantum chain-reaction.

Sounds like the end of Star Wars IX, no more books after that. And damn, when they said far far away they really meant it.

Re:Mega-Deathstar

[dimeglio]

That was the beta version. We fixed this at least 1.5 billion years ago.

Re:Mega-Deathstar

[mmell]

Stewie (Darth Vader): Can't we board it up or, you know, put some plywood over it or something?

Admiral Motti: Well, that would look terrible. I mean, we gotta think about resale.

Stewie (Darth Vader): Resale? What are you talking about? This property is right above Sunset. The value is only going to go up.

Admiral Motti: Lord Vader, your inside references to the Los Angeles real estate market haven't given you the clairvoyance to turn a profit on that condo in Glendale. Nor has it...

Stewie (Darth Vader): [Vader begins to choke him] I find your lack of faith disturbing. That property is in a prime location! Twenty minutes to the beach, twenty minutes to downtown!

Admiral Motti: [choking] There's nothing to do downtown!

Mayor Adam West (Grand Moff Tarkin): Enough of this! Vader, release him!

Stewie (Darth Vader): As you wish.

[releases Tagge]

Stewie (Darth Vader): All right, so were' going to plug up that hole?

Imperial Officer: Yeah, we can get it done tomorrow if price is no object

. Stewie (Darth Vader): Ehhhh...

Imperial Officer: We'll get estimates.

Stewie (Darth Vader): Get estimates, yeah, yeah.

Radius of Sterilization?

[Anonymous Coward]

With a burst this big, how big is the planet sterilization zone around it?

I'm trying to combine that with Drake's Equation to see how many sentient life forms we lost...

A less doomed one [Douglas Adams]

[careysb]

"Well what happened you see was," said the Captain, "our planet, the world from which we have come, was, so to speak, doomed." "Doomed?" "Oh yes. So what everyone thought was, let's pack the whole population into some giant spaceships and go and settle on another planet." Having told this much of his story, he settled back with a satisfied grunt. "You mean a less doomed one?" prompted Arthur.

recorded just prior to the event

[Anonymous Coward]

Mechanic: Somebody set up us the bomb.
Operator: Main screen turn on.
CATS: All your base are belong to us.
Captain: Move 'ZIG'.
Captain: For great justice.

Perfect time to be a Physicist!

[Anonymous Coward]

It seems now would be a great time to be a Physicist. Yes, unquestionably back when Tesla, Edison and Einstein were around would have been awesomely surreal. However, it seems there's presently no limit to theory reevaluation going on. No theory is safe from being scrapped.

That said, I'm still waiting for our theory of gravity to be unassumingly turned upside down. NO, I don't hope gravity reverses itsel! There's no question what we have works for what we do, however it is still just a theory.

Lensing

[justthinkit]

Right. Gravitational lensing would do the trick.

That's a long time

[Anonymous Coward]

It took 3.8B years to get here. That's a long time, a lot could have happened to it during the trip. Besides the usual stopping to go to the bathroom and running out of gas.

Science!

[Anonymous Coward]

Scientists forced to reexamine theories in light of new evidence, news at 11! It's like these Scientists are doing... science...

In the light...

[GameMaster]

They won't be reexamining much for very long if they keep standing in the light of a massive gamma-ray burst (by which, of course, I mean that it's hard to take the time to examine anything if you're constantly flipping out and going on green-skinned rampages).

Hangout

[symbolset]

There is a Google Hangout with the principal investigators on this going on right now. Search for "supernova" in Hangouts or catch the YouTube later.

we've just learned to walk

[marauder-2c]

the model for GRB's is not one that's been carved in stone. to be honest, GRB's are not very well understood. the reason for this is that you have to be lucky to detect one AND then be fast enough to point enough telescopes at it to gather enough data for a somewhat stable mathematical model. not so long ago, we didn't really have any clue WTF happened, so I'm not surprised that the models fall short to explain rare occurrences. i've had gamma ray astronomers in the offices next door using satellites like GLAST or XMM for observations, and they were often discussing distinctly different possibilities for GRB.

MONEY FROM THE CSM GOES TO CS

[SuperBanana]

How many times does this need to be said?

When you give advertising or subscription money to CSM, that's money going to CS.

These days the CSM is just another way they establish themselves as legit; it's branding, pure and simple.

Re:MONEY FROM THE CSM GOES TO CS

[khallow]

When you give advertising or subscription money to CSM, that's money going to CS.

That's the point of paying for a good service. You want the money to go to who is providing the service.

Re:MONEY FROM THE CSM GOES TO CS

[The123king]

Just because something is sponsored by a religious group doesn't automatically make it bad. Many christian groups give large sums of money to charity. Others build awesome churches (mormons build awesome temples, though i don't agree with their views), and others sponsor scientific advancement. Be glad that these organisations are grabbing money from suckers, that money often goes to good causes. Unless it's a blatant cult like scientology, then they can go fuck themselves

Re:MONEY FROM THE CSM GOES TO CS

[Anonymous Coward]

For years, CSM has been a money sink for their the CS publishing arm anyway.... so it doesn't really funnel money to CS, although might slightly lesson how much they need to divert from other uses. But at the moment, if they canned CSM, they would have a lot more money on hand.

Ultimate Kickstarter

[postagoras]

We are developing this exciting new energy source and will continue testing it in the outer spiral arms of the Milky Way, where there's no intelligent life.

For one:

[Culture20]

Zero Hulks were reported having been seen.

Re:For one:

[triffid_98]

Zero Hulks were reported having been seen.

Just wait for Thanksgiving/Black Friday, they're not under stress yet.

Also...I for one welcome our green testosterone filled overlords.

Down the drain

[Mister Liberty]

With Adam, Noach (rhymes with Coach?) and the whole
Christian Science monitored lot.

3.8 billion light-years away

[sseymour1978]

While typical long-duration bursts last from a few seconds to a few minutes, GRB 130427A put on its display for 20 hours. ... [W]ith GRB 130427A, some of the highest energy photons, including the new record-holder, appeared hours after the blast.

Maybe light speed varied for particles that arrived here so that "typical" couple minute burst now looks like 20 hour burst ? Reason for that could be particles crossed some dust clowd or some other fenomen.

God damned reality

[msobkow]

Always proving our theories wrong and making mankind look dumb.

Heaven forbid our scientific community should just admit 90% of what they "know" is nothing more than a reasonable guess based on virtually no evidence on the cosmological scale.

Re:God damned reality

[u38cg]

Hell of a guess considering that it leads to things like a glowing screen in front of you. Idiot.

Re:God damned reality

[Tablizer]

Obelisk from beyond!

Answer the phone

[DoctorStarks]

It's clear that our failure to respond to the extraterrestrials shorter burst of gamma rays have led them to try to get our attention with much bigger and more powerful technology.

Will someone please answer that phone?!

Clever

[Anonymous Coward]

Theories are going down the drain.
That's clever in an article on a black hole.

Oddball?

[Tablizer]

Do other distant gamma ray bursts display these odd characteristics, or just this one?

Buggers

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, fuck. Formics are here early.