Grb idea.

[peteshimmon]

Hi, Nice to be invited back. Mucked up my
details last time and anyway would not
tangle with Jay again. Anyway, I have been
playing around with an alternative idea
about Gamma Ray Bursters these last 10 years
almost. Lets try it here. A Supernova emits
most of its energy as neutrinos. This
expanding bubble of particles will hit all
stars in the way. I had the idea that when
they hit neutron stars there would be various
nuclear reactions, in short a burst of high
energy radiation. After 2 years I thought
about white dwarfs and the supernova 1987a.
The equation for the delay after the supernova
is delay(years)=distance(1-cosa) where a is
the angle between the star and supernova and
the distance to the star is in lightyears. In
1999 I found data on the Batse 4b catalogue
showing possible bursts from 40 Eridani b
and EG62. This year I found two more possibles.
All error circles are large from 6 to 11 degrees
but the offset in each case is a consistant
6 to 8 degrees showing perhaps a bias in the
batse instrument. This is a local theory and
may account for some of the grbs detected.

[Taks]

i think the BA mentioned something about arguing with Jay comparing to sticking his head in a beehive.
taks

[Donnie B.]

Your idea sounds plausible at first blush. I don't know enough about particle physics to say whether a blast of neutrinos would produce gammas from neutron stars, though. Any specifics? Are you thinking that the reactions would occur in the neutronium core, or the more normal forms of matter in the crust?

Two other observations: neutrinos don't move at exactly c, but it's close enough as to make no never-mind.

Also, the flux of neutrinos would fall off with distance in an inverse square relation. Thus, the farther from the SN, the less of this effect you'd expect (all else being equal). Any evidence for this yet?

[antoniseb]

I had the idea that when
they hit neutron stars there would be various
nuclear reactions, in short a burst of high
energy radiation. After 2 years I thought
about white dwarfs and the supernova 1987a.

The amount of reaction that you should see from these neutrinos hitting a neutron star should be microscopic compared to the normal radiation emitted by the NS anyway, so it might happen, but would be very hard to detect unless the Neutron Star were orbiting the Supernova (and probably even then).

We can look at cross-sections for reactions if you like.

[peteshimmon]

Well I am not a qualified particle physicist
so I cannot speak from deep knowledge. But
when a sheet of neutrinos interacts with a
Neutron Star, every square inch will be
irradiated. And I read these particles have
100 times the energy of solar ones on
average. And in falling onto such a star they
will gain much extra energy increasing, I
believe, the cross sectional area for
interactions. (Barn Doors indeed...).
The surface of such a star is supposedly
crystaline iron atoms packed shoulder to
shoulder. Will the neutrinos get very far?
I think with a smile there will be nuclear
fireworks! Now I have a little query some
may know the answer to. When I first looked
up data on the neutron star Geminga, I came on
the coordinates, RA 6hrs 11min 9sec, Dec
17degrees 13min 57sec. But the true coords
are RA 6hrs 33min 54sec, Dec 17degrees 46min
12.9sec. Has some idiot started a new system?
Have some students had a joke based on the
name (its not there!). It caused me much
confusion!

[antoniseb]

Will the neutrinos get very far?
I think with a smile there will be nuclear
fireworks!

If the average neutrino goes a kilometer into the neutron star before interacting with something, how long will it take for the heat of that interaction to spread back out to the surface? What form will that heat take? How could it be observed? Some tiny fraction of the neutrinos will react close to the surface and give off some gamma rays over the course of a few minutes, but how many will be coming our way? Not many.

Your idea is a nice one (and fun to think about), but the effect will not be observable from Earth.

[Faultline]

GRB's have been observed from nearly the opposite side of the universe. Calculations for the amount of energy released are off the scale since we can detect and locate them from across the known universe.

GRB's may be stars of 10 to 100 solar masses collapsing into a black hole, with a gamma ray "beam" emitting from the pole and aimed at us.

[peteshimmon]

I think the neutrinos are stopped in short
order at the surface of a neutron star. Much
theorectical work has been done on the
conditions during a Supernova. Sorry I do not
have referances as this is general reading
over the years but I understand that during
the collapse of a massive star as the core
is becoming neutrons, the neutrinos produced
are stoppered up temporally by the infalling
material and have mean free paths of about
9 metres. So how far will they get when they
encounter the cinder of an alresdy formed
neutron star from a previous supernova? The
supernova happens because 1% or less of the
neutrinos cause prompt nuclear reactions
throughout the star giving high energy photons
that blow the star apart. If I have understood
the work accurately. There is very tenuous
evidence for my thinking in solar vibrations.
I read 10 years ago the Sun was vibrating in
sympathy with the period of Geminga. Sounded
far fetched that it was giving off gravitational
waves strong enougth but then I wondered if
neutrinos from the 1054 AD supernova burned off
a few millimeters of its crust on one side
making it unbalanced. It would be great if
monastic records existed of Geminga flaring up
a few decades after the supernova. The
equation would give a date if the distance
really is 500 lightyears. As regards grbs
being at cosmological distances, a few
afterglows have been captured and redshifts
measured. I do not follow this iron logic that
all grbs must therefore be distant. There is
a range of explanations some local. And the
isotropy argument is not watertight. Go
outside and look at the local naked eye stars.
Kinda isotropic aint they!

[Faultline]

If GRB's were caused by the expanding shell of neutrons of supernovae striking a neutron star, we would likely pick up GRB's in the same location, as each neutron star could be the recipient of more than one supernova.

[peteshimmon]

Dont disagree with that! But it may be decades
between bursts:) The SWIFT satellite is a
great piece of kit and I thought by now it
would have been found to have looked at a few
white dwarfs about 1-2000 lightyears distant
after being hit by the neutrinos from the
historical supernovae. But it is early days yet
and there may be a population of black dwarfs
out there. (white dwarfs faded out!)

[Faultline]

If your idea is true, it would be able to "track" the expanding supernoval neutrino shell by locating the GRB's and plotting their positions. With math, we could follow the expansion of a shell as it hit more thanone neutron star.

I'm not aware of any such pattern in GRB distribution, but I could be wrong.

In any case, you have to come up with an explosion powerful enough to be seen from across the known universe, up to 14 billion light-years away. That's how far away the furthest GRB's have been detected. Relativity says such large explosions with enough energy to reach us that far away don't exist. You'd have to convert nearly all known matter into energy all at once and you'd still not be able to see it that far away!

[peteshimmon]

As I said in my first post, I believe I have 4 possibles in the batse data
caused by supernova 1987a. There may be many more as a run through
from the beginning seems to show that the bursts with large error circles
are predomimately in the south celestial sphere. If the supernova had
happened after COMPTON was in orbit, there may have been an obvious
expanding circle of these low energy bursts around the supernova position
as the neutrinos encountered dwarfs at greater angles from the
sightline. Moreover I now think that the particles tend to cause radiation to
"spall" from the other side of the star giving a forward "beam" . But some
comes at angles allowing us to detect nearby dwarfs. Think about this
for a few days. Back next week.

[Mosheh Thezion]

GRB's could also be the birth of galaxies at distances of 13-14 billion light years.
a birth as the 10 th dimensional rise.
Also, smaller events could occur during solar system formation.. in the 5 billion to 10 billion light year range. 11 D.

ie.. the massive spiining core.. explodes.
-MT

[Nereid]

This is a local theory and may account for some of the grbs detected. Some things for you to think about, and find a way to incorporate into your idea:

- GRBs are either 'short-hard' or 'long-soft'; which type would correspond to your idea?

- the nuclear physics of neutrinos is now sufficiently well understood that any neutrino-"neutron star" "nuclear reactions" could be listed. How about you give us such a list? You could then do an OOM (order of magnitude) calculation to show that the energy produced by any such wall of neutrinos is consistent with what's observed.

- how do you explain the observed duration of GRBs? I mean, in your idea, any burst would last no longer than the time it takes the neutrino wall to move through the neutron star; how does that time compare with what's observed?

I'm not clear on one thing though - is it neutron stars or white dwarfs?

[peteshimmon]

Good questions! I think this idea accounts for long durations BUT the neutrino wall
has a "hard" leading edge as they suddenly break away from the supernova. This was
shown in the detection of them from 1987a at the two locations in Japan and USA.
This sharp "hammer blow" can account for a fast leading edge of some gamma bursts
from the small neutron star. And just this high peak may be seen at large
distances. I amm thinking of reactions from both neutron stars and white dwarfs
but at first I discounted dwarfs thinking they were too "porous" But they are dense
and the neutrinos are produced in prodigeous quantities from supernovae.

[peteshimmon]

These are the bursts I believe were caused by 1987a from local white
dwarfs. Batse event number 3914 on 951120 is WD0839-327. Event 5079
on 960229 is WD0413-077. Event 6689 on 980416 is WD0552-041. Event
7535 on 990428 is WD0738-172. If you want to check and know your
spherical trigonometry the position of 1987a is RA 83.958 degrees,
DEC -69.299 degrees. Moreover I only have a list of the nearest 100
white dwarfs and there are about 300 with known distances. So if anyone
want to look for anymore they are welcome! Please post on this thread if
you find anything.

[Faultline]

Now we need positions of each GRB your hypothesis says was caused by the supernova, the timing of each, and how they relate to each other's position in space/time relative to the supernova event. A computer model in 3d would be great.

If you come up with a correlation to support your expanding shell hypothesis, I'd be surprised. Because this still doesn't explain how we're able to detect a nuclear blast from across the universe. The amount of power released would have to be more than E=mc^2 would allow if you exploded a whole universe.

[Nereid]

Good questions! I think this idea accounts for long durations BUT the neutrino wall
has a "hard" leading edge as they suddenly break away from the supernova. This was
shown in the detection of them from 1987a at the two locations in Japan and USA.
This sharp "hammer blow" can account for a fast leading edge of some gamma bursts
from the small neutron star. And just this high peak may be seen at large
distances. I amm thinking of reactions from both neutron stars and white dwarfs
but at first I discounted dwarfs thinking they were too "porous" But they are dense
and the neutrinos are produced in prodigeous quantities from supernovae.OK, can you put numbers to this?

For example, the 'thickness' of the '"hard" leading edge' is X (+/- a; this would be icing on the cake), as determined by {source}. The typical duration {per some definition, e.g. time during which 90% of observed gamma energy is detected} of a GRB is Y. Thus {insert your conclusion, or calculation, or discussion, here}.

Another example: the observed energy of the GRBs you think might be associated with SN1987a is {insert results of your calculations here; be sure to state the extent to which you think the GRBs emit isotropicall}; the incident energy of the 'neutrino hammer blow' is {insert more results of calculations}. Thus {insert your conclusion, or calculation, or discussion, here}.

[peteshimmon]

First I repeat that I am not a qualified astrophysicist so my points are, I
hope, sensible ones from someone following the story with some technical
and common sense insights. Secondly my approach since having the first
idea almost ten years ago is to look for evidence that could support it.
Have a look/see for data. I had read for the umpteeth time that neutrinos
would pass through 50 lightyears of lead. Sod it there must be something
that stops them and a few moments thought lead to the Neutron Star.
Thats just one big atom someone had written somewhere. Then I
thought of the detection of the particles after the 1987 supernova and
realised they hit everything. I looked in a few textbooks and noted the
inverse beta reaction for neutrinos and this gave gamma ray photons of
a certain energy. But all 6 types of neutrinos are said to come from a
supernova presumably with many different nuclear reactions. So as I said
lets have a look at the data and compare with known stars. The Batse
data is on the NASA site with a simplified table listing all bangs from the
time COMPTON was installed in orbit in 1991 until it was repositioned
in 2000. (bottom of Pacific!). If this idea is accepted you might hear a
distant thunder. Stand back and allow the theorists to pass!

[peteshimmon]

A few other points of interest. I believe the neutron star will give a burst
of high energy radiation in all directions as it spins. But the White Dwarf
will I think have a "beam" of spalled energy from the direction opposite from
the incident neutrinos. And there will be much energy induced throughout
the star. Now imagine a supernova in an external galaxy but behind a
population of stars incuding white dwarfs. Quite possible! Would "beams"
be produced narrow and intense enougth to reach another galaxy. The
event in 2003 from a galaxy in Leo where the afterglow morphed into
a supernova indicated this could be true. And the bursts were a
succession of peaks a few seconds apart. If a star was exactly on the
sightline to the supernova, its photons come at the same time as any
neutrinos that made it. A few astronomical units off the line, there could
be a slight delay. If within 10 to 100 lightyears of the supernova the
neutrino bubble radius will still be small enougth to be a few light seconds
behind. Hope you can understand this point, each beam from a star might
be a few arcminutes accross so that they arrive but staggered from each other.
We have seen it happen!

[Nereid]

First I repeat that I am not a qualified astrophysicist so my points are, I hope, sensible ones from someone following the story with some technical and common sense insights.You don't need to be an astrophysicist to do the calculations I sketched! :surprised:eek: At the OOM (order of magnitude) level, all you need is high school math (and, quite possibly, just junior high at that).

One of my reasons for suggesting that you might like to do these calculations is so that you could quickly see that your ideas are not, unfortunately, sensible ones. :(

[peteshimmon]

You may not want to believe these ideas are sensible but if the proof is there and
I think it is then some adjustment is advisable:) I just had two possible matches with
batse data these past 5 years then this spring I looked for possible bursts to come
in my list of dwarfs. I realised one possible would already have happened and there
it was in the catalogue. Then I found another one. I wondered about waiting till
evening when phone rates were cheaper. Rats, I downloaded the data, there it was!

[Nereid]

It might also be a good idea to check that, observationally, there are good results which are inconsistent with your idea.

For example*:

1) where are all the GRBs that result from the hammer blow of recent (http://www.seds.org/messier/more/mw_sn.html), local (close to us, in the Milky Way) SN?

2) why just BATSE? Why not all the (much better localised) GRBs from HETE (http://gcn.gsfc.nasa.gov/gcn/selected.html)and Swift (http://swift.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/swiftsc.html)?

One reason why 1) should be checked first is that while these happened several hundred years ago (Crab, Vela, Tycho's remnant, Kepler's remnant), they were all soo much closer than SN1987a, so the 'neutrino hammer' will be soooo much more powerful, and if you look 'away' from these, there will surely be plenty of WDs and NSs to find that will have been 'hit' in the last few years.

Of course, if you don't find them, then your idea would be pretty much dead, right?

*assuming that I understand you are looking for white dwarfs 'near' the Earth which may have 'gone GRB' when hit by a wall of neutrinos from a SN in the SMC

[peteshimmon]

Ah! Now you are thinking properly about this.
Any neutrino bursts from the historical
supernovae will be more intense by the ratio
of the squares of distances. So any reactions
from nearby degenerate stars would be
quite loud possibly. But the bursts are now
from 400 to 1000 lightyears beyond Earth. We
might be detecting bursts from stars at 90
degrees to the supernova position at these
distances and at greater distances at angles
less than 90 degrees. But we do not know
distances like this to better than 10%. Batse
had all round vision except for the Earth, Moon
and Sun getting in the way. And it was
sensitive. Now as I said I think any
backscatter of radiation may be weak from
white dwarfs, most radiation going forward with
the neutrinos. I read the notices from SWIFT
with interest and wonder at the phrase "no
new sources" in the error circles. Hope there
is not an unspoken line "except for another b...
galactic dwarf that gets into these circles:)"
Only joking! But the first source that SWIFT
slewed too 6 months ago seemed to be a small
blue star in Cassiopea as found in my Atlas
Borialis. And they gave the position in 1950
epoch which helped. Not since strangly. What
will clinch it is two bursts a few minutes
apart from a known double white dwarf system.
But there may be black dwarfs to confuse things.

[Mosheh Thezion]

What amazes me is how everyone is absolutly sure nuetinos exist.
sure.. something kicks off in cloud chambers... yup.
and we get the flashes in our tanks of water buried deep under ground. yup..
must be nuetrinos.. how can there be any doubt?

-MT

[peteshimmon]

I started thinking about this as I was interested in the Solar neutrino problem and
wondered if the big underground detectors had established an unambiguous signal
from the solar direction. The graph from the tank of cleaning fluid left something to
be desired I thought. (wont say anymore, the guys worked so hard over the years:)).
Actually detecting neutrinos in the fifties required a powerful nuclear reactor going
full blast and having the apparatus nearby. When the reactor was off..no signal!

[Nereid]

Ah! Now you are thinking properly about this.
Any neutrino bursts from the historical supernovae will be more intense by the ratio of the squares of distances.If you plug in the numbers - historical SNe vs SN1987a - you will see why historical SNe provide such a good test of your idea.

How about some calculations?So any reactions from nearby degenerate stars would be quite loud possibly. But the bursts are now from 400 to 1000 lightyears beyond Earth.And any from SN1987a will be, what, ~200 thousand lightyears beyond the neutrino source!We might be detecting bursts from stars at 90 degrees to the supernova position at these distances and at greater distances at angles less than 90 degrees. But we do not know distances like this to better than 10%.Why does this matter?Batse
had all round vision except for the Earth, Moon and Sun getting in the way. And it was sensitive. Now as I said I think any backscatter of radiation may be weak from white dwarfs, most radiation going forward with the neutrinos.How does this differ from your 'SN1987a GRBs'?

[peteshimmon]

The 1987a neutrinos are still nearby and it was a speculation that they might have
made a detectable responce from nearby white dwarfs. And I have put evidence
here and invited further investigation, you might get a buzz yourself! There is much
data in the Batse results. How many were bursts caused by the historical supernovae.
Well the directional accuracy will hot help but some statistical analysis might show
something. Anyone here sold on these ideas yet?

[Nereid]

So let's try this another way ... if SN1987a neutrinos have enough oomph to set off some WDs as GRBs, why not the 1885 M31 SN (http://www.seds.org/messier/more/m031_sAnd.html)? or recent SN in our MW galaxy that were not detected at the time (there are likely a half dozen, more recent than Kepler's SN)?

As I've said before, it would take you perhaps a couple of hours, tops, to do the OOM calculations to show consistency (or otherwise).

[Faultline]

Keep in mind (and I feel like I'm repeating myself) that at the distance we are detecting GRB's we can calculate the amount of energy released in the burst.

Those detected at immense distances register to be far more powerful than any supernova.

I think the model of a star's collapse into a black hole represents the GRB's quite well. The gamma rays emit from the rotational pole of the star as gravity chokes down on it and forces the gamma rays into a beam. Earth is in line with this beam, so we detect the rays as a burst because shortly after it begins, it ends when the collapse is complete and NO gamma rays can escape because the point of emission falls within the event horizon.

[Eta C]

What amazes me is how everyone is absolutly sure nuetinos exist.
sure.. something kicks off in cloud chambers... yup.
and we get the flashes in our tanks of water buried deep under ground. yup..
must be nuetrinos.. how can there be any doubt?

-MT

We know certain properties neutrinos should have. We can predict how they should, and should not react in our detectors. We can differentiate between these collisions those produced by muons, alphas, and other subatomic particles. So, looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, walks like a duck. Must be a duck.

For how we know these are neutrinos (and not something else) take a gander at how one of these "tanks of water", the SNO (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/sno/papers/0502021.pdf) determines what's a neutrino interaction and what isn't. When you've compiled your refutation please submit it to PRL and wait for your Nobel. Until then, quit sneering.

[Eta C]

I started thinking about this as I was interested in the Solar neutrino problem and
wondered if the big underground detectors had established an unambiguous signal
from the solar direction. The graph from the tank of cleaning fluid left something to
be desired I thought. (wont say anymore, the guys worked so hard over the years:)).
Actually detecting neutrinos in the fifties required a powerful nuclear reactor going
full blast and having the apparatus nearby. When the reactor was off..no signal!

Check out the link I gave in the previous post. Here's the front page of the SNO site (http://www.sno.phy.queensu.ca/) and here's the one for Super-Kamiokande (http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/index_e.html). I think you'll find that the art of underground neutrino detection has made some progress since the 1960's.

[peteshimmon]

As far as I know there were no satellites and
neutrino detectors in 1885:) But yes, many
bursts may well be caused by neutrino bursts
from unseen SNs in our galaxy. No argument there!
I have had this model of an explanation for the
last 10 years with better insights happening
every so often. So I can imagine it takes some
getting used to. Do I have to jump through
hoops to persuade you. I have presented
evidence that I think is 99% conclusive. I sit
polishing my nails waiting for you to realise
this. I wish to unload this idea on the
younger generation of Astronomers and ask them
to "get on with it". After all I have exact
distances to 4 white dwarfs to start with!
(in principle). BTW Geminga is about 500
lightyears away and about 180 degrees from
SN 1006AD. So we might have a bang from it any
year now:) Hope that might convince you!

[Nereid]

Do I have to jump through hoops to persuade you. At the moment, the only rule we have is 'be nice', so no.

However, just to let you know that the rules for this new BAUT forum should be coming out shortly.

In the old BA forum, there was a rule about posting in the AT (now ATM) section, which included the following: If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. [snip] Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend those arguments. People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science.

If it appears to me that you are using circular reasoning, depending on long-debunked arguments, or breaking any of these other rules, [bad things will happen to you].It could well be that the new rules contain something like this.

If they do, then yes, you would have to persuade me! :)

[peteshimmon]

Heh heh heh, ha ha ha...you know I have often
wondered if newly appointed science
journalists are given a party by press officers
and others and sometime during the evening are
grabbed by the...laples and advised never to
feature any lone individual with a story or
they will get nothing from them again. No
stories, no pretty graphics nothing! And on
the net are "heavies" at large to slap down
anything novel? I only ask. You have passed
over several points made in previous posts.
Surely there is something here that does get
your attention. Lets have some support here!

[antoniseb]

You have passed
over several points made in previous posts.
Surely there is something here that does get
your attention. Lets have some support here!

peteshimmon, what you are getting is support. I liked your acceptance of Nereid's idea in your thought that Geminga might show some evidence from SN 1006a.

Personally I still think that the likelyhood of a visible effect is tiny, but I agree that if you have something here that this would be a good test of it.

[antoniseb]

OK, here's a little Order Of Magnitude (OOM) help concerning Geminga.

Starting factoids:
- A supernova gives off roughly 2x10^46 Joules in Neutrinos over the course of fifteen seconds or so.
- Geminga is about 7 x 10^19 meters from SN1006a
- Geminga is about 20Km in diameter
- Geminga gives off about 4x10^26 watts (full spectrum).

Geminga would receive about 2x10^4 watts/m^2 during the fifteen seconds of the wave passing through.
Geminga gives off about 3x10^17 watts/m^2 normally any way.

So, if these neutrinos were 100% effecient in getting absorbed and re-radiated by Geminga's surface layer, it would brighten for fifteen seconds by one part in 10^13. This is not easily detected.

[peteshimmon]

I understand nuclear reactions release
energy "locked up in the particles!" Imagine
the neutrinos are lots of little keys which
each set off a banger. And remember the
gravitional field of a neutron star gives
enormous extra energy to the incoming particles,
they are energetic to begin with, there are
prodigious numbers of them. (remember the
early ideas of gamma bursters with asteroids
falling on the surface of such stars?).

[Faultline]

I understand nuclear reactions release
energy "locked up in the particles!" Imagine
the neutrinos are lots of little keys which
each set off a banger. And remember the
gravitional field of a neutron star gives
enormous extra energy to the incoming particles,
they are energetic to begin with, there are
prodigious numbers of them. (remember the
early ideas of gamma bursters with asteroids
falling on the surface of such stars?).

The gravitational field of a neutron star isn't all you think it is. A neutron star is only about 1.5 solar masses. Any more and it would risk gravitational collapse into a black hole. But at 1.5 SM it only has 50% more mass than our sun.

And don't neutrinos already travel at lightspeed? Gravity can't impart any more energy to them since they are already "maxxed out."

No, this idea's out to pasture.

[Nereid]

I understand nuclear reactions release
energy "locked up in the particles!" Imagine
the neutrinos are lots of little keys which
each set off a banger. And remember the
gravitional field of a neutron star gives
enormous extra energy to the incoming particles,
they are energetic to begin with, there are
prodigious numbers of them. (remember the
early ideas of gamma bursters with asteroids
falling on the surface of such stars?).OK, so why do the neutrinos from far, far away make such a difference?

I mean, for starters, there are humongous numbers of relict neutrinos (http://www.cerncourier.com/main/article/39/2/14) passing through every cubic millimetre of space, every second! Far, far more than the number of neutrinos from some distant SN.

Next, all stars are quite 'bright' in 'neutrino light' - after all, that's what the Earthly neutrino detectors detected, isn't it? So, for Geminga, or any other NS (or any WD), how many 'stellar' neutrinos are blowing through, all the time?

Finally (for now) there are atmospheric neutrinos (http://hep.bu.edu/%7Esuperk/atmnu/). Of course, the 'atmosphere' of a NS or WD is quite unlike that of the Earth.

However, the process is the same - a cosmic ray particle collides with an atomic nucleus (nitpickers, feel free to make this statement more precise!), producing pions, which decay into muons, which decay into electrons and neutrinos.

Can you show us, peteshimmon, just how much of a 'hammer blow' the wall of neutrinos from a distant SN (the very heart of your idea) constitutes, compared to the 'roar' of neutrinos, from many different sources, ripping into the NS or WD, all the time?

[peteshimmon]

Ah yes, the sea of neutrinos...here be dragons!
Actually the two detectors that saw 1987a were
not drowned out by this sea. Not sure what the
background was, one solar neutrino a day
think among other things. But 1987a gave
19 events in one minute with 3 on top of each
other (THE WALL:)). That may be the total at
both places, I type off the top of my head
I must admit. Perhaps Geminga does give
gamma rays because of the background but I
believe there are closer neutron stars that
are quiet in high energy radiation. Maybe
Geminga is ploughing through a gas cloud.
Atmospheric neutrinos are interesting but
surely not relevant. White Dwarfs show a
gravitational redshift so in reverse there
would be blueshifts at the surface, photons are
increased in energy but neutrinos are particles
as so far defined. This is getting weird! Next.

[Nereid]

Ah yes, the sea of neutrinos...here be dragons!
Actually the two detectors that saw 1987a were
not drowned out by this sea. Not sure what the
background was, one solar neutrino a day
think among other things. But 1987a gave
19 events in one minute with 3 on top of each
other (THE WALL:)). That may be the total at
both places, I type off the top of my head
I must admit. Perhaps Geminga does give
gamma rays because of the background but I
believe there are closer neutron stars that
are quiet in high energy radiation. Maybe
Geminga is ploughing through a gas cloud.
Atmospheric neutrinos are interesting but
surely not relevant. White Dwarfs show a
gravitational redshift so in reverse there
would be blueshifts at the surface, photons are
increased in energy but neutrinos are particles
as so far defined. This is getting weird! Next.OK, so your idea isn't at all like what you said originally then?

I mean, the neutrinos that were detected, here on Earth, from SN1987a were of a very particular kind; why then do you propose that only those kinds of neutrinos would make a WD or NS go 'GRB'?

It gets worse for your idea, of course.

Neutrinos of the kind detected from SN1987a are also produced in many other astrophysical processes. It happens that their rate of production near the Earth is low (which is why the SN1987a spike was noticable).

However, their rate of production in or near WDs and NSs is what really counts, for your idea peteshimmon.

Now, it's not difficult to make an OOM estimate of what that 'local flux 'would be, for any particular NS or WD. So, again, a simple OOM consistency check on your idea would be both quick to perform (certainly much less than the 10 years you've devoted to this so far!) and likely very black&white re consistency.

How about it?

[peteshimmon]

You seem to be going off on a tangent! Lets
restate the idea. A supernova producss a
massivly powerful burst of neutrinos. This
burst expands like a bubble from the event
at lightspeed. It passes through any object
in the way. It is believed that WDs and NSs
are dense enought for some or most of the
neutrinos to interact and cause nuclear
reactions producing bursts of high energy
radiation. After first detecting the neutrinos
on Earth, we would detect these high energy
transients from stars, those just off the
supernova position could be very distant as
the neutrinos have already interacted with the
star with the radiation following the neutrinos.
Stars at 90 degrees to the SN would be heard
after a delay equal to their distance and stars
180 degrees away after twice the distance. Think
of the neutrino pulse as a radar pulse giving
echos from stars around. Its really very simple!

[Nereid]

Lets restate the idea.Good idea.A supernova producss a massivly powerful burst of neutrinos.What kinds of neutrinos? How many? What is their energy spectrum?This
burst expands like a bubble from the event at lightspeed.It won't be at c (neutrinos have mass, after all), but close.It passes through any object in the way.OK.It is believed that WDs and NSs
are dense enought for some or most of the neutrinos to interactHere's where I think you need to either provide support for your idea, or state that you are testing an empirical idea. If the former, then we're all waiting to see your analyses (esp the 'most' part!); if the latter, then my questions are relevant!and cause nuclear reactions producing bursts of high energy radiation.Neutrinos colliding with the constituent particles of an NS or WD is one thing; claiming that those collisions result in 'bursts of high energy radiation' is another! Once again, your choice is to show that such are plausible (given what we know about neutrino reactions), or stick to the empirical path.After first detecting the neutrinos on Earth, we would detect these high energy transients from stars, those just off the supernova position could be very distant as the neutrinos have already interacted with the star with the radiation following the neutrinos.
Stars at 90 degrees to the SN would be heard after a delay equal to their distance and stars 180 degrees away after twice the distance. Think of the neutrino pulse as a radar pulse giving echos from stars around. Its really very simple!If we stick with the empirical path for the moment, then there's a very important step you need to take - make estimates of how often you'd expect to see a 'match', purely from chance. This should be quite easy to do ... you have the sky positions of ~100 WDs (and several NS), you have the BATSE GRB positions (including 'error circles') - within the time period you are considering, how many of the WDs and NSs are within the GRBs BATSE recorded?

[Donnie B.]

I don't think Nereid is having any difficulty understanding the concept, pete. As you say, it's very simple.

But he is questioning whether the scenario you propose is feasible. If the flux of neutrinos experienced at a particular NS or WD is small relative to the flux it experiences routinely, there's no reason to think the star would react in any extraordinary way.

Here's another way to look at it. As the neutrino "wall" expands away from the SN that produced it, it "thins out" (it's a simple, mechanical inverse square law phenomenon as the spherical shell of neutrinos expands). At some time and distance, that shell will be so diffuse as to be insignificant compared to other, local neutrino sources (e.g. nearby stars). At that point, you wouldn't expect to see any effect on a WD/NS as the shell passes. For example, if the Sun were a NS, you wouldn't expect it to produce a GRB as the result of SN1987a... right?

Nereid is saying that this would be the case even for WD/NSs quite close to the SN. Can you show that he's wrong about that?

[peteshimmon]

When I first had the idea I realised the
historical supernovae where much closer than
sn1987a and any neutrinos would have been at
a much greater flux density. Yet the 1987a
ones were easily detected. (the builders of
the detectors may baulk at that but whatever).
And they arrived just before the supernova was
seen as photons so its lightspeed for all intents
and purposes. After two years thinking about
neutron stars, I speculated that detectable
bursts might have come from nearby white dwarfs.
(an article in S&T feb 1998 with burst profiles
was the inspiration, I only knew about fast
risetimes before). So now I have 4 possibles
I am pretty sure about. This is better than
any model I might produce. Anyway there are
much better mathematicians who can do this.
The thought of 4 neutrino bubbles moving
through the nearby local stars seemed so
perfect an explanation of bangs every so
often. BTW, the expression grb seems to be
a generic term for any burst of whatever
energy from soft X-ray to hard gamma. Thats
not my fault. I believe my 4 possibles are
low energy events of similar profile!

[Nereid]

So now I have 4 possibles I am pretty sure about.And how many non-matches?This is better than any model I might produce.Huh?

Let me give you an analogy ...

Nereid believes that, after pets die, their shapes appear in clouds ... this cloud is Joan's cat Tiddles, that, Jack's dog Phydeau, and so on.

Nereid has looked at clouds, and found four that match (in addition to Joan's and Jack's pets, there are Seth's snake Sith, and Freddie's frog Fredo), though she's not 100% sure of Fredo. This is better than any model she could have previously produced.

In what - key, scientific - way is your 'local WD going GRB due to a neutrino hammer from SN1987a' different from Neried's 'pets in clouds' idea?

[peteshimmon]

Back in 1998 I was srounging around for details
of nearby white dwarfs. I calculated a time for
procyon b at the end of Jan 1996. Sirius b
would have reacted in Aug 1990, before COMPTON
was in orbit. Then a little item in S&T gave
the distance to 40 Eridani b accurate to 1%.
The mainstream star here was measured by
HIPPARCOS. The catalogue that came with my
atlas coeli 20 years previous had its first and
only use in providing coordinates here, the
others came from S&T articles. Its calculation
was for Feb 1996. When I first got to use the
internet at my library in Summer 1999, it was
the third ! hour session before I was
downloading the 4b catalogue from the batse
site. (I soon learned the search engines and
clicking and pointing:)). I did not have the
details of the predictions with me but I knew
40 eridani was a negative dec so I noted down
bursts in Feb and Mar like this. Back home I
saw one was near the position and 9 days from
the nominal burst date calculated. The error
gave +&- 15 days. Shortly I found I had
details of the nearest 10 WDs in an old S&T
issue from 1983. I found another in the
catalogue a month away from the calculated
date. But I found nothing for Procyon b. Well
the Earth most block some bursts I thought.
I had a prediction for Van Maanens star of
Mar 2001. But in spring 2000 I read that
COMPTON was coming down. I wondered would they
really get rid of a 900 million dollar
satellite to frustrate my prediction.....Nah!
But I did wonder. It was similar to 10 years
previous when I wondered if they would pretend
Hubble had a bent mirror to stop me seeing if
Pluto really was pear shaped as the occultation
in 1988 seemed to show. Ah well, I had two
matches out of three. Now this year I have four
matches out f five! I like your last post
Nereid, it suggests you are in the last stages
of struggling against the reality of this idea:)

[Donnie B.]

Wait... so you're saying that you think SN1987a is producing this effect even at this distance? That things in our stellar neighborhood are producing high energy bursts in response to the neutrinos produced by an event several hundred thousand light years distant?

If so, I guess I misunderstood. I thought you were claiming that the SN was triggering GRBs in objects near the supernova, not in our backyard.

The latter seems very unlikely to me. Wouldn't we have seen a whole series of these things popping off throughout both galaxies as the neutrino shell came through? Wouldn't they all have occurred at virtually the same time (from our viewpoint) -- at least all the ones nearly aligned between us and the SN? And wouldn't we still be seeing a ring of GRBs spreading out from that axis even today?

Wouldn't the effect be obvious and unmistakable if it existed at all?

[peteshimmon]

Yes its surprising but I reckon I have the
evidence. But then this is only at distsnces of
tens of lightyears, maybe not hundreds or
a thousand. But then there are "local
supernovae". Moreover I have suggested that
White Dwarfs may produce "beams" spalling away
from the other side from the incident neutrinos
with some radiation going sideways ie not equal
brightness in all directions after the
neutrinos hit. And this could explain some
bursts from external galaxies. You must keep in
mind the timescale. 1987a was very timely!
My previous posts have tried to describe these
points. BTW there is a buzz of high energy
radiation from the Milky Way. Many Many causes
perhaps this idea providing some.

[peteshimmon]

To carry on this story I go back ten years or
so when I first looked for data. I was only
interested in neutron stars at first and the
only one I knew about was Geminga. I gleaned
its coordinates from some article. Then I
looked in my Mysterious Universe by Corliss
and found an account of something Barnard saw
near Venus on the morning of Aug 13 1892 at
Lick odservatory. A star not in the atlas and
never seen again. Its coordinates were given
and for a few monments I thought they were the
same as for Geminga. The dec was exactly the
same but then I saw a difference of some 30 mins
in RA. In anycase the epoch for Barnards object
was 1855 so that ruled out any coincidence. Then
last year I read of a strange aurora seen from
three places in middle England on 12 Aug 1892.
It was described as "like a lighthouse beam
sweeping across the sky" This was in a book by
Fort which included Barnards object. I
thought again about Geminga flaring up and
sending gamma rays out which illuminated atoms
in the upper atmosphere for those on Earth just
over the horizon from the star. As Geminga
rotates 4 times a second this could explain
the beam sweeping across. But it was not
Geminga and anyway I had a totally wrong
position. I turned my old magazines upside down
looking for this erroneous info without success.
But both positions were listed on a google page!
I have a printout! So was Barnards object a
fading Magnetar like that one just after
Christmas last? And did anyone at that time
see a similar Aurora? Worth asking I think!

[peteshimmon]

Well I suppose I had better wrap up this
discussion if there are no more responces.
Thanks for the interest. Hope I did not talk
past too many times, I find I cannot refer to
even the last post when replying. And this is
different to other boards I have used in that
you have very hard working moderators to reply
too. (all they really the same persons each
time...only joking!). I have to say I do not
think you will have other ideas presented with
such gold plated evidence to back them up.
But I find that this subject of Gamma Bursters
is very rarely found on these boards which is
a surprise. Another surprise just in is I fimd
Mr Plaits name on the latest SWIFT newsletter.
Hope this is not an embarrassment! A few last
points. Are supernovae themselves a source of
high energy bursts? Was anything detected from
SN1987a? And has the the old skill of
Astrometry had a boost from modern techniques
of CCDs and large telescopes. In the old days
they could not measure the shift of stars
relative to the smudge of a galaxy image. But
the information on a ccd image surely fixes the
position of extended objects more exactly from
image to image allowing movement of nearby
stars to be more accurately measured. If so
then nearby White Dwarfs could be better
measured confirming my four possibles (or
ruling them out). One last thing, two years
ago I could increment the hits counter by
refreshing the page:) Not any longer.
Spoilsports. And I suspect institutions just
load the pages once into their LANs so dozens
of pairs of eyes see the stuff for one hit!

[antoniseb]

Thanks for the topic. Obviously I didn't think that white dwarfs or neutron stars could be excited sufficently by the neutrinos from distant supernovae, but I did find your idea interesting to think about, and your general manner very pleasant. This was a fine example of how I expect this section to operate.

[ngc3314]

There is one obvious test for the significance of any result of this general kind (i.e. looking for a somewhat subtle pattern in a catalog of data). How many similar matches result if you scramble the times and locations of supernovae, and then seek possible secondary GRBs? For example, you can imagine repeating the search with many potential (false) locations for SN 1987A, and ask for how many of these you see two possible results. That fraction gives an estimate of the statistical significance of your result - if you see such a thing by chance in only 5% of the random positions, your result is significant at the 95% level. This can also turn up subtle systematics that might need to be addressed (nonuniform sky coverage is a common kind).

[peteshimmon]

I am sure statistical analysis is fine when
you are trying to discern trends when you have
no idea of possible causes. But when I found
my forth possible in the Batse catalogue last
April and it had the same offset and large
error circle as the three previous, I felt I
had got hold of the "teachers edition" for this
problem! Any statistics was limited to looking
at bursts 6 months before and after to check
there was nothing else. I have stated I might
want to see a plot of large error circles
against declination as I suspect they are
mainly at negative decs where SN1987a was and
numerous bursts were caused by it on
degenerates at greater angles from its
position. It seems many on this board will not
accept the premise of the idea so wont look at
the evidence and of course I think they have it
the wrong way round!

[Nereid]

It seems many on this board will not accept the premise of the idea so wont look at the evidence and of course I think they have it the wrong way round!Er, ... I think it's actually somewhat different.

You have this idea, which, as you have no theoretical basis for it (you didn't model a wall of neutrinos interacting with a white dwarf or neutron star, in the full quantum glory of such things, did you?), must be only empirical for now.

You think you have a trend (or, coincidence), but haven't yet done anything to check how likely it is that it's just a 'statistical fluke'.

So, speaking for myself, unless and until you do at least some OOM (order of magnitude) consistency checking (including the stats), and show that it 'looks real', then what do we have to discuss?

I've thought of another way to check your idea ... look for GRBs in and around SN1987a in the SMC! After all, any white dwarf or neutron star within ~18 ly of the SN will be being hammered by a much more intense wall of neutrinos 'now' (from our POV) than such WD and NSs a few ly from us here. And we know that at least some GRBs are very energetic (all those which have been localised so far are at least as far away as the SMC is).

[Faultline]

And you still haven't answered the issue of the observed power level of a GRB. They're too powerful to be caused by such an interaction because we've seen them from 13 billion light years away. We can't even detect a supernova from that distance. You're telling me that a neutron star or white dwarf, when bathed by a smattering of neutrinos, makes a detonation more powerful than the original supernova?

Huh?

[peteshimmon]

I think perhaps you are being a bit querulous
Nereid. After all, astronomers had to accept the
reality of the White Dwarf itself when simple
observations showed them and there was no
theorectical basis to explain them! You need
not have edited you post, any responce from
objects directly behind SN1987a would be from
a distance of 9lys behind. Its 18lys from
objects at 90 degrees to the supernova.
Imagine a long rotated elipsoid with the Earth
and supernova at the foci, each moment on Earth
we may be receiving bursts from objects on this
surface! And it gets a little fatter each day.
If objects are irradated near the supernova,
the burst must still fall off in intensity
due to inverse square law. But I have indicated
WDs in line might give "beams" that go some
distance. My invitation to find more possibles
in the list of nearby WDs caused by 1987a is
still open and who knows, you might get one
named after you:) I do not challenge the
detection of very distant grbs, I just claim
this as a contribution to the causes of some
of the bursts. Not every burst is proved to
come from great distances and anyway their are
many different burst profiles and energies.
Nothing succeeds like success and 4 matches
goes beyond a Statistical Fluke.

[Nereid]

And you still haven't answered the issue of the observed power level of a GRB. They're too powerful to be caused by such an interaction because we've seen them from 13 billion light years away. We can't even detect a supernova from that distance. You're telling me that a neutron star or white dwarf, when bathed by a smattering of neutrinos, makes a detonation more powerful than the original supernova?

Huh?Well, there is one worthwhile idea contained in pete's posts (it may be rather more implicit than explicit) - while the 'long/soft' GRBs seem to be a single class of object, and while quite a few have been localised (and some strongly associated with certain supernovae); while the 'short/hard' GRBs seem also to be a single, different, class of object, and while at least one (two now?) has been localised (well, somewhat); I expect it would be pretty easy to make a case that the observed GRBs may contain at least one other class. Further, this class may be quite 'local', unlike the long and soft GRBs. So, why not do some tests?

Further, as pete's idea is almost entirely empirical (he's done no theoretical work re neutrino-WD or neutrino-NS interactions), developing an observational program to test the idea may well be worth someone's while.

[Nereid]

I think perhaps you are being a bit querulous
Nereid.Oh? If that's how it came across, then I apologise unreservedly.

However, my intent was to comment on your idea (not you), in the spirit of the newly posted BAUT rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864); specifically, this part of the Alternative Concepts rule:13. Alternative Concepts

If you have some idea which goes against commonly-held astronomical theory, then you are welcome to argue it here. Before you do, though READ THIS THREAD FIRST (http://showthread.php?t=16242). This is very important. Then, if you still want to post your idea, you will do so politely, you will not call people names, and you will defend your arguments. Direct questions must be answered in a timely manner.

People will attack your arguments with glee and fervor here; that's what science and scientists do. If you cannot handle that sort of attack, then maybe you need to rethink your theory, too. Remember: you came here. It's our job to attack new theories. Those that are strong will survive, and may become part of mainstream science. After all, astronomers had to accept the reality of the White Dwarf itself when simple observations showed them and there was no theorectical basis to explain them!Indeed, and this is consistent with my comment that you have proposed an empirical relationship (you have no theoretical basis for your idea; at least, none that you have presented to us here).You need not have edited you post, any responce from objects directly behind SN1987a would be from a distance of 9lys behind. Its 18lys from objects at 90 degrees to the supernova.
Imagine a long rotated elipsoid with the Earth and supernova at the foci, each moment on Earth we may be receiving bursts from objects on this surface! And it gets a little fatter each day. If objects are irradated near the supernova, the burst must still fall off in intensity due to inverse square law.Quite.

I was trying to be as broad as possible - if you're testing an empirical idea, you should (IMHO) cast as wide a net as is reasonable, at first, and only narrow down your focus once you have some good data in hand.

But that's just my view.But I have indicated WDs in line might give "beams" that go some distance.All the more reason to look 'widely', no?!My invitation to find more possibles in the list of nearby WDs caused by 1987a is still open and who knows, you might get one
named after you:) I do not challenge the detection of very distant grbs, I just claim this as a contribution to the causes of some of the bursts. Not every burst is proved to come from great distances and anyway their are many different burst profiles and energies.And indeed, any reader of this thread is free to do whatever they wish with the ideas presented here.

Equally, any reader is free, nay encouraged, to attack your idea with glee and fervour (or, 'fervor').Nothing succeeds like success and 4 matches goes beyond a Statistical Fluke.Did you know that the GDP of the US and the RA of Pluto are correlated (http://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=308072&postcount=31)? And that r^2 is something like 0.99? :eh:

Is this a 'Statistical Fluke'? Or perhaps a vital piece of observational evidence that every serious astrologer worth their horoscope should seize upon with alacrity? :razz:

Show me the stats! Show me why I should consider your '4 matches' deserves any more serious investigation than the correlation between the US GDP and Pluto's RA! :cool:

[Note to folk who don't like abbreviations: GDP is 'gross domestic product'; and if you don't know what RA is - this is, after all, an astronomy forum! - then may I recommend some introductory material on astronomy?]

[dakini]

A Supernova emits
most of its energy as neutrinos. This
expanding bubble of particles will hit all
stars in the way. I had the idea that when
they hit neutron stars there would be various
nuclear reactions, in short a burst of high
energy radiation.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you're saying that the neutrinos are causing all these nuclear reactions?

Neutrinos don't react with anything much, which is what made them so hard to detect in the first place, they can pass right through large objects without touching an electron, why would they suddenly cause nuclear reactions in neutron stars?

[peteshimmon]

Mmmm...so because it can be shown that the
steadily increasing RA of Pluto is similar to
the increasing GDP of the USA, them my data
must be equally suspect! I...er...well...in
the face of such brilliant counter argument I
suppose I must think again. Arrogant of me to
think I could defend the idea in the first
place I suppose!

[peteshimmon]

Point is dakini, are Neutron Stars and White
Dwarfs just anything? Its a density of matter
we dont have on Earth. And neutrinos are
produced in such prodigeous quantities during
a supernova, as many atoms as there are in the
Sun combine to make neutrons each giving off
a neutrino. Thats a lot! Moreover I read these
neutrinos are on average 100 times more
energetic than solar ones. The higher the
energy, the more likely they interact with
matter. And with Neutron Stars they are going to
gain much much more energy in falling onto the
surface. White Dwarfs are larger so might give
a detectable responce taking this into account.
Its a pretty safe speculation something will
happen dont you think:)

[Nereid]

Mmmm...so because it can be shown that the
steadily increasing RA of Pluto is similar to
the increasing GDP of the USA, them my data
must be equally suspect! I...er...well...in
the face of such brilliant counter argument I
suppose I must think again. Arrogant of me to
think I could defend the idea in the first
place I suppose!Sorry that I didn't make my point sufficiently clearly.

If there is a claim of 'statistical significance' (or 'not a Statistical Fluke'), then a reasonable question/request to ask/make the proponent is 'where is your statistical analysis?' or 'please show me how you arrived at your conclusion'.

Unless I missed it (I confess I don't always read every post carefully), there was no statistical analysis presented, to show that the 4 coincidences had any significance (if such an analysis was presented, and I missed it, please correct me).

My Pluto-US GDP example was intended merely to show that demonstrating strong correlation is insufficient to demonstrate a causal connection; I find the absurdity of the (to some) implied relationship, combined with the strength of the correlation, can be (for some) a more powerful demonstration of the need for care when doing research involving statistical conclusions than a dry repetition of 'correlation does not imply causation'.

[peteshimmon]

I am not a statistician I merely worked some
things out using some trig and found I could
account for 4 items in the Batse catalogue of
bursts from 1991 until 2000. I posted the
basic equation at the beginnng of the thread.
Delay(of the burst from the time that the
neutrinos were detected)= distance(1-cosine a)
where the distance of the suspect star is in
lightyears, delay is in years and a is the
angle between the supernova and star. This
simple equation is for the case where the
distance to the supernova is much greater than
the distance to the star. I did state my first
sucess was 40 eridani b where I had a distance
accurate to 1% which gave +&- 15 days error and
the burst detected was at 9 days after the
calculated time. The rest I had inaccurate
distances I judged as +&- 10%. If you have the
data of nearby White Dwarfs perhaps you may
check. And if you find anymore think about
the possibility I have cracked it:)

[peteshimmon]

Lets wrap up with a quick tutorial on finding angles between stars given
their coordinates. This is needed to find the angle between the star and
supernova for those who might take up this idea. The formula needed is
cosa=cosb.cosc+sinb.sinc.cosA. The small letters b and c are the angles
of the two stars from the pole (either one will do) and a is the required
angle between the stars. A is the angle between the declination lines to
the two stars and is found by the difference between the Right
ascensions of the stars. You would have to change hours and minutes to
decimal degrees. All angles have to be less than 180 degrees. Note with
spherical trig, sides and corners of triangles are in degrees! It was
uncomfortable having to learn this a few years ago, I am getting too
old for this sort of thing. Hopefully young people can just load a program
into there computers and get on with it.

[cyrek1]

cyrek comment
My idea for these GRB is that they are a product of 'neutron star decay' in a
SSU.
These particles are considered to be protons striking our atmosphere with close to light speed velocities.
I do not know the exact number striking our atmosphere but I think it is high
enough to say that their numbers in the universe would be in the 'zillions'
considering that our planet is such a miniscule target.
Since these high numbers can only point to one origin, it would have to be neutron decay.
This is another example of matter returning to its original state from its compressed state in star formation to its original state of the HA.

[peteshimmon]

Actually there is an interesting thread about
Neutron Stars on Questions & Answers at the
moment. It reveals that some high powered people
have been thinking about the effects of
neutrinos interacting with these objects. Bit of
a relief for me as I did not really think it
was just little me that had considered this.
Mean free path of 3 centimeters eh!

[Nereid]

Actually there is an interesting thread about
Neutron Stars on Questions & Answers at the
moment. It reveals that some high powered people
have been thinking about the effects of
neutrinos interacting with these objects. Bit of
a relief for me as I did not really think it
was just little me that had considered this.
Mean free path of 3 centimeters eh!Here (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32894) is the thread pete mentions.

I hadn't read it until today; I expect that some time spent in Google Scholar will show the idea of a neutron star as a neutrino sink doesn't fly (so to speak).

[cyrek1]

cyrek comment
My idea for these GRB’s is that they are a product of 'neutron star decay' in a SSU.

These particles are considered to be protons striking our atmosphere with close to light speed .
I do not know the exact number striking our atmosphere but I think it is high
enough to say that their numbers in the universe would be in the 'zillions'
considering that our planet is such a miniscule target.
Since these high numbers can only point to one origin, it would have to be neutron star decay.

This is another example of matter returning to its original state from its compressed star formed state.

[peteshimmon]

You know I have wondered about these particles with the energy of a "well hit tennis
ball". Is this I wonder the energy that has to be put into these particles to escape
your average neutron star?

[Nereid]

cyrek comment
My idea for these GRB’s is that they are a product of 'neutron star decay' in a SSU.

These particles are considered to be protons striking our atmosphere with close to light speed .
I do not know the exact number striking our atmosphere but I think it is high
enough to say that their numbers in the universe would be in the 'zillions'
considering that our planet is such a miniscule target.
Since these high numbers can only point to one origin, it would have to be neutron star decay.

This is another example of matter returning to its original state from its compressed star formed state.Per the recently posted Rules For Posting To This Board (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864), specifically #13 (extract): Additionally, keep promotion of your theories and ideas to only those Against the Mainstream (forumdisplay.php?f=17) threads which discuss them. Hijacking other discussions to draw attention to your ideas will not be allowed.As it is not yet October 1 (http://www.bautforum.com/showpost.php?p=564850&postcount=1), this is not a warning.

[cyrek1]

To peteshimmon

Since Nereid brought up the violation of etiquette, I will make a seperate post about my idea about GRB's and answer you on that post.

cyrek

[peteshimmon]

Actually I thought I had done something wrong
at first! Its a good idea to want to keep
threads tidy but I hope it does not impede
free association of ideas. May I suggest we
use your new post for ventilating all ideas
for high energy radiation transients. I have
a few alternative ideas than this one and
others may do so lets have a brainstorming
session as in a "value analysis" procedure.
I read in the mid-ninties there were about a
hundred ideas floating around and I was sure
my idea was amoung them. I am sure there are
a great variety of reasons out there anyway
which is why I am wary of the upcoming NASA
press conference suggesting the subject is
finally solved.

[peteshimmon]

Some predictions and matters arising. Three
white dwarfs may yet burst and be caught by
HETE, INTEGRAL or SWIFT. WD0435-088 was due in
summer 2004 so has probably been missed.
WD0553+053 may go off in 2006 and WD0548-001 in
2008. I suggest plus or minus 1 year for each
as error bars. Hopefully there is some
variation as the Sun is in their direction in
the Summer. Secondly 40 Eridani b was
calculated using a distance of 16.45 LYs.
A look on the ESA website gives 16.47 LYs.
Recalculating gives a date exactly 9 years after
1987a, 23 Feb 1996 and the burst was on the
29th. So its closer to the prediction. 16.45 LYs
may be the distance to the main star that
HIPPARCOS measured. Lastly I made a mistake of
10 degrees in the RA of WD0738-172 so this
possible is now very doubtful. Never mind, I
still have three!

[RussT]

To see a great deal of discussion on GRB's

Go To; ATM...Big Bang Most Correct


Faultline wrote; on this thread
In any case, you have to come up with an explosion powerful enough to be seen from across the known universe, up to 14 billion light-years away. That's how far away the furthest GRB's have been detected. Relativity says such large explosions with enough energy to reach us that far away don't exist. You'd have to convert nearly all known matter into energy all at once and you'd still not be able to see it that far away!
__________________
We can't even detect a supernova from that distance.

Faultline...do you still agree with these earlier posts of yours? and If so, why haven't you been more involved in the dicussions on my thread ATM...Big Bang Most Correct???

RussT

S=G

[Faultline]

What's your point? There's a theory that states how such an explosion could be detected from that far away, but it has nothing to do with supernovas and white dwarfs and neutron stars.

[RussT]

Faultline...my point was simple, and why I asked if you stood by these statements.
Read the second sentence below please.
[Relativity says such large explosions with enough energy to reach us that far away don't exist. You'd have to convert nearly all known matter into energy all at once and you'd still not be able to see it that far away!]

Based on that, how could a GRB be a single star "Hypernova"???

So, I thought, that if you really thought they had that much energy, you might be questioning some of the GRB data yourself.

[Relativity says such large explosions with enough energy to reach us that far away don't exist.]

By the way, IMO, relativity says such large explosions that far away must be 'singularities'.

[but it has nothing to do with supernovas and white dwarfs and neutron stars.]
__________________
Oh, I see...you are saying this was the topic of the thread, and just because you brought up the tremendous energy of GRB's, that doesn't allow me to start talking about that...is that correct? If it is, I appologize! I will be more careful of this in the future!

RussT

S=G