Gamma Ray burst and things that blow up in the night

[job1207]

<p>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080910-gammaray-burst.html</p><p><font><font><font face="arial" size="2"><font face="arial"><p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">"The study suggests that the jet of the gamma-burst actually has two components: a narrow, ultra-fast jet at the core of a wider, slightly slower jet.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">The narrow part of the jet of GRB 080819B was so fast that it shot material directly toward Earth at 99.99995 percent the speed of light.</span></p> <p class="MsoNormal"><span style="font-size:10pt;font-family:Arial">Scientists think that it was because the jet was pointed straight at us that it appeared so much brighter than previously-observed gamma-ray bursts. The researchers speculate that it is rare to detect the inner core of the jet because it is so narrow &mdash; only about 1/100^th the size of the full moon as seen from Earth."</span></p><p class="MsoNormal">So my question is this. Why were we not fired by the gamma rays???&nbsp; Note the comment, shot directly towards Earth.&nbsp; </p></font></font></font></font> </p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080910-gammaray-burst.html&quot;The study suggests that the jet of the gamma-burst actually has two components: a narrow, ultra-fast jet at the core of a wider, slightly slower jet. The narrow part of the jet of GRB 080819B was so fast that it shot material directly toward Earth at 99.99995 percent the speed of light. Scientists think that it was because the jet was pointed straight at us that it appeared so much brighter than previously-observed gamma-ray bursts. The researchers speculate that it is rare to detect the inner core of the jet because it is so narrow &mdash; only about 1/100th the size of the full moon as seen from Earth."So my question is this. Why were we not fired by the gamma rays???&nbsp; Note the comment, shot directly towards Earth.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>It's not altogether clear that the gamma ray bursts are as directional as the "jets", and the extreme distance seems to be the primary thing that "saved us". </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[job1207]

Is that your expert opinion? or is it conjecture...??

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Is that your expert opinion? or is it conjecture...?? <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>Both. &nbsp; I think the distance aspect is pretty much a certainty.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether gamma rays are directional or just a emission from the jets remains open to question I suppose.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both. &nbsp; I think the distance aspect is pretty much a certainty.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether gamma rays are directional or just a emission from the jets remains open to question I suppose.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Working back from the conclusion that we did not receive a lethal dose of gamma rays, you have to say something. If you shoot a gun that can travel 7 billion light years, then distance is not a factor as much as aim, and or dispersal of the bullet so to speak.&nbsp;</p><p>Basically you are disputing the notion in the article that the beam was aimed directly at us. Or could be aimed directly at us.... </p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Working back from the conclusion that we did not receive a lethal dose of gamma rays, you have to say something.</DIV></p><p>We have to assume that there is some logical reason why we didn't recieve a lethal dose. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>If you shoot a gun that can travel 7 billion light years, then distance is not a factor as much as aim, and or dispersal of the bullet so to speak.</DIV></p><p>But light is not a bullet, not even gamma rays.&nbsp; They diffuse over distance.&nbsp; Distance matters when it comes to the intensity of light, even gamma ray photons.&nbsp;&nbsp; The distances involved give light a lot of opportunity to interact with the plasmas and quantum fields of space. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Basically you are disputing the notion in the article that the beam was aimed directly at us. Or could be aimed directly at us.... <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_law</p><p>Not exactly.&nbsp; I have no reason to doubt that the jet was pointed our way.&nbsp; The distance involved however gives any wavelength of light, even gamma radiation, a lot of opportunity to scatter and disperse over distance.&nbsp;&nbsp; If that event occured in our neighborhood (like a few light years away), it may have had quite different results.&nbsp; In this case what saved us was the vast distances involved and the nature of light. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We have to assume that there is some logical reason why we didn't recieve a lethal dose. But light is not a bullet, not even gamma rays.&nbsp; They diffuse over distance.&nbsp; Distance matters when it comes to the intensity of light, even gamma ray photons.&nbsp;&nbsp; The distances involved give light a lot of opportunity to interact with the plasmas and quantum fields of space. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverse_square_lawNot exactly.&nbsp; I have no reason to doubt that the jet was pointed our way.&nbsp; The distance involved however gives any wavelength of light, even gamma radiation, a lot of opportunity to scatter and disperse over distance.&nbsp;&nbsp; If that event occured in our neighborhood (like a few light years away), it may have had quite different results.&nbsp; In this case what saved us was the vast distances involved and the nature of light. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>Yes, I got my A in physics. I know that light diffuses at the inverse swquare, and that is why I own one of those police like flash lights, but well, they are proposing in that article at least, that for some reason a jet, that can be maintained, is in fact what we are dealing with.&nbsp;</p><p>So necessarily, if the gamma rays diffuse at the inverse square then we would have to be somewhat close to an event to get fried. And that article needs to be altered.&nbsp; </p><p>I am sure that America will sleep better knowing that...... especially since we are supposed to get zapped once every ten years, according to the article. Or maybe not. </p>

 

[silylene old]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080910-gammaray-burst.html&quot;The study suggests that the jet of the gamma-burst actually has two components: a narrow, ultra-fast jet at the core of a wider, slightly slower jet. The narrow part of the jet of GRB 080819B was so fast<font color="#ff0000"> that it shot material directly toward Earth</font> at 99.99995 percent the speed of light. <font color="#ff0000">Scientists think that it was because the jet was pointed straight at us</font> that it appeared so much brighter than previously-observed gamma-ray bursts. The researchers speculate that it is rare to detect the inner core of the jet because it is so narrow &mdash; only about 1/100th the size of the full moon as seen from Earth."So my question is this. <font color="#ff0000">Why were we not fired&nbsp;<font color="#000000"><fried?></font>&nbsp;by the gamma rays???</font>&nbsp; <font color="#ff0000">Note the comment, shot directly towards Earth</font>.&nbsp; <br />Posted by job1207</DIV><br /><br />This gamma ray burst initiated almost 7B years ago.&nbsp; The sun, our solar system, and the Earth did not form until 4.5B years ago.&nbsp; I can assure you,&nbsp;the jet&nbsp;was not shot directly at the Earth since our planet simply did not exist, and would not exist for another 2.5B years.</p><p>A more accurate statement would be that the powerful jet fired&nbsp;along the&nbsp;vector that the Milky Way Galaxy's motion&nbsp;would coincidentaly intersect with 7B years later, and that coincidently a civilization (ours)&nbsp;living on a planet within that galaxy would notice the blast.</p><p>By saying the the 'jet was pointed straight at us' almsot seems to imply that some advanced civilization or external supernatural force intentionally directed the jet in our direction.&nbsp; Someone is watching too much Fox TV.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

Even if it did not diffuse, I think you are forgetting that our atmosphere is almost entirely opaque to gamma rays.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[job1207]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This gamma ray burst initiated almost 7B years ago.&nbsp; The sun, our solar system, and the Earth did not form until 4.5B years ago.&nbsp; I can assure you,&nbsp;the jet&nbsp;was not shot directly at the Earth since our planet simply did not exist, and would not exist for another 2.5B years.A more accurate statement would be that the powerful jet fired&nbsp;along the&nbsp;vector that the Milky Way Galaxy's motion&nbsp;would coincidentaly intersect with 7B years later, and that coincidently a civilization (ours)&nbsp;living on a planet within that galaxy would notice the blast.By saying the the 'jet was pointed straight at us' almsot seems to imply that some advanced civilization or external supernatural force intentionally directed the jet in our direction.&nbsp; Someone is watching too much Fox TV. <br /> Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>You need to have a little respect. Do I really need to pull up articles that say if we were struck by a direct gamma ray burst it would harm us???&nbsp;</p><p>I am trying to understand what was said. Are we just seeing the light? or are we getting the gamma rays?? If you do not apologize, I will be upset. No I do not watch much TV at all, and frankly, am very sober in these matters.&nbsp;</p><p>Once again, you did not answer the question at all, and were very disrespectful. Explain yourself or just stop.&nbsp; </p>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Yes, I got my A in physics. I know that light diffuses at the inverse swquare, and that is why I own one of those police like flash lights, but well, they are proposing in that article at least, that for some reason a jet, that can be maintained, is in fact what we are dealing with.</DIV></p><p>The "jet" they are describing is a plasma jet composed of ions and electrons, it's not a photon jet.&nbsp; In other words the jet itself is composed of plasma particles that may or may not emit gamma rays.&nbsp; I believe (I'm not sure) that you're confusing the idea of a plasma jet with a laser beam of light.&nbsp; I don't think a photon laser beam is the idea that they are trying to convey with the term "jet", but the jet may indeed influence the intensity of gamma rays in a specific direction.&nbsp; Even still it would be influenced by the inverse square law. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>So necessarily, if the gamma rays diffuse at the inverse square then we would have to be somewhat close to an event to get fried. And that article needs to be altered.&nbsp; I am sure that America will sleep better knowing that...... especially since we are supposed to get zapped once every ten years, according to the article. Or maybe not. <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>I guess I'm going to have to read the paper itself. &nbsp; I certainly didn't "interpret" that article in the same way as you did.&nbsp; In theory I can see how gamma rays may also be somewhat "directional" like the jets, but I don't believe it would necessarily be much different in terms of photon scattering influences over those vast distances.&nbsp; In other words the point of the jets may release more gamma rays in our direction since we're looking down the barrel of the jet, but same laws of physics would still apply to the gamma rays.&nbsp; Over that kind of distance, even a somewhat higher intensity burst in our specfic direction will still be diffused over distance and it would still be unlikely to influence us much of such large distances. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>This gamma ray burst initiated almost 7B years ago.&nbsp; The sun, our solar system, and the Earth did not form until 4.5B years ago.&nbsp; I can assure you,&nbsp;the jet&nbsp;was not shot directly at the Earth since our planet simply did not exist, and would not exist for another 2.5B years.</DIV></p><p>Yes, but as you noted, the Earth would exist by the time any particles or photons from that explosion reached us here in this regions of space.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>A more accurate statement would be that the powerful jet fired&nbsp;along the&nbsp;vector that the Milky Way Galaxy's motion&nbsp;would coincidentaly intersect with 7B years later, and that coincidently a civilization (ours)&nbsp;living on a planet within that galaxy would notice the blast.</DIV></p><p>I agree.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By saying the the 'jet was pointed straight at us' almsot seems to imply that some advanced civilization or external supernatural force intentionally directed the jet in our direction.&nbsp; Someone is watching too much Fox TV. <br /> Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>I guess I read that differently.&nbsp; It seemed pretty clear to me from the article that they were noting that this was an unusual event and just a remote statistical probability that eventually happens every so often. &nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[job1207]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080910-gammaray-burst.html&quot;The study suggests that the jet of the gamma-burst actually has two components: a narrow, ultra-fast jet at the core of a wider, slightly slower jet. The narrow part of the jet of GRB 080819B was so fast that it shot material directly toward Earth at 99.99995 percent the speed of light. Scientists think that it was because the jet was pointed straight at us that it appeared so much brighter than previously-observed gamma-ray bursts. The researchers speculate that it is rare to detect the inner core of the jet because it is so narrow &mdash; only about 1/100th the size of the full moon as seen from Earth."So my question is this. Why were we not fired by the gamma rays???&nbsp; Note the comment, shot directly towards Earth.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV><br /> BODY {font-family="Times New Roman"} TT {font-family="Courier New"} BLOCKQUOTE.CITE {padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:0; margin-right:0; margin-top:0; margin-bottom:0; border-left:"solid 2";} <table border="0" cellspacing="0" cellpadding="0" width="100%" bgcolor="#ece9d8"> <tbody> <tr bgcolor="#ece9d8"> <td> <div>From: Wayne Landsman <Wayne.B.Landsman@nasa.gov></div> <div>To:</div>Subject: Re: [Swift #2075] We are still here

 

[silylene old]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>.....So my question is this. Why were we not fired by the gamma rays???&nbsp; <font color="#ff0000">Note the comment, shot directly towards Earth.&nbsp; <br /></font>Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>I don't apologize for my comments, they were a reasonable response to your post.&nbsp; I was responding to your focus (I highlighted in&nbsp;<font color="#ff0000">red</font> above)&nbsp;on this part of the poorly worded press release that you rephrased.&nbsp; You are the one who re-emphasized "shot directly at the Earth" by&nbsp;adding the additonal preliminary clause&nbsp;"Note the comment,".&nbsp; Your emphasis on "shot directly at the earth" made it sound as if you were emphasizing that some type of superpowerful being or intelligent designer intentionally sent this energy ray at us.&nbsp; Since 60% of the American population believes in creationism or intelligent design, it is not at all unreasonable that I assumed that this was what you meant by your own words.</p><p>I also thought that the press release on this subject was quite poorly worded, as it made it&nbsp;appear from its ambiguously worded statements to someone already predisposed in believing in intelligent designers that this energy burst was an intentional action of aiming at&nbsp;the Earth&nbsp;by some type of superpowerful 'designer'.&nbsp; Science writers and indeed the researchers themselves need to be more careful in their selection of words not to create phrases that play right into the code words used by the creationist crowd.&nbsp; Otherwise we only add statements that in their minds only confirm their wrong beliefs.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><em><font color="#0000ff">- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -</font></em> </div><div class="Discussion_UserSignature" align="center"><font color="#0000ff"><em>I really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function.</em></font> </div> </div>

 

[Philotas]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't apologize for my comments, they were a reasonable response to your post.&nbsp; I was responding to your focus (I highlighted in&nbsp;red above)&nbsp;on this part of the poorly worded press release that you rephrased.&nbsp; You are the one who re-emphasized "shot directly at the Earth" by&nbsp;adding the additonal preliminary clause&nbsp;"Note the comment,".&nbsp; Your emphasis on "shot directly at the earth" made it sound as if you were emphasizing that some type of superpowerful being or intelligent designer intentionally sent this energy ray at us.&nbsp; Since 60% of the American population believes in creationism or intelligent design, it is not at all unreasonable that I assumed that this was what you meant by your own words.I also thought that the press release on this subject was quite poorly worded, as it made it&nbsp;appear from its ambiguously worded statements to someone already predisposed in believing in intelligent designers that this energy burst was an intentional action of aiming at&nbsp;the Earth&nbsp;by some type of superpowerful 'designer'.&nbsp; Science writers and indeed the researchers themselves need to be more careful in their selection of words not to create phrases that play right into the code words used by the creationist crowd.&nbsp; Otherwise we only add statements that in their minds only confirm their wrong beliefs. <br />Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>To me it looks like he wanted to emphasize that Earth was in the midst of this jet; not that someone was shooting at us. Anyway, may the topic go on...</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I don't apologize for my comments, they were a reasonable response to your post.&nbsp; I was responding to your focus (I highlighted in&nbsp;red above)&nbsp;on this part of the poorly worded press release that you rephrased.&nbsp; You are the one who re-emphasized "shot directly at the Earth" by&nbsp;adding the additonal preliminary clause&nbsp;"Note the comment,".&nbsp; Your emphasis on "shot directly at the earth" made it sound as if you were emphasizing that some type of superpowerful being or intelligent designer intentionally sent this energy ray at us.&nbsp; Since 60% of the American population believes in creationism or intelligent design, it is not at all unreasonable that I assumed that this was what you meant by your own words.I also thought that the press release on this subject was quite poorly worded, as it made it&nbsp;appear from its ambiguously worded statements to someone already predisposed in believing in intelligent designers that this energy burst was an intentional action of aiming at&nbsp;the Earth&nbsp;by some type of superpowerful 'designer'.&nbsp; Science writers and indeed the researchers themselves need to be more careful in their selection of words not to create phrases that play right into the code words used by the creationist crowd.&nbsp; Otherwise we only add statements that in their minds only confirm their wrong beliefs. <br /> Posted by silylene</DIV></p><p>Take your anti-christian agenda elsewhere.&nbsp; It is an EXTREME stretch to take that interpretation on the article.&nbsp; All the article was saying that it is statistically unlikely that such a jet would be directly toward our line of sight.&nbsp; Let's take a walk on the crazy-person side of things and assume I am taking a Christian take on this...why would God start firing gamma ray beams at us?&nbsp; How would this confirm my beliefs at all?&nbsp; It wouldn't.&nbsp; You just clearly want to find any excuse to spout your anti-christian sentiments and proclaim proudly that you don't believe.&nbsp; Nobody cares.&nbsp; They said it the way they did("aimed directly at Earth") as a way to simplify it for the layman.&nbsp; Obviously even when they dumbed it down you couldn't even understand it.&nbsp; I've heard many idiotic arguments in my time, but this is one of the worst.&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Your comment that "light decreases in intensity with the inverse square of the distance" is the correct one.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;__________________________________Enough said about that...!&nbsp; &nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>I could be wrong, but I don't believe the inverse square law applies to collimated beams of electromagnetic radiation.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/080910-gammaray-burst.html&quot;The study suggests that the jet of the gamma-burst actually has two components: a narrow, ultra-fast jet at the core of a wider, slightly slower jet. The narrow part of the jet of GRB 080819B was so fast that it shot material directly toward Earth at 99.99995 percent the speed of light. Scientists think that it was because the jet was pointed straight at us that it appeared so much brighter than previously-observed gamma-ray bursts. The researchers speculate that it is rare to detect the inner core of the jet because it is so narrow &mdash; only about 1/100th the size of the full moon as seen from Earth."So my question is this. Why were we not fired by the gamma rays???&nbsp; Note the comment, shot directly towards Earth.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by job1207</DIV></p><p>To answer your question, we weren't fried because the opening angle of the collimated beam was such that by the time it reached us it was no longer focused thus decreasing its intensity.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Both. &nbsp; I think the distance aspect is pretty much a certainty.&nbsp;&nbsp; Whether gamma rays are directional or just a emission from the jets remains open to question I suppose.&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>From what I've read, the question of whether the source produces a collimated beam or emits in all directions depends on the progenitor of the burst and whether it is considered a 'long' or 'short' duration burst.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The "jet" they are describing is a plasma jet composed of ions and electrons, it's not a photon jet.&nbsp; In other words the jet itself is composed of plasma particles that may or may not emit gamma rays.&nbsp; I believe (I'm not sure) that you're confusing the idea of a plasma jet with a laser beam of light.&nbsp; I don't think a photon laser beam is the idea that they are trying to convey with the term "jet", but the jet may indeed influence the intensity of gamma rays in a specific direction.&nbsp; Even still it would be influenced by the inverse square law. I guess I'm going to have to read the paper itself. &nbsp; I certainly didn't "interpret" that article in the same way as you did.&nbsp; In theory I can see how gamma rays may also be somewhat "directional" like the jets, but I don't believe it would necessarily be much different in terms of photon scattering influences over those vast distances.&nbsp; In other words the point of the jets may release more gamma rays in our direction since we're looking down the barrel of the jet, but same laws of physics would still apply to the gamma rays.&nbsp; Over that kind of distance, even a somewhat higher intensity burst in our specfic direction will still be diffused over distance and it would still be unlikely to influence us much of such large distances. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>I do&nbsp; think the article is a bit misleading when they start talking about the relativitstic jet of particles.&nbsp; These jets are the source of the gamma rays, but it is not the plasma jets that we are seeing, nor are they hitting us (at least not in anyway that we could detect and discern from the rest of the ultra high energy cosmic rays).&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>From what I've read, the question of whether the source produces a collimated beam or emits in all directions depends on the progenitor of the burst and whether it is considered a 'long' or 'short' duration burst.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>I suppose that mekes sense even from my perspective. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I suppose that mekes sense even from my perspective. <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>IIRC, long bursts are modelled as hypernova of supermassive stars collapsing that produce collimated jets of radiation where as the short bursts are thought to be neutron star or black hole mergers where are more intense, but radiate in all directions.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>IIRC, long bursts are modelled as hypernova of supermassive stars collapsing that produce collimated jets of radiation where as the short bursts are thought to be neutron star or black hole mergers where are more intense, but radiate in all directions.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>http://www.physorg.com/news8658.html</p><p>I tend to believe that neutron star collisions/mergers are pretty common, but I would think that they too would have some directional components to their merging process.&nbsp; I would expect that their magnetic orientations would tend to have an influence on the merging process.&nbsp; It seems to me like they could form directional jets too. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[derekmcd]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>http://www.physorg.com/news8658.htmlI tend to believe that neutron star collisions/mergers are pretty common, but I would think that they too would have some directional components to their merging process.&nbsp; I would expect that their magnetic orientations would tend to have an influence on the merging process.&nbsp; It seems to me like they could form directional jets too. &nbsp; <br /> Posted by michaelmozina</DIV></p><p>The information in that article has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand here.&nbsp; A little self promotion there Michael?&nbsp; You know, you wouldn't need to self promote that stuff if it was legitimate.&nbsp; It would promote itself.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The information in that article has absolutely nothing to do with the topic at hand here.&nbsp; A little self promotion there Michael?&nbsp; You know, you wouldn't need to self promote that stuff if it was legitimate.&nbsp; It would promote itself.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by derekmcd</DIV></p><p>Well, that wasn't really my intent.&nbsp; It's just that neutron stars are thought to have a strong magnetic field, and galaxy centers are known to have "jets" too.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; Whatever the merger process of a galactic center might look like, it could in fact include "jets" since both the central masses can also produce "jets".&nbsp; Irrespective of what you think the center might contain, it seem seems as though collimated jets are possible.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>