GRB 06218 SN 2006aj gravitational wave component?

Status
Not open for further replies.
N

nojocujo

Guest
http://www.citebase.org/abstract?id=oai%3AarXiv.org%3Aastro-ph%2F0604510<br /><br />Does this fall into the realm of an isotropic GRB with a gravitational wave component?. The xray data should indicate a uniform heating of interstellar gas expanding at c prior to the SN event...The result of the gravitational wave. I think. It sounds like it is a collaspar and the rebound wave at c should preceed the SN. Layering of energy below the schwartzchild radius by wavelength would explain the release of short wavelength component as the gravitational wave briefly cancels the schwartzchild radius.<br />If so a measurement of a gravitaional wave has occurred.<br />Could the dimming be the result of a local redshift acting on all EMF? Are there radio and microwave components out of line with visible, xray and gamma ray components?
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
Scenario:<br />Star collapses into baby black hole. Gravitaional wave and shock wave traveling to singularity and the Gravitaional wave is winning the race. At the singularity the gravitaional wave rebounds and passes the shock wave slowing it down further. The initial has completed for the matter that the Gravitaional wave now travels through and it begins the acceleration of the matter outward acting repulsively. With a layering of energy by wavelenth asz the gravitaional wave passes the schwartzchild radius it cancels it and gamma rays and possibly xrays are released. The shock wave then follows but it has been relativisitcally slowed. Supernova event......<br /><br />It appears that it is possible that the above event was a collapsar and there may hve been a leading rebound GR wave causing the GRB itself by canceling the schwartzchild radius.<br />If that did occur and a leading Gravity wave created a flattened spacetime bubble would the light emitted within the bubble be heavily redshifted at outset. I am wondering if the wave itself is a direct contributor to the subsequent SN event i.e. a rebound gravitaional pressure wave. Classically I know my speculation is probably rubbish but I think you should see a leading edge of Gravitational wave, then Gamma rays then an xray component with heating as the wave passes through and excites gas and dust ahead relativistically with the initial Wave. Then the SN event itself since it will have to follow at less than the speed of c.<br /><br />The dimness attributed to the isotropic nature of both and possible redshift. Do you have any data on the event in the microwave range outside what would be normal parameters?<br />
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
If there was a gravitational wave redshift and there were k band corrections would you still see evidence of a gravitational wave redshift? Where would you expect to see evidence of a gravitational wave redshift? In the sn2006aj was there excess or additional energy in the kband? If so what was it attributed to? <br /><br />
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
You may have addressed these points/questions in your post, I'm a bit thick tonight and reading comprehension scores low. (-;<br /><br />I think this is a difficult problem in complex geodesics to discuss the effects upon the event horizon caused by gravitational waves. This would be a problem in Finsler space I believe. Is there a simple explanation for how the Shwartzchild radius is effected by these fields and the mechanism for reflecting the gravity waves from the event horizon? Maybe a link would help to visualize...<br /><br />But first lets address the high-level. Given the energy of your a-typical GRB (I am ignorant about this one) and issotropic source for the gamma rays would be prohibitive from the perspective of our understanding of physics. Is there something unique about this particular GRB that makes it special?<br /><br />I thought the shock wave would be the source of the gravitational wave due to the e-m field it produces. Wouldn't that be the greatest source of gravitational waves in the system? In your scenario the gravity wave is the cause of the e-m radiation. I'm not sure how that gravity wave gets produced. So, I'm confused and will need to re-read your posts and any further clarification you might make.<br /><br /><br /><br />
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
If there was a gravitational wave redshift and there were k band corrections would you still see evidence of a gravitational wave redshift? Where would you expect to see evidence of a gravitational wave redshift? In the sn2006aj was there excess or additional energy in the kband? If so what was it attributed to?<br />The k band corrections are referred to in perlmutters work regarding dark energy.
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
A gravitational wave generated by a supernova has not yet been detected by remote sensing. The gravity telescope has just recently been made operational, but I haven't seen any results as yet. So the answer has to be that we don't yet have a way of detecting gravity waves let alone taking their spectra.<br /><br />That is why my interest in your comment that the gravity wave generated the e-m radiation. That would raise a considerable amount of excitment since it would be observational proof of relativistic gravity waves.<br /><br />We both seem to be asking questions about the GRB 06218 event, and that's fine. But since you posted this you obviously had something in mind about the strangeness of this particular GRB. Can you elaborate?<br />
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
I know that gravity waves directly. LIGO, Lisa.....THis is a unique event in that it appears to have been a collapsar and there remains a black body component. I don't wantto be close enough to feel the wave. Nonetheless, I do think we can observe with this event the effects of a gravitational wave. The current general hypothesis is that it follows other GRB's non isotropic jet but off center. i.e. not pointed directly at us. This theory was developed to avoid violating E=MC2 due to the high energy emissions as you know at a time when super massive black holes had not been postulated. I would think that the thoery needs to be looked in light of those developments. <br />This event is brings three groups GRB,XRF,SN together viewing different aspects of the same event. Each will filter the data relevant to their research. Not really seeing the event itself.<br /><br />Assuming it was a collapsar and it had collapsed into a new black hole.<br />What would cause the initial GRB and the XRF with a temperature component. With the understanding that there will soon be a SN event following with a blackbody component.<br />Much of the data could be that this event and all the measurements due to the teams following it may have given us a picture of how a gravitaional wave interacts in this type of event if we open our eyes. Are Lisa and Ligo sensitive enough to detect this at this time. What was left of it (inverse square) passed us just before we saw the grb but at the source.....intense.<br />It should have left its' fingerprint on the event skewing the data and light showing up where it shouldn't (blue i think) and the k band.<br />These effect would be shortlived as the gravity well restabilized.<br />The effects if interpreted properly would indeed be remote sensing but not in the manner in which we have been thinkng. <br />A short version as to how I see it.<br />The collapse/implosion to a baby blackhole shallow schwartzchild with energy being layered below by wavelength.<br />
 
R

rogers_buck

Guest
The current standard for excitement would be the confirmed detection of ANY gravitational wave. But again, for an issotropic source you would be looking at ebergies beyond any practical limits of recognized cosmplogical objects - including galaxies and clusters of galaxies. You would need new physics to justify a typical GRB as an issotropic source. New physics isn't necessarilly a bad thing, so it is good practice to keep thinking of tests for the aligned jet paradigm.<br />
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
In light of more recent evidence than the aligned jet hypothesis which did not include medium density and supermassive BH. I think a medium density BH could easily support the energy release and not exceed E=MC2. Probably on the order ratio of energy release of a supernova. In that sense no new physics. Just an understanding of the release mechanism.
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
Initally there should be a bump in the light curve of the grb and a second bump following closely behind the initial observation of the sn due to the GW. The bumps in GRB are probably associated with a GW's.
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
Excerpt from the cited articles.<br />In particular, we do not know how the jet that defines a -ray burst emerges from the star's surface, nor how a GRB progenitor explodes. In addition to the classical non-thermal emission, GRB 060218 shows a thermal component in its X-ray spectrum, which cools and shifts into the optical/ultraviolet band as time passes.<br />The essential physical process that causes a dying star to produce a GRB or XRF, and not just a supernova, is still unknown.<br />This suggests that the production of relativistic ejecta is the key physical distinction between GRBs or XRFs and ordinary supernovae, while the nature of the central engine (black hole or magnetar) may distinguish typical bursts from low-luminosity, spherical events like XRF 060218.
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
Meszaros paper: http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0605208<br />4.1. The Relativistic Fireball Model As discussed in the introduction, the ultimate energy source of GRB is convincingly associated with a catastrophic energy release in stellar mass objects. For long bursts, this is almost certainly associated with the late stages of the evolution of a massive star, namely the collapse of its core [514, 346], which at least in some cases is associated with a detectable supernova. For short bursts, it has been long assumed [343, 105] that they were associated with compact binary mergers (NS-NS or NS-BH), a view which is gaining observational support [40, 130], although the issue cannot be considered settled yet. In both cases, the central compact object is likely to be a black hole of several solar masses (although it might, temporarily, be a fast rotating high-mass neutron star, which eventually must collapse to black hole). In any case, the gravitational energy liberated in the collapse or merger involves of order a few solar masses, which is converted into free energy on timescales of milliseconds inside a volume of the order of tens of kilometers cubed. This prompt energy is then augmented by a comparable amount of energy release in a similar or slightly larger volume over a longer timescale of seconds to hundreds of seconds, by the continued infall or accretion of gas onto the central object, either from the central parts of the massive progenitor star or from the debris of the disrupted compact stars which was temporarily held up by its rotation.The principal result of the sudden release of this large gravitational energy (of order a solar rest mass) in this compact volume is the conversion of a fraction of that energy into neutrinos, initially in thermal equilibrium, and gravitational waves (which are not in thermal equilibrium), while a significantly smaller fraction (10 ?2 ? 10?3) goes into a h
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
So the spacetime displacement of the wave created as a result of the collapse won't cancel the schwartzchild radius creating the GRB and XRF? I agree that the collapse will create a first order effect inertia traveling at sub c speeds and the fifth order effect the wave itself traveling at c hence the sequential order GRB XRF(temperature component being caused by the brief relativistic acceleration of matter i.e. gas and dust by the wave itself noy yhe shock wave which subsequently causes the SN. <br />Simple order:<br />Collapse with gravitational wave at c, yes inertia not at c, GR wave rebounds passes the schwartzchild radius and releases stored energy GRB and XRF and then begins to interact with matter extant to the blackbody creating additional xray and thermal component. <br /><br />Blackbody goes Supernova.<br /><br />There should be a good timeline....The inertial shockwave will follow the Gr wave.
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
Whether it is a rebound or passes through it looks and works the same.<br />The event horizon can be confusing in this situation. Gravitational energy defines the event horizon and the gravity well itself. If you pictured the well at collapse spacetime woild be extremely curved but as the wave rebounds or passes through it flattens spacetime as it travels up the well. The flatter spacetime resulting from the wave represents a decrease in the gravitational energy. It is all gravitational energy above and below the horizon. A gravitational wave is just a modulation of that energy and the event horizon is just that point where the gravitational energy exceeds c. <br />Hawking was addressing a stable gravitational well. <br />I think that SN2006aj might help to bring about gravitational wave astronomy but we will have to observe them indirectly through their interaction with spacetime and their effects on the light curves. <br />It is interesting to note that the GRB was extremely long and it is contemplated that SN2006aj was a minimum mass collapsar.<br />The wave won't be constrained at the event horizon. The bumps associated with other GRB would be a ringing of sorts as the mass creates additional GR waves acting repulsively slowing the collapse until the well stabilizes again.
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
I noted that the minmal mass of sn2006aj and the length of the grb may be related in the sense that the event horizon in a minmal mass collapsar is in close proximity or intersects the horizon of the blackbody. As the mass increases the event horizon moves extanf to the blackbody. It would seem appropriate that the window for the GRB would decrease.<br />To explain the data for most GRB as an isotropc event would involve a transition quantum state of matter to medium or supermassive bh densities. It is not hard to imagine that at certain gravitation energies the fifth order begins to interact with first order quantum states. Forcing a new state of matter. I think the energy levels and the expected recombinations can be predicted with existing quantum theory. Once reaching critical mass what I would call a true collapsar (creating exotic protons/neutrons) would again relativistically collapse and the resulting GR wave would again cancel the event horizon of a medium density or super massive BH. Quantum theory should be able to tell us how many reorderings of matter would occur between a minimal mass bh and a suprmassive bh.
 
N

nojocujo

Guest
It becomes intriging how the GM london effect might be involved in GRB and XRF. The simplistic explanation is the cancelation of the schwartzchild but the schwartzchild is too simplistic. Einstein had it right but should not have related to gravitational action on mass to demonstrate the elasticity of spacetime. There should have been interactions of mass and no mass with decreasing gravitational energies.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts