Record-breaking 'BOAT' gamma-ray burst continues to amaze scientists

[Admin]

The brightest gamma-ray burst ever seen was also the first to impact Earth's upper ionosphere, a new study suggests.

Record-breaking 'BOAT' gamma-ray burst continues to amaze scientists : Read more

 

[Classical Motion]

With space expansion, wouldn't there be a distance at which, gamma light could not be detected? And another distance where x-rays could not be detected? And another distance where visible light could not be detected...........so with expanding space, all EM is shifted down. The expansion itself would shift and limit all detection with distance.

We shouldn't be able to see gamma and x-ray from long distance. And if it is shifted down, x-ray and gamma don't have broad spectrum like light.......they are slotted spectrums, not broadband.

And the article referred to gamma as particles, but they are EM emissions.

 

[billslugg]

Gamma rays can be considered as particles, as can all EM waves. All particles, Earth included, can be considered as waves. Wave particle duality was discovered by de Broglie who got the 1929 Nobel Prize in physics for it.

All EM waves travel at c. At the distance where the recessional velocity due to the expansion of space equals c, we can no longer see the EM.

 

[Classical Motion]

To me, things that have similar properties does not imply that the things are the same thing. Especially even though having similar properties at the same time display dissimilar properties. Such as inertia. And locality. Positional change with isolation. Staying still long enough to be.....being.

And to me, similar properties do not imply that things can change form and substance. Or alternate such.

All particle duality means is that particles have an EM field around them, and interact thru that field. That's all. No mystery. There's nothing to ponder.

As for the EM in space, wouldn't all EM emissions stretch down, before that point where light can not make it here? That's the way I understand it with the enormous red shifts.

Was it not inflation that gave us low frequency GHz background. An unbelievable down shift. The observed expansion should do the same with distance. And if it truly does, those hard x-ray and gamma ought to have a precise spectrum of slots, not broad band pattern. Very easy to pick out. And from what I have read, if we can see gamma and x-ray from the start(13.8by), without that shift, then we will have to rethink the cause of that shift. And the expansion theory.

Maybe you or others might know, what is the longest distance(and the longest time) for a gamma and x-ray emission, as far as we can tell? With energies similar to earth's x-rays and gammas?

 

[Qloop]

To me, things that have similar properties does not imply that the things are the same thing. Especially even though having similar properties at the same time display dissimilar properties. Such as inertia. And locality. Positional change with isolation. Staying still long enough to be.....being.

And to me, similar properties do not imply that things can change form and substance. Or alternate such.

All particle duality means is that particles have an EM field around them, and interact thru that field. That's all. No mystery. There's nothing to ponder.

As for the EM in space, wouldn't all EM emissions stretch down, before that point where light can not make it here? That's the way I understand it with the enormous red shifts.

Was it not inflation that gave us low frequency GHz background. An unbelievable down shift. The observed expansion should do the same with distance. And if it truly does, those hard x-ray and gamma ought to have a precise spectrum of slots, not broad band pattern. Very easy to pick out. And from what I have read, if we can see gamma and x-ray from the start(13.8by), without that shift, then we will have to rethink the cause of that shift. And the expansion theory.

Maybe you or others might know, what is the longest distance(and the longest time) for a gamma and x-ray emission, as far as we can tell? With energies similar to earth's x-rays and gammas?

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) was emitted when the universe was filled with a plasma that cooled enough to shift from opaque to transparent. Roughly 3000K. Basically, space looked like the surface of the Sun before then; that "surface" is the temp where the plasma becomes opaque. The universe was about 379,000 years old (roughly) when that transition happened.

Inflation started and ended in an extremely tiny fraction of part of the first second of the universe.

Expansion has been ongoing since then, possibly speeding up a bit in the most recent 8 billion years. That speed up is described as dark energy. The amount of energy involved in forcing the entirety of the universe's spacetime continuum to expand is, of course, immense. (We don't see it; hence the label "dark" in "dark energy", "dark matter", and in a bygone era, the "dark side of the moon").

The microwave background is also black body radiation. It is closer to the idealized curve of black body radiation than any other measurement. That matches theory.

 

[Qloop]

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) was emitted when the universe was filled with a plasma that cooled enough to shift from opaque to transparent. Roughly 3000K. Basically, space looked like the surface of the Sun before then; that "surface" is the temp where the plasma becomes opaque. The universe was about 379,000 years old (roughly) when that transition happened.

Inflation started and ended in an extremely tiny fraction of part of the first second of the universe.

Expansion has been ongoing since then, possibly speeding up a bit in the most recent 8 billion years. That speed up is described as dark energy. The amount of energy involved in forcing the entirety of the universe's spacetime continuum to expand is, of course, immense. (We don't see it; hence the label "dark" in "dark energy", "dark matter", and in a bygone era, the "dark side of the moon").

The microwave background is also black body radiation. It is closer to the idealized curve of black body radiation than any other measurement. That matches theory.

The cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) was emitted when the universe was filled with a plasma that cooled enough to shift from opaque to transparent. Roughly 3000K. Basically, space looked like the surface of the Sun before then; that "surface" is the temp where the plasma becomes opaque. The universe was about 379,000 years old (roughly) when that transition happened.

Inflation started and ended in an extremely tiny fraction of part of the first second of the universe.

Expansion has been ongoing since then, possibly speeding up a bit in the most recent 8 billion years. That speed up is described as dark energy. The amount of energy involved in forcing the entirety of the universe's spacetime continuum to expand is, of course, immense. (We don't see it; hence the label "dark" in "dark energy", "dark matter", and in a bygone era, the "dark side of the moon").

The microwave background is also black body radiation. It is closer to the idealized curve of black body radiation than any other measurement. That matches theory.

For some reason this reminds me... the cooling off, by itself, would indicate that the universe itself was expanding. If the universe were not expanding, it never would have cooled.

 

[Classical Motion]

I am by no means an expert on x-ray and gamma detection. I worked with low frequency radio. But I assume we detect xray and gamma indirectly. I don't believe we are capable of using it electronically like radio. Being able to tune to, filter and emit specific frequencies. Like GHz radio. I'm guessing we use heat or energy reactive sensors for it. Perhaps ionization.

Hard xray and gamma emission should be similar to laser emission, except for direction. The direction would be isotropic like light......but just one or possibly two colors per emission. Colors that we can not see. And still a flux, like laser light. Hard xray and gamma should be monopole emissions, without the analog bandwidth, that comes from oscillation. i.e......the emissions should have discrete frequencies. Quantum emissions......which are DC emissions. Rotational emissions. These frequencies are super duper high.....and would require much more shift to bring them down. Frequency is logarithmic.

Modern science uses energy for these entities, but frequency can tell much much more than energy. And I would be wary of energy/frequency conversions. For a multitude of reasons.

Also both the electron and the proton are capable of emitting the same frequencies. But never the same polarization.

If we could control xray and gamma like we control radio, we could probably build some atoms ourselves. After disassociation of atoms and a frequency catalog is made. Perhaps a catalyst to preform custom chemical functions. Maybe even a new material or two. Atomic structure modified with radio. Not heat. Heat uses a flux of heat, a flux of rates, and a flux of direction to modify mass. But it might take very little power at the right rate and the right direction. Surprisingly little.

 

[Jan Steinman]

I'm a bit confused about the claims about the ionosphere's involvement in the BOAT.

My understanding is that essentially all gamma-ray bursts become detectable through the interaction of the atmosphere. In other words, gamma rays can't make it through the atmosphere to the surface of the Earth (where the detectors are), but rather, they strike atoms of atmospheric gas, which then cause a burst of other rays, in a cascade.

So is the noted involvement of the ionosphere merely a matter of degree?

As an amateur radio operator, I'm also aware of different layers in the ionosphere that are exploited for long-distance radio communication. It would have been helpful if they had noted the specific layers involved (F? Sporadic E? etc.)

 

[billslugg]

This happened at 500 km per the article. The radio wave skip layers end at F layer at about 260 km. Above that there are not enough ions to cause skip.

 

[Classical Motion]

I have read that cosmic rays are particles and cause particle showers. Gamma is radio radiation and causes ionization.

 

[Classical Motion]

I have read that one of the experiments from HAARP, was to ionize a patch of atmosphere, so radio could be skipped at will. High speed communications thru atmospheric skip when ever needed. To replace the very slow long-wave link with subs. And it works......but needs way too much power for practical application.

We need a fast communication and location backup, isolated from the internet and sat links.

Also.......the upper atmosphere might have the exact properties we try to mock......in our quantum sensors. If we could measure and monitor such a region, we might just surprise ourselves.....of what we could detect.

 

[billslugg]

I have read that cosmic rays are particles and cause particle showers. Gamma is radio radiation and causes ionization.

All things in the universe, nothing excepted, share particle and wave characteristics at the same time. For each, one manifestation or the other is usually dominant, but does not exclude the other characteristic. For example: If you made a couple of giant slits in front of a galaxy sized screen and sprayed them with Earths, on the screen, you would see a diffraction pattern.

 

[Jan Steinman]

This happened at 500 km per the article. The radio wave skip layers end at F layer at about 260 km. Above that there are not enough ions to cause skip.

Thanks, Bill! It's been a while since I looked at the actual distances involved.

 

[Classical Motion]

Oh I disagree Bill. Particles and propagated electrical disturbances do have a few things in common. Discrete intermittence is one. This common motion accounts for the diffraction. To me, those slits prove that. In this regard....they are common.

And both have EM fields. But the particle has angular fields and the propagation has linear fields. That's a big difference. Not common.

A particle has inertia, which means it has to be accelerated. And electrical disturbance has, is, and will always move at c.........never ever needs acceleration. A particle needs time to turn....and that means an arc trajectory. Light can make 90 degree turns.......needs NO time to turn. It has no inertia. That's a big difference too. Not common.

When you accelerate a charge......it gets smaller and contracts and absorbs energy. But for light, the instant it starts flight......it expands and loses density and will eventually dissolve into space. This is a HUGE difference. Could it be more different? Anti-common.

SO......particles and propagations are very very different. And they should never be taught that they are the same. It simply is not true.

Shame on science.

Earth passing thru slits, might not diffract, because it is neutral. Throw some neutrons thru the slit and see if they diffract.......like the electrons do. I would like to know how the neutron behaves.

I don't think light has a charge.......but is does have polarity, due to field alignment. Having polarity might effect the diffraction too. A neutron thru the slits will tell us.

 

[billslugg]

Your issue is not with me, it is with the Nobel Committee. Until you get a Nobel Prize for your idea, I'm sticking with de Broglie.

 

[bolide]

Very interesting and informative discussion, gentlemen. Thank you.