Talk:Fast radio burst

List of fast radio bursts

As suggested I have made List of fast radio bursts. Not that I think the list in the article is too big yet, but it will ultimately be too large. Also since I started the article and the list, I would like to be the person that started the list article. If others do not think separating the list is a good idea, it could be turned into a redirect to the list section. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:02, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I think it was a little premature. The table format(s) might change depending on how the repeat bursts of 2015-05-17, 2015-06-02 are later named; and before copying the table it would be nice/useful IMO to add a galactic latitude column. Editors are likely to update this table and forget the full list. At some point (eg. when a typical FRB is no longer notable) this table could be restricted to notable FRBs (eg exceptional or the first of some type to be reported). - Rod57 (talk) 14:48, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Interestingly - the FRB catalog shows galactic latitude, (&gb, snr ...) and also an FRB 150807 with the lowest yet reported DM of 266. - Rod57 (talk) 15:37, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Added 3 more FRBs to the table here - Caleb2017 has a nice fig 3 showing galactic coordinates so I am convinced we should add 2 extra columns for galactic coordinates. Redirect here for now sounds ok. - Rod57 (talk) 11:52, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

Adding galactic coordinates sounds a good idea, but perhaps put in your effort at List of fast radio bursts. But since sky coordinates should be all pover the place, perhaps only the MOST telecsope will show an effect. If they concentrate on Milky Way pulsars, they will detect more FRBs near the galactic plane. Similarly for Parkes, as it is probably observing pulsars. Arecebo will be selecting the sky it observes. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 15:07, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

There's one that needs to be added, FRB 150215, I don't know what info is needed. Paper available here: https://arxiv.org/abs/1705.02911 Deadstar (talk) 10:08, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

I have added the entry to the other list article. If someone else wants to update here they can copy the table entry. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:55, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

Copied here. - Rod57 (talk) 17:55, 1 September 2017 (UTC)

Just a note that once the section of the article has split off (which it now has), the list on the main article should be removed, and replaced with a summary per WP:CORRECTSPLIT. Hzh (talk) 01:25, 11 January 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, I am continuing to only update the List of fast radio bursts. So the list here is out of date. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:12, 21 March 2018 (UTC)

Neither list has the new 19 or 20 found by ASKAP - Very soon we will have so many new ones even the split out list wont be complete. One of the new ASKAP ones has the lowest DM yet so should be noted in this article. FRB catalog has all the new ones - notably 5 of the 6 lowest DM are in the ASKAP batch. - Rod57 (talk) 21:01, 20 October 2018 (UTC)

ASKAP : FRB 171020 (DM=114.1), FRB 171213 (DM=158.6), FRB 180212 (DM=167.5), [1] - Rod57 (talk) 09:31, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

Just read:

“Half a billion light years away,. . . . . that repeats itself predictably. . . . . dozens have been spotted” (The Times, 11 Feb 2020), and have some doubts: how should I confirm this/that, in “Half a billion light years away”, in short: help is needed!—Pietadè (talk) 18:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

There has been news lately that a repeating FRB has a periodic repeat pattern. I don't think we can use newspaper articles to reference this as they omit important information. So we need to find the Scientific publication/press release behind this. I have trimmed your excessive quote. This story has cause a big increase in our pageviews from under 200 a day to thousands.[2] Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

The preprint is here: https://arxiv.org/abs/2001.10275 with a science news source here https://phys.org/news/2020-02-fast-radio-steady-day.html Graeme Bartlett (talk) 03:58, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Article here: FRB 180916.J0158+65. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

High DM for FRB 200428

FRB 200428 is thought to be from the closest source so far - within our galaxy, but has double the DM of others (outside our galaxy?). Has there been any discussion of FRB 200428s DM ? - Rod57 (talk) 08:44, 8 August 2020 (UTC)

The DM is a measure of the electron column density between the radio source and the observer. In the case of FRB 200428 it appears that it is located within the Milky Way but there is a high local electron density as it is located in a Super Nova remnant - hence the much higher DM than expected for a galactic radio source. See https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.11109 for the pre-print of the relevant paper. John Murrell — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.191.25.41 (talk) 18:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, and for the arxiv link. Rod57 (talk) 20:49, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right it blows away many of the crucial arguments astronomers have been using so they are ignoring it and have nothing to say for themselves. They are embarrassed and look very foolish. It's just like all the embarrassing contradictions surrounding their big bang theory. 47.202.49.36 (talk) 04:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)

Confusion in the text

In the first section it states as fact that most FRB's are extragalactic, which is not necessarily true. Also in the first section someone wrote regarding 200428 that Furthermore, the dispersion measure was too low to have originated anywhere outside of the Milky Way which is not necessarily true either. Those statements should be struck.47.201.194.211 (talk) 04:28, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Weird/nonstandard many-world (Everettian) explanation

FRBs occur to reduce the uncertainty between afar galaxies and act as a common measurement in order they keep the galaxies which interact in the same many-world (Everettian) sub-universe. (It is not self-evident that different galaxies exist in the same sub-universe; because they have to NECESSARILY exchange some information [not necessarily much, because when a connection is established it can hold these afar galaxies in the same sub-universe due to intermediaries/particles that interact = become partially entangled AFTER the first impact. Also these galaxies have internal cohesion thus a linking hook doesn't have to recreate the galactic cohesion].)

(Of course that explanation is very philosophical, weird, nonstandard and far-fetched. The probability of that view being correct is negligible, but we have to mention it.)

2A02:2149:8421:7500:EC3E:C4E2:4041:B761 that sounds like a speculation, but we need a reliable source to cover in this article. However I will say that any observed galaxies are in our Universe. Once a photon makes it from there to here, it will be entangled. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:56, 16 November 2021 (UTC)

Graeme Bartlett, please see this and this. I'm afraid I'm just scratching the surface. Drmies (talk) 18:55, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Could mention coincident detection of neutrinos

Could mention coincident detection of neutrinos : A Significant Association Between CHIME Fast Radio Bursts and Low-Energy IceCube Neutrinos says " We report an association between FRBs and low-energy IceCube neutrinos with energies 0.1 -- 3 TeV at a significance level of 21.3σ" - Rod57 (talk) 01:31, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

When it is peer-reviewed and published in a journal, then it would be appropriate. Otherwise we can consider it a speculation. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Are they Exploding Black Holes?

It has been suggested that Fast Radio Bursts are Primordial Black Holes tunneling into White Holes via Quantum Gravity effects, in other words, Exploding Black Holes, here: [3][4][5][6]. Is there any reason why this has not been mentioned yet? IAnthIsAwesome (talk) 18:36, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

New notable FWB

A new FRB was detected recently, dubbed FRB 20191221A. It is described by a news publication as "currently the longest-lasting FRB, with the clearest periodic pattern, detected to date." In the abstract of the paper published in Nature, it's noted that its duration and the number of components in its periods make it an "outlier." Seems like that would qualify as notable. Quizzical2718 (talk) 00:48, 14 July 2022 (UTC)