PDA

View Full Version : Extraterrestrial Origin Of Fast Radio Burst Phenomenon Confirmed



Fraser
2017-Apr-04, 08:30 PM
Fast Radio Bursts (FRBs) have puzzled astronomers since they were first detected in 2007. These mysterious milliseconds-long blasts of radio waves appear to be coming from long distances, and have been attributed to various things such as alien signals or extraterrestrial propulsion systems, and more ‘mundane’ objects such as extragalactic neutron stars. Some scientists even […]
The post Extraterrestrial Origin Of Fast Radio Burst Phenomenon Confirmed (https://www.universetoday.com/134875/extraterrestrial-origin-fast-radio-burst-phenomenon-confirmed/) appeared first on Universe Today (https://www.universetoday.com).


More... (https://www.universetoday.com/134875/extraterrestrial-origin-fast-radio-burst-phenomenon-confirmed/)

Ross 54
2017-Apr-05, 03:48 PM
It initially appeared that eight of twenty Fast Radio Bursts had dispersion measurement values that were small integer multiples of a single value of dispersion-- 187.5 cm-3/pc. Further analysis appears to show that this is true of 15 of the 20. It seems odd that a natural phenomenon would be so orderly, in this respect. Below is a list of Fast Radio Bursts, with dispersion measurement values and a numerical analysis.

Name....... DM (cm-3/pc........ Multiplier....... Accuracy (%)

FRB 010125....... 790............ 4.............. 94.9

FRB 010621..... 745............ 4................ 99.4

FRB 010724..... 375............ 2................ 100.0

FRB 090625..... 899.55........ 5................ 95.8

FRB 110220..... 944.38......... 5................ 99.27

FRB 110626..... 723............ 4................. 96.3

FRB 110703..... 1103.6......... 6................ 98.1

FRB 120127..... 553.3.......... 3................ 98.4

FRB 121102..... 557............ 3................ 99.1

FRB 130626..... 952.4.......... 5................ 98.4

FRB 131104..... 779............ 4................ 96.2

FRB 140514..... 562.7.......... 3................ 99.9

FRB 150418..... 776.2.......... 4................ 96.6

FRB 011025..... 790............ 4................ 94.9

FRB 110627..... 559............ 3................ 99.4



Data from the following linked sources:

http://www.astronomy.swin.edu.au/pulsar/frbcat

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_radio_burst

Jens
2017-Apr-05, 11:09 PM
Could you explain how you got that accuracy figure?

Ross 54
2017-Apr-05, 11:30 PM
By comparing the base figure, 187.5 cm-3/pc, times the specified small integer multiplier, to the dispersion measurement given for each Fast Radio Burst.

Jens
2017-Apr-06, 12:19 AM
Yeah, that's what I thought. It's bad statistics unfortunately. The reason is that it will work with the first one, but the higher the number gets, the closer you're going to get by percentage. Just to illustrate, since 187.5 is the number we're looking at, half of that is 93.75, so for example, any number that is a multiple of 187.5 with 93.75 added to it is going to fall right in the middle.

So for example,
187.5 + 93.75 = 281.25

and

1500 + 93.75 = 1593.75

So even though both of those numbers are splat in the middle, i.e. not clustered, the figure you will get for the first is:

0.66 or 0.75 (depending on whether you go to the lower one or the higher one)

while for the second you get:

0.94 or 0.94.

So even if the number is splat in the middle, you're still going to get a match.

What you need to do is do something like this. All numbers will be within 93.25 of a hit. So half of numbers should statistically be within about 46, and a quarter will be within 23. If you find numbers that are within 10, then you're getting something significant.

But another problem is that this is just a statistical thing, it's not like they're quantized.

01101001
2017-Apr-06, 12:32 AM
DM, dispersion measure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)), unit is parsec per cubic centimeter, no? What is this "cm-3/parsec"? You mean cm-3/parsec? Or parsec x cm-3?

Ross 54
2017-Apr-06, 01:37 AM
Yeah, that's what I thought. It's bad statistics unfortunately. The reason is that it will work with the first one, but the higher the number gets, the closer you're going to get by percentage. Just to illustrate, since 187.5 is the number we're looking at, half of that is 93.75, so for example, any number that is a multiple of 187.5 with 93.75 added to it is going to fall right in the middle.

So for example,
187.5 + 93.75 = 281.25

and

1500 + 93.75 = 1593.75

So even though both of those numbers are splat in the middle, i.e. not clustered, the figure you will get for the first is:

0.66 or 0.75 (depending on whether you go to the lower one or the higher one)

while for the second you get:

0.94 or 0.94.

So even if the number is splat in the middle, you're still going to get a match.

What you need to do is do something like this. All numbers will be within 93.25 of a hit. So half of numbers should statistically be within about 46, and a quarter will be within 23. If you find numbers that are within 10, then you're getting something significant.

But another problem is that this is just a statistical thing, it's not like they're quantized.


Using the methodology you recommend, there appear to be six FRBs that have dispersion measurement values worth noting They are:


Name........... Numerical difference from a true multiple of 187.5

FRB 010621........... 5

FRB 121102........... 5.5

FRB 140514........... 0.2

FRB 110627........... 3.5

FRB 110220........... 6.88

FRB 010724........... 0.0

Ross 54
2017-Apr-06, 01:46 AM
DM, dispersion measure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)), unit is parsec per cubic centimeter, no? What is this "cm-3/parsec"? You mean cm-3/parsec? Or parsec x cm-3?

As I understand it, the dispersion measure describes the way radio waves are delayed by their passage through space. This reportedly varies by frequency. Centimeters to the minus 3 exponent, divided by the distance in parsecs.

01101001
2017-Apr-06, 03:20 AM
Using the methodology you recommend, there appear to be six FRBs that have dispersion measurement values worth noting [...]

Wikipedia: Cherry picking (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherry_picking)


Choosing to make selective choices among competing evidence, so as to emphasize those results that support a given position, while ignoring or dismissing any findings that do not support it, is a practice known as "cherry picking" and is a hallmark of poor science or pseudo-science.
— Richard Somerville

01101001
2017-Apr-06, 03:29 AM
As I understand it, the dispersion measure describes the way radio waves are delayed by their passage through space. This reportedly varies by frequency. Centimeters to the minus 3 exponent, divided by the distance in parsecs.

Got a citation for that?

I gave you mine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)) that uses parsecs per cubic centimeter.


[...] with units of parsecs per cubic centimetre [...]

Edit: Your own source, Wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast_radio_burst), labels the DM column as pc.cm-3.

Jens
2017-Apr-06, 03:39 AM
DM, dispersion measure (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_(optics)), unit is parsec per cubic centimeter, no? What is this "cm-3/parsec"? You mean cm-3/parsec? Or parsec x cm-3?

I think he's just pasting the values from the table, and the table legend says it is: "DM [cm-3 pc]".

01101001
2017-Apr-06, 05:58 AM
I think he's just pasting the values from the table, and the table legend says it is: "DM [cm-3 pc]".

Yes. I understand where the OP mistake comes from.

I don't understand where the OP defense of the mistake comes from.