A bright millisecond-duration radio burst from a Galactic magnetar - Nature.com | Canada News Media
Connect with us

Science

A bright millisecond-duration radio burst from a Galactic magnetar – Nature.com

Published

 on


  • 1.

    Kaspi, V. M. & Beloborodov, A. M. Magnetars. Annu. Rev. Astron. Astrophys. 55, 261–301 (2017).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 2.

    Olausen, S. A. & Kaspi, V. M. The McGill Magnetar Catalog. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 212, 6 (2014).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 3.

    Esposito, P. et al. A very young radio-loud magnetar. Astrophys. J. Lett. 896, 30 (2020).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 4.

    Petroff, E., Hessels, J. W. T. & Lorimer, D. R. Fast radio bursts. Astron. Astrophys. Rev. 27, 4 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 5.

    Spitler, L. G. et al. A repeating fast radio burst. Nature 531, 202–205 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 6.

    The CHIME/FRB Collaboration. CHIME/FRB detection of eight new repeating fast radio burst sources. Astrophys. J. Lett. 885, 24 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 7.

    Kumar, P. et al. Faint repetitions from a bright fast radio burst source. Astrophys. J. Lett. 887, 30 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 8.

    Fonseca, E. et al. Nine new repeating fast radio burst sources from CHIME/FRB. Astrophys. J. Lett. 891, 6 (2020).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 9.

    Lyubarsky, Y. A model for fast extragalactic radio bursts. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 442, L9–L13 (2014).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 10.

    Beloborodov, A. M. A flaring magnetar in FRB 121102? Astrophys. J. Lett. 843, 26 (2017).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 11.

    Metzger, B. D., Margalit, B. & Sironi, L. Fast radio bursts as synchrotron maser emission from decelerating relativistic blast waves. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 485, 4091–4106 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 12.

    CHIME/FRB Collaboration et al. The CHIME Fast Radio Burst Project: system overview. Astrophys. J. 863, 48 (2018).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 13.

    Palmer, D. M. A forest of bursts from SGR 1935+2154. Astron. Telegr. 13675 (2020).

  • 14.

    Israel, G. L. et al. The discovery, monitoring and environment of SGR J1935+2154. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 457, 3448–3456 (2016).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 15.

    Cordes, J. M. & Lazio, T. J. W. NE2001. I. A new model for the galactic distribution of free electrons and its fluctuations. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0207156 (2002).

  • 16.

    Yao, J. M., Manchester, R. N. & Wang, N. A new electron-density model for estimation of pulsar and FRB distances. Astrophys. J. 835, 29 (2017).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 17.

    He, C., Ng, C.-Y. & Kaspi, V. The correlation between dispersion measure and X-ray column density from radio pulsars. Astrophys. J. 768, 64 (2013).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 18.

    Kothes, R., Sun, X., Gaensler, B. & Reich, W. A radio continuum and polarization study of SNR G57.2+0.8 associated with magnetar SGR 1935+2154. Astrophys. J. 852, 54 (2018).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 19.

    Zhang, C. F. et al. A highly polarised radio burst detected from SGR 1935+2154 by FAST. Astron. Telegr. 13699 (2020).

  • 20.

    CHIME/FRB. A fast radio burst associated with a Galactic magnetar. Nature https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-020-2872-x (2020).

  • 21.

    Zhou, P. et al. Revisiting the distance, environment and supernova properties of SNR G57.2+0.8 that hosts SGR 1935+2154. Preprint at https://arxiv.org/abs/2005.03517 (2020).

  • 22.

    Mereghetti, S. et al. INTEGRAL IBIS and SPI-ACS detection of a hard X-ray counterpart of the radio burst from SGR 1935+2154. Astron. Telegr. 13685 (2020).

  • 23.

    Ridnaia, A. et al. Konus-Wind observation of hard X-ray counterpart of the radio burst from SGR 1935+2154. Astron. Telegr. 13688 (2020).

  • 24.

    Zhang, S. N. et al. Insight-HXMT X-ray and hard X-ray detection of the double peaks of the fast radio burst from SGR 1935+2154. Astron. Telegr. 13696 (2020).

  • 25.

    Zhang, S. N. et al. Geocentric time correction for Insight-HXMT detection of the X-ray counterpart of the FRB by CHIME and STARE2 from SGR 1935+2154. Astron. Telegr. 13704 (2020).

  • 26.

    Tendulkar, S. P., Kaspi, V. M. & Patel, C. Radio nondetection of the SGR 1806–20 giant flare and implications for fast radio bursts. Astrophys. J. 827, 59 (2016).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 27.

    Scholz, P. et al. Simultaneous X-ray, gamma-ray, and radio observations of the repeating fast radio burst FRB 121102. Astrophys. J. 846, 80 (2017).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 28.

    von Kienlin, A. Fermi GBM GRBs 191104 A, B, C and triggers 594534420/191104185 and 594563923/191104527 are not GRBs. GCN Circ. 26163 (2019).

  • 29.

    Ambrosi, E., D’Elia, V., Kennea, J. A. & Palmer, D. Trigger 933276: Swift detection of further activity from SGR 1935+2154. GCN Circ. 26169 (2019).

  • 30.

    Palmer, D. Trigger 933285: Swift detection of the brightest burst so far from SGR 1935+2154. GCN Circ. 26171 (2019).

  • 31.

    Pearlman, A. B., Majid, W. A., Prince, T. A., Kocz, J. & Horiuchi, S. Pulse morphology of the Galactic Center magnetar PSR J1745–2900. Astrophys. J. 866, 160 (2018).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 32.

    Hessels, J. W. T. et al. FRB 121102 bursts show complex time–frequency structure. Astrophys. J. Lett. 876, 23 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 33.

    Burgay, M. et al. Search for FRB and FRB-like single pulses in Parkes magnetar data. In Pulsar Astrophysics: the Next Fifty Years (eds Weltevrede, P. et al.) 319–321 (2018).

  • 34.

    Bera, A. & Chengalur, J. N. Super-giant pulses from the Crab pulsar: energy distribution and occurrence rate. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 490, L12–L16 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 35.

    Marcote, B. et al. A repeating fast radio burst source localized to a nearby spiral galaxy. Nature 577, 190–194 (2020).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 36.

    The CHIME/FRB Collaboration. Periodic activity from a fast radio burst source. Nature 582, 351–355 (2020).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 37.

    Patel, C. et al. PALFA single-pulse pipeline: new pulsars, rotating radio transients, and a candidate fast radio burst. Astrophys. J. 869, 181 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 38.

    Pol, N., Lam, M. T., McLaughlin, M. A., Lazio, T. J. W. & Cordes, J. M. Estimates of fast radio burst dispersion measures from cosmological simulations. Astrophys. J. 886, 135 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 39.

    Shannon, R. M. et al. The dispersion–brightness relation for fast radio bursts from a wide-field survey. Nature 562, 386–390 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 40.

    Hurley, K. et al. An exceptionally bright flare from SGR 1806–20 and the origins of short-duration γ-ray bursts. Nature 434, 1098–1103 (2005).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 41.

    Lyutikov, M. Radio emission from magnetars. Astrophys. J. Lett. 580, 65–68 (2002).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 42.

    Kumar, P., Lu, W. & Bhattacharya, M. Fast radio burst source properties and curvature radiation model. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 468, 2726–2739 (2017).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 43.

    Zhang, Y. G. et al. Fast radio burst 121102 pulse detection and periodicity: a machine learning approach. Astrophys. J. 866, 149 (2018).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 44.

    Bhandari, S. et al. The Survey for Pulsars and Extragalactic Radio Bursts—II. New FRB discoveries and their follow-up. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 475, 1427–1446 (2018).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 45.

    Ravi, V. The prevalence of repeating fast radio bursts. Nat. Astron. 3, 928–391 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 46.

    Agarwal, D. et al. A fast radio burst in the direction of the Virgo cluster. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 490, 1–8 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 47.

    Taylor, M. et al. The core collapse supernova rate from the SDSS-II Supernova Survey. Astrophys. J. 792, 135 (2014).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 48.

    Gourdji, K. et al. A sample of low-energy bursts from FRB 121102. Astrophys. J. Lett. 877, 19 (2019).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 49.

    Gajjar, V. et al. Highest frequency detection of FRB 121102 at 4–8 GHz using the Breakthrough Listen digital backend at the Green Bank Telescope. Astrophys. J. 863, 2 (2018).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 50.

    Bannister, K. W. et al. A single fast radio burst localized to a massive galaxy at cosmological distance. Science 365, 565–570 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 51.

    Ng, C. et al. CHIME FRB: an application of FFT beamforming for a radio telescope. In Proc. XXXII General Assembly and Scientific Symp. Intl Union of Radio Science (URSI GASS) J33-2 (2017).

  • 52.

    Masui, K. W. et al. Algorithms for FFT beamforming radio interferometers. Astrophys. J. 879, 16 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 53.

    Foreman-Mackey, D., Hogg, D. W., Lang, D. & Goodman, J. emcee: the MCMC hammer. Publ. Astron. Soc. Pacif. 125, 306 (2013).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 54.

    Newburgh, L. B. et al. Calibrating CHIME: a new radio interferometer to probe dark energy. Proc. SPIE 9145, 91454V (2014).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 55.

    Berger, P. et al. Holographic beam mapping of the CHIME pathfinder array. In Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes VI (eds Hall, H. J., Gilmozzi, R. & Marshall, H. K.) 99060D (SPIE, 2016).

  • 56.

    Bandura, K. et al. Canadian Hydrogen Intensity Mapping Experiment (CHIME) pathfinder. In Ground-based and Airborne Telescopes V (eds Stepp, L. M., Gilmozzi, R. & Hall, H. J.) 914522 (SPIE, 2014).

  • 57.

    Bandura, K. et al. ICE: a scalable, low-cost FPGA-based telescope signal processing and networking system. J. Astron. Instrum. 5, 1641005 (2016).


    Google Scholar
     

  • 58.

    Burn, B. J. On the depolarization of discrete radio sources by Faraday dispersion. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 133, 67–83 (1966).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 59.

    Brentjens, M. A. & de Bruyn, A. G. Faraday rotation measure synthesis. Astron. Astrophys. 441, 1217–1228 (2005).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 60.

    Sobey, C. et al. Low-frequency Faraday rotation measures towards pulsars using LOFAR: probing the 3D Galactic halo magnetic field. Mon. Not. R. Astron. Soc. 484, 3646–3664 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 61.

    Ester, M., Kriegel, H.-P., Sander, J. & Xu, X. A density-based algorithm for discovering clusters in large spatial databases with noise. In Proc. Second Intl Conf. Knowledge Discovery and Data Mining, KDD’96 (eds Simoudis, E., Han, J. & Fayyad, U.) 226–231 (AAAI, 1996).

  • 62.

    Arnaud, K. A. Xspec: the first ten years. In Astronomical Data Analysis Software and Systems V (eds Jacoby, G. & Barnes, J.) 17 (ASP, 1996).

  • 63.

    Karachentsev, I. D. & Kaisina, E. I. Star formation properties in the local volume galaxies via Hα and far-ultraviolet fluxes. Astron. J. 146, 46 (2013).

    ADS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 64.

    Jarrett, T. H. et al. The WISE Extended Source Catalog (WXSC). I. The 100 largest galaxies. Astrophys. J. Suppl. Ser. 245, 25 (2019).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • 65.

    Gehrels, N. Confidence limits for small numbers of events in astrophysical data. Astrophys. J. 303, 336–346 (1986).

    ADS 
    CAS 

    Google Scholar
     

  • Let’s block ads! (Why?)



    Source link

    Continue Reading

    News

    Here’s how Helene and other storms dumped a whopping 40 trillion gallons of rain on the South

    Published

     on

     

    More than 40 trillion gallons of rain drenched the Southeast United States in the last week from Hurricane Helene and a run-of-the-mill rainstorm that sloshed in ahead of it — an unheard of amount of water that has stunned experts.

    That’s enough to fill the Dallas Cowboys’ stadium 51,000 times, or Lake Tahoe just once. If it was concentrated just on the state of North Carolina that much water would be 3.5 feet deep (more than 1 meter). It’s enough to fill more than 60 million Olympic-size swimming pools.

    “That’s an astronomical amount of precipitation,” said Ed Clark, head of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s National Water Center in Tuscaloosa, Alabama. “I have not seen something in my 25 years of working at the weather service that is this geographically large of an extent and the sheer volume of water that fell from the sky.”

    The flood damage from the rain is apocalyptic, meteorologists said. More than 100 people are dead, according to officials.

    Private meteorologist Ryan Maue, a former NOAA chief scientist, calculated the amount of rain, using precipitation measurements made in 2.5-mile-by-2.5 mile grids as measured by satellites and ground observations. He came up with 40 trillion gallons through Sunday for the eastern United States, with 20 trillion gallons of that hitting just Georgia, Tennessee, the Carolinas and Florida from Hurricane Helene.

    Clark did the calculations independently and said the 40 trillion gallon figure (151 trillion liters) is about right and, if anything, conservative. Maue said maybe 1 to 2 trillion more gallons of rain had fallen, much if it in Virginia, since his calculations.

    Clark, who spends much of his work on issues of shrinking western water supplies, said to put the amount of rain in perspective, it’s more than twice the combined amount of water stored by two key Colorado River basin reservoirs: Lake Powell and Lake Mead.

    Several meteorologists said this was a combination of two, maybe three storm systems. Before Helene struck, rain had fallen heavily for days because a low pressure system had “cut off” from the jet stream — which moves weather systems along west to east — and stalled over the Southeast. That funneled plenty of warm water from the Gulf of Mexico. And a storm that fell just short of named status parked along North Carolina’s Atlantic coast, dumping as much as 20 inches of rain, said North Carolina state climatologist Kathie Dello.

    Then add Helene, one of the largest storms in the last couple decades and one that held plenty of rain because it was young and moved fast before it hit the Appalachians, said University of Albany hurricane expert Kristen Corbosiero.

    “It was not just a perfect storm, but it was a combination of multiple storms that that led to the enormous amount of rain,” Maue said. “That collected at high elevation, we’re talking 3,000 to 6000 feet. And when you drop trillions of gallons on a mountain, that has to go down.”

    The fact that these storms hit the mountains made everything worse, and not just because of runoff. The interaction between the mountains and the storm systems wrings more moisture out of the air, Clark, Maue and Corbosiero said.

    North Carolina weather officials said their top measurement total was 31.33 inches in the tiny town of Busick. Mount Mitchell also got more than 2 feet of rainfall.

    Before 2017’s Hurricane Harvey, “I said to our colleagues, you know, I never thought in my career that we would measure rainfall in feet,” Clark said. “And after Harvey, Florence, the more isolated events in eastern Kentucky, portions of South Dakota. We’re seeing events year in and year out where we are measuring rainfall in feet.”

    Storms are getting wetter as the climate change s, said Corbosiero and Dello. A basic law of physics says the air holds nearly 4% more moisture for every degree Fahrenheit warmer (7% for every degree Celsius) and the world has warmed more than 2 degrees (1.2 degrees Celsius) since pre-industrial times.

    Corbosiero said meteorologists are vigorously debating how much of Helene is due to worsening climate change and how much is random.

    For Dello, the “fingerprints of climate change” were clear.

    “We’ve seen tropical storm impacts in western North Carolina. But these storms are wetter and these storms are warmer. And there would have been a time when a tropical storm would have been heading toward North Carolina and would have caused some rain and some damage, but not apocalyptic destruction. ”

    ___

    Follow AP’s climate coverage at https://apnews.com/hub/climate

    ___

    Follow Seth Borenstein on Twitter at @borenbears

    ___

    Associated Press climate and environmental coverage receives support from several private foundations. See more about AP’s climate initiative here. The AP is solely responsible for all content.

    Source link

    Continue Reading

    Science

    ‘Big Sam’: Paleontologists unearth giant skull of Pachyrhinosaurus in Alberta

    Published

     on

     

    It’s a dinosaur that roamed Alberta’s badlands more than 70 million years ago, sporting a big, bumpy, bony head the size of a baby elephant.

    On Wednesday, paleontologists near Grande Prairie pulled its 272-kilogram skull from the ground.

    They call it “Big Sam.”

    The adult Pachyrhinosaurus is the second plant-eating dinosaur to be unearthed from a dense bonebed belonging to a herd that died together on the edge of a valley that now sits 450 kilometres northwest of Edmonton.

    It didn’t die alone.

    “We have hundreds of juvenile bones in the bonebed, so we know that there are many babies and some adults among all of the big adults,” Emily Bamforth, a paleontologist with the nearby Philip J. Currie Dinosaur Museum, said in an interview on the way to the dig site.

    She described the horned Pachyrhinosaurus as “the smaller, older cousin of the triceratops.”

    “This species of dinosaur is endemic to the Grand Prairie area, so it’s found here and nowhere else in the world. They are … kind of about the size of an Indian elephant and a rhino,” she added.

    The head alone, she said, is about the size of a baby elephant.

    The discovery was a long time coming.

    The bonebed was first discovered by a high school teacher out for a walk about 50 years ago. It took the teacher a decade to get anyone from southern Alberta to come to take a look.

    “At the time, sort of in the ’70s and ’80s, paleontology in northern Alberta was virtually unknown,” said Bamforth.

    When paleontogists eventually got to the site, Bamforth said, they learned “it’s actually one of the densest dinosaur bonebeds in North America.”

    “It contains about 100 to 300 bones per square metre,” she said.

    Paleontologists have been at the site sporadically ever since, combing through bones belonging to turtles, dinosaurs and lizards. Sixteen years ago, they discovered a large skull of an approximately 30-year-old Pachyrhinosaurus, which is now at the museum.

    About a year ago, they found the second adult: Big Sam.

    Bamforth said both dinosaurs are believed to have been the elders in the herd.

    “Their distinguishing feature is that, instead of having a horn on their nose like a triceratops, they had this big, bony bump called a boss. And they have big, bony bumps over their eyes as well,” she said.

    “It makes them look a little strange. It’s the one dinosaur that if you find it, it’s the only possible thing it can be.”

    The genders of the two adults are unknown.

    Bamforth said the extraction was difficult because Big Sam was intertwined in a cluster of about 300 other bones.

    The skull was found upside down, “as if the animal was lying on its back,” but was well preserved, she said.

    She said the excavation process involved putting plaster on the skull and wooden planks around if for stability. From there, it was lifted out — very carefully — with a crane, and was to be shipped on a trolley to the museum for study.

    “I have extracted skulls in the past. This is probably the biggest one I’ve ever done though,” said Bamforth.

    “It’s pretty exciting.”

    This report by The Canadian Press was first published Sept. 25, 2024.

    The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

    Source link

    Continue Reading

    News

    The ancient jar smashed by a 4-year-old is back on display at an Israeli museum after repair

    Published

     on

     

    TEL AVIV, Israel (AP) — A rare Bronze-Era jar accidentally smashed by a 4-year-old visiting a museum was back on display Wednesday after restoration experts were able to carefully piece the artifact back together.

    Last month, a family from northern Israel was visiting the museum when their youngest son tipped over the jar, which smashed into pieces.

    Alex Geller, the boy’s father, said his son — the youngest of three — is exceptionally curious, and that the moment he heard the crash, “please let that not be my child” was the first thought that raced through his head.

    The jar has been on display at the Hecht Museum in Haifa for 35 years. It was one of the only containers of its size and from that period still complete when it was discovered.

    The Bronze Age jar is one of many artifacts exhibited out in the open, part of the Hecht Museum’s vision of letting visitors explore history without glass barriers, said Inbal Rivlin, the director of the museum, which is associated with Haifa University in northern Israel.

    It was likely used to hold wine or oil, and dates back to between 2200 and 1500 B.C.

    Rivlin and the museum decided to turn the moment, which captured international attention, into a teaching moment, inviting the Geller family back for a special visit and hands-on activity to illustrate the restoration process.

    Rivlin added that the incident provided a welcome distraction from the ongoing war in Gaza. “Well, he’s just a kid. So I think that somehow it touches the heart of the people in Israel and around the world,“ said Rivlin.

    Roee Shafir, a restoration expert at the museum, said the repairs would be fairly simple, as the pieces were from a single, complete jar. Archaeologists often face the more daunting task of sifting through piles of shards from multiple objects and trying to piece them together.

    Experts used 3D technology, hi-resolution videos, and special glue to painstakingly reconstruct the large jar.

    Less than two weeks after it broke, the jar went back on display at the museum. The gluing process left small hairline cracks, and a few pieces are missing, but the jar’s impressive size remains.

    The only noticeable difference in the exhibit was a new sign reading “please don’t touch.”

    The Canadian Press. All rights reserved.

    Source link

    Continue Reading

    Trending

    Exit mobile version