Talk:Fast radio burst/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Just FYI, this page should direct to "fast radio bursts" and not Lorimer bursts. Although when there was only one they were called Lorimer bursts the convention was changed in the Thornton et al paper (ie once there was a second discovered) to call them FRBs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.41.179.94 (talk) 11:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22lorimer+burst%22
• http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22fast+radio+burst%22
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22fast+radio+burst%22
• http://www.google.com/search?q=%22lorimer+burst%22

Per WP:COMMONNAME, we should use the name most commonly used in reliable sources, which seems to say the name is correct. This might change in the future, judging from the use in the wild. Opinions? Paradoctor (talk) 12:08, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

FWIW, my first search was "Fast Radio Bursts". There's a lot of sources calling it that. Kleuske (talk) 15:26, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22lorimer+bursts%22+OR+%22lorimer+burst%22

http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=%22fast+radio+bursts%22+OR+%22fast+radio+burst%22

This not only reverses the impression from the singular results, it also clarified the origin of "Lorimer burst". Editing right away, sir! Paradoctor (talk) 16:41, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Are FRBs anything like Rotating radio transients ? Has there been anything published - or is it OR ? - Rod57 (talk) 12:30, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

arXiv:1404.2934 fig 3 shows RRATs have lower DMs and seem to be irregular pulsars from our galaxy. - Rod57 (talk) 10:57, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Fast radio bursts: search sensitivities and completeness discusses both and looks like a good source for corrected data for the table. - Rod57 (talk) 11:50, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The German article has a lot of sources. They seem to feel that there is scientific consensus that FRBs are extragalactic, though I'd take that with a grain of salt. Paradoctor (talk) 12:10, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I've found one interpretation that contests the idea that FRB's are extragalactic, so the consensus seems to be that they are. I think Harvard-Smithsonian researchers have a good point when they say that distance estimates based on dispersion assume a certain density of the medium travelled through, and if that medium is much denser (as in a flare), this would also explain said dispersion. But that's just my opinion and i'm no physicist. The German article is well worth reading, though. Thanks for the pointer. Kleuske (talk) 10:28, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Can we write that "The distribution of FRB's are not connected to the disc of the Milky Way, which suggests that the sources are not in our galaxy". Is this true? It would be very interesting if there is a concentration of FRB's in the direction of the disc or not. This was a very important clue in the search for the nature of GRB's.--BIL (talk) 21:58, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

The Dispersion Measure of each FRB seems important - we could add a table of all known FRBs with coordinates and DM etc. - Rod57 (talk) 00:26, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I am adding a table. One issue I have is the start time is all over the place. One paper uses the time the signal sweeps 1581.804688 MHz, another one extrapolated to when it is at infinity, and another at 1500 MHz. 1500MHz seems to be around the top of come recordings, but they do not all go that far. (Opinion the Hippke paper should all extrapolate the start times to infinite frequency to negate the effect of dispersion. Converting to 1500 MHz is a bit arbitrary. The signals take a few hundred milliseconds to sweep through the radio telescope passband, so the effect of picking an arbitrary frequency is a good fraction of a second or more. If this was not taken into account and all the signals started on the second boundary, middle fig 5 would show a correlation.) Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:35, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Good table. So we can make the columns sortable the top 2 rows could be merged in to single cell headings. And we can add a column for notes (eg which is Lorimer burst, its alternative name, and which recorded at Arecibo, and multiple refs for the data - hopefully at least one published ref per FRB). BTW Lorimer burst estimated as 30 Jy +/- 10). I'll start on the easy stuff. I'm happy to do more. Anyway - great start. - Rod57 (talk) 10:23, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Your new ref 13 seems unconnected - Would ref 4 : Thornton-2013 do ? - Rod57 (talk) 11:20, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

I made a typo, it would likely be the same, but you should verify before merging. There are two Thornton publications in 2013. (GB)

Made sortable - Rod57 (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

Dates will have to go to YYYY/MM/DD format to sort. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2015 (UTC)

One of the Lorimer refs uses the wrong Arxiv ref : 0709.4201 - Rod57 (talk) 09:14, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

The Hippke preprint and other sources identify the original Lorimer burst as 010724 whilst the Lorimer 2007 paper says it occurred on 24 August 2001 (hence should be FRB 010824 ?) - Any thoughts ? - Rod57 (talk) 19:45, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

We should call it what others call it, even if the basis for the name is wrong. Though at least two authors have used the alternate number you suggest. arXiv:1403.2263 and arXiv:1409.5516 Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:57, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Thornton 2013 supplementary materials note 9 says 010724 is a correction "to the original paper" - Maybe Lorimer 2007 gave it wrong ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:07, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

An anonymous editor contributed a reference to this paper, discussing the FRB's observed at Parks Observatory. The editor changed the article to say that, based on this paper, FRB's are caused my opening microwave oven doors and hence FRB's are artificial. However the paper states (in the abstract) "Now that the peryton source has been identified, we furthermore demonstrate that the microwaves on site could not have caused FRB 010724. This and other distinct observational differences show that FRBs are excellent candidates for genuine extragalactic transients."
Since the changes did not reflect the abstract of the source provided, I have reverted this edit. Nvertheless i feel it should be incorporated into the article. Any thoughts? Kleuske (talk) 10:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)

We should include the reference as our article also includes perytons. But with appropriate wording. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:35, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

I have added a sentence. But since this too is a preprint, it may be undue to give too much weight to the details yet. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 13 April 2015 (UTC)

These should be added to the table: Five new Fast Radio Bursts from the HTRU high latitude survey: first evidence for two-component bursts.

And it would be nice to get an explanation for why they believe this is the "first evidence for two-component bursts," given that our table says there was a "double pulse 5.1 ms apart" on 2012/10/02. 75.163.156.205 (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

I added them to the table but I don't know what the column with the heading DM/184.5 is so I left it blank. Please review. Thanks, BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:03, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

I added the column values, see "Dispersion measure is multiple of 187.5" section above. I don't actually want this column, and the new values destroy that theory. I see 4 added, is there still 1 out there? Or did they count the two-component as two bursts? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

The latest paper lists 5 bursts, but I saw that FRB 121002 was repeated so I omitted it. Now I realize it is the "double component" so I added it again. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:35, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Even with the values in YYYY/MM/DD format and with data-sort-type="date" in the column header the rows don't sort as desired (The name column works so it's not a huge problem). The problem may be the times in the same field. Help:Sorting#Date_sorting_problems doesn't help much - we may need to use data-sort-value="yyymmdd" in each row. - Rod57 (talk) 13:07, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Go for it! Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 13:13, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

'Fixed'! Rather than use data-sort-value="yyymmdd" in each row I've let the data sort type default to alpha which seems to do what we want. - Rod57 (talk) 13:24, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

Could somebody work this news item into the article?

http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/earth-receiving-mysterious-radio-signals-outer-space-alien-life-source-possibility-believe-1494686

I'm not knowledgeable enough to summarize it well, but I do find it fascinating. Bonomont (talk) 00:23, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Fascinating it is. However, the original paper "DISCRETE STEPS IN DISPERSION MEASURES OF FAST RADIO BURSTS" states " However, we find that FRBs tend to arrive at close to the full integer second, like man-made perytons. If this holds, FRBs would also be man-made. This can be verified, or refuted, with new FRBs to be detected." It concludes: "Failing some observational bias, the suggestive correlation with terrestrial time standards seems to nearly clinch the case for human association of these peculiar phenomena."

The "International Business Times" is getting ahead of itself and the paper the article is based on. True, the paper does not exclude extraterrestrials, but suggests an intraterrestrial (i.e. manmade) origin. However, suggesting extraterrestrial communications sells more papers. The point the original paper makes, is well worth including, though. I'll see to it. Kleuske (talk) 10:02, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The original paper is only a preprint, and not yet published by a publisher. It has been interpreted by others pushing the limits up to "aliens confirmed to exist". Though I agree with Kleuske. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:25, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

I didn't notice the paper has not yet been published. Thanks. In that case, I think it's wise to wait until it has. Just checked google for news on the subject and the result is, frankly, ludicrous. Does the press ever read those original papers before jumping to (extraterrestrial) conclusions? Kleuske (talk) 13:36, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

Since its made the print media (eg 2 pages in New Scientist) and many will come to WP to find out more, we should at least note the preprint on the main article in a NPOV way ? - Rod57 (talk) 17:11, 3 April 2015 (UTC)

The middle graph of fig 5 in v2 of the Hippke preprint seems nonsensical since the top and bottom edges join and there is no apparent clustering of the times in each second. Hugely weakens their evidence for a terrestial origin ? Their other statistics on probability of multiples of 187.5 seem suspect. - Surely this is an April Fool hoax ? - Rod57 (talk) 01:08, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

If the giveaway (any good april fool prank has one) is one plot, that seems to be a very bad joke. Moreover the paper does raise a very serious question: are FRB's really extraterrestrial (even extra-galactic) or do they have some nearby source and therefore should be classified as perytons (i.e. an astronomical mirage)? If the paper has been published, it's time for a mention in the article, since it's very relevant, imho. Kleuske (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

I emailed the 3 authors and one confirmed it was not a hoax but did not allay my concerns about fig 5. I don't expect it will be published soon or without changes. - Rod57 (talk) 16:15, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

It looks like most of the news items were based on v1 of Hippke (based on 10 FRB and no mention of integer seconds). v2 includes another FRB (that does not fit the pattern so well, and adds the nonsense about integer seconds in fig 5. - Rod57 (talk) 09:02, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

For integer second stuff, I think a proper statistical analysis is required before anyone can say it is significant. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Bad idea to include the DM/187.5 column (added by Titus) in the main FRB table - This at the moment looks like unpublished trivia/coincidence based on low numbers. I propose we delete the DM/187.5 column - Rod57 (talk) 12:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it is premature to have that column, instead expand on the sentence I wrote about it. Should we add fluence in Jy.ms to the table? Graeme Bartlett (talk) 21:12, 6 April 2015 (UTC)

Could do, or galactic latitude (to allow interpretation of DM), or SNR (some are barely over the search criteria of 9). ? - Rod57 (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

Now that someone has deleted the text about DM/187.5 the column is unexplained. I'd rather delete the column but put back a very brief mention of this speculation (with ref) (for anyone who comes looking for it). - Rod57 (talk) 13:36, 4 December 2015 (UTC)

The article says "Closely related to FRBs are perytons...". Are they really closely related? Perytons may have once been confused with FRBs, but they don't seem closely related to me. Bubba73 ^{You talkin' to me?} 05:03, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Right. I deleted that. Thanks. BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:46, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

They should get a mention, but not saying closely related, instead that their signal resembles the FRB. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:36, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

They are mentioned in the section: "Further developments". BatteryIncluded (talk) 12:26, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

This was in the news today:

Washington Post: "The cosmic hunt for Fast Radio Bursts just got a surprising new twist"

based on this paper published in Nature: A repeating fast radio burst

Zyxwv99 (talk) 22:38, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you want to go ahead and create an entry for FRB 121102? Kortoso (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

FRB 121102 is already in the table. The update requires a note stating the observation of 10 repeat bursts of similar quality and direction. BatteryIncluded (talk) 02:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

a blog says its from a "low galactic latitude" ie possibly behind a cloud within our galaxy.

It would be great to add a galactic-latitude column to the table. (most of the primary refs report this item) - Rod57 (talk) 11:10, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The full text article can be accessed free through the BBC News link at: [1]

It is also interesting that Phil Plait explains this as an "indirect detection of dark missing matter": [2].

Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 20:18, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Ummm.... I hate to rain on your parade, but what was found is not dark matter, but the "missing half" refers to ionized baryons of the intergalactic medium.

The dispersion measure and redshift, in combination, provide a direct measurement of the cosmic density of ionized baryons in the intergalactic medium of ΩIGM equals 4.9 ± 1.3 per cent, in agreement with the expectation from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe12, and including all of the so-called missing baryons.

— "The host galaxy of a fast radio burst", Nature.com

See also "The Search for the Missing Baryons at Low Redshift", J.N. Bregman, 2007.

Nevertheless, it's an important finding. Cheers, Kleuske (talk) 11:15, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

This burst is notable because it looks to have a long duration radio ourburst, a GRB and an optical counterpart galaxy identified. In an old galaxy it strengthens the case for twin black hole merger as the cause. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:08, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no doubts whatsoever concerning notability. The burst is a notable phenomenon, beyond the shadow of a doubt. However, the conclusion drawn from the data talks about "ordinary" baryonic matter in the intergalactic medium, not dark matter. Kleuske (talk) 14:07, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I changed "dark" matter for "missing" matter. Thx. BatteryIncluded (talk) 14:17, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Quoting: "Circular polarization was around 0". Does it mean it had no circular polarization?. Thx. BatteryIncluded (talk) 01:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

correct. That is from the nature paper. It was measured, but around 0% with an error margin. There was some linear polarization. If the variation with frequency was measured it would determine the magnetic field along the beam. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

For the benefit of those of us (including myself) who do not understand density expressed as a percentage e.g. "ΩIGM equals 4.9 ± 1.3 per cent", it would be helpful in understanding the significance of this number to point to an article which explains it further. Does it mean that about 5 percent of all barions in space are ionized, that 5 percent of space contains ionized baryons, or ... ??? Article is supposed to be helpful to non-specialists. Twang (talk) 00:02, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

While I'm at it, there are other potential confusions. The phrase "a high-energy astrophysical phenomenon manifested as a transient radio pulse" for example: I don't ordinarily think of radio pulses as high-energy. The average reader might want to know how this energy compares to GRB's, for example. (30 Janskys is 'high-energy'??? Also, that phrase could be ... excessive.) And while I understand wanting to be unclear about specific frequencies, it might be helpful to indicate in which region of the 'radio' spectrum these pulses are being found. Twang (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Consistent with short γ-ray burst

The Nature abstract ends " The ~6-day radio transient is largely consistent with the radio afterglow of a short γ-ray burst¹³, and its existence and timescale do not support progenitor models such as giant pulses from pulsars, and supernovae. This contrasts with the interpretation⁸ of another recently discovered fast radio burst, suggesting that there are at least two classes of bursts." - Rod57 (talk) 05:07, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

Another take on the possible sources: [3]. Cheers, BatteryIncluded (talk) 06:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC)

since no gamma ray burst was detected, this is just a maybe type statement. If there is more detections of 6 day transients connected to FRB and GRB then it might be proved. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 07:28, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Originating galaxy questioned

See Missing matter still lost, as Fast Radio Burst not quite what it seems say researchers. so we may need to qualify the paragraph in the article. - Rod57 (talk) 13:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you. Berger's paper is at arXiv [4]. It states that the 'afterglow' was unrelated to FRB 150418. Berger even claims that his review denies a cosmological origin. Written days after the Keane's paper, is not peer reviewed yet, so we don't have to act fast.BatteryIncluded (talk) 15:11, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, his paper was peer reviewed; the "afterglow" was a flickering black hole not associated with the fast radio burst. Editing the entry now. BatteryIncluded (talk) 00:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

FRB131104 possibly associated with GRB seen by Swift says [5]. Not clear when in GRB interval the FRB occurred. - Rod57 (talk) 13:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

What does that mean? Sounds like a biased opinion.

At any rate, I support moving the ET speculation mentions so they are grouped together. Whether they are true or not (they can't all be true!), at least the types of explanations with be easier to process by the reader.Kortoso (talk) 17:29, 4 April 2017 (UTC)

Someone wrote into this wikipedia article, without providing any footnotes, that the FRB's are between 1.6 and 17 Billion light-years away. That someone is he himself assuming DM is caused by deep space electrons using n=DM/L which is an equation which does not even hold in extremely rarefied deep space such as in Void regions. The DM'S are probably mostly simply intrinsic, and thus not a good indicator of distance at all. Those distance figures should be removed from wikipedia unless footnotes are provided. 47.201.178.44 (talk) 03:02, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I deleted the unsourced distance. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 15:09, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Licorne/Archive#04_January_2018. - DVdm (talk) 18:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

Someone should mention the principle that the source of a quickly changing radiation must be smaller than the time of change multiplied by the speed of light; for 5 ms smaller than 1500 km, which is the reason for suggesting neutron stars or black hole. What is that principle called?--BIL (talk) 14:38, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether there is a name for it. The argument is probably mentioned in one of the papers discussing possible explanations for the bursts. Paradoctor (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2014 (UTC)

I've been looking for just that, but I haven't been able to find any such mention. Though it sounds plausible to me, i am not a physicist. Perhaps it's best to remove that claim until someone can actually back it up? Kleuske (talk) 10:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

If you think it is plausible, and nobody else objects, then there is no harm in leaving it in. I recall the same argument being made for quasars, so I think it is reasonable to assume that a source will eventually be provided. Paradoctor (talk) 11:35, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

On the telecommunications Project page there is a related question about antennas for electromagnetic radiation being about the same size as the wavelength. Those smaller than the wavelength become inefficient. However in general this is not actually true. Think of the equipment needed to make an attosecond duration x-ray pulse. This is actually quite big, and likely has a dispersive element to pile up the energy into one pulse. But there will have to be something that coordinates the large source to synchronise it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:55, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Fireflies use phase locking to synchronize their strobing, no command center needed. Synchronize firing, and you can build arbitrarily large sources producing pulses as short as the individual emitters can manage. So, with a little patience and a lot of money, you could coax the Andromeda galaxy into becoming the largest silver screen in the universe. Take that, Disaster Area. Paradoctor (talk) 21:16, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

AFAIK, that's their lightshow. Kleuske (talk) 11:11, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

I am pretty sure that the diameter of the firefly cloud measured by the light travel time is way less than the flash duration. But I think we had better actually look for some references. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:07, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I mentioned them because they show that you do not need central control to establish synchonization. Put fireflies all over Yggdrasil, and you get a source producing pulses far shorter than its light travel time. That is, assuming that Yggdrasil is far taller than a light-second. Paradoctor (talk) 03:09, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

I've tried to run that as a thought experiment (The Yggdrasil/firefly example), but I arrive at expanding (at less than the speed of light) concentric circles. Kleuske (talk) 09:13, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

If you assume the emitters to be ideally omnidirectional, each individual pulse consists of a thin spherical shell of photons expanding at c, each with a different center, so what you describe is not possible. You need to take into account that the signal that arrives at the observer is the sum of individual pulses. The pulses overlap only if every emitter i fires at time -L_i/c, assuming that the pulse arrives at time 0 at the observer, with L_i the distance from the emitter to the observer. Note that other observers will be at different distances to the emitters, and will hence not get overlapping pulses. HTH Paradoctor (talk) 10:33, 16 July 2014 (UTC)

Thought experiments aside (as interesting as they are), I've rephrased the statement and added a source. Is everybody happy with that? Kleuske (talk) 11:16, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

I found a name of the principle I asked for, and a Wikipedia article. Causality (physics). This way we can read about it and not discuss original research here. --BIL (talk) 19:40, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

This is NOT a result of causality. Causality tells us that, barring careful pre-arrangement, the cause of two events, such as the cause of sudden emission of light, is itself speed of light limited. But that does not necessarily cause spread in signal time: if a common cause of light emission occurs at the center of a sphere, then every point on that sphere can emit light at the same time without violating causality. So causality does not necessarily impose any limit on the size of a light source from its duration.

The mechanism by which limited signal duration informs us of the size of the source is that different parts of the source will be at slightly different distances from Earth, and so the more distant sources will take longer to reach us. If every point on a sphere simultaneously emits an instantaneous flash of light, the light from the nearest part will reach us at a time R/c sooner than light from the horizon (R is the object’s radius and c is the speed of light). This would spread out the time at which that signal is observed from instantaneous to a signal lasting a time R/c. Thus, the duration of a short signal roughly limits the size of the emitter.

The limit is rough because the amount of spread also depends on the geometry of the source and it’s orientation to Earth, which can make the signal last less than R/c. (Example: all emission simultaneous in a ring face-on to Earth would result in zero signal spread.) It's also influenced by causality-limited differences in time of emission that can increase or decrease the signal duration. (Example: cause of the light emission is closer to the part of the body further from Earth. The effects of that cause are speed of light limited, so the part of the body nearer to Earth starts emitting later than the far part, so the signal spreads less than R/c, and can have 0 spread. Conversely, if the cause of the flash is at the close part of the emitter, the time spread is greater.) These effects average out when looking at a population of sources. (I'm a Ph.D. physicist, but not a specialist in FRBs.) Pulu (talk) 23:25, 30 August 2018 (UTC)

User:Pulu Do we have a wikiedia article explaining this topic, as I could not find it before. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:39, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

User:Graeme Bartlett There's the Speed_of_light#Distance_measurement page, which would provide an accurate though oblique answer about the relationship between travel time and ranging.

Also note, the short duration of the pulse not only limits the size of the source, it also limits the size of any surrounding plasma that scatters that that signal (a "dispersive region"). A cloud that scatters the signal would broaden the duration of that signal through dispersion, and there are arguments ("Fast Radio Burst Pulse Widths, Scattering and Distances") that a "dispersive region" would have to be close to the source and very compact--less than 10 AU "A Repeating Fast Radio Burst". So there's a co-mingling of limits between the size of the FRB's region of emission and the size of any cloud of plasma surrounding them, requiring both be compact. It seem the literature mostly discusses the size of the dispersive region. Pulu (talk) 20:40, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Note to self and others: "Fast Radio Bursts Might Come From Nearby Stars". Kleuske (talk) 11:18, 22 July 2014 (UTC)

Possible, though it looks like the field strongly suspects they're extragalactic. "high Galactic latitudes indicated that their sources were at cosmological distances." Fast Radio Burst Pulse Widths, Scattering and Distances Also references 1-8 here suggest they're at extragalactic distances: A Repeating Fast Radio Burst. Pulu (talk) 20:55, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Chatterjee's exact words are "appears to be co-located". This exact wording belongs in wikipedia to make it clear that 121102 might not be associated with that galaxy 3 billion l-yr away. Remember 150418 was reported in Nature to be associated with a galaxy 6 billion l-yr away which proved to be false. Chatterjee is cautious about 121102, and wikipedia should include his exact words. 47.201.178.44 (talk)

The poster above has now been blocked. But if anyone wants to consider the issue they can. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 02:23, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

This article currently reads: "thought to be co-located". It implies a degree of uncertainty, and in my opinion, no change is needed. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 21:38, 4 September 2018 (UTC)

Seems that one idea being explored is that some FRBs might be the result of a black hole encountering a dead star that has collapsed and (briefly) reigniting fusion. If so then it could also account for other features including repeating bursts as the same star might produce multiple events as it gets shredded again and again (or different parts of it each time). Essentially not every event generates a burst and it would also account for longer duration bursts as well potentially due to interactions with the magnetic fields and "spinning up" of hyper-dense material around the event horizon.

The idea of a dead star being reignited by a black hole is from ^[1] and might also be linked to gamma ray bursts which have also been observed from the same location as FRBs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.233.90.231 (talk) 09:17, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Please sign all your talk page messages with four tildes (~~~~) — See Help:Using talk pages. Thanks.

Not a wp:reliable source: "Science writer at Gizmodo | I like physics and eating" ... is probably not sufficient for Wikipedia. Blogs usually don't qualify. - DVdm (talk) 09:22, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

I agree with DVdm: fringe and unreliable sourcing. Only blogs from recognized experts may be considered. Cheers, Rowan Forest (talk) 14:59, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Agree with DVdm, this is not a WP:RS. David J Johnson (talk) 15:13, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback. I am also examining the unlikely possibility that FRBs may actually be aliens using micro-wormholes to send signals across extragalactic distances. In fact this is actually a viable explanation as any other, though requires a leap of faith. It is possible that a sufficiently advanced civilisation (Type II) may be capable of manipulating space-time and thus overcoming the normal limitations that prevent the formation of an Einstein-Rosen bridge even on the microscopic level by utilising exotic matter and an existing wormhole as has been suggested by various scientists.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.3.100.30 (talk) 03:25, 8 March 2019 (UTC) 😊

Once again, this is all unsigned, unreferenced, comment and unless there are reliable, secondary, sources; none of this speculation should be posted on Wikipedia. David J Johnson (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2019 (UTC)

"Although the exact origin and cause is uncertain, they are almost definitely extragalactic. ... The origin of the FRBs has yet to be identified; proposals for their origin range from a rapidly rotating neutron star and a black hole, to extraterrestrial intelligence." in the lead seems to partially contradict the two localisations in the next paragraph. Could someone who understands this please try to make the lead more coherent? Espresso Addict (talk) 05:06, 30 June 2019 (UTC)

FRB 181112 was mysteriously unaffected after passing through the Halo of an intervening galaxy. https://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2019/09/30/one-cosmic-mystery-sheds-light-on-another-as-fast-radio-burst-passes-through-a-galactic-halo/#15d31a55e133 47.201.187.246 (talk) 03:11, 12 October 2019 (UTC).