Posted by petes on September 20, 192002 at 17:10:45:
In Reply to: Re: grbs posted by Astroman on September 17, 192002 at 08:47:08:
We have started on this board so lets finish. Your logic escapes me. Neutrinos from 1987a were detected after coming 160,000 light years. There have been 5 closer supernovae in the last 1000 years. uming equivalent neutrino emission they would be more intence by the ratio of the squares of distances. These bursts are moving away beyond Earth and encountering stars. Now I have identified two possible gamma bursts from local white dwarfs caused by the 1987a neutrinos. (from the BATSE 4b catalog). But I am puzzled because at the time of 1987a, gamma ray detectors in space might have detected a gamma burst from the Sun. ( also the moon, planets and the ground beneath our feet but these very weak). So I wonder if the data was ysed properly. Things have been missed before. If there was such a burst it would be the most local one so far and surprize, surprize we are still here. Cheers. : http://killdevilhill.com/astronomychat/wwwboard.html : The collision of two neutron stars was one of the theories for the generation of GRBs as recently as last year, but has since been eliminated as having insufficient initial m to energy conversion. It would still cause a heck of an explosion, but not enough to "make" energy on the order a GRB. (This info was ped on to myself and other by Dr. Chip Meegan at the Second High Energy Astrophysics Workshop for Astronomers, held in Waikaloa Hawai'i in July, 2002.) It follows that neutrinos, even if they do interact and indeed are deflected by dense material in neutron stars, would be insufficient to be the cause. It's an interesting idea though, that neutron stars may deflect gamma rays from a GRB event and using that as a measuring stick to the neutron star. :