Axion Quark Nugget and NS - Revision history

Emma Platts at 09:08, 12 October 2018

2018-10-12T09:08:25Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:08, 12 October 2018
Line 5:		Line 5:
	{{FRBTableTemplate		{{FRBTableTemplate
	\|Category = Collision / Interaction		\|Category = Collision / Interaction
	\|Progenitor = Axion Quark ~~Nuggest~~ and NS		\|Progenitor = Axion Quark Nugget and NS
	\|Type = Repeat		\|Type = Repeat
	\|EnergyMechanism = Mag. reconnection		\|EnergyMechanism = Mag. reconnection
Line 24:		Line 24:
	== Model Description ==		== Model Description ==

	In close analogy with the axion quark nugget (AQN) mechanism for generating solar nano flares, an AQN falling through an opportunely complicated region in a NS’s magnetosphere may be able to produce sufficient magnetic energy to power FRBs. Shock waves caused by the infalling AQN would trigger magnetic reconnection, and produce a giant flare.		In close analogy with the axion quark nugget (AQN) mechanism for generating solar nano flares, an AQN falling through an opportunely complicated region in a NS’s magnetosphere may be able to produce sufficient magnetic energy to power FRBs. Shock waves caused by the infalling AQN would trigger magnetic reconnection, and produce a giant flare. The predicted event rate is consistent with observations, but the emission timescale (∼10−100 ms) is larger than what is observed. This discrepancy can be accounted for if the beam moves across the sky, allowing us only a glimpse of the emission.

	== Observational Constraints ==		== Observational Constraints ==

	The predicted event rate is consistent with observations, but the emission timescale (∼10−100 ms) is larger than what is observed. This discrepancy can be accounted for if the beam moves across the sky, allowing us only a glimpse of the emission. A curvature radiation mechanism is invoked, which predicts a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths; observed counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate this model. Given the random nature of these events, repeating FRBs would be non-periodic. A correlation between the total energy and duration of the flare is predicted, however because only a fraction of the entire beam would be observed, this relationship would be difficult to verify.		A curvature radiation mechanism is invoked, which predicts a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths; observed counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate this model. Given the random nature of these events, repeating FRBs would be non-periodic. A correlation between the total energy and duration of the flare is predicted, however because only a fraction of the entire beam would be observed, this relationship would be difficult to verify.

Emma Platts at 09:01, 12 October 2018

2018-10-12T09:01:23Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:01, 12 October 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	== Observational Constraints ==		== Observational Constraints ==

	The predicted event rate is consistent with observations, but the emission timescale (~~∼ 10 − 100~~ ms) is larger than what is observed. This discrepancy can be accounted for if the beam moves across the sky, allowing us only a glimpse of the emission. A curvature radiation mechanism is invoked, which predicts a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths; observed counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate this model. Given the random nature of these events, repeating FRBs would be non-periodic. A correlation between the total energy and duration of the flare is predicted, however because only a fraction of the entire beam would be observed, this relationship would be difficult to verify.		The predicted event rate is consistent with observations, but the emission timescale (∼10−100 ms) is larger than what is observed. This discrepancy can be accounted for if the beam moves across the sky, allowing us only a glimpse of the emission. A curvature radiation mechanism is invoked, which predicts a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths; observed counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate this model. Given the random nature of these events, repeating FRBs would be non-periodic. A correlation between the total energy and duration of the flare is predicted, however because only a fraction of the entire beam would be observed, this relationship would be difficult to verify.

Jake Gordin at 09:28, 11 October 2018

2018-10-11T09:28:46Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:28, 11 October 2018
Line 18:		Line 18:
	\|GWCounterpart = --		\|GWCounterpart = --
	\|NeutrinoCounterpart = --		\|NeutrinoCounterpart = --
	\|References = ~~https~~://~~arxiv~~.~~org~~/~~pdf~~/1806.02352~~.pdf~~		\|References = http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1806.02352
	\|Comments = None		\|Comments = None
	}}		}}

Apw: /* Observational Constraints */

2018-10-10T09:47:21Z

Observational Constraints

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:47, 10 October 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	== Observational Constraints ==		== Observational Constraints ==

	The event rate is consistent with ~~observation~~, but the emission timescale (∼ 10 − 100 ms) is larger than what is observed. This discrepancy can be accounted for if the beam moves across the sky, allowing us only a glimpse of the emission. A curvature radiation mechanism is invoked, which predicts a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths; observed counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate this model. Given the random nature of these events, repeating FRBs would be non-periodic. A correlation between the total energy and duration of the flare is predicted, however because only a fraction of the entire beam would be observed, this relationship would be difficult to verify.		The predicted event rate is consistent with observations, but the emission timescale (∼ 10 − 100 ms) is larger than what is observed. This discrepancy can be accounted for if the beam moves across the sky, allowing us only a glimpse of the emission. A curvature radiation mechanism is invoked, which predicts a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths; observed counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate this model. Given the random nature of these events, repeating FRBs would be non-periodic. A correlation between the total energy and duration of the flare is predicted, however because only a fraction of the entire beam would be observed, this relationship would be difficult to verify.

Apw: /* Observational Constraints */

2018-10-10T09:46:51Z

Observational Constraints

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:46, 10 October 2018
Line 28:		Line 28:
	== Observational Constraints ==		== Observational Constraints ==

	~~There~~ is a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths~~, and thus~~ counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate the ~~model~~.		The event rate is consistent with observation, but the emission timescale (∼ 10 − 100 ms) is larger than what is observed. This discrepancy can be accounted for if the beam moves across the sky, allowing us only a glimpse of the emission. A curvature radiation mechanism is invoked, which predicts a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths; observed counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate this model. Given the random nature of these events, repeating FRBs would be non-periodic. A correlation between the total energy and duration of the flare is predicted, however because only a fraction of the entire beam would be observed, this relationship would be difficult to verify.

Apw: /* Model Description */

2018-10-10T09:45:44Z

Model Description

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:45, 10 October 2018
Line 24:		Line 24:
	== Model Description ==		== Model Description ==

	To be ~~filled in with updated draft~~		In close analogy with the axion quark nugget (AQN) mechanism for generating solar nano flares, an AQN falling through an opportunely complicated region in a NS’s magnetosphere may be able to produce sufficient magnetic energy to power FRBs. Shock waves caused by the infalling AQN would trigger magnetic reconnection, and produce a giant flare.

	== Observational Constraints ==		== Observational Constraints ==

	There is a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths, and thus counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate the model.		There is a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths, and thus counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate the model.

Emma Platts: Created page with " {{FRBTableTemplate |Category = Collision..."

2018-10-02T13:07:23Z

Created page with "   {{FRBTableTemplate |Category = Collision..."

New page

{{FRBTableTemplate
|Category = Collision / Interaction
|Progenitor = Axion Quark Nuggest and NS
|Type = Repeat
|EnergyMechanism = Mag. reconnection
|EmissionMechanism = Curv.
|LFRadioCounterpart = Yes
|HFRadioCounterpart = Possible
|MicrowaveCounterpart = Possible
|THzCounterpart = --
|OIRCounterpart = --
|XrayCounterpart = --
|GammarayCounterpart = --
|GWCounterpart = --
|NeutrinoCounterpart = --
|References = https://arxiv.org/pdf/1806.02352.pdf
|Comments = None
}}

== Model Description ==

To be filled in with updated draft

== Observational Constraints ==

There is a maximum cut-off frequency at infra-red wavelengths, and thus counterparts with higher frequencies would invalidate the model.