Axion Quark Nugget and NS: Difference between revisions
Jake Gordin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Emma Platts (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| (One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
| Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
{{FRBTableTemplate | {{FRBTableTemplate | ||
|Category = Collision / Interaction | |Category = Collision / Interaction | ||
|Progenitor = Axion Quark | |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 == | ||
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. | |||
Latest revision as of 04:08, 12 October 2018
| Category | Progenitor | Type | Energy Mechanism | Emission Mechanism | Counterparts | References | Brief Comments | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| LF Radio | HF Radio | Microwave | Terahertz | Optical/IR | X-rays | Gamma-rays | Gravitational Waves | Neutrinos | |||||||
| Collision / Interaction | Axion Quark Nugget and NS | Repeat | Mag. reconnection | Curv. | Yes | Possible | Possible | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | -- | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/cgi-bin/bib_query?arXiv:1806.02352 | None |
Definitions: LF Radio (3 MHz to 3 GHz); HF Radio (3 GHz to 30 GHz); Microwave (30 to 300 GHz)
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. 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
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.