Decelerating Blast Waves: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
Emma Platts (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
|LFRadioCounterpart = Yes <br/>(excl. self absorption) | |LFRadioCounterpart = Yes <br/>(excl. self absorption) | ||
|HFRadioCounterpart = Yes | |HFRadioCounterpart = Yes | ||
|MicrowaveCounterpart = - | |MicrowaveCounterpart = -- | ||
|THzCounterpart = - | |THzCounterpart = -- | ||
|OIRCounterpart = Prompt | |OIRCounterpart = Possible, Prompt | ||
|XrayCounterpart = Prompt | |XrayCounterpart = Prompt | ||
|GammarayCounterpart = Prompt | |GammarayCounterpart = Prompt | ||
| Line 24: | Line 24: | ||
== Model Description == | == Model Description == | ||
In this model, FRBs are generated from forward shocks of blast waves decelerating into the previously decelerated waves. An example of these blast waves are flare ejecta from young magnetars | In this model, FRBs like that of FRB 121102 are generated from forward shocks of blast waves decelerating into the previously decelerated waves. An example of these blast waves are flare ejecta from young magnetars. | ||
== Observational Constraints == | == Observational Constraints == | ||
The ejected magnetar material produces a persistent radio source, and a source of high local dispersion measure and high rotation measure. The flares are expected to produce prompt gamma-ray, X-ray and possibly optical flares. | |||
== Consistency with Observations == | |||
Arecibo telescope and the Robert C. Byrd GreenBank Telescope (GBT) have spent a total of ∼20 hrs observing the remnants of six GRBs (5 long and 1 short) with evidence of having a central magnetar similar to a magnetar that is assumed to powers FRB 121102 (Yunpeng Men et al. 2019). No FRBs were observed from these remnants. The probability of non-detection of FRBs akin to FRB 121102 is 8.9×10−6, which challenges the young magnetar model. The theory is not ruled out though: recent localizations of FRB 180924 (Bannister et al. 2019) and FRB 190523 (Ravi et al. 2019) suggest that the host galaxy of FRB is abnormal for repeating FRBs. | |||
Latest revision as of 06:48, 6 September 2019
| 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 | |||||||
| Shock Interaction | Magnetar | Repeat | Thin shell | Synch. Maser | Yes (excl. self absorption) |
Yes | -- | -- | Possible, Prompt | Prompt | Prompt | No | No | http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/2019arXiv190201866M | None |
Definitions: LF Radio (3 MHz to 3 GHz); HF Radio (3 GHz to 30 GHz); Microwave (30 to 300 GHz)
Model Description
In this model, FRBs like that of FRB 121102 are generated from forward shocks of blast waves decelerating into the previously decelerated waves. An example of these blast waves are flare ejecta from young magnetars.
Observational Constraints
The ejected magnetar material produces a persistent radio source, and a source of high local dispersion measure and high rotation measure. The flares are expected to produce prompt gamma-ray, X-ray and possibly optical flares.
Consistency with Observations
Arecibo telescope and the Robert C. Byrd GreenBank Telescope (GBT) have spent a total of ∼20 hrs observing the remnants of six GRBs (5 long and 1 short) with evidence of having a central magnetar similar to a magnetar that is assumed to powers FRB 121102 (Yunpeng Men et al. 2019). No FRBs were observed from these remnants. The probability of non-detection of FRBs akin to FRB 121102 is 8.9×10−6, which challenges the young magnetar model. The theory is not ruled out though: recent localizations of FRB 180924 (Bannister et al. 2019) and FRB 190523 (Ravi et al. 2019) suggest that the host galaxy of FRB is abnormal for repeating FRBs.