{"id":2976,"date":"2014-05-26T13:41:58","date_gmt":"2014-05-26T18:41:58","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/?p=2976"},"modified":"2014-05-26T19:54:38","modified_gmt":"2014-05-27T00:54:38","slug":"gamma-ray-bursts-reconstructed","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/gamma-ray-bursts-reconstructed\/","title":{"rendered":"Gamma Ray Bursts – dynamics reconstructed"},"content":{"rendered":"

Gamma ray bursts are\u00a0the most high energy events commonly observed in the universe<\/strong>, associated with\u00a0the formation of “black holes”, and creating\u00a0very high energy x-rays. \u00a0 \u00a0NASA provides good introductory information<\/a>\u00a0with a nice animation. \u00a0Satellite\u00a0instruments easily record the time and intensity of these events but can only rarely connect them a\u00a0location. \u00a0 \u00a0So they’re one of\u00a0the more\u00a0mysterious of cosmic events, also common and\u00a0occurring a few a week. \u00a0 \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

This journal entry in RNS\u00a0updates a very sketchy\u00a0old record of my 1998 study<\/a>\u00a0to demonstrate an\u00a0“Application of the Physics of Happening<\/a>” using my powerful\u00a0new analytical method\u00a0called “derivative reconstruction<\/a>“, for exposing the active dynamics of phenomena of all kinds, that may be hidden in noisy data. \u00a0It was published with other new techniques in 1999 as Features of derivative continuity in shape<\/a>,<\/span>\u00a0<\/i>in IJPRAI.\u00a0<\/em><\/p>\n

The 1998 gamma ray burst study was of the data from NASA you see in the figure below, called “BATSE Trigger #551”, using the 6494 points recording gamma rays in Energy Levels 3 & 4, chosen for being less noisy. \u00a0 The object is to reveal the detailed shape of any\u00a0underlying continuous processes involved, as seen in the second figure. \u00a0\u00a0\u00a0 To date, it seems, gamma ray bursts like this are only understood as statistical events, like “bursts of noise”, instead of as dynamic events with continuous processes .<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
BATSE Gamma Ray Burst Trigger #551. Energy Levels 3 & 4<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

You can see below the clear dynamics of the first of the three major burst events in the record, consisting of a sudden rise without evident developmental processes, followed by an abrupt shift to declining by a regular “S” curve progression, of the decline first speeding up and then slowing down. \u00a0That connection of two highly differing dynamics is something like the “bursting of a bubble”, with the breach of the containment and the release of the pressure having very differing dynamics. \u00a0 That analogy may not apply to black holes, of course, but understanding two different\u00a0dynamics is likely\u00a0important to understanding what is physically occurring.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a>
Overlay of the Six Subsets of the data, with the 3rd derivatives regulated to expose the implied continuities the same way<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The other highly noticeable shape exposed is\u00a0an apparently\u00a0fairly regular 3 millisecond fluctuation in the cosmic gamma ray background<\/a>. \u00a0 \u00a0As to whether is a feature of the data or of the analysis, one can see it is both<\/em> <\/span>quite regular and irregular enough. \u00a0The regularized curves are\u00a0shown in six colors, each one representing the same derivative regularization applied to a different subset containing concurrent 1\/6th’s of the whole data. \u00a0The vertical lines mark minima for every fluctuation in each of the regularized subsets.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

\"\"
A Micro-Burst<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

Here is an enlargement of the ~10 millisecond \u201cMicro-Burst\u201d seen from millisecond 70 to 80 with\u00a0explicitly recognizable continuities\u00a0of multiple kinds, the evidence of probably being useful for investigating what is happening. \u00a0 \u00a0In the raw data, if you look, there’s no visible indication\u00a0of any local event at that time at all, but here it’s show having the same shape in all six of the independent subsets of the raw data!<\/p>\n

You can also clearly see that all six subsets display the same fluctuations, varying in scale but having minima\u00a0at almost the very same times. \u00a0So we can conclude that the fine scale time and scale alignments,\u00a0from several independent partitions of the same data,\u00a0establishes that the\u00a0shapes are coming from the data.<\/p>\n

We naturally then ask:\u00a0What are those events we seem not to have seen before? \u00a0 \u00a0There might be new ways to classify the whole family of gamma ray bursts by their dynamic shapes, for example. The visible shifts in dynamics, from abrupt to regularly\u00a0proportional, probably corresponds to some previously unstudied black hole collapse phenomena. \u00a0The more or less continual\u00a0background fluctuation represents an apparently real underlying variation in the number of gamma rays getting to the detectors, from all sources. \u00a0 That it is also superimposed on the bursts themselves \u00a0seems to raise a totally new set of questions about the space inbetween.<\/p>\n

_____________<\/p>\n

\u201cDerivative reconstruction<\/a>\u201d is designed\u00a0is isolate underlying continuities. \u00a0 It’s done by scanning a data sequence and successively moving points to “regularize” the flowing shapes of change implied by the surrounding points. \u00a0 That effectively stripps away only the local irregularity, the degree to which any point departs from the surrounding shape. \u00a0 So unlike a “running average” it doesn’t change the overall shape or the timing of maxima<\/span><\/em>, but largely just removes the local variation that cancels itself out (smoothing the 3rd<\/sup> derivative in 5 point consecutive point sequences).<\/p>\n

What determines the validity is, as always, not exactly the derivation of the method, but whether the shapes exposed are meaningful, for prompting useful new questions about the underlying processes.<\/p>\n

The real test is whether the results are useful, and that isn’t always the case, of course.<\/h4>\n

When it does work, to expose the underlying continuity of flowing processes you never expected, so<\/span><\/p>\n

you look for provocative results,\u00a0<\/span>as if pulling fish out of a river everyone says must be all mud.<\/span><\/h4>\n

There is, of course, a great deal of\u00a0astrophysics study on the subject. \u00a0 High energy cosmic background radiation research seems thoroughly\u00a0summarized in a 2011 Fermilab review<\/a>(1). \u00a0 That overview seems not to discuss\u00a0the\u00a0dynamics\u00a0of \u00a0gamma ray bursts as individual explosive events, as clearly displayed here.<\/p>\n

There’s also no mention of any\u00a0periodicity of cosmic ray background, clearly seen here as a mostly ~3 millisecond smooth fluctuation,\u00a0with some places where it’s a\u00a0~2 millisecond fluctuation. \u00a0 \u00a0A 1997\u00a0Yale <\/a>department<\/a>\u00a0of Physics paper<\/a>(2) addresses the specific subject,\u00a0using fast Fourier transform analysis (FFT) to look for periodicity in all the BATSE gamma ray burst records, reaching the\u00a0conclusion that no significant regular fluctuation was present, saying:<\/p>\n

\n

Unfortunately, no significant periodicity was uncovered in our search. We searched over a wide range of energies and over various time intervals for 20 of the brightest BATSE bursts for frequencies from 30 to 62500 Hz. Since BATSE is likely to provide the largest collecting area for a substantial length of time, and our bursts were among the brightest, our search is likely to be the best search for millisecond pulsations in GRBs for the foreseeable future.<\/p>\n

Our lack of pulsations can be explained by any of several possibilities. 1)<\/strong> First, GRBs might not contain rapidly rotating, highly magnetized neutron stars. 2)<\/strong> Second, an expanding fireball cannot significantly rotate to exhibit periodicities. 3)<\/strong> Third, even a confined burst on a highly magnetized rotating neutron star will show no pulsations if the emission is isotropic. 4)<\/strong> Fourth, the pulsation period might change rapidly compared to the duration of the burst. We cannot distinguish among these explanations. \u00a0[#’s added by JLH)<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

I might offer\u00a0a 5th possible reason. \u00a0Perhaps not having a way to sift out the signal from the noise, for isolating the underlying continuities in the data, would allow the data to be interpreted as lacking\u00a0continuities and,<\/p>\n

5)<\/strong> the local noise in the raw data might\u00a0affect the\u00a0statistical results of\u00a0FFT,<\/p>\n

__________<\/p>\n

I really would like to have others\u00a0check my results, particularly as far\u00a0as\u00a0the theory behind it goes at first. \u00a0 The general\u00a0question is\u00a0whether\u00a0this new method of\u00a0analysis tells us something new and useful or not. \u00a0 \u00a0That may be much easier to test than by duplicating my results.<\/p>\n

Duplicating my results would take considerable software development work, unfortunately. \u00a0The package of LISP routines developed for\u00a0doing the curve analysis and\u00a0drawing plots were done using a graphical database too expensive and complex for others to learn, that\u00a0no longer\u00a0supports\u00a0the earlier version lisp routines… \u00a0So I basically I basically lost all my programming work on it.<\/p>\n

The underlying theory, though, rests on mathematical methods for applying a new extension of the conservation laws as a “general law of continuity”. \u00a0\u00a0 \u00a0It originally came\u00a0from my following a hunch, and deducing that the conservation laws implied an infinite series of conservation\u00a0laws, implying strict continuity in all derivative rates of change…! \u00a0 \u00a0The\u00a0original 1995 theorem<\/a>\u00a0(see p8-12) establishes the\u00a0very useful general physics principle, that:<\/p>\n

all changing rates of energy use\u00a0begin and end with\u00a0continuity<\/h4>\n

As a limits theorem it says that systems for using\u00a0energy need to develop and subside by accumulative changes, originating in\u00a0unobservable beginnings with\u00a0successive phases of development, without change displaying\u00a0infinite or absent accelerations. \u00a0 So change using energy is restricted to some form of\u00a0“S” curve,\u00a0a non-linear process of speeding up followed by non-linear process of slowing down. \u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Of course, that is exactly what we consistently find\u00a0for energy using\u00a0processes\u00a0of all kinds.<\/h4>\n

The general exception is\u00a0when we lack the information to observe enough detail of the continuous processes implicitly underlying the information we do have, and so can represent the\u00a0subjects statistically. \u00a0 \u00a0What “derivative reconstruction” is designed to do, then, is to reinforce flowing shapes in time-series data, so the eye can look for\u00a0the recognizable shapes\u00a0required for\u00a0the continuity of natural change.<\/p>\n

I think it’ll prove very useful. \u00a0 \u00a0I’d love it if someone else would check my math.<\/p>\n

JLH<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Gamma ray bursts are\u00a0the most high energy events commonly observed in the universe, associated with\u00a0the formation of “black holes”, and creating\u00a0very high energy x-rays. \u00a0 \u00a0NASA provides good introductory information\u00a0with a nice animation. \u00a0Satellite\u00a0instruments easily record the time and intensity of these events but can only rarely connect them a\u00a0location. \u00a0 \u00a0So they’re one of\u00a0the … Continue reading Gamma Ray Bursts – dynamics reconstructed<\/span> →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_crdt_document":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[8,11,12],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-2976","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-theory","category-research","category-scitheory"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2976","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2976"}],"version-history":[{"count":10,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2976\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":2986,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2976\/revisions\/2986"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2976"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2976"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/synapse9.com\/signals\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2976"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}