Webb telescope

a-supernova-caused-the-boat-gamma-ray-burst,-jwst-data-confirms

A supernova caused the BOAT gamma ray burst, JWST data confirms

Still the BOAT —

But astronomers are puzzled by the lack of signatures of expected heavy elements.

Artist's visualization of GRB 221009A showing the narrow relativistic jets — emerging from a central black hole — that gave rise to the brightest gamma ray burst yet detected.

Enlarge / Artist’s visualization of GRB 221009A showing the narrow relativistic jets—emerging from a central black hole—that gave rise to the brightest gamma-ray burst yet detected.

Aaron M. Geller/Northwestern/CIERA/ ITRC&DS

In October 2022, several space-based detectors picked up a powerful gamma-ray burst so energetic that astronomers nicknamed it the BOAT (Brightest Of All Time). Now they’ve confirmed that the GRB came from a supernova, according to a new paper published in the journal Nature Astronomy. However, they did not find evidence of heavy elements like platinum and gold one would expect from a supernova explosion, which bears on the longstanding question of the origin of such elements in the universe.

As we’ve reported previously, gamma-ray bursts are extremely high-energy explosions in distant galaxies lasting between mere milliseconds to several hours. There are two classes of gamma-ray bursts. Most (70 percent) are long bursts lasting more than two seconds, often with a bright afterglow. These are usually linked to galaxies with rapid star formation. Astronomers think that long bursts are tied to the deaths of massive stars collapsing to form a neutron star or black hole (or, alternatively, a newly formed magnetar). The baby black hole would produce jets of highly energetic particles moving near the speed of light, powerful enough to pierce through the remains of the progenitor star, emitting X-rays and gamma rays.

Those gamma-ray bursts lasting less than two seconds (about 30 percent) are deemed short bursts, usually emitting from regions with very little star formation. Astronomers think these gamma-ray bursts are the result of mergers between two neutron stars, or a neutron star merging with a black hole, comprising a “kilonova.” That hypothesis was confirmed in 2017 when the LIGO collaboration picked up the gravitational wave signal of two neutron stars merging, accompanied by the powerful gamma-ray bursts associated with a kilonova.

The October 2022 gamma-ray burst falls into the long category, lasting over 300 seconds. GRB 221009A triggered detectors aboard NASA’s Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope, the Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory, and Wind spacecraft, among others, just as gamma-ray astronomers had gathered for an annual meeting in Johannesburg, South Africa. The powerful signal came from the constellation Sagitta, traveling some 1.9 billion years to Earth.

Several papers were published last year reporting on the analytical results of all the observational data. Those findings confirmed that GRB 221009A was indeed the BOAT, appearing especially bright because its narrow jet was pointing directly at Earth. But the various analyses also yielded several surprising results that puzzled astronomers. Most notably, a supernova should have occurred a few weeks after the initial burst, but astronomers didn’t detect one, perhaps because it was very faint, and thick dust clouds in that part of the sky were dimming any incoming light.

Swift’s X-ray Telescope captured the afterglow of GRB 221009A about an hour after it was first detected.

Enlarge / Swift’s X-ray Telescope captured the afterglow of GRB 221009A about an hour after it was first detected.

NASA/Swift/A. Beardmore (University of Leicester)

That’s why Peter Blanchard of Northwestern University and his fellow co-authors decided to wait six months before undertaking their own analysis, relying on data collected during the GRB’s later phase by the Webb Space Telescope’s Near Infrared Spectrograph. They augmented that spectral data with observations from ALMA (Atacama Large Millimeter/Submillimeter Array) in Chile so they could separate light from the supernova and the GRB afterglow. The most significant finding was the telltale signatures of key elements like calcium and oxygen that one would expect to find with a supernova.

Yet the supernova wasn’t brighter than other supernovae associated with less energetic GRBs, which is puzzling. “You might expect that the same collapsing star producing a very energetic and bright GRB would also produce a very energetic and bright supernova,” said Blanchard. “But it turns out that’s not the case. We have this extremely luminous GRB, but a normal supernova.” The authors suggest that this might have something to do with the shape and structure of the relativistic jet, which was much narrower than other GRB jets, resulting in a more focused and brighter beam of light.

The data held another surprise for astronomers. The only confirmed source of heavy elements in the universe to date is the merging of binary neutron stars. But per Blanchard, there are far too few neutron star mergers to account for the abundance of heavy elements, so there must be another source. One hypothetical additional source is a rapidly spinning massive star that collapses and explodes into a supernova. Alas, there was no evidence of heavy elements in the JWST spectral data regarding the BOAT.

“When we confirmed that the GRB was generated by the collapse of a massive star, that gave us the opportunity to test a hypothesis for how some of the heaviest elements in the universe are formed,” said Blanchard. “We did not see signatures of these heavy elements, suggesting that extremely energetic GRBs like the BOAT do not produce these elements. That doesn’t mean that all GRBs do not produce them, but it’s a key piece of information as we continue to understand where these heavy elements come from. Future observations with JWST will determine if the BOAT’s ‘normal’ cousins produce these elements.”

Nature Astronomy, 2024. DOI: 10.1038/s41550-024-02237-4  (About DOIs).

A supernova caused the BOAT gamma ray burst, JWST data confirms Read More »

study:-conflicting-values-for-hubble-constant-not-due-to-measurement-error

Study: Conflicting values for Hubble Constant not due to measurement error

A long-standing tension —

Something else is influencing the expansion rate of the Universe.

This image of NGC 5468, a galaxy located about 130 million light-years from Earth, combines data from the Hubble and James Webb space telescopes.

Enlarge / This image of NGC 5468, about 130 million light-years from Earth, combines data from the Hubble and Webb space telescopes.

NASA/ESA/CSA/STScI/A. Riess (JHU)

Astronomers have made new measurements of the Hubble Constant, a measure of how quickly the Universe is expanding, by combining data from the Hubble Space Telescope and the James Webb Space Telescope. Their results confirmed the accuracy of Hubble’s earlier measurement of the Constant’s value, according to their recent paper published in The Astrophysical Journal Letters, with implications for a long-standing discrepancy in values obtained by different observational methods known as the “Hubble tension.”

There was a time when scientists believed the Universe was static, but that changed with Albert Einstein’s general theory of relativity. Alexander Friedmann published a set of equations in 1922 showing that the Universe might actually be expanding, with Georges Lemaitre later making an independent derivation to arrive at that same conclusion. Edwin Hubble confirmed this expansion with observational data in 1929. Prior to this, Einstein had been trying to modify general relativity by adding a cosmological constant in order to get a static universe from his theory; after Hubble’s discovery, legend has it, he referred to that effort as his biggest blunder.

As previously reported, the Hubble Constant is a measure of the Universe’s expansion expressed in units of kilometers per second per megaparsec. So, each second, every megaparsec of the Universe expands by a certain number of kilometers. Another way to think of this is in terms of a relatively stationary object a megaparsec away: Each second, it gets a number of kilometers more distant.

How many kilometers? That’s the problem here. There are basically three methods scientists use to measure the Hubble Constant: looking at nearby objects to see how fast they are moving, gravitational waves produced by colliding black holes or neutron stars, and measuring tiny deviations in the afterglow of the Big Bang known as the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). However, the various methods have come up with different values. For instance, tracking distant supernovae produced a value of 73 km/s Mpc, while measurements of the CMB using the Planck satellite produced a value of 67 km/s Mpc.

Just last year, researchers made a third independent measure of the Universe’s expansion by tracking the behavior of a gravitationally lensed supernova, where the distortion in space-time caused by a massive object acts as a lens to magnify an object in the background. The best fits of those models all ended up slightly below the value of the Hubble Constant derived from the CMB, with the difference being within the statistical error. Values closer to those derived from measurements of other supernovae were a considerably worse fit for the data. The method is new, with considerable uncertainties, but it did provide an independent means of getting at the Hubble Constant.

Comparison of Hubble and Webb views of a Cepheid variable star.

Enlarge / Comparison of Hubble and Webb views of a Cepheid variable star.

NASA/ESA/CSA/STScI/A. Riess (JHU)

“We’ve measured it using information in the cosmic microwave background and gotten one value,” Ars Science Editor John Timmer wrote. “And we’ve measured it using the apparent distance to objects in the present-day Universe and gotten a value that differs by about 10 percent. As far as anyone can tell, there’s nothing wrong with either measurement, and there’s no obvious way to get them to agree.” One hypothesis is that the early Universe briefly experienced some kind of “kick” from repulsive gravity (akin to the notion of dark energy) that then mysteriously turned off and vanished. But it remains a speculative idea, albeit a potentially exciting one for physicists.

This latest measurement builds on last year’s confirmation based on Webb data that Hubble’s measurements of the expansion rate were accurate, at least for the first few “rungs” of the “cosmic distance ladder.” But there was still the possibility of as-yet-undetected errors that might increase the deeper (and hence further back in time) one looked into the Universe, particularly for brightness measurements of more distant stars.

So a new team made additional observations of Cepheid variable stars—a total of 1,000 in five host galaxies as far out as 130 million light-years—and correlated them with the Hubble data. The Webb telescope is able to see past the interstellar dust that has made Hubble’s own images of those stars more blurry and overlapping, so astronomers could more easily distinguish between individual stars.

The results further confirmed the accuracy of the Hubble data. “We’ve now spanned the whole range of what Hubble observed, and we can rule out a measurement error as the cause of the Hubble Tension with very high confidence,” said co-author and team leader Adam Riess, a physicist at Johns Hopkins University. “Combining Webb and Hubble gives us the best of both worlds. We find that the Hubble measurements remain reliable as we climb farther along the cosmic distance ladder. With measurement errors negated, what remains is the real and exciting possibility that we have misunderstood the Universe.”

The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 2024. DOI: 10.3847/2041-8213/ad1ddd  (About DOIs).

Study: Conflicting values for Hubble Constant not due to measurement error Read More »