Are Perytons Signatures of Ball Lightning?

Dodin, I. Y.; Fisch, Nathaniel J.

doi:10.1088/0004-637x/794/2/98

Cited by 3 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 39 publications

(89 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our simulations do not assume a far-field geometry; the telescope-source distance is left as an input parameter. We have done so to facilitate future studies of terrestrial and atmospheric transients (Danish Khan 2014; Dodin & Fisch 2014;Katz 2014), which may be of great interest to atmospheric physicists, and at the very least, form a source of foreground "confusion" to the astronomer. 3 The multi-beam receivers on the Parkes (Staveley- Smith et al 1996) and Arecibo (Cordes et al 2006) dishes have a central feed horn surrounded by an "inner ring" of six feed horns.…”

Section: Beam-pattern Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fluence and Distance Distributions of Fast Radio Bursts

Vedantham

Ravi

Hallinan

et al. 2016

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Fast radio bursts (FRB) are millisecond-duration radio pulses with apparent extragalactic origins. All but two of the FRBs have been discovered using the Parkes dish, which employs multiple beams formed by an array of feed horns on its focal plane. In this paper, we show that (i) the preponderance of multiple-beam detections and (ii) the detection rates for varying dish diameters can be used to infer the index α of the cumulative fluence distribution function (the logN-logF function: α=1.5 for a non-evolving population in a Euclidean universe). If all detected FRBs arise from a single progenitor population, multiple-beam FRB detection rates from the Parkes telescope yield the constraint 0.52<α<1.0 with 90% confidence. Searches at other facilities with different dish sizes refine the constraint to 0.5<α<0.9. Our results favor FRB searches with smaller dishes, because for α<1 the gain in field of view for a smaller dish is more important than the reduction in sensitivity. Further, our results suggest that (i) FRBs are not standard candles, and (ii) the distribution of distances to the detected FRBs is weighted toward larger distances. If FRBs are extragalactic, these results are consistent with a cosmological population, which would make FRBs excellent probes of the baryonic content and geometry of the universe.

show abstract

Section: Beam-pattern Calculationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Fluence and Distance Distributions of Fast Radio Bursts

Vedantham

Ravi

Hallinan

et al. 2016

ApJ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…It was theorized that lighting or other terrestrial atmospheric phenomena were the source of perytons (Dodin & Fisch, 2014;Katz, 2014). However, all twenty-five observed peryton bursts exhibited an additional suspicious feature; they all occurred during office hours on weekdays, and, most typically, at lunchtime.…”

Section: Epistemic Tool ≡mentioning

confidence: 97%

Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy

Patton

2019

Scientonomy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The only subtype of epistemic agent currently recognized within scientonomy is community. The place of both individuals and epistemic tools in the scientonomic ontology is yet to be clarified. This paper extends the scientonomic ontology to include epistemic agents and epistemic tools as well as their relationship to one another. Epistemic agent is defined as an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. These stances must be taken intentionally, that is, based on a semantic understanding of the epistemic element in question and its available alternatives, with reason, and for the purpose of acquiring knowledge. I argue that there can be both communal and individual epistemic agents. Epistemic agents are linked by relationships of authority delegation based on their differing areas of expertise. Having established the role of epistemic agents in the process of scientific change, I then turn to the role of epistemic tools, such as a thermometer, a text, or a particle accelerator in epistemic activities. I argue that epistemic tools play a different role in scientific change than do epistemic agents. This role is specified by an agent’s employed method. A physical object or system is an epistemic tool for some epistemic agent if there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of the agent. An agent is said to rely on such a tool. Suggested Modifications [Sciento-2019-0014]: Accept the following definition of epistemic agent: Epsitemic Agent ≡ an agent capable of taking epistemic stances towards epistemic elements. [Sciento-2019-0015]: Accept that there are two types of epistemic agents – individual and communal. Also accept the following question as a legitimate topic of scientonomic inquiry: Applicability of the Laws of Scientific Change to Individuals: do the scientonomic laws apply to individual epistemic agents? [Sciento-2019-0016]: Accept the term epistemic tool, with the following definition: Epistemic Tool ≡ a physical object or system is an epistemic tool for an epistemic agent, when there is a procedure by which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent. [Sciento-2019-0017]: Accept the following definition of authority delegation, which generalizes the currently accepted definition to apply to all epistemic agents: Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to be delegating authority over question x to epistemic agent B iff (1) agent A accepts that agent B is an expert on question x and (2) agent A will accept a theory answering question x if agent B says so. Also accept the following redefinitions of subtypes of authority delegation, including mutual authority delegation, one-sided authority delegation, singular authority delegation, multiple authority delegation, hierarchical authority delegation, and non-hierarchical authority delegation: Mutual Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of mutual authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, and B delegates authority over question y to A. One-Sided Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agents A and B are said to be in a relationship of one-sided authority delegation iff A delegates authority over question x to B, but B doesn’t delegate any authority to A. Singular Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of singular authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to exactly one epistemic agent. Multiple Authority Delegation ≡ epistemic agent A is said to engage in a relationship of multiple authority delegation over question x iff A delegates authority over question x to more than one epistemic agents. Hierarchical Authority Delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated different degrees of authority over question x. Non-Hierarchical Authority Delegation ≡ a sub-type of multiple authority delegation where different epistemic agents are delegated the same degree of authority over question x. [Sciento-2019-0018]: Accept the relationship of tool reliance can obtain between epistemic agents and epistemic tools. Accept the following definition of tool reliance: Tool Reliance ≡ an epistemic agent is said to rely on an epistemic tool when there is a procedure through which the tool can provide an acceptable source of knowledge for answering some question under the employed method of that agent.

show abstract

On formation of electromagnetic clot of high energy in plasma

Alanakyan

2017

Physics of Plasmas

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

It is known that an oscillating electromagnetic field can be localized inside a self-sustaining resonator formed in plasma. In this paper, it is shown that the Maxwell tension of the electromagnetic field can reduce the resonator volume, thereby increasing the energy density of the field considered. This results in the formation of a quasi-stationary structure of high electromagnetic energy density. A similar mechanism explains the ball lightning phenomenon.

show abstract

Are Perytons Signatures of Ball Lightning?

Cited by 3 publications

References 39 publications

The Fluence and Distance Distributions of Fast Radio Bursts

The Fluence and Distance Distributions of Fast Radio Bursts

Epistemic Tools and Epistemic Agents in Scientonomy

On formation of electromagnetic clot of high energy in plasma

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About