Distinguishing time clustering of astrophysical bursts

Denissenya, Mikhail; Grossan, B.; Linder, Eric V.

doi:10.1103/physrevd.104.023007

Cited by 8 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Our results are very different from previous studies (Grossan (2021), Denissenya et al (2021) and Zou et al (2021)), which is mostly because different studies used different burst samples. In this study, we added about 200 new bursts found in a few months Fermi/GBM data and almost one year GECAM data.…”

Section: Discussion and Summarycontrasting

confidence: 99%

“…We note that there is also a peak around 238 day, the favored period in previous studies (Denissenya et al 2021;Grossan 2021;Zou et al 2021), but the significance of the peak around 238 day is much lower than other peaks. This change on the period of 238 day is mostly caused by the inclusion of new bursts after 2021 October.…”

Section: Lomb-scargle Periodogramsupporting

confidence: 50%

“…We also collect the most recent burst samples from Fermi/GBM and all bursts detected by GECAM (Gravitational wave high-energy Electromagnetic Counterpart All-sky Monitor, Li et al 2021a;Xiao et al 2022) during its first year of observation. With more bursts covering a longer time interval than previous studies (Denissenya et al 2021;Grossan 2021;Zou et al 2021), we hope to make a better constraint on the periodicity searching. In Section 2, we present the search process and report the burst candidates.…”

mentioning

confidence: 85%

“…Therefore, it is very interesting to investigate whether the activities of SGR J1935+2154, which has emitted FRB 200428, also have a PWB. This has been studied by some previous works: Denissenya et al (2021) argued a period of 231 days, using likelihood analysis with the data of IPN from 2014 July to 2021 February; Grossan (2021) estimated a possible period of about 231 days by analyzing the observations from IPN (Interplanetary Network) instruments from 2014 July to 2020 May; Zou et al (2021) suggested that the period is about 238 days using the data of Fermi/GBM (Fermi Gamma-ray Burst Monitor) from 2014 July to 2021 October.…”

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 3 more Smart Citations

Revisit the Periodicity of SGR J1935+2154 Bursts with updated sample

Xie¹,

Cai²,

Xiong³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Since FRB 200428 has been found to be associated with an X-ray burst from the Galactic magnetar SGR J1935+2154, it is interesting to explore whether the magnetar bursts also follow the similar active periodic behavior as repeating FRBs. Previous studies show that there is possible period about 230 day in SGR J1935+2154 bursts. Here, we collected an updated burst sample from SGR J1935+2154, including all bursts reported by Fermi/GBM and GECAM till 2022 January. We also developed a targeted search pipeline to uncover more bursts from SGR J1935+2154 in the Fermi/GBM data from 2008 August to 2014 December (i.e. before the first burst detected by Swift/BAT). With this burst sample, we re-analyzed the possible periodicity of SGR J1935+2154 bursts using the Period Folding and Lomb-Scargle Periodogram methods. We caution that the observation effects may introduce false periods (such as 55, 158, 238 and 498 day), as evident in simulation tests. Finally, our results show that the most likely period is 126.88±2.05 day, which might be interpreted as the precession of the magnetar. However, we also note that the whole burst history is very complicated and difficult to be perfectly accommodated with any period reported thus far. More monitoring observations of SGR J1935+2154 are required to further test any periodicity hypothesis.

show abstract

Section: Discussion and Summarycontrasting

confidence: 99%

Section: Lomb-scargle Periodogramsupporting

confidence: 50%

mentioning

confidence: 85%

mentioning

confidence: 97%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Revisit the Periodicity of SGR J1935+2154 Bursts with updated sample

Xie¹,

Cai²,

Xiong³

et al. 2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Thus, monitoring the confirmed sources of giant flares -SGR 0526-66, 48 kpc distant, in 1979; SGR 1900+14, 6 kpc distant, in 1998; and SGR 1806-20 in 2004 -with dark matter detectors can be motivated -e.g., during hours when helioscopes cannot point the Sun -. In addition, it is striking that, although the bursts themselves are not periodic, the activity might only occur during predictable periodic intervals [61]. As a consequence, the prediction and tracking of magnetars entering an active period using dedicated axio-telescopes is not discardable.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Axion-photon multimessenger astronomy with giant flares

Miguel¹,

Otani²

2022

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We treat prospects for multimessenger astronomy with giant flares (GFs), a rare transient event featured by magnetars that can be as luminous as a hundred of the brightest supernovae ever observed. The beamed photons correlate with an axion counterpart via resonant conversion in the magnetosphere. Relying on orthodox idealizations, we find the sensitivity to galactic GFs of viable experiments g φγ 4×10 −12 GeV −1 & g φe 10 −10 at 95% confidence level over a broad mass range. We rule out the compatibility of axion flares with the recent XENON1T excess only due to the time persistence of the signal.

show abstract

SN 2020qlb: A hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova with well-characterized light curve undulations

West

Lunnan

Omand

et al. 2023

A&A

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Context. SN 2020qlb (ZTF20abobpcb) is a hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova (SLSN-I) that is among the most luminous (maximum M g = −22.25 mag) and that has one of the longest rise times (77 days from explosion to maximum). We estimate the total radiated energy to be > 2.1 × 10 51 erg. SN 2020qlb has a well-sampled light curve that exhibits clear near and post peak undulations, a phenomenon seen in other SLSNe, whose physical origin is still unknown. Aims. We discuss the potential power source of this immense explosion as well as the mechanisms behind its observed light curve undulations. Methods. We analyze photospheric spectra and compare them to other SLSNe-I. We construct the bolometric light curve using photometry from a large data set of observations from the Zwicky Transient Facility (ZTF), Liverpool Telescope (LT) and Neil Gehrels Swift Observatory and compare it with radioactive, circumstellar interaction and magnetar models. Model residuals and light curve polynomial fit residuals are analyzed to estimate the undulation timescale and amplitude. We also determine host galaxy properties based on imaging and spectroscopy data, including a detection of the [O III]λ4363, auroral line, allowing for a direct metallicity measurement. Results. We rule out the Arnett 56 Ni decay model for SN 2020qlb's light curve due to unphysical parameter results. Our most favored power source is the magnetic dipole spin-down energy deposition of a magnetar. Two to three near peak oscillations, intriguingly similar to those of SN 2015bn, were found in the magnetar model residuals with a timescale of 32 ± 6 days and an amplitude of 6% of peak luminosity. We rule out centrally located undulation sources due to timescale considerations; and we favor the result of ejecta interactions with circumstellar material (CSM) density fluctuations as the source of the undulations.

show abstract

Distinguishing time clustering of astrophysical bursts

Cited by 8 publications

References 30 publications

Revisit the Periodicity of SGR J1935+2154 Bursts with updated sample

Revisit the Periodicity of SGR J1935+2154 Bursts with updated sample

Axion-photon multimessenger astronomy with giant flares

SN 2020qlb: A hydrogen-poor superluminous supernova with well-characterized light curve undulations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About