FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

FRB 20250316A: A Brilliant and Nearby One-off Fast Radio Burst Localized to 13 pc Precision

The CHIME/FRB Collaboration:, Thomas C. Abbott

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/2041-8213/adf62f#apjladf62fs3

Once again the theorists have misunderstood the true nature of FRB and GRB phenomena. As I have pointed out for decades on this blog, it is a mistake to assume they are massive “explosions” at cosmological scale distances from earth. This is a false assumption based on other false assumptions about our universe and the true nature of electromagnetic radiation. False and unsubstantiated assumptions which I have discussed and refuted elsewhere here on this blog

However, to address this above cited paper specifically. It can be shown here how Gammaraybursts and Fast radio bursts are in fact, the same phenomena but occurring at different length timescales. An FRB is just a very short GRB. Nothing else. And more importantly it can be shown how these phenomena are not explosions at all, but rather purely optical effects coming originally from very distant but constant stellar sources in a non expanding universe. It’s not hard to show that the data in the above cited CHIME paper indeed backs up the GRB/FRB model described here. 

(It is important to point out that as far as this blog is concerned, repeating FRB’s should not in any way be considered to be caused by the same mechanisms as non repeating FRB’s. Which as anyone who is familiar with both repeating and non repeating FRB data will agree. Both types have distinctly different types of data streams that distinguish each type from the other as unrelated.)

For clear evidence  relating GRB and FRB as the same phenomena at different timescales look only to Figure 5 in the CHIME/FRB collaboration paper. (“PA profile of FRB 20250316A as a function of frequency over 400–800 MHz.”)

Notice how the self similar burst profiles in each frequency become more stretched in the time axis at successively lower frequencies. And that this  stretch in the time scale is proportional to wavelength. This exact profile of longer wavelengths being dilated to longer arrival timescales for FRB and GRB’s was predicted and outlined in this blog more than 20 years ago. Before Fast radio bursts were even “discovered” I had modelled and explained FRB ‘s in detail as being just very short GRB’s. But with the same distinctive time lag/wavelength relationship that can be seen in every available GRB burst dataset to date. A wavelength/time lag relationship which can also seen in figure 5 of the recent CHIME Collaboration paper. Notice as pointed out elsewhere on this blog, that all GRB light curve profiles from gamma to radio show the same distinctive wavelength to timescale stretch proportional to wavelength relationship. 

Unfortunately, theorists currently seem unwilling to admit relativity and the Big Bang are failed theories. And that going back to a more correct scientific model of light as a wave only, is the only option left to correctly explain all EMR phenomena including FRB burst profiles. A wave only classical model first described centuries ago by Theorists such as Thomas Young.

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2014/08/this-following-brief-description-of-grb.html

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2016/10/ives-stillwell-is-consistent-with.html

Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

 Coherent and incoherent light scattering by single-atom wavepackets

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2410.19671

With a summary here : 

https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/zwhd-1k2t

The usual quantum nonsense from physicists pretending that light, when sent through a double slit, is sometimes observed to be a photon and other times as a wave. Fact is; Light isn’t ever actually observed to be a photon. That is a false assumption. Seeing as no one can actually see an imaginary photon as it hits the photodetector plane. All we see is a readout on a pc screen of wave light incident on the photodetector. And as a classical wave only model correctly models, that incident wave radiation is quantised into pulses by the detector atoms and delivered, as an the ‘electron cascade’, to the circuit. To be then sent to the computer screen as dots. Dots that theorists incorrectly assume to be imaginary photons. Any interference pattern created by these dots is simply a readout of the intensity of wave only incident radiation on the detector screen and at that corresponding point on the pc screen. Where there is more light due to an interference pattern at the detector plane, there will be a greater intensity of incident wave radiation at that point. And more of these quantised dots will  appear at that corresponding point in the interference pattern on the computer screen. 

And where there is less incident wave only radiation at other points in the interference pattern there will be fewer quantised pulses from the photodetector and thus at that same corresponding point on the pc screen, fewer dots will be observed. 

No quantum wave particle duality is needed to explain both the dots and any of those dots creating the interference pattern. 

That is unless one is a QT theorist who, when looking at these dots on his pc screen pretended they were photons hitting the detector plane. And then erroneously assumed this collection of these imaginary photons arranged themselves magically into a wave like interference pattern when the source atoms were constrained into a coherent lattice. In fact, all they actually saw was an amplified second generation image of wave only light being quantised at and by the photodetector atoms. Then amplified electronically and delivered via software to the pc screen as an interference pattern.

But to deal specifically with this papers claims of quantum photon/wave duality magic is the following scientific classical wave only theoretical explanation:

What is creating the coherent light in the experiment described in above cited paper? 

If the array of atoms is held in a lattice and reflecting/re-emitting the incident laser light then the atom lattice is essentially a collection of coherent light sources. As we know only coherent light when split into two or more same coherent sources at a “slit” can create interference patterns when incident on any detector plane. First described in Thomas Youngs famous slit screen experiment.

And further to this, what is creating the incoherent light in the experiment when no interference patterns from the source atoms are observed? 

If the atoms are not in a lattice and moving randomly, and reflecting or re-emitting this incoherent light onto the detector screen, then at this point we know that no interference patterns can be created or observed from two or more incoherent sources. This is indeed observed in the above cited paper.

Because, as any one with a basic grasp of physics knows, two or more incoherent light sources cannot produce an interference pattern. And thus in the experiment only the atoms held together in a lattice and reflecting or re-emitting the light are considered multiple coherent light sources. And as mentioned above, two or more coherent sources can create interference patterns at any detector screen. As is observed and confirmed in the paper.

In their attempts to pretend they have supplied further proof of the quantum nature of light, the authors of the paper have forgotten basic physics. In that a classical model can fully explain their experimental results. In that in a wave only classical model of light, any incoherent classical wave light sources will not produce any interference at a detector plane. And will only do so only if the multi atom incoherent light source is artificially constrained into a lattice of multiple coherent light sources that can then produce interference. As is observed in the paper.

For more information on how a classical wave only model can explain so called wave particle duality, read here

https://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Rapidly Varying Ionization Features in a Quasi-periodic Eruption: A Homologous Expansion Model for the Spectroscopic Evolution

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.3847/1538-4357/adb972

Once again anything that the Black hole clerics don’t understand, they call a black hole. Or dark energy if they are really desperate. Odd that they’re still at it considering all of the only 3 “images” of supposed ‘black holes’ to date have no accretion discs. Their flimsy excuse is that by some 1/30,000 coincidence all three Black holes images to date are exactly face on to us here on earth. A ‘fact’ even NASA admits is extremely odd and statistically very unlikely. They just can’t admit these images aren’t black holes.

Although one can only speculate on the real nature of the data from another galaxy referred to in this paper cited above, I prefer the variable speed solar Dynamo model to explain the data rather than using the extremely rapid spinning object model as the above cited paper suggests. The variable speed model of the solar Dynamo cycle is a 22 year cycle consisting of two 11 year phases. For 11 years the inner core of the sun rotates faster than its photosphere, and for the next 11 years slower. Etc. 

And this solar Dynamo model can be used to also model other repeating phenomena like quasars and pulsars. In that these repeating bursts in X-ray or other frequencies are signs of a very short time scale slowing down and speeding up of the stars inner core relative to its outer plasma shell.

So why have a model of a massive star spinning multiple times per second when it’s more realistic to suggest that the objects in question are spinning much slower in hours or days. And instead, as the variable speed solar Dynamo style model proposes, have the inner core and outer photosphere both spinning in the same direction but slowing down and speeding up relative to each other over seconds. Less drastic and unrealistic assumptions are made in the solar Dynamo style model. 

But as mentioned above this dynamo cycle is much faster than the suns 22 year cycle and lasts only just days. And thus being much more energetic. Hence the profuse x ray emissions. 

We should be glad our suns cycle is a long 22 year cycle.

Scientists Found a Quantum Surprise in Ordinary Light

 https://scitechdaily.com/scientists-found-a-quantum-surprise-in-ordinary-light/

Isolating the classical and quantum coherence of a multiphoton system. Chenglong You et al. 2024

Once again the theorists forget that their coincidence counters, called correlation counters in this study, are the magic card trick mechanisms creating the imaginary quantum effects which the researchers claim are being observed. In reality the observed data has nothing to do with spooky magic action at a distance. 

No wonder they supposedly found that classical light sources seem to behave as if they were being subjected to quantum effects. When all that really happens in these ridiculous experiments is that light from different detectors with different polarised states, arrives at the coincidence counter. Where the data is collected , collated and then later matched up as “coincidences” by researchers to make their imaginary quantum effects appear. Where in truth there are none. It can all be explained classically with polarisation. 

It’s a simple card trick used by Quantum researchers ever since the early days of the fakery of quantum eraser experiments as described at the link below.

Basically what all these Quantum experiments do is divide the original light beam into three paths to three detectors. One is the original beam going to a master detector D1 measuring all states of vertical V and horizontal H polarisations. etc. V,H,V,H,V,....etc

Then two more paths with either only V or H beams go to two other detectors D2 and D3. So for instance, D2 gets only the Vertical polarised portion of the cycle and the other detector D3 only receives the Horizontal polarised portion of the cycle. Notice now that a correlation counter will match detections from D2 to D1 but at the same point in time...NO DETECTIONS from D3 to D1 will be recorded. Because the original emitted beams polarisation alternates and therefore peaks at different times between the vertical and horizontal polarised states each cycle. 

This isn’t quantum magic. This is creative accounting making classical polarisation look like quantum magic.

http://physicsexplained.blogspot.com/2015/11/the-main-illustrationbelow-is-schematic.html

Scientists pin down the origins of a fast radio burst (MIT)

“Magnetospheric origin of a fast radio burst constrained using scintillation. Kenzie Nimmo2024”

Once again the ‘experts’ continue to make up ridiculous fantastical scenarios to try to explain why FRB’s do not conform to relativity and its constant speed of light in all frames nonsense. A sad history of ignoring the facts that started in 1928 when Hubble found that light changed frequency over distance which refuted Einsteins photon model. And by association refuted his relativity theories which relied on the erroneous assumption that a photon can NOT change frequency over distance.

The real story of FRB’s is that they are just very fast GRB’s. The length of a GRB lightcurve is usually in the order of seconds with the optical counterpart in hours and radio in days as modelled here. But an FRB, being just a very fast short GRB, will have its gamma lightcurve last only in nano seconds, its optical curve in slightly longer nanosecond timescales and the radio transient being the only observable lightcurve, lasting in microseconds. Just long enough to capture as an event in the radio data.