Gamma Ray Bursters

Entropy

It's not that big of a secret... Stars back then formed very fast because the universe had a much larger density.

turbo

It might not be a secret, but I had not heard that galaxies at high redshift (z~3-6 for instance) have a higher rate of supernovae production than lower-redshift galaxies. Wouldn't we have to see this for the initial statement to be supportable? If you can point me to some supporting evidence, I would be grateful.

Yaaks

Near earth GRBs would be harmful only if the beam focus is directed towards Earth...

SpaceTiger

This is true, though one could pick nits and say that it's only called a GRB if the beam is pointed towards us. Otherwise, it's called a supernova (if the popular theories are right). Astro terminology is often distorted with time, however, so the term may eventually be applied to all such objects, whether they appear as a GRB or not. A similar thing happened with quasars and QSOs. Those two terms weren't always synonyms.

Yaaks

If the popular theories are right and im quite sure they are convincing enough, GRBs and Quasars are similar in-effect, but as the theory suggests Quasars could only have formed in the early universe when the gas cloud densities was very great, not so with GRBs which can 'also' be a consequence of a super-massive stellar death, an aftermath of a supernova explosion if the star is massive enough..
Please Clarify..

SpaceTiger

My analogy with quasars only concerned the changing of terminology. I've not heard any theories in which GRBs are similar to quasars. Far as I know, GRBs are considered to be beamed light from supernovae. There are several theories on the origin of the supernovae (e.g. massive stars, colliding white dwarfs), but no evidence to suggest GRBs are related to accretion onto a black hole.

Yaaks

There is no evidence,,, but it is possible..

Nereid

It is "possible" for Nereid to go from Deimos to Io via quantum tunneling ... but that 'possibility' isn't very exciting.