Mystery of strange radio bursts from space

[Garth]

DISCRETE STEPS IN DISPERSION MEASURES OF FAST RADIO BURSTS

5. CONCLUSION
We have noted a potential discrete spacing in DM (Dispersion Measures) of FRBs (Fast Radios Bursts). Identied steps are integer multiples of 187.5cm^-3 pc, so that DMs occur in groups centered at 375, 562, 750, 937, 1125cm^-3 pc, with errors <5%. If this holds, future FRBs would show DMs in these groups (and perhaps at the base 187.5cm^-3 pc, or larger integer multiples beyond 1125cm^-3 pc).
In case this would hold, an extragalactic origin would seem unlikely, as high (random) DMs would be added by intergalactic dust. A more likely option could be a galactic source producing quantized chirped signals, but this seems most surprising. If both of these options could be excluded, only an articial source (human or non-human) must be considered, particularly since most bursts have been observed in only one location (Parkes radio telescope). A re-assessment of man-made phenomena, such as perytons (Burke-Spolaor et al. 2011), would then be required. Failing some observational bias, the suggestive correlation with terrestrial time standards seems to nearly clinch the case for human association of these peculiar phenomena. In the end we only claim interesting features which further data will verify or refute.

(emphasis mine)

And no, this wasn't published in April 1st!

Link to New Scientist article: Is this ET? Mystery of strange radio bursts from space.

Garth

 

[Chronos]

It certainly is ... interesting. It is difficult to resist concluding some pretty exotic technology is required to fine tune coordination between signals.

 

[wabbit]

Had a quick look - does it say substantially more w.r.t. the thread title than "we haven't looked very much into possible causes and we just don't know what this could be, so E.T. is one possibily we can entertain" ?

 

[Garth]

I think it is saying a bit more than that, even though we have to remain sceptical until proven otherwise.

It would seem to be difficult to find a natural explanation, particularly because to the correlation of the dispersion measures with exact multiples of 187.5cm^-3.

The only other possibility IMHO, as described in the paper, is that the signal is terrestrial "perytons" - wait we have a picture:-

- sorry, wrong kind of peryton!Garth

 

[marcus]

Garth, I looked up an elementary explanation of the dispersion measure (DM) of pulsar signals and found this:
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Pulsar+Dispersion+Measure

It explains why the DM can be quoted in parsecs per cubic cm, as in your article.

My impression was that the authors were leaning towards an artificial (terrestrial) origin. Particularly as almost all the instances were picked up at one observatory (Parkes), and because of the correlation with the Earthly time standard.
==quote==
As perytons are thought to be produced on Earth, this would imply that FRBs are also Earthly noise. Indeed, why would both perytons and FRBs show arrival times with a strong correlation to Earth’s integer second?

This hints at some man-made device, such as mobile phone base stations. The device needs to keep (or sync) the time to sub-second precision, ...

5. CONCLUSION

...
...
...
Failing some observational bias, the suggestive correlation with terrestrial time standards seems to nearly clinch the case for human association of these peculiar phenomena...
==endquote==

 

[Wizzyman]

Hey guys,

Let me preface this by saying that I'm not a scientist, or a mathematician, in fact I'm pretty terrible at maths, but I have noticed a pattern between these 187.5 steps and π - is this something that is known already?

I thought I would query this before I go any further so as not to embarrass myself with my lack of understanding!

 

[wabbit]

Which pattern ?

In any case if any, it would then if not a coincidence (most likely, 3 or 4 digits only plus a range of possible pattern making transformations) perhaps point to a terrestrial origin from someone who knew in what unit DM would be measured - a practical joke on the observers ?

 

[Wizzyman]

Like I say, I don't have a understanding of the underlying principals, so I could be doing something stupid - but here is what I saw:

FRBs step in 187.5cm
Hydrogen Line 21cm

187.5 / 21 = 8.928
(2*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 8924.63 / 1000 = 8.924

375 / 21 = 17.857
(4*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 17849.27 / 1000 = 17.849

562/21 = 26.761
(6*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 26773.909/ 1000 = 26.773

750/21 = 35.714
(8*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 35698.54/ 1000 = 35.698

If I am doing something silly then please forgive my ignorance (and feel free to have a laugh at my expense!)

 

[Garth]

Like I say, I don't have a understanding of the underlying principals, so I could be doing something stupid - but here is what I saw:

FRBs step in 187.5cm
Hydrogen Line 21cm

187.5 / 21 = 8.928
(2*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 8924.63 / 1000 = 8.924

375 / 21 = 17.857
(4*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 17849.27 / 1000 = 17.849

562/21 = 26.761
(6*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 26773.909/ 1000 = 26.773

750/21 = 35.714
(8*Pi)* 1420.40 (Hydrogen line MHZ) = 35698.54/ 1000 = 35.698

If I am doing something silly then please forgive my ignorance (and feel free to have a laugh at my expense!)

Sorry Wizzyman - no "Hydrogen times Pi"

The wavelength and frequency of a transmission are related by \lambda\nu = c so in your calculations you have used the fact that 2 \pi c = 2 \pi \lambda \nu = 188.365 \times10^9 cm.s^{-1} and this coincidentally is near the numerical value of the DM step of 187.5 cm^-3 pc (not cm as you quote - in any case the units are all wrong).

A mistaken near coincidence!

Garth

 

[Garth]

Garth, I looked up an elementary explanation of the dispersion measure (DM) of pulsar signals and found this:
http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/P/Pulsar+Dispersion+Measure

It explains why the DM can be quoted in parsecs per cubic cm, as in your article.

My impression was that the authors were leaning towards an artificial (terrestrial) origin. Particularly as almost all the instances were picked up at one observatory (Parkes), and because of the correlation with the Earthly time standard.
==quote==
As perytons are thought to be produced on Earth, this would imply that FRBs are also Earthly noise. Indeed, why would both perytons and FRBs show arrival times with a strong correlation to Earth’s integer second?

This hints at some man-made device, such as mobile phone base stations. The device needs to keep (or sync) the time to sub-second precision, ...

5. CONCLUSION

...
...
...
Failing some observational bias, the suggestive correlation with terrestrial time standards seems to nearly clinch the case for human association of these peculiar phenomena...
==endquote==

Thank you for that link Marcus, but note that one signal was picked up at Arecibo.

Garth

 

[Wizzyman]

Sorry Wizzyman - no "Hydrogen times Pi"

The wavelength and frequency of a transmission are related by \lambda\nu = c so in your calculations you have used the fact that 2 \pi c = 2 \pi \lambda \nu = 188.365 \times10^9 cm.s^{-1} and this coincidentally is near the numerical value of the DM step of 187.5 cm^-3 pc (not cm as you quote - in any case the units are all wrong).

A mistaken near coincidence!

Garth

I'll just pretend that I understood all of that, back away slowly to the back of the class and put on the cap of shame. Thanks for setting me straight!

 

[Garth]

I think it is saying a bit more than that, even though we have to remain sceptical until proven otherwise.

It would seem to be difficult to find a natural explanation, particularly because to the correlation of the dispersion measures with exact multiples of 187.5cm^-3.

The only other possibility IMHO, as described in the paper, is that the signal is terrestrial "perytons"

Garth

Another clue in today's physics arXiv Identifying the source of perytons at the Parkes radio telescope.

A reminder:

Perytons" are millisecond-duration transients of terrestrial origin, whose frequency-swept emission mimics the dispersion of an astrophysical pulse that has propagated through tenuous cold plasma. In fact, their similarity to FRB 010724 had previously cast a shadow over the interpretation of \fast radio bursts," which otherwise appear to be of extragalactic origin.

Identified:

Subsequent tests revealed that a peryton can be generated at 1.4 GHz when a microwave oven door is opened prematurely and the telescope is at an appropriate relative angle.

Somebody was cooking supper!

However note:

Now that the peryton source has been identified, we furthermore demonstrate that the microwaves on site could not have caused FRB 010724. This and other distinct observational differences show that FRBs are excellent candidates for genuine extragalactic transients.

Curiouser and curiouser!

Garth

 

[mfb]

A microwave oven telescope!
"Hey, could you check if my lunch is ready?"

Now that the peryton source has been identified, we furthermore demonstrate that the microwaves on site could not have caused FRB 010724.

Okay, but with just one event the timing structure is meaningless.

 

[wabbit]

Maybe manufacturers should now put a warning sign on microwaves "beware of perytons - do not open during cooking" : )

 

[OmCheeto]

I first heard about this, this morning on Twitter:

Katie Mack @AstroKatie · 12 hours ago

Fact Sheet: Perytons vs. Fast Radio Bursts (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02165 ) #FRB #perytons

Thank you for clearing it up.

I was somewhat confused.---------------------------------
Katie Mack
@AstroKatie
(a.k.a. Dr Katherine J Mack) astrophysicist, occasional freelance science writer, connoisseur of airplane food
Melbourne, Australia, or not
www.astrokatie.com

 

[Garth]

According to this paper: Identifying the source of perytons at the Parkes radio telescope -

Radio emission escaping from microwave ovens during the magnetron shut-down phase neatly explain all of the observed properties of the peryton signals. Now that the peryton source has been identified, we furthermore demonstrate that the microwaves on site could not have caused FRB 010724. This and other distinct observational differences show that FRBs are excellent candidates for genuine extragalactic transients.

Perytons that have been observed are caused by a microwave. However at least one signal FRB 010724 was not such a peryton, which they still claim could be extraterrestrial.

Garth

 

[wabbit]

I don't know if this applies at all to 010724, but I just saw this in another thread :

[*]Carlo Rovelli, https://www.gravity.physik.fau.de/events/tux3/rovelli.pdf

He proposes an interesting candidate for some FRBs (121102 is the one quoted).

 

[Garth]

Yes, at last a natural explanation for non-terrestrial FRBs!

I found the FRB eprint/papers a bit confusing as to which signals might be non-terrestrial and which might be someone's microwaved supper!

If they are 'Planck stars', which is assuming such stars exist in the first place, then you still have to explain the 1875 multiples.

Garth

 

[wabbit]

If they are 'Planck stars', which is assuming such stars exist in the first place, then you still have to explain the 1875 multiples.
Garth

Ah I thought this concerned only the microwave perytons. As you say one needs to read closely to sort them out...
For Planck stars, if they (Rovelli & al.) can determine some unique enough signature of Planck star signals (didn't see that in the slides, only that FRBs could have the right wavelength - but from their earlier papers it seems the signal received from a Planck star should have a characteristic magnitude, spectrum, decay shape, etc., depending on just mass of star and distance) and if that does match some FRBs, this would be pretty big news.

 

[Jimster41]

Is there no sense in which the FRB's are directional. Like is there any pattern to where they are coming from? Or is that not a meaningful notion in practical radio astronomy...? Or did I just miss it.

 

[Garth]

Is there no sense in which the FRB's are directional. Like is there any pattern to where they are coming from? Or is that not a meaningful notion in practical radio astronomy...? Or did I just miss it.

Yes, I have wondered the same thing. Without checking further my guess would be that these signals are so brief that there has not been enough time for the radio telescopes to train in on them and get a bearing.

Garth

 

[Jimster41]

Yes, I have wondered the same thing. Without checking further my guess would be that these signals are so brief that there has not been enough time for the radio telescopes to train in on them and get a bearing.

Garth

Relates to a part of the search for signals from E.T that I am confused about. Is dissipation a well enough understood phenomenon in terms of the transmission possibilities and paths, to rule out the hypothesis that we haven't found them because they are likely highly local in origin, and otherwise well-damped. Or does our ability to sweep the sky (because it's good enough) eliminate those as possible explanations?

 

[rootone]

Is there no sense in which the FRB's are directional. Like is there any pattern to where they are coming from? Or is that not a meaningful notion in practical radio astronomy...? Or did I just miss it.

In order to get a directional fix the event would need to be simultaneously observed from at least two, and preferably 3, widely separated receivers.

 

[wabbit]

Ah I thought this concerned only the microwave perytons. As you say one needs to read closely to sort them out...
.

Went back to http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245 - nope, you're right, the Arecibo 121102 signal does fall in that patern.

Now the pattern is weaker though, since we appear to have (assuming I got this right)
(a) a bunch of pizzas or FRBs (unclear) at multiples of 187.5
(b) Parkes 010724 at 375
(c) Arecibo 121102 at 557

Might Arecibo also have a microwave on premises ? The plot thickens : )

In http://arxiv.org/abs/1504.02165 they say that FRBs (not just 010724) are _not_ perytons

We have thus demonstrated through strong evidence that
perytons and FRBs arise from disparate origins.

But this is all so confusing I ll just wait for their next release, or maybe the one after that.

 

[rootone]

Cell phones?

 

[Jimster41]

Hey, uh, there's no particular reason all the numbers in the column in table 1 of the http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245 start with numbers right... Sorry that 9 is not a prime, but it is odd, and they are all odd, except the largest one.Wait I think that's Jodi Foster on the line, I got to take this...

 

[wabbit]

No.
Which column ?

 

[rootone]

Hey, uh, there's no particular reason all the numbers in the column in table 1 of the http://arxiv.org/abs/1503.05245 start with numbers right... Sorry that 9 is not a prime, but it is odd, and they are all odd, except the largest one.Wait I think that's Jodi Foster on the line, I got to take this...

The first column?, they don't look like prime numbers to me.
It's obvious at a glance that several of them are divisible by 2, and another set is divisible by 5.

 

[Jimster41]

Sorry, the DM (cm e-3 pc) column.

I think they mention it on page 2

The result is a striking 1:10,000 chance for the first option, and 5:10,000 for the second. In the random numbers, we also see average summed DM residuals >500, as expected for the series following 1/3, 1/5, 1/7... when approaching 1/2 (Fig. 2)

I gather the first sentence is talking about probability of the fits doing what they do randomly. It seems like they mention the rational progression as an aside. Seems pretty freaky.

Jodi, says it's freaky.

 

[Jimster41]

How ironic would it be if we were getting hailed from Andromeda, but we missed it because we had invented Hot Pockets and it got lost in the noise of our microwave ovens cooking them. Where is Douglas Adams when you need him.

The fact it is Parkes only is pretty discouraging though.

 

[Garth]

The fact it is Parkes only is pretty discouraging though.

One, 121102, was detected at Arecibo.

Some press reports have been inaccurate.

Garth

 

[Jimster41]

In the second paper, in figure 7. I don't see where they measured the randomness of the FRB receptions in time. The say it is "uniform". Looks a bit shaky as "uniform" to my eye. But given the fact the telescope sweeps with the Earth's rotation as "the clock" (??) what would pure randomness in reception time, or a lack thereof indicate?

 

[rootone]

The more random the measurements are the less likely they are to contain coherent information or be correlated with anything in particular.

 

[Jimster41]

I understand that part.

I was wondering what it would mean if a non-random signal was distributed randomly as a function of the Earth's rotation (like CMB). Or what it would mean if there was a non-random pattern to intervals of reception, one that for instance wasn't diurnal. Is Parkes like Aricebo? Can it be aimed much? Can Aricebo be aimed much for that matter? Are the measurements a sweep of some arc minutes, or are they really focused on a region of the sky. I would think they would not be very interested in pointing toward the sun, but... I'm clueless what such a big radio telescope is sampling in terms of diffuse, precise, periodic, constant...

anyway pretty cool stuff.

 

[wabbit]

Sorry, the DM (cm e-3 pc) column.

I think they mention it on page 2

The result is a striking 1:10,000 chance for the first option, and 5:10,000 for the second. In the random numbers, we also see average summed DM residuals >500, as expected for the series following 1/3, 1/5, 1/7...

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[Jimster41]

Honestly I have no idea what you are talking about.

Sorry, I'm not sure how to interpret that. Do you want me to try to explain what I was thinking, or just shut up... because it is clear to you it makes no sense?

Here's a plot of the FRB reception times from figure 7 in the second paper compared to some different periodic models... values are the average of the hourly difference between the "periodic" test distribution and the actual distribution.

 

[wabbit]

Explain : ) you mentioned prime numbers, one column which clearly isn t composed of prime numbers, and something else - i just don t know what it is exactly that you find surprising - what statement is true of which data , that you find unusual? Is it just the the first digit of these numbers is odd ?

 

[Jimster41]

Oh, okay. But I probably should just shut up

I was looking at the third column from the left in table 1 on page two of the Hippke paper http://arxiv.org/pdf/1503.05245v2.pdf.
I was just a bit surprised to see such non-random odd rather than even or mixed odd/even numbers. At first they looked like primes and I had a hiccup, then realized 9 is not a prime of course. Then there is that 16 at the end. What up with that... but then 17 is a prime.

[Edit] I realize now, I wasn't clear when I suggest they look like odd values or primes, I am truncating the DM values to just the leading digit(s). Just for a second imaging that the pattern was just meant to show up at very coarse scales (because they had to use their Dyson Sphere to make it and it had to get here from there through the nebulae, and get measured by smart monkeys). That said I got a bit dizzy trying to squint to see if anything looked funny in the second and third digits at least.

Then looking at how the author(s) fit the data into multiples of @187 for the first regression. Their fit makes it looks just more like sequential integer multiples of that number. Still an interesting pattern, but probably not as interesting as odd multiples of that value, or prime multiples of that value. But still... spooky. How much smear might there be if a pattern was intended, but then had to get here across a few-lot of light years? The second regression approach where I think they divide 187 by some integers. Also, a spooky pattern relating to integers, or some regular interval. Both seem to rule out randomness FAPP in the DM values.

I don't know I'm just trying to follow it. The second paper, you look at the list of authors, it's like they said "who do we call now...". The microwave story... okay, I would have walked away un-suprised had that been it, but then they make a pretty good case that can't be all of it. Still, who could have wrote something that funny - if it does turn out this goes somewhere, that's going to be one for Dicsover Channel. I can see NDT (Neil DeGrasse Tyson) already standing next to some poor schmuck trying to heat up a burrito in the break room.

The pattern, if there is one, or lack of diurnal pattern, if there isn't one, in the reception frequency is confusing to me. Makes me think about satellites. Don't they orbit like once every 1.5 hours? Makes me want to read up on just how the heck radio telescopes actually do their work. Maybe somebody here knows.

 

[wabbit]

OK I get it:) the odd first digits are just a consequence of the n*187.5 pattern
Amusing it is: all multiples of 187.5 up to n=10 start with an odd digit - and so must any number close to such a multiple.

That pattern by itself is truly bizarre, but now I don't know any more which if any of these is explained by the microwave - why do they single out one to say it cannot be that, but also say more or less that all the others must be legit too?

And for the timing I didn't see enough data to clearly understand what it shows, and how the data is modified by the microwave thing.

So at this point I ll just wait. IMHO they rushed to publish the first paper, then rushed to publish the half retractation half confirmation, and for me this is just incomplete analysis, too hard to distentangle. But to be fair these are preprints not publications, so incomplete or rushed may be unfair comments - the important qualifier is "for me", and i m not even their target audience.

 

[Jimster41]

No doubt about it. Lots of questions. I don't really understand the what Dispersion Measure is in the first place... so there's that.

I screwed up the plot before, and I added a difference from random expectation. Anyway better than workin on a Friday afternoon.

[Edit] the 1/24 doesn't make sense, there were n FRB's I think, so should probably be n/24? Then subtracted from the FRB vectors.

Reception frequency distribution of the FRB over 0-2300h, plucked off of figure 7 of second paper via the old mark II . The microwave evens aren't in this data at all. They had a pretty clear uni-modal distribution around "Dinnah Tiiiime!"

 

[Jimster41]

Can't stop wondering what in the world 187.5 could possibly relate to. If it was a broadcast surely that value would have some significance.

PI/e? Freezing point of water measured in integers to absolute zero, CMB microwave wavelength into the first value of the series? I'm not sure what the list of universally identifiable constants, or relationships would even be... Seems like they would have to be mathematical more than physical. Like the freezing point of water, wouldn't be recognizeable to the critters on a Titan-like planet at all. CMB wavelength in units of what, PI, e. What are the other weird (irrational?) numbers?

Probably imagination could find something regardless of whether it's there, but the ease of that invention, given what we know, and/or the grandness of the terms that fit, might add to the circumstantial evidence. If it truly is just a random number then, that might lobby for us just seeing things in natural periodics.Or is it just the the number that when multiplied by integer values comes out to 3,5,7,9 and 11? "These are n scalable universally consistent things that are a subset of things like them, which also separeate them in two ways... Hello. Do you recognize them?

Spooky.

 

[PWiz]

@mfb Maybe I should start writing that paper on the "Great Filter" now

 

[mfb]

@Jimster41: The numerical value of 187.5 comes from our units here on earth. If you choose a different unit system the number is different. There is no point in looking for a meaning of 187.5. Also, with just one extraterrestrial source we don't have any coincidence left. The extraterrestrial source just happens to be close to the values the local microwave oven gave.

@PWiz: make sure you filter out microwave ovens ;).

 

[Jimster41]

Yeah, you're right. 187 is in units with which we measure the DM, Doh

But then thinking about it some more... I wasn't thinking of the that number per se. I was wondering whether it could be a proportional equivalent in all unit systems of a specific basic mathematical coherence, like integer counting for example, to a fundamental relationship. I mean that's the first thing the researchers showed, there is a relation that describes integer counting or "discretenes" in the signals. Perhaps there is more in it than that.

Can someone please provide assurance that this is not all just an April Fool's joke

 

[Jimster41]

@Jimster41: The numerical value of 187.5 comes from our units here on earth. If you choose a different unit system the number is different. There is no point in looking for a meaning of 187.5. Also, with just one extraterrestrial source we don't have any coincidence left. The extraterrestrial source just happens to be close to the values the local microwave oven gave.

@PWiz: make sure you filter out microwave ovens ;).

Sorry man, can you explain what you mean in the second sentence about "... Just one extraterrestrial source..." I just didn't quite get what you were saying.

 

[mfb]

I mean that's the first thing the researchers showed, there is a relation that describes integer counting in the signals.

Which is some property of the microwave apparently.

I wasn't thinking of the that number per se.

Which has no meaning.
You can express the same value as 5.79*10²⁰/cm^2 or 5.79/pm^2 or 3.73*10²¹/inch^2 or 3.55*10²⁶/(feet*furlong) or whatever.

Sorry man, can you explain what you mean in the second sentence about "... Just one extraterrestrial source..." I just didn't quite get what you were saying.

See page 1:

Subsequent tests revealed that a peryton can be generated at 1.4 GHz when a microwave oven door is opened prematurely and the telescope is at an appropriate relative angle.
[...]
Now that the peryton source has been identified, we furthermore demonstrate that the microwaves on site could not have caused FRB 010724. This and other distinct observational differences show that FRBs are excellent candidates for genuine extragalactic transients.

Just one unexplained event.

 

[Garth]

Once you are into numerology then you can see all sorts of numerical connections and patterns .

I like the humourous article in this week's New Scientist:

Some numerology of astronomy
WHAT might be the hidden significance of the number 187.5? We reported that a measure of the delay between the arrival of low- and high-frequency components of mysterious bursts of radio waves comes in exact multiples of 187.5 (4 April, p 8). Chris Conklin immediately wrote to point out that 1.875 is "the smallest positive solution of cos(x)cosh(x) = –1" and appears in the formula for calculating the frequency of a crystal oscillator from its size and properties. But the link to quartz clocks seems circumstantial to us.

Food and drink for thought
IDLY searching for the number 187.5 – key to the astronomical mystery described above – finds it surprisingly often. A quarter bottle of wine is 187.5 millilitres; we find chocolate sold in units of 187.5 grams; and, probably for a reason, one that escapes us, some antidepressants are delivered in tablets containing 187.5 milligrams of the drug. In a further example of our ability to see patterns in noise, we sought to complete the set of drug, red wine and chocolate with cheese, in 187.5 g portions.

We thus discovered instead that this is a common, if absurdly precise, conversion of the US recipe measure "one-and-a-half cups". If the radio bursts are a signal from aliens, are they looking for our lunch?

I'll buy ET a bottle of wine and chocolate any time, so long as it shared them with me of course!

Garth

 

[wabbit]

See page 1:Just one unexplained event.

I didn't find that clear in the second paper - they also imply(*) that most of the FRBs (including at least some of those 187.5 signals) are not from the microwave - but since they never say "this is the list of frbs we started with, these are bad, those are doubtful, and the rest seem good" I don t know what that "good" list is supposed to be.

(*) their conclusion "We have thus demonstrated through strong evidence that perytons and FRBs arise from disparate origins. There is furthermore strong evidence that FRBs are in fact of astronomical origin."

 

[Jimster41]

I get that for any new thing, you could invent any equivalence from an infinite and arbitrary "list of things".

But wouldn't there be a notable coincidence if the third thing you invented, using only your list of "most significant, apriori, odd, immutable things" turned out to be symmetrical with this, new thing. That's all.

And I am glad to hear I'm not the only one wondering about additional relationships in the pattern, starting with the obvious residual - (187). But maybe that just means there are a lot of fools.

 

[wabbit]

The one thing that is remarkable in this data is its quantized nature n*K, not the value of K in some unit. What is the source of this, microwaves or something else, seems still quite open.