Talk:GRB 080319B

Visibility
Is this is still visible to the naked eye? Please respond. Camilo Sanchez (talk) 22:23, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. The theoretical visibility lasted 30 seconds. --Spischot (talk) 22:54, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * No. Even with binoculars (Mv < 9) you had < 60 seconds, with naked eye (Mv < 6) < 30 seconds. The peak was dimmer than Mv > 5. (See the light curve: http://vo.astronet.ru/~karpov/grb080319b_lc_10.gif ) Macchess (talk) 18:42, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * So, did anyone actually ever see it? -M.Nelson (talk) 19:49, 19 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. I was walking through a park near my house that night, and while looking at the stars, saw a new star appear. Over the course of about thirty seconds, a halo of light appeared around the new star, and both the halo and the new star faded to darkness. I spent several days trying to figure out what I saw, before reading about the Swift observation which corresponded exactly to the time of my walk in the park and the location in the sky where I saw a new star briefly appear. 204.42.29.166 (talk) 03:15, 12 April 2017 (UTC)


 * Surely no person actually saw the event (the article probably should state "object would have been bright enough to be seen by a naked-eye observer" rather than "was visible to the naked eye"). It would have been impossible for any person to learn of the event, plot its location on a star map, and then find it in the night sky, all within thirty seconds. 50.10.91.64 (talk) 17:53, 11 February 2014 (UTC)Guest user

Distance?

 * The GRB's red shift was measured to be 0.94 which translates to a distance of 7.5 billion lightyears.

Is that the distance to the object when the explosion occurred, or the present distance to the spot where the explosion occurred, or the distance that the light had to travel to reach us? In an expanding universe those three distances would be different. When did the explosion occur? AxelBoldt (talk) 22:53, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I think you are right, but actually said the distance was 7.5 Bly when I quoted it for the first time, but later changed that.  still says that's the distance. -- Sverdrup (talk) 04:17, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't understand the "I think you are right" part-- it was just a question, not a statement. But your NASA link seems to clarify the situation: it took the light 7.5 billion years to get here. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Your question is ill-formed. Elapsed time can be defined different ways depending on whether you are talking standard or relativistic.  There is no semantically meaningful way to discuss the "present distance" to a spot that is 7.5 billion light years away; distance and time are irrevocably intermingled in the equations and the velocity at which the interval is traversed changes the answer.  75.15.140.162 (talk) 06:06, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect. In a homogeneous expanding universe model with a big bang, you can define a universal unique time at all positions. You imagine a huge set of identical clocks emerging from the big bang that initially all show the same clock time, and then each clock follows the expansion. If you want to know what time it is right here right now, you look at the clock that made it here. "Present distance" then means that you consider that slice of spacetime where all clocks show the same time as my local clock, and you measure distance in that slice. It's explained in Wald's Relativity book. Of course the final answer for the distance will depend on the cosmic model you choose; the only unambiguous quantity is the red shift. AxelBoldt (talk) 17:20, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is much harder than I had imagined. The current state of cosmology is confusion (certainly for me at least). Most of our articles seem to accept that the time it took for light to get here (time since the event) gives the corresponding distance in lightyears. The NASA article seems to deliberately express it in time, but I swear the first time I read the same URL (first time dated 20 march, now 21 march, see wiki page history), they put it in distance too. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Verry intresting since the universe mass distribution wasnt always homogeneous in the beginning (as a simple proof check the distribution of stars they folow clusters) so time might not be evenly distributed. Indeed all clocks have a certain same moment, but since mass distribution isn't equal troughout space it would bands space-time, perhaps not be that big (altough if it is slightly then what if this effecs happened many million of years??) It's even worse if one would use clocks on top of a heavy object (planet sun blackhole). If a clocks alarmsound went with the speed of light. We wouldnt hear them all at once. (unless you where at the middle of it all >> to make it even worse we indeed seam to be in the middle (as expansion seen is equal in all directions unexplained yet)) altough that doesnt mean that other stars where in the middle also or (or we still should refine our possition). Well i asume redshift calculations work a bit differently not with absolute time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.217.143.153 (talk) 23:04, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is all covered in the article distance measures in cosmology. 7.5 billion ly is the light travel distance. Modest Genius talk 12:01, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Contradictions
We already had
 * it had a peak apparent magnitude of 5.8 and remained theoretically visible for ~30 seconds.

and then we added
 * The afterglow was just barely visible with the naked eye for about an hour, at a magnitude of about 5.

I interpret this as contradictory. This nytimes source is highly suspect to me, it puts everything in very vague and unscientific terms, we should not use numbers/data from it IMO. -- Sverdrup (talk) 17:26, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 15:45, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GRB 080319B. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081219104219/http://vo.astronet.ru/~karpov/grb080319b_lc_10_shifted.gif to http://vo.astronet.ru/~karpov/grb080319b_lc_10_shifted.gif

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 23:06, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified (January 2018)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on GRB 080319B. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081014140159/http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-28-08.html to http://www.eso.org/public/outreach/press-rel/pr-2008/pr-28-08.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 13:28, 29 January 2018 (UTC)