Talk:GRB 080916C
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||
| |||||||||||
.jpg){kind=small}
Deletion nomination
[edit]Now why was this article nominated for deletion? This is a very notable item in astronomy. -- Ivan 33 (talk) 14:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Someone made a mistake. Yes, GRB 080916C is a huge discovery. 75.60.180.88 (talk) 14:39, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
This is notable for physics also. The time delay here has serious implications for quantum gravity. -- Ivan 33 (talk) 15:22, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
Energy
[edit]Infobox currently energy = 8.8×1054 ergs. Article makes clear this is not beam-corrected; the 'isotropic' part is important. Other gamma-ray bursts seem to use the actual total energy: GRB 970228 GRB 970508. 23.121.191.18 (talk) 04:34, 17 August 2016 (UTC)
This appears to be original research
[edit]"The energy comparison with a supernova ignores that most of the energy of a supernova is carried away in the neutrino burst. The total isotropic energy of GRB 080916C is estimated at 8.8 × 1047 joules (8.8 × 1054 erg) (the oft quoted 4.9 times the sun’s mass turned to energy) and should be jet-corrected to a much lower actual energy output due to the narrow angular width of the actual bursting jet. Thus it would be significantly less than the energy of a supernova neutrino burst, but is about equal to the energy in a supernova’s material explosion. Also, the peak energy flux of GRB 080916C is significantly less than a number of other GRB’s, such as GRB 080319B which peaked at nearly 1044 watts (1051 erg/s) in visible light alone. However, the total energy flux of the very long duration GRB 080916C is higher than any other measured GRB to date."
-- this entire section seems to be original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. If someone can provide references to show that this published information, feel free to put it back. Dan100 (Talk) 08:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC) Dan100 (Talk) 08:47, 22 November 2017 (UTC)
wrong age of event
[edit]"The explosion took place 12.2 billion light-years (light travel distance) away. That means it occurred 12.2 billion years ago"
At these distances time and distance (as measured in lightyears) can't be the same number due to the expansion of space. The observable universe is only 13.8 billion years old, but has a radius of 46 billion light years. Unfortunately I'm not an astronomer to calculate the exact age.