What Are Fast Radio Bursts?

What are fast radio bursts? Why are astronomers so excited about them?

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

In 2007, astronomers digging through archival data from six years prior, found a very strong, very brief burst of radio emission coming from an unidentified source in space. The detection, sometimes called the Lorimer burst after the lead astronomer on the project, was the first discovery of its kind. It introduced us to a new class of objects dubbed fast radio bursts or FRBs for short. “Fast” because these blips are very short—less than 5 milliseconds in duration. So chop one second into a thousand parts and you’re looking at less than five of your pieces.

The “radio” portion of the moniker is due to the fact that the emission is detected by radio telescopes surveying the sky at radio wavelengths. They are called “bursts” because the signals disappear as quickly as they appeared, without warning and, so far, without explanation.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


Since 2007, astronomers have added 17 more bursts to the list of known FRBs. However, their origins are still a bit of a mystery because their defining characteristics, the very reasons they are so interesting, also make them challenging to study.

Radio telescopes also usually have to make a choice: spatial resolution or field of view. In other words, single dish radio telescopes like Parkes and Arecibo can survey the sky more efficiently than arrays of dishes like the Very Large Array near Socorro, New Mexico. However, that large field of view comes with a price: the typical resolution of the Very Large Array is 150 times better than Arecibo and more than 600 times that of Parkes.

Thus, telescopes like the Very Large Array typically cannot survey the sky fast enough to reliably detect such a short event—you’d have to get really lucky in a right place, right time sort of way—but the blurred vision of the single dish telescopes that do detect the bursts aren’t able to pinpoint where exactly they come from. Locating the source of an FRB is especially challenging because they don’t repeat themselves making followup observations useless.  

Assuming that you can convince yourself that your one-time, nonrepeating, extremely short signal is a real one—if that sounds difficult, it should!—then whatever explanation you have for its origin must explain why it doesn’t, in fact, repeat. Thus several astronomers have hypothesized that FRB phenomena arise from cataclysmic events like the violent death of a star or the merger of two black holes.

»Continue reading on QuickAndDirtyTips.com

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe