Mysterious Source of High Energy Cosmic Radiation DIscovered. Pulsars, Quasars, Black Holes, Dark Ma

[MeteorWayne]

<span class="bold">Mysterious Source of High-Energy Cosmic Radiation Discovered </span><p>WASHINGTON -- Scientists announced Wednesday the discovery of a previously unidentified nearby source of high-energy cosmic rays. The finding was made with a NASA-funded balloon-borne instrument high over Antarctica. <br /><br />Researchers from the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) collaboration, led by scientists at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, published the results in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Nature. The new results show an unexpected surplus of cosmic ray electrons at very high energy -- 300-800 billion electron volts -- that must come from a previously unidentified source or from the annihilation of very exotic theoretical particles used to explain dark matter. <br /><br />"This electron excess cannot be explained by the standard model of cosmic ray origin," said John P. Wefel, ATIC project principal investigator and a professor at Louisiana State. "There must be another source relatively near us that is producing these additional particles." <br /><br />According to the research, this source would need to be within about 3,000 light years of the sun. It could be an exotic object such as a pulsar, mini-quasar, supernova remnant or an intermediate mass black hole. <br /><br />"Cosmic ray electrons lose energy during their journey through the galaxy," said Jim Adams, ATIC research lead at NASA's Marshall Space Flight Center in Huntsville, Ala. "These losses increase with the energy of the electrons. At the energies measured by our instrument, these energy losses suppress the flow of particles from distant sources, which helps nearby sources stand out." <br /><br />The scientists point out, however, that there are few such objects close to our solar system. <br /><br />"These results may be the first indication of a very interesting object near our solar system waiting to be studied by other instruments," Wefel said. <br /><br />An alternative explanation is that the surplus of high energy electrons might result from the annihilation of very exotic particles put forward to explain dark matter. In recent decades, scientists have learned that the kind of material making up the universe around us only accounts for about five percent of its mass composition. Close to 70 percent of the universe is composed of dark energy (so called because its nature is unknown). The remaining 25 percent of the mass acts gravitationally just like regular matter, but does little else, so it is normally not visible. <br /><br />The nature of dark matter is not understood, but several theories that describe how gravity works at very small, quantum distances predict exotic particles that could be good dark matter candidates. <br /><br />"The annihilation of these exotic particles with each other would produce normal particles such as electrons, positrons, protons and antiprotons that can be observed by scientists," said Eun-Suk Seo, ATIC lead at the University of Maryland, College Park. </p><p>http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2008/nov/HQ_08-301_ATIC_paper.html</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

<p><font size="3">They put an upper limit of 3k ly because of the energy levels of the electrons.&nbsp; I wonder if it would be possible to put a lower limit depending on the source.&nbsp; For example, if there was a stellar mass black hole lurking 10 ly away, I am completely guessing, but it seems to me like there would be orders of magnitude more than 70 excess electrons.&nbsp; If I am right could the 70 electrons give an approximate distance to the bh (if that is what is causing the excess), such that&nbsp;a focused search could be done at that distance from earth?</font></p>

 

[DrRocket]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>They put an upper limit of 3k ly because of the energy levels of the electrons.&nbsp; I wonder if it would be possible to put a lower limit depending on the source.&nbsp; For example, if there was a stellar mass black hole lurking 10 ly away, I am completely guessing, but it seems to me like there would be orders of magnitude more than 70 excess electrons.&nbsp; If I am right could the 70 electrons give an approximate distance to the bh (if that is what is causing the excess), such that&nbsp;a focused search could be done at that distance from earth? <br />Posted by robnissen</DIV></p><p>Where did you see "70 excess electrons" ?<br /></p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

<p><em>The 4,300-pound ATIC experiment was designed to be carried to an altitude of about 124,000 feet above Antarctica using a helium-filled balloon about as large as the interior of the New Orleans Superdome. The goal was to study cosmic rays that otherwise would be absorbed into the atmosphere. <br /></em></p><p>Well, it looks like the ATIC certainly accomplished its mission <img src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/content/scripts/tinymce/plugins/emotions/images/smiley-money-mouth.gif" border="0" alt="Money mouth" title="Money mouth" /></p><p>Not only did it find cosmic rays - being what it was designed for - but it found a source so energetic, that scientists are having a hard time calculating its origin!</p><p>Speaking of the ATIC, I found some cool pictures here:&nbsp; http://atic.phys.lsu.edu/aticweb/</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[robnissen]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Where did you see "70 excess electrons" ? <br />Posted by DrRocket</DIV></p><p><font size="3">The SDC article:&nbsp; http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/081119-dark-matter.html</font></p><p><font size="3">"Wefel likens it to driving down a freeway among family sedans, mini-vans and trucks&acirc;&euro;"when suddenly a bunch of Lamborghinis bursts through the normal traffic. "You don't expect to see so many race cars on the road&acirc;&euro;"or so many high-energy electrons in the mix of cosmic rays." During five weeks of ballooning in 2000 and 2003, ATIC counted 70 excess electrons in the energy range 300-800 GeV. ("Excess" means over and above the usual number expected from the galactic background.) Seventy electrons may not sound like a great number, but like seventy Lamborghinis on the freeway, it's a significant surplus."</font><br /></p>

 

[Mee_n_Mac]

<p>Any chance the ATIC could be modified to better ascertain from which direction the high eV "rays" are coming ?&nbsp; The SDC article states there's some directivity built into the detector but it sounds like we don't have moment by moment telemetry of the orientation of the sensor.&nbsp; Certainly that could be fixed w/o much cost.&nbsp; I think it would be informative if we knew if they were coming in from all directions or just 1 small sector of the sky.</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p>-----------------------------------------------------</p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask not what your Forum Software can do do on you,</font></p><p><font color="#ff0000">Ask it to, please for the love of all that's Holy, <strong>STOP</strong> !</font></p> </div>

 

[neilsox]

Could a space craft accelerating at almost the speed of light be the source of these very fast electrons = the ejection mass? I realize humans have not done this yet, but we should not assume ET does not have more advanced technology.&nbsp;Perhaps this is evidence of ET?&nbsp; Neil

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Mysterious Source of High-Energy Cosmic Radiation Discovered WASHINGTON -- Scientists announced Wednesday the discovery of a previously unidentified nearby source of high-energy cosmic rays. The finding was made with a NASA-funded balloon-borne instrument high over Antarctica. Researchers from the Advanced Thin Ionization Calorimeter (ATIC) collaboration, led by scientists at Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, published the results in the Nov. 20 issue of the journal Nature. The new results show an unexpected surplus of cosmic ray electrons at very high energy -- 300-800 billion electron volts -- that must come from a previously unidentified source or from the annihilation of very exotic theoretical particles used to explain dark matter. </DIV></p><p>They find an unidentified and unexpected surplus of electrons at very high voltages, and *assume* it's caused by "dark matter"?&nbsp; Why not just call it what it is, a "surplus" of "electricity" in our universe? &nbsp; Goofy stuff IMO.&nbsp; Show me some emprical link between *any* electron and "dark matter" and *then* tell me that these excess electrons are caused by "dark matter".&nbsp; Hoy.</p><p>This industry is beyond gullible IMO.&nbsp; It's forgotten the importance of emprical testing altogether. </p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

I'd very much like to read this paper.&nbsp; Does anyone have a link to it? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I'd very much like to read this paper.&nbsp; Does anyone have a link to it? <br />Posted by michaelmozina</DIV><br /><br />You have to be a subscriber to NATURE to read it in full. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

I guess I'm actually going to have to pickup a copy of Nature and read it.&nbsp; It seems to me that we were all looking for a "sign" that excess electrons flow into our solar system from the outside.&nbsp; This seems to me to be a pretty sure "sign" that such things do in fact occur.&nbsp; I'm very curious about the numbers they found, and the methods they used.&nbsp; It would be hightly interesting to make sure such an experiment is added to any future solar probes, particularly ones that are inteneded to move closer to the sun.&nbsp; It's atmosphere of plasma would be the nature conductor or such high energy electrons.&nbsp; <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p>I think the fact that they are focusing on this whole dark matter annihilation stuff in the article to be a bit sensationalist and misleading.&nbsp; I think it is far more likely to be something more mundane, such as a pulsar/pulsar wind nebula.&nbsp; These objects are known to produce TeV electrons, so a few hundred GeVs isn't out of the question.&nbsp; I'm not sure why they call such an object "exotic", considering we understand them pretty well.&nbsp; I haven't read the paper yet, so it's probably the case of a poorly written news release(or well written, depending on how you look at it...personally though I prefer the news to report the most likely, and usually less exciting, explanation).&nbsp; That said, even if it is shown to be a PWN, the reason for TeV radiation is still somewhat of a mystery.&nbsp; </p><p>By the way, I haven't seen you(michaelmozina) around in a while...any chance of seeing that thread you mentioned wanting to make a long time ago?&nbsp; As I said, I personally don't think these electrons are caused by all this dark matter business.&nbsp; As far as I know though, the sun does not produce near-TeV electrons, so I don't agree with your last statement about the solar atmosphere...I also disagree that we are looking for electrons flowing into our solar system.&nbsp; Just because we see a source of high energy electrons somewhere relatively nearby does NOT imply they are "flowing in" to something(I'm assuming you are assuming they flow into the sun), just like seeing cosmic rays doesn't imply they are directed at us by some mysterious force...they just happen to be coming our way.&nbsp; There's no reason anything should/would preferentially flow toward us.&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I think the fact that they are focusing on this whole dark matter annihilation stuff in the article to be a bit sensationalist and misleading.&nbsp; I think it is far more likely to be something more mundane, such as a pulsar/pulsar wind nebula. '</DIV></p><p>I think it's even more mundane, just simple "electricty" in space. &nbsp;&nbsp; </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>These objects are known to produce TeV electrons, so a few hundred GeVs isn't out of the question.&nbsp; I'm not sure why they call such an object "exotic", considering we understand them pretty well.&nbsp; I haven't read the paper yet, so it's probably the case of a poorly written news release(or well written, depending on how you look at it...personally though I prefer the news to report the most likely, and usually less exciting, explanation). That said, even if it is shown to be a PWN, the reason for TeV radiation is still somewhat of a mystery. </DIV></p><p>I think however that a "simpler" approach is obviously the "better" approach.&nbsp; I'd like to see any emprical demonstration that sny exotic DM A) exists, B) emits electrons, C) emits them at these energy levels *BEFORE* claiming such things.&nbsp; It just undermines the credibility of the entire industry IMO when they do that.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>By the way, I haven't seen you(michaelmozina) around in a while...</DIV></p><p>I've been busy earning a living.&nbsp; Sometimes I actually have to work. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>any chance of seeing that thread you mentioned wanting to make a long time ago?&nbsp; </DIV></p><p>I'll start a thread on Birkeland's work with coronal loops when I get over the notion that I have to post it in the *unexplained* section of this forum.&nbsp; I'm not quite there yet frankly.&nbsp; It seems to me that this industry doesn't value, nor does it respond to emprical experimentation.&nbsp; That's quite a pity IMO.&nbsp; I'll get there, but probably not this week.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As I said, I personally don't think these electrons are caused by all this dark matter business. </DIV></p><p>Nor should anyone.&nbsp; It's not only a "leap of faith", it's faith in something that lacks emprical support.&nbsp; No one has ever collected or tested a gram of dark matter to see what "properties" it might really posses, assuming it even exists at all.&nbsp; To then claim it a logical "source" of such high energy electrons is simply absurd IMO.&nbsp; This isn't science anymore, it's dogma. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>As far as I know though, the sun does not produce near-TeV electrons,</DIV></p><p>I'd like to read the paper to see how they measured these electrons and how/if they isolated directional components to it.</p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>so I don't agree with your last statement about the solar atmosphere...I also disagree that we are looking for electrons flowing into our solar system.&nbsp; Just because we see a source of high energy electrons somewhere relatively nearby does NOT imply they are "flowing in" to something(I'm assuming you are assuming they flow into the sun), just like seeing cosmic rays doesn't imply they are directed at us by some mysterious force...they just happen to be coming our way.&nbsp; There's no reason anything should/would preferentially flow toward us.&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>Electrons can flow into and out of the sun.&nbsp; Birkeland's experiments treated the solar surface as a cathode.&nbsp; Alfven's work suggested a "unipolar induction" model that implied flow into the poles, and out of the equator of the sun. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[UFmbutler]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>No one has ever collected or tested a gram of dark matter to see what "properties" it might really posses, assuming it even exists at all.&nbsp; To then claim it a logical "source" of such high energy electrons is simply absurd IMO.&nbsp; This isn't science anymore, it's dogma.</DIV></p><p>Please read the actual article before making such assumptions(having no access to it is no excuse for posting thinly veiled endorsements of EU based on your own interpretation of a reporter's interpretation of a scientist's interpretation of an event).&nbsp; In all likelihood the article briefly mentions dark matter and the media blew it out proportion, just like they mis-stated the THEMIS results, and we all know what kind of thread results when the entire argument is based on a press release...</p><p>I truly don't understand your perspective.&nbsp; You act like they are not considering it to be electricity, despite the fact that they are in fact electrons, and they are moving, and have a certain energy.&nbsp; How is that not acknowledging current/electricity?&nbsp; Just calling it "electricity in space" is neither useful nor informative.&nbsp; We already know it is electricity in space.&nbsp; The interesting part is where it came from.&nbsp; Currently the only things known that produce TeV radiation are the things the article referred to as "exotic", such as PWNe, microquasars, black holes etc.&nbsp; Are you saying you lump those in with dark matter?&nbsp;&nbsp; </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[michaelmozina]

<p><BR/>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Please read the actual article before making such assumptions(having no access to it is no excuse for posting thinly veiled endorsements of EU based on your own interpretation of a reporter's interpretation of a scientist's interpretation of an event).</DIV></p><p>Actually I was mostly "moaning" about their leap of faith into the idea that "dark matter did it".&nbsp; I am happy about the fact that these high energy electrons are being discussed and observered in such useful and productive experiments.&nbsp; I'm certainly looking foward to reading the paper.&nbsp; I'm simply turned off by the assumption that these high energy emissions are due to, or associated with "dark matter".</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> In all likelihood the article briefly mentions dark matter and the media blew it out proportion, just like they mis-stated the THEMIS results, and we all know what kind of thread results when the entire argument is based on a press release...</DIV></p><p>It's the fact that this stuff is constantly being repeated in every press conference that gets old if one happens to be a "skeptic" of SUSY theory and non bayronic forms of matter. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>I truly don't understand your perspective.&nbsp; You act like they are not considering it to be electricity, despite the fact that they are in fact electrons, and they are moving, and have a certain energy.&nbsp; How is that not acknowledging current/electricity?</DIV></p><p>I am in fact "pleased" that they are discussing the subject of high energy electrons.&nbsp; It is an acknowledgement of the flow of these high energy electrons that makes me wish to read the paper.&nbsp; I'm not complaining about the *observation* of high energy electrons.&nbsp; I'm irked by them suggesting that the *source* of these high energy electrrons was in some way related to "dark matter".&nbsp; Certainly you can see that distinction?</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'> Just calling it "electricity in space" is neither useful nor informative. </DIV></p><p>It is "helpful and informative" to know that there is an abundance of high energy electrons cruising through our solar system.&nbsp; It's not useful or informative however to claim that they could originate with "dark matter".&nbsp; It's like claiming that they could come from "magic".&nbsp; There's no emprical correlation between high enegy electrons and "dark matter".&nbsp; That is pure dogma that is unrelated to the observation of high energy electrons.</p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>We already know it is electricity in space. </DIV></p><p>So what affect do these high energy electrons have on the solar atmosphere?&nbsp; Does the number increase with the active solar cycle? </p><p> Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>The interesting part is where it came from. </DIV></p><p>Well, yes, and no. It's also interesting that it exists there at all.&nbsp; Does it increase during the active phases of the solar cycle for instance?&nbsp; It may not be possible to determine where it all came from, but it's presense could have a host of effects on events in our solar system.</p><p>Don't get me wrong, I'm interested in where it comes from, but I'm also interested in the fact it's there at all. </p><p>Replying to:<BR/><DIV CLASS='Discussion_PostQuote'>Currently the only things known that produce TeV radiation are the things the article referred to as "exotic", such as PWNe, microquasars, black holes etc.&nbsp; Are you saying you lump those in with dark matter?&nbsp;&nbsp; <br /> Posted by UFmbutler</DIV></p><p>The highest energy emissions I've seen come from electrical discharges in plasma and nuclear decay reactions.&nbsp; I think we should exhast the "obvious" options before leaping to the conclusion that some new and exotic form of matter did it.</p><p>I'm really quite pleased that the article mentions and hopefully the paper describes the existence of these high energy electrons.&nbsp; I'm simply tired of hearing the dogma of this industry being applied to every single observation being made.&nbsp; It's absurd to claim that "dark matter did it", if you can't produce a gram of the stuff, can't get it to emit anything, let alone high energy electrons.&nbsp; These types of public statements being repeated in every press conference is tiring and frustrating.&nbsp; I would have much rather they discribed the *number* of electrons observed and the directional components they associated with these high energy electrons instead of speculating about where they *might have* originated.</p><p>&nbsp;</p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> It seems to be a natural consequence of our points of view to assume that the whole of space is filled with electrons and flying electric ions of all kinds. - Kristian Birkeland </div>

 

[why06]

<p>Okay, I don't get any of this so could someone put it in laymen's terms:</p><p>Is basically what's going on is that scientist somehow detected that the amount of high energy electrons there should be is less than the actual measured value within our solar system so scientists are postulating that there might be a pulsar very close to our solar system to make up for the diferrence?</p><p>Another question. How do scientist measure the voltage of cosmic rays?</p><p>What is the speed of these cosmic rays?</p><p>Last Question: Are these measurements accurate? To what degree of accuracy were these measurements taken before the energy levels were multiplied to list the total voltage of cosmiic rays throughout the solar system? I know they measured this in Antartica which is has less atomosphere to get in the way of measurements then most places, but did they account for the magnetosphere of Earth? It may be that the magnetosphere slows the cosmic rays causing a higher density of particles around heavenly bodies. It just seems to me there are a host of reasons why the measurement may not be correct. </p> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>