Slashdot Mirror
Origin of Cosmic Rays Revealed
neutron_p writes "An international team of astronomers has produced the first ever image of an astronomical object using high energy gamma rays, helping to solve a 100 year old mystery - an origin of cosmic rays. The astronomers studied the remnant of a supernova that exploded some 1,000 years ago, leaving behind an expanding shell of debris which, seen from the Earth, is twice the diameter of the Moon. Cosmic rays are extremely energetic particles that continually bombard the Earth, thousands of them passing through our bodies every day."
They're coming from inside your house! Get out of your house!
"Cosmic rays are extremely energetic particles that continually bombard the Earth, thousands of them passing through our bodies every day." I feel so Violated.
The Cosmos?
here.
Enjoy.
Welley Corporation - SLM Scammers
...of cosmic ray air-showers.
Thousands of cosmic rays do not pass through our bodies every day... They are stopped by the atmosphere. Cosmic rays are actually fairly dangerous radiation. During the Apollo missions, Astronauts would occasionally see flashes of light as cosmic rays hit their eyes... they also left 'streaks' in the porthole glass.
I think you are confusing them with neutrinos, but even then you are wrong... billions of those pass through us every second.
In a way, it makes sense that they'd be partly responsible for the blue in our atmosphere -- the rest comes from the Sun bombarding the layers of gases up there. Sometimes science is just a way of jerryrigging loose facts together to create a plausible test or explanation for strange phenonema.
Try not. Do or do not, there is no try.
-- Dr. Spock, stardate 2822-3.
What is more interresting than a source of cosmic rays is the source of the gamma bursts. Some background is here.
They are called muons. There is a lot more than a thounsand per day! And they can do A LOT of damage. Oh, and muons are produced from cosmic ray interractions in the upper atmosphere.
Unfortunately, I've had to have a scrith-reinforced prosthetic spine installed, and I have to stand on a floor plate made of Xeelee construction material... Exotic matter comes with its own set of health hazards.
Real Daleks don't climb stairs - they level the building.
These things are very powerful. The Russians have been conducting experiments on the sea floor for years and lots of them are energetic enough to go through. It's been assumed for a while that supernovas are the source of cosmic rays but it has been hard to pinpoint their origin, since cosmic rays can be deflected by magnetic fields.
Now that we've veered off onto neutrinos, let me point out how unbelievably cool neutrino detectors are. Start your journey via Google Images.
Here's what I do: Bitty Browser & Andromeda
This has, along with semi-conductor material and process defects etc., led to the whole field of Error Correcting Codes in computers - where such kind of errors can be prevented by things such as parity bits and what not. This works on the presumption that the probability of such bitswaps occurring on two bits is very small compared to just 1 bit. So, high-reliability computing servers etc. always tend to use memories with good ECC.
I have heard anecdotal evidence that IBM did some thourough testing of how such a behavior of bit-flipping due to cosmic rays changes at different elevation. When the elevation was high (7000 feet or so) - it occurred far more often then at the sea level. They did such tests below the surface of the earth and as they went deeper into the earth - such cosmic rays bit-flipping effect decreased but still remained. Only, after they went something like 40 feet or so below the surface of the earth - such behavior completley went away.
So, next time you wonder why you are paying more for ECC-RAM - think of cosmic rays (and material defect and what not ...)
Osho
... how the "cosmic rays" can make Mr. Fantastic so stretchy.
They didn't. Cosmic rays just activated the x-factor in the fantastic four, which would have stayed dormant otherwise, because they weren't mutants.
"Normal" mutants get their x-factor activated naturally, during the teen years.
(OMG, I can't believe I knew that)
Went looking around for more information, and came up with this:
s p?id=15U3&
http://www.pparc.ac.uk/frontiers/archive/update.a
It includes a picture of the telescope array as well as a small image of the gamma ray map.
liqbase
...I have a web page describing how: here
-- SIGFPE
I was involved in a similar, but very much smaller scale, experiment for my MSc thesis (JANZOS), attempting to find detect gamma rays from the (then very recent) supernova 1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud.
So supernovae were a prime suspect source back then.
We had three (not four) 2 metre (not 12 metre) telescopes with about 30 'pixels' each (compared to a few thousand for HESS.) (I actually worked on another part of the experiment, which used particle detectors to detect higher energy showers.)
A significant problem is to distinguish between showers created by gamma rays and ones created by charged particles (mostly protons.) The charged particle showers are 'uninteresting', because the direction they come from is uncorrelated to their source - they move on curved paths due to galactic magnetic fields. Unfortunately, they are about 99% of the cosmic rays. We were not able to distinguish, so we had a large 'signal to noise' problem.
There was a single telescope similar to these ones in the mid 80s (the Whipple Telescope, I think) which claimed to be able to distinguish by details of shower structure. (We didn't have the resolution, nor perhaps the light gathering power, to make use of this.) I presume HESS has built on this work.
Note that this result does not necessarily tell us about the very highest energy cosmic rays. There is a change in the slope of the spectrum at (from memory) about 10^15 electron volts, so it is likely that different processess are involved on either side of this boundary. I think there were also theoretical reasons to think that supernovae could not accelerate particles to such high energies.
As I recall, the models for acceleration generally required shock waves in a gas with magnetic fields. Particles could repeatedly bounce across the shock, getting accelerated each time. (Think of a ball bouncing between two walls that are moving towards each other.)
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Much like your own DNA.
We all think that mutations happen daily, but that is far from the case. In fact genetic mutation is very rare because we have error correcting enzymes which travel back and forth on DNA strands correcting them as they change. Typically the DNA "code" is changed as subatomic particles rip through your body, just as you've explained with RAM.
Yes, our DNA mutates. It doesn't stay that way however. Statistically there are more errors in a 300 page book then in a mile long DNA sequence. Actually there are about 0 errors in DNA because of this self-correcting mechanism.
* Source: Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors by Ann Druyan and Carl Sagan.
Get your Unix fortune now!
A long time ago (early 80s) I worked in a lab that used scintillation counters to measure biological activity (Background: you'd put a radioactively labelled (eg with tritium or C14)reagent in with the other cocktail for a test you're conducting in a little test tube. After say 5 mins you'd stop the reaction (say with perchloric acid), syphon off the top layer and put it into scintillation liquid (not sure what it was, but largely based on toluene) and put the vials into the scintillation counter which would have hundreds of little tubes in a conveyor belt and one by one drop the tubes deep inside the lead shielding to measure flashes of light as the isotopes decayed, hence telling you v accurately how much of the original substance under test had bound to the labelled reagent).
Anyway, every few days the counter would go completely stupid, and every few weeks copletely bananas (a technical term). It turned out the major machine crashes coincided with all scintillation counters in the building going crazy at the same time. We had over a dozen of these machines (all different brands) and they had about 6inches of lead around the detectors, so that was quite some energetic particles we were getting. The all the manufacturers' reps said there was little we could do to fix this, unless we wanted to be underground.
Talking to a friend at the local uni cosmic ray observatory (500+ scintillation counters spread over about a square kilometer), he said the more energetic showers were smaller in radius as the particles have less time to spread out from the initiating collision of a cosmic particle with the upper atmosphere. Usually they spread out to 50 to a few hundred metres across, with a massive cascade of all sorts of particle by the time it reaches ground level.
Interestingly, the initial byproducts of cosmic ray collisions have a v short life which means they should decay before reaching sea level. However as they travel close to the speed of light the depth of the atmosphere is foreshortened (Lorenzian contraction) to only a few hundred metres deep - a simple proof of relativity in action (or likewise, time is going slower for the cosmic particles).
It has been said that cosmic rays are the largest contributor to genetic mutations, beyond background radiation levels due to radioactive isotopes occuring naturally in the ground. Similarly, work place studies show airline hostesses/stewards have the far largest dosage of radiation of any occupation as they spend so much time above the bulk of the atmosphere. (Pilots spend less time in the air due to safety/fatigue regulations).
I also recall reading that it's extremely difficult to work out where cosmic rays originate as they are usually charged particles that follow curved paths through space due to the small but significant magnetic fields of stars and the galaxy itself. Due to timing of shows hitting detectors we can easily measure the angle a particle was going when it hit the atmosphere, but the particle took a very convoluted path prior to that, so finding a close source (100ly) is significant.
pithy comment
The cosmic rays that the article discusses are not muons, they are most often protons. The muons are what we encounter on Earth. The proton (also called the primary cosmic ray) comes in, hits our atmosphere, and a shower of subatomic particles is produced. The muon is the most powerful of these subatomic particles that is commonly produced. The fact that muons have a short half-life, and yet they can still reach us, has been cited as proof of relativity, and the idea that when you travel close to the speed of light (which these things do), time will slow down.
The group's publications page is here (click on observations section), but they don't seem to have a preprint of this paper. Nature will let you read the abstract of the paper for free.
The research seems to be just a more direct confirmation of something that was already thought to be understood, but had never really been verified.
Find free books.
Geophysics grad student actually, but I have had all the typical physics courses.
Einstein really said E = sqrt(p^2*c^2+m^2*c^4), where E = Energy, p = momentum, c = speed of light, m = rest mass. For things that are not moving this reduces to the more familiar E = mc^2.
Einstein also said, via general relativity, that gravitational fields are controlled by something known as the stress-energy tensor. In essense, it says that gravitational forces result from all energy, momentum and pressure in the universe (though mostly energy unless very high velocities are involved).
EM radiation has energy E = hv, where h is Planck's constant and v is the frequency of light. It has no rest mass (m = 0), but from above we see E = pc = hv => p = hv/c, so it has momentum. Since it has energy it creates a gravitational field, and this field would be equivalent to a particle with the same rest mass energy. [Caveat: Because momentum also contributes to the stress-energy tensor, the fields are not actually identical but the momentum correction is typically small.]
So in short a beam of gamma rays does create a gravitational field (though a very very small one for typically numbers of gamma rays).
Since I work for this experiment, I guess I should try to clear up a few points which have been discussed here.
A Supernova remnant (SNR) is a very rapidly expanding bubble of hot gas, created by the explosion of a massive star. It is thought that the shock wave caused by these expanding bubbles in our galaxy accelerate surrounding hydrogen gas to very high energies, which then become the cosmic ray protons which we see at the earth today. Protons form the bulk of the cosmic ray flux between MeV and EeV energies, and at least up PeV energies they seem to be formed in our Galaxy, probably by SNRs.
The SNRs are really light years across, the ones we see are generally in the local quadrant of our galaxy, thus are really not far away in the cosmic scale of things. Happily not close enough to fry us though! Cosmic redshift does not occur within our galaxy, by the way.
We detect gamma rays at very high energies by looking at their interactions with the upper atmosphere. The gamma rays themselves do not generally penetrate to the ground, we measure the Cherenkov light emitted by the shower of charged paticles which stem from the gamma ray interaction.
One reason gamma rays are interesting is that they , like other photons, travel directly to us from their source, so we can use them to make pictures of what the source looks like. We believe in this case that the gamma rays are produced in the supernova remnant by interactions of the accelerated protons, and thus are a tracer which proves the existence of the comsic rays at the SNR, and thus that SNRs generate cosmic rays.
The particles which pass through us every day are mostly muons, which are by-products of the interaction of cosmic ray protons with the atmosphere.
More information can be found at:
http://www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/hfm/HESS/HESS.html