Slashdot Mirror
Gamma Ray Mystery Reestablished By Fermi Telescope
eldavojohn writes "New observations from NASA's Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope reveal that our assumptions about the 'fog' of gamma rays in our universe are not entirely explained by black hole-powered jets emanating from active galaxies — as we previously hypothesized. For now, the researchers are representing the source of unaccounted gamma rays with a dragon (as in 'here be') symbol. A researcher explained that they are certain about this, given Fermi's observations: 'Active galaxies can explain less than 30 percent of the extragalactic gamma-ray background Fermi sees. That leaves a lot of room for scientific discovery as we puzzle out what else may be responsible.' And so we reopen the chapter on background gamma-rays in the science textbooks and hope this eventually sheds even more light on other mysteries of space — like star formation and dark matter."
Alien exhaust fumes.
BAM! I just proved the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. What do I win?
Caveat: I am not a cosmetologist. Not even a cosmologist although I dated one once. Cosmetologist I mean. So I think that my insights into outer space and whatnot, well, have a great deal of validity.
To wit, wherein TFS claims "we previously hypothesized" etc etc actually no we didn't I went and read TF old article and I distinctly notice it talks about the galaxy and not the universe which to my understanding are different classifications of entities altogether.
Having typed all that I have to concede that I forgot what I was going to say. So I'll say this: what's with all the black in outer space anyway. Black holes, black energy, black matter, even the nothing part is black. Black black black. It's depressing.
Equine Mammals Are Considerably Smaller
This unexplained Gamma Ray Cloud is maki n_g___ M_ e____A_n__G__R___Y_____!
Rarr!!!
If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
It's simple - it's brownian motion on a galactic scale... .. Brownies... Me hungry.
Mmmm
There's a gorilla from Manilla whose a fella that stinks of vanilla and has salmonella.
The interesting thing about space telescopes is that they allow you to look into the past. For example, here's what gamma rays looked like 20 years ago - they're near the bluish spectrum, heading towards our time, and they're wearing cheesy 80s style shades.
Ah, arrogance and stupidity, all in the same package. How efficient of you. -- Londo Mollari
It is quite the opposite in fact. The problem is that there is more gamma-ray emission than can be explained by the sources that we know about. The dark sky paradox arises because there is not as much optical light as one would expect given an infinite universe.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes. This is a continuous processes.
About 30 years ago, I figured the "Hubble Constant" would be found to be increasing, because the Universe, would be attracted to these "outer Universes" through Gravity (but it doesn't work at all how it is presented in Physics) -- but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time. The extra gravity of galaxies, that APPEARS to be explained by Dark Matter, is really a bleed-through of gravity from these other Universes. It is non-localized and cannot be explained by counting particles, but the existence of so many particles, creates a zone where the Gravity is more likely to bleed through. Thus, more cumulative mass than the actual mass in the system.
There are cases where you can get a "shadow" a blank area of space, that has gravity, but no particles. It has to do with a "superposition" of other Galaxies with ours. They don't exist in the same space, but they would have an AFFINITY, for a position in space. Such loosely bound but massive forces of gravity, might be used to MOVE massive objects like stars. I've got a lot of VERY simple theories that are only difficult to understand because they are completely alien to anything I've heard. The Multiverse Theory of Quantum Mechanics where all states are possible -- is the REAL CLUE to how General Relativity is not a contradiction. We DO NOT have spontaneously spawned Multiverses, because they all RESOLVE to only one, that satisfies equal and opposite forces. Existence, is merely the convergence of all possible states with the ONLY ONE, that satisfies the conditions. Physics itself -- is NOT a law that controls ANYTHING, it's the byproduct. There is only ONE thing -- space/time, and it's interference with itself creates discrete and opposite 4 Dimensional ripples. This interference with each other and we see as the 4 dimensions we exist in -- but they are a "matrix of oscillations." The in-and out flow of Space/Time into this Universe is through discrete "holes" in the oscillating boundaries that we call particles and all the forces in physics can easily be explained by this one interaction.
So when there is a "big bang" for a created Universe or an "inverting one" -- we get a Gamma Ray burst. You can't LOCATE the new Universe, because distance and location OUTSIDE of a Universe is meaningless -- thus, they have no relative location with each other, but they do have AFFINITY, with influences on Light and Gravity, since Space/Time are a property "in-between" all Universes and what we call Particles the movement of this space/time is what creates the phenomena that we think of as light and gravity.
>>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
Let's run through these:
As usual, Wikipedia knows all, but in a nutshell, there are a couple of possible explanations for the "paradox". Among them: 1) star formation has not been in progress for an infinite period of time, so it would seem to be the case that in fact, not every point in the sky can be traced back to the surface of a star. And 2) the universe is expanding at an inflationary pace - that means some stars are receding beyond our ability to see them, because the space between us and them is expanding faster than the light can go through it. Another way to look at this is that the light has become so red-shifted that it's not detectable any more. Either way, the second bullet above hints at the answer - we really DON'T see the whole universe.
Yes, but accretion onto black holes gives of X-rays and radio signals. If there were significantly more supermassive black holes we should be detecting them. Now, Swift is finding a lot more active galactic nuclei (which are powered by black hole accretion) than we previously knew about, but still not enough to explain the gamma-ray excess.
Just because you are paranoid does not mean that no-one is out to get you.
It just seems to me that there could be black holes that we simply are unable to detect. In the end, it doesn't matter, because the end result is "we don't know." I just get picky when scientists say "we know this," because current science is just our best theory at the moment. Good theories? Absolutely. But I think saying things like "we know" discourage full exploration of a mystery because you're already eliminating one possibility without considering that your initial assumption about that fact may be wrong.