Slashdot Mirror


Most Powerful Cosmic Rays Come From Galaxies Far, Far Away (space.com)

A new study finds the highest-energy cosmic rays to bombard Earth come from galaxies far, far away. Space.com reports: The sun emits relatively low-energy cosmic rays. However, for more than 50 years, scientists have also detected ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, ones far beyond the capability of any particle accelerator on Earth to generate. One way to discover the origins of ultra-high-energy cosmic rays is to study their directions of travel. However, ultra-high-energy cosmic rays only rarely strike Earth's atmosphere, with one hitting any given area about the size of a soccer field about once per century, the researchers said. In order to detect ultra-high-energy cosmic rays, scientists look for the spray of electrons, photons and other particles that result when ultra-high-energy cosmic rays hit the top of Earth's atmosphere. Each of these showers contains more than 10 billion particles, which fly downward in a disk shaped like a giant plate miles wide, according to the statement. Scientists examined the sprays from ultra-high-energy cosmic rays using the largest cosmic-ray observatory yet: the Pierre Auger Observatory built in the western plains of Argentina in 2001. It consists of an array of 1,600 particle detectors deployed in a hexagonal grid over 1,160 square miles (3,000 square kilometers), an area comparable in size to Rhode Island. A connected set of telescopes is also used to see the dim fluorescent light the particles in the sprays emit at night.

The researchers analyzed data collected between 2004 and 2016. During these 12 years, the scientists detected more than 30,000 ultra-high-energy cosmic rays. If ultra-high-energy cosmic rays came from the Milky Way, one might perhaps expect them to come from all across the sky, or perhaps mostly from the direction of the supermassive black hole at the galaxy's center. However, the researchers saw that ultra-high-energy cosmic rays mostly came from a broad area of sky about 90 degrees away from the direction of the Milky Way's core.

97 comments

  1. Long long ago, far far away by Chrisq · · Score: 1

    Long long ago, far far away ... must be the tail-end of a death star beam.

    1. Re:Long long ago, far far away by Tomahawk · · Score: 1

      Or the explosions from the Death Stars. After all, those things were holding on to a lot of power that had to go somewhere...

      If you look through really really really powerful telescopes would we see a planet being altered to consume the full power of a nearby sun?

    2. Re:Long long ago, far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stick your dick in a live light socket!

    3. Re:Long long ago, far far away by allcoolnameswheretak · · Score: 0

      Or the explosions from the Death Stars. After all, those things were holding on to a lot of power that had to go somewhere...

      Every Death Star contains a clone of Donald Trump in its core. When a "Fire!" command is received, the Principal Fire Command Engineer takes a lighter and pretends to put fire on Donald Trumps hair. The Death Star core bundles the concentrated anger of the Donald into a laser beam.

      This is what actually happens inside of a Death Star.

    4. Re:Long long ago, far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Trump! Apps! Apps! Trump apps Trump! Apps trump Trump apps! Boldly to go!
      Clinton, when the walls fell

    5. Re:Long long ago, far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Or the explosions from the Death Stars. After all, those things were holding on to a lot of power that had to go somewhere...

      Nope, the Death Star has an unbelievably tiny amount of energy compared with a star - the energy which is released when the star goes nova. And there are so many novas around we can't keep count of em ;)

    6. Re:Long long ago, far far away by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      They are not Cosmic Rays... they're Midi-Chlorians.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    7. Re:Long long ago, far far away by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> Or the explosions from the Death Stars. After all, those things were holding on to a lot of power that had to go somewhere...

      Nope, the Death Star has an unbelievably tiny amount of energy compared with a star - the energy which is released when the star goes nova. And there are so many novas around we can't keep count of em ;)

      Nova is an eruption, not an explosion. Their energy is negligible.

    8. Re:Long long ago, far far away by pushing-robot · · Score: 1

      That's ridiculous...in order to be detectible at this distance the beam would have to be incredibly coherent and collimated, like some kind of super-laser.

      --
      How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
  2. hypothesis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Perhaps the spherical ("planetary") component of the galaxy has a large dipole magnetic field, which could cause an acceleration of charged particles which impinge upon the disc portion, thereby mimicking "intergalactic" cosmic rays.

    1. Re:hypothesis by habig · · Score: 2

      The galaxy does have a magnetic field, which is rather chaotic rather than dipole shaped and weighs in at the micro-gauss level. There are a number of different ways to measure this both in our own galaxy and in other similar galaxies.

      To get charged particles of these energies (> 10^20 eV) to bend in less than a galactic radius, you need a lot more B than that, and that large a B is not seen.

  3. Not the Distance, but the Time... by ytene · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Perhaps there is another way of looking at the data.

    When dealing with astronomical observations of this type, we accept that the observations we are making could be millions or even billions of years old, based on the distance from which the phenomena originate. OK, so: old data.

    We are also told by physicists that our universe started with a "big bang", a state and point in time at which the state of our universe was so energised that the sub-atomic particles we take for granted today [never mind atoms and molecules] did not exist - because the universe had not cooled sufficiently.

    So if you extrapolate this facts, don't they suggest that it stands to reason that, the further away in distance [and thus the further back in time] that we look, the higher the energies we would expect to observe. Everything else is [just / subject to] entropy.

    I'm not sure where Occam's Razor would swing across this story, but suspect the explanation - whatever it is - will be a simple one.

    1. Re:Not the Distance, but the Time... by Tomahawk · · Score: 2

      One issue with Occam's razor is that what may be obvious and simple to one person may not be to another. Hence 2 different people will come up with what they think to be a perfectly logical and simple explanation.

      That means that some will actually think this is Star Wars.

      I may be that person...

    2. Re:Not the Distance, but the Time... by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 4, Informative

      We are also told by physicists that our universe started with a "big bang", a state and point in time at which the state of our universe was so energised that the sub-atomic particles we take for granted today [never mind atoms and molecules] did not exist - because the universe had not cooled sufficiently. So if you extrapolate this facts, don't they suggest that it stands to reason that, the further away in distance [and thus the further back in time] that we look, the higher the energies we would expect to observe. Everything else is [just / subject to] entropy.

      No, because the high energies from that time has cooled down to what we predicted and observed as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    3. Re:Not the Distance, but the Time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Or at least that's the theory. The physical location does suggest this may be time based though perhaps not a direct emission from any creation event.

    4. Re:Not the Distance, but the Time... by war4peace · · Score: 1

      Truth be told, it satisfies both assumptions of "a long, long time ago" AND "in a galaxy far, far away".

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
    5. Re:Not the Distance, but the Time... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      There are two major issues. One is that because the universe is expanding, the cosmic rays would be red shifted (which lowers their energy). Second is that interactions with cosmic microwave background limit the travel distance for ultra-high energy cosmic rays (they could not have been traveling since the big bang).

    6. Re:Not the Distance, but the Time... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      The initial energy has decayed to something like 3 kelvins nowadays, except in very small spots. However, some energetic events (quasars, at least) did happen when the Universe was younger.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  4. Frankly m now on by 93+Escort+Wagon · · Score: 5, Funny

    If I'm ever asked "how big is Rhode Island?", I'm going to say "it's roughly the size of the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina".

    --
    #DeleteChrome
    1. Re:Frankly m now on by Green+Mountain+Bot · · Score: 1

      Huh. I always thought of Rhode Island as being the size of the caldera of Olympus Mons.

    2. Re: Frankly m now on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How many blue whales is that?

      Exactly?

    3. Re: Frankly m now on by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      How many blue whales is that?

      Exactly?

      Blue whales are a unit of weight, not area. Get your units right.

    4. Re: Frankly m now on by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Okay, then, how many square smoots is that?

    5. Re: Frankly m now on by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      Okay, then, how many square smoots is that?

      *sigh* Are those standard or imperial smoots?

  5. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Tomahawk · · Score: 2

    Cave drawings.

    'nough said.

  6. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Flamebait

    Dude, you don't even know what evolution means.

  7. And a long time ago! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jar-Jar, for example.

    1. Re:And a long time ago! by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      Jar-Jar, for example.

      I would like to imagine Jar-Jar being bombarded by high energy cosmic rays.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:And a long time ago! by war4peace · · Score: 1

      So... he will be "pewnished"?

      --
      ...gis sdrawkcab (usually not responding to ACs; don't bother posting as AC)
  8. 90 Degrees by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

    That doesn't mean they came from elsewhere, it would also sync up really well with them coming from the blackhole in the center of our galaxy and being curved back inward by the gravity of the whole galaxy - sort of a galactic-scale particle accelerator. (Like the field lines of a magnet.)

    1. Re:90 Degrees by ledow · · Score: 1

      If true, all such matter would have the same change / trajectory to it.

      It means they come in on a completely unexpected angle, the people studying them aren't stupid.

      Comparatively speaking the gravity of the galaxy is either pathetic, or so strong you end up caught in it's whirlpool. There's basically nothing that could ever do what you suggest, no matter how heavy or non-existent the particle (not that the mass of a particle, or absence of mass, has much to do with how much gravity affects it - gravity is curvature of space-time).

    2. Re:90 Degrees by crunchygranola · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That doesn't mean they came from elsewhere, it would also sync up really well with them coming from the blackhole in the center of our galaxy and being curved back inward by the gravity of the whole galaxy - sort of a galactic-scale particle accelerator. (Like the field lines of a magnet.)

      Or instead of "really well", not all in any way, shape, or form. You have no idea of the physics involved, typing words is not a physical analysis.

      The galactic escape velocity for an iron atom (a typical heavy cosmic ray particle) is about 10^5 eV. All of the cosmic rays under discussion have energies greater than 10^19 eV, or 100 trillion times more energetic than the galactic escape velocity energy.

      The galactic magnetic field is much better at holding on to cosmic rays, but cannot confine them above an energy of 10^18 eV or so. Which is why the researchers are studying extragalactic cosmic rays with energies above 10^19 eV. They know these cannot be confined to the Milky Way.

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to have any merit.

      --
      Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age
    3. Re:90 Degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to have any merit.

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to dissuade them from following the money.

    4. Re:90 Degrees by Vitriol+Angst · · Score: 1

      I think that "smack down" was a bit harsh. He's suggesting an idea -- and while I thought it had little merit, we are talking about one eV in magnitude difference between nonsense and plausible.

      Normally, it's true to assume the random person with 5 minutes of bright ideas has not thought of something that scientists who've devoted their careers to the topic. Most notably, people pointing out the sun as a heat source that climatologists may have not considered, come to mind.

      It's considered traditional to refrain from Slashdot atomic smackdowns unless someone is incorrect to greater than 10^10 in magnitude.

      --
      >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
    5. Re:90 Degrees by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to have any merit.

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to dissuade them from following the money.

      Yeah, cause if I'm a well educated, intelligent person with a large range of technical skills in both software and hardware looking to make lots of money, I'm definitely going to go into astrophysics.

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    6. Re:90 Degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >> They know these cannot be confined to the Milky Way.

      It's true that they can't be confined within the Milky Way - but that does *not* necessarily mean they were generated outside of the Milky Way

    7. Re:90 Degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      I know this type of comments, but OMFG, I just don't understand this kind of repulsive anti-intellectualism. Being a researcher require extremely long studies, and the pay is not particularly great. Any physicist could have probably spent half as long in university to get a much better paying job in finance or something to that effect. I think these people are driven more by their interest in their field of study than by any profit motive, yet they get spat on while people like Jeff Bezos and Steve Jobs are treated like gods. These people are what made your country great, and it's a good thing that resources are available to allow them to continue their work. If people like you were in charge, we'd all still be living in caves trying to figure out if rocks are edible.

    8. Re:90 Degrees by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 3, Funny

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to have any merit.

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to dissuade them from following the money.

      So true. It's simply disgusting that there is this cabal of union bosses, Leftist billionaires and government bureaucrats which is conspiring to further fund the *myth* of extragalactic cosmic rays, all in an attempt to push their agenda of redistribution of wealth and punishing Job Creators.

    9. Re:90 Degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I don't necessarily understand how the science outlined in the article deals with the fact that high-energy cosmic rays lose energy over time due to coupling with the cosmic microwave background radiation, causing the GZK limit, where the theoretical upper limit energy of distant cosmic rays is 5×10^19 eV.

      I read an article somewhat recently that described how some scientists thought that the magnetic field of the Milky Way acted to accelerate the charged cosmic rays up to energies higher than the GZK limit, thus explaining the conundrum. My searching is failing to find it again unfortunately.

    10. Re:90 Degrees by PPH · · Score: 1

      but that does *not* necessarily mean they were generated outside of the Milky Way

      Two things affect this assumption: One. If such high energy cosmic rays were produced in any great quantities within the Milky Way, the odds are that we would be able to observe their source and make some guesses about the mechanism of their generation. These hypothetical close-in sources would produce observable cosmic ray 'hot spots' in their distribution pattern. Two. The distribution of particles suggests that they are more likely attenuated by the matter in the Milky Way's disk and core than produced there.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:90 Degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The abstract says

      right ascension d = 100 ± 10 degrees and declination d = -24 ± [about 12 degrees]

      If I understand these new-fangled degrees of right-ascension correctly this is about RA 6h 40m and puts the centre of the anisotropy in Canis Major about a quarter of the way from Sirius to Canopus. This is a little away from the galactic equator, so not in the Milky Way and well away from the galactic poles. The nearest point on the galactic equator is at about 235 degrees along the galactic equator. The centre, Sagittarius, is at 0 degrees, which is 125 degrees away.

      I can't see any reason to say 90 degrees from the direction of the Milky Way's core.

      Slashdotters still can't write degrees in Unicode I see.

    12. Re:90 Degrees by amorsen · · Score: 1

      Undoing wrong moderation. Nothing to see here, move along.

      --
      Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
    13. Re:90 Degrees by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      To follow the money (which astrophysicists typically don't make), a scientist will try to establish a reputation as a top researcher, because they get the smallish bucks, much better than other astrophysicists. Reputations are not made by confirming what other people are saying, but rather by contradicting them and getting away with it. If someone cares deeply about money, that person isn't going to become a scientist.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
    14. Re:90 Degrees by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And what if you do not have a large range of technical skills because all you know is research-based astrophysics?

      You are now 35 with two kids, a mortgage, and 40k left over from your PhD with 15 more years until you get a pension. Do you surrender the gravy train of the research you have been doing since your undergrad was finished just because you missed something that appears obvious to a tiny subset of the population or do you dismiss that observation and keep your career?

      Your children fed, your wife supported, your career choice validated, your retirement guaranteed, or admit you were wrong about something when you were 23 and lose it all?

      To those that live in academia and go to conferences, this is the typical life-experience of people studying anything interesting. That is why it takes a generation or two for new ideas that have plenty of proof to take hold. Too much to lose and nothing to gain.

    15. Re:90 Degrees by painandgreed · · Score: 1

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to have any merit.

      If hundreds of professional astrophysicists are devoting their careers to studying a problem, you can be sure that nothing you come up with off the top of your head, without knowing anything about the subject, is going to dissuade them from following the money.

      So true. It's simply disgusting that there is this cabal of union bosses, Leftist billionaires and government bureaucrats which is conspiring to further fund the *myth* of extragalactic cosmic rays, all in an attempt to push their agenda of redistribution of wealth and punishing Job Creators.

      Actually, it's a conspiracy of the Technocracy which is attempting to alter the consensual reality to fit their physical narrative.

  9. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by GESUS · · Score: 1

    Who many version is there of the bible again?

  10. Iain M Banks had it right by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Battles between sufficiently advanced space faring races result in "weapon blink" being observed across the universe...

  11. most powerful energy in us, plus all around us by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    that would be our barely used standard issue spiritual connections... cease fire stand down.. use our conscious conscience to develop our cadence.. sing along.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-kA3UtBj4M ..freedom is a vocatioon..

  12. Far, Far Away... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Most Powerful Cosmic Rays Come From Galaxies Far, Far Away

    Which also means that they come from long, long ago.

  13. How can this be new? by aberglas · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Way, way back in the 1980s as an Honors CS student I wrote some code on an old DG Nova to analyze cosmic ray bursts for the Physics Dept (Uni Adelaide). They had several detectors, hooked into a CAMAC crate, and could measure the time difference between the receptors, and thus the direction of the burst, or at least where the cosmic ray hit the atmosphere, and by also looking at distributions work out roughly which direction the original ray came from.

    Some of them are charged particles and so do not travel in straight lines, which complicates it. I just did the programming, not much to do with the physics, but I would have thought this would be old news.

    1. Re:How can this be new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You may be confusing two different things, the result of archaic language; Cosmic Rays are as a descriptive term as Atom Bombs once was.
      Charged Cosmic Particles, from Protons up to Iron, have been detected. That nothing heavier than Iron has been found rules out all but Stellar Fusion formation. The Bevatron was used to first characterize this, and in fact, they had an "Eye Flash" Station on top of the Shielding where one could peek at the synthetic ones. It was called "Eye Flash" due to direct Human Detection; Astronauts first reported these odd Flashes, and Tobias posited that these were Charged Particles. These _mostly_ originate from the Galactic Plane.
      The much rarer Gamma Ray (Photon) Bursts are also termed Cosmic rays, but the theories for their formation are at this point quite tenuous. Particles basically break up in the Atmosphere, and we detect the crap that they shower below, lesser Particles and associated Gammas.
      GRBs can make it to ground and deep below it. They are Isotropic; they come from everywhere. They are sought with a combination of Space-Based Satellites and Ground-Based Detectors, working in coincidence.
      The techniques for detecting and analyzing the two kinds differ, but the Auger Observatory can be configured to do both. This is in fact New Stuff, having a Ground-Based Facility with such Sensitivity and Directional Discrimination. That's why it was built in the first place.
      Go Science!

    2. Re:How can this be new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Hey - I was at Adelaide Uni in the 2000s. I think I learned enough to answer your question.

      All of the cosmic rays (probably) are charged particles, and do not travel in straight lines. A detector array can work out the direction a cosmic ray came from, to within about a degree, but that doesn't help much when this arrival direction could be 90 degrees away from the cosmic ray's source.

      The low-energy ones travel in very curved paths, and their arrival directions are effectively fully randomised. The high-energy ones travel in somewhat straighter paths, so their arrival directions still don't point exactly back to their sources, but they at least come from the right general direction. (In the high-energy regime, the deflection between the arrival direction and the direction of the sources goes as 1/energy.)

      Unfortunately, the high-energy ones are really rare: you need to have a detector array of a few thousand square kilometres, and operate it for a decade or so, to detect a significant number of them. The old Adelaide array wasn't big enough to detect any of the really high-energy cosmic rays: it detected only the lower-energy ones, for which the arrival directions don't tell you anything.

      So, that's part of the answer: the Pierre Auger Observatory is the first array to have been big enough, and operated for long enough, to detect a significant sample of really high-energy cosmic rays and work out where they're coming from. The other part of the answer is that the Pierre Auger Observatory - unlike the array you worked on - includes some nitrogen fluorescence telescopes that let it measure the energy of each cosmic ray, so they can figure out which of the cosmic rays are the useful high-energy ones.

    3. Re:How can this be new? by Michael+Woodhams · · Score: 3, Informative

      I did my MSc across the Tasman in New Zealand in 1988 on the JANZOS cosmic ray experiment. We had Cerenkov telescopes detecting particles of about 10^12 eV, and particle detectors for showers from primary particles of about 10^15 eV. (i.e. high enough energy that the cosmic ray shower reached ground level.)

      We were well aware of the problem of charged particles traveling straight. A few cosmic rays (from memory, about 1%) are gamma rays, which do travel straight. The problem is that we couldn't tell from the shower whether the primary particle was a gamma ray, so you're looking for a directional signal of 1% against a background noise of 99%.

      There were suggestions at the time that Cerenkov telescopes with better imaging than ours could perhaps distinguish gamma ray induced showers, and for the higher energy showers you could use underground muon detectors, because hadron-triggered showers produced more muons. I haven't followed cosmic ray astronomy since then, so I don't know the current state of the art. I found it frustrating to be in a field where you struggle to convince others (and possibly yourself) that you've seen anything at all other than noise.

      The AC from Adelaide in the 2000s replying to your message says that at these super-high energies you can get direction information because they are too high energy to be deflected much. It makes sense that this would be the case at sufficiently high energy, although I don't know what 'sufficiently high energy' would be.

      I did maximum likelihood analysis on reconstructing the direction of the cosmic rays from the particle detectors. I had a little legacy code to start with, which was in Fortran 77, so that is what I used. Happily, I have never had to use Fortran ever again.

      --
      Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
    4. Re:How can this be new? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Oh, wow - the field's come on a bit since then! The Cherenkov telescopes operating at around 10^12 eV can now discriminate between gamma rays and cosmic rays fairly reliably, just from the shape of the shower, without needing muon counters as a discriminator. There are three big Cherenkov observatories at present - MAGIC, HESS and VERITAS - which have been very successful at mapping high-energy gamma-ray emission.

      Gamma rays do provide directional information, but only at low-ish energies (~< 10^14 eV). Above this energy, they interact with photons of the cosmic microwave background, so they don't reach us. At really high energies (>~10^18 eV) they stop interacting this way, so they might reach us - but Cherenkov observatories don't have the aperture to detect particles at these energies, and particle-detector arrays like Auger can't reliably distinguish them from cosmic rays. (They can, and do, try to find gamma rays among the cosmic rays, but all they've managed so far is to set upper limits on the gamma-ray fraction. Auger is working on an upgrade using the muon-detector approach you described.) So gamma rays can't, yet, tell us where the *really* high-energy processes are happening.

      Charged cosmic rays, to travel straight enough to be useful, need to be at >~ 6*10^19 eV. At least, that's the threshold the Auger people usually use: they throw out events below this energy, then look at the arrival directions of the remainder.

  14. humans asking for help from god the mothers.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    to help us break our greed/fear/ego based tech behemoths out of their corepirate nazi perfect balance white is right genocider mindset.. MANic is an understatement.. thanks again moms...

  15. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    Human like footprints have been found that are over 6 million years old. To record history you have to be able to write.

  16. extreme energy cosmic ray by locofungus · · Score: 2

    Wikipedia tells me that extreme energy cosmic rays (>5x10e19 eV) are limited to about 160 million light years.

    Trouble with astronomy is that this can be close or far depending on how you squint when you look at it :-)

    Also google the oh-my-god particle which was estimated at 3x10e20 eV.

    --
    God said, "div D = rho, div B = 0, curl E = -@B/@t, curl H = J + @D/@t," and there was light.
    1. Re:extreme energy cosmic ray by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      Also google the oh-my-god particle which was estimated at 3x10e20 eV.

      The description I read was the energy of a baseball going forty miles an hour. We haven't found one in Bob Feller or Nolan Ryan territory yet, I guess.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  17. Seems intuitive by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    If the most powerful cosmic rays came from our own sun, we probably wouldn't be here. DNA-based life anywhere could probably say the same.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  18. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1
  19. We can't see global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    But detecting cosmic rays form far galaxies... stop smoking shit guys...

    1. Re:We can't see global warming by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I guess cosmic rays forming galaxies far away is as plausible as climate change.

  20. Watch out! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Those must be the undeveloped episodes 7-9 from George Lucas.

  21. Yes, but can't explain Cosmic Rays by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    So if you extrapolate this facts, don't they suggest that it stands to reason that, the further away in distance [and thus the further back in time] that we look, the higher the energies we would expect to observe.

    To get to the energies of cosmic rays you have to go back to before 10^-13 s after the Big Bang. Back then the Universe was incredibly small and incredibly dense. So dense and energetic that everything, even things like neutrinos, were colliding and interacting with everything around them. This meant that everything was roughly in thermal equilibrium and had comparable energies.

    By the time than the charged particles responsible for cosmic rays the energy and density of the universe would have been much, much lower since it would require photons to decouple first which happened 380,000 years after the Big Bang. The result is that there is no way that a Cosmic ray, as a charged particle, can get its energy directly from the Big Bang.

    It could get it indirectly if there were some high mass, exotic and as yet undiscovered particle which was created in the Big Bang and which decays with a lifetime of billions of years or which might annihilate with itself to create these particles. This is one possible way to detect Dark Matter but it is extremely unlikely (impossible without even more new physics) that this would provide enough energy to explain high energy cosmic rays.

    1. Re:Yes, but can't explain Cosmic Rays by lgw · · Score: 1

      Very well put! Makes me miss the good old days of slashdot, when posts like this were more common, and the trolls were more energetic too.

      --
      Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
    2. Re:Yes, but can't explain Cosmic Rays by Gravis+Zero · · Score: 1

      To get to the energies of cosmic rays you have to go back to before 10^-13 s after the Big Bang. Back then the Universe was incredibly small and incredibly dense. So dense and energetic that everything, even things like neutrinos, were colliding and interacting with everything around them. This meant that everything was roughly in thermal equilibrium and had comparable energies.

      The obvious explanation is that they bounced off the edge of the universe, God yelled "brick!" and the rays were flung back at us via blackhole. We're part of a REALLY big game of cosmic basketball. ;)

      --
      Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
    3. Re:Yes, but can't explain Cosmic Rays by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Sorry but as you should know God is an Englishman and what you suggest simply isn't cricket.

  22. Not gravity, magnetic fields by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 2

    Gravity is too weak to do this, even over long distances. The reason that nobody can detect the sources of cosmis rays is because they are easily deflected by magnetic fields and we don't have a magnetic field map of the universe to unravel this effect. Even extremely high energy rays can be deflected by weak magnetic fields due to the huge distances involved.

    So for this result, I presume that they must have ruled out the possibility that these rays are being bent back towards us by the galactic magnetic field which is not unreasonable given that we know something of the galactic magnetic field and the energy of these particles.

  23. Higher Energy, Reconstruct Original Ray by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

    These are much higher energy cosmic rays than those you typically detect with a couple of bits of scintillator, a few PMTs and a CAMAC crate. In addition, all you detected were the direction of one muon in the shower which the ray initiated in the atmosphere so you had very little idea of the original direction of the ray. To do that you have to reconstruct the entire shower which, for a high energy ray, is spread over a large area.

  24. I choose to believe... by ElizabethGreene · · Score: 3, Funny

    I choose to believe these are the echoes of epic battles of ancient galaxy-spanning civilizations fighting to extinction over the correct pronunciation of "GIF" and whether emacs or vi is the superior editor.

    1. Re:I choose to believe... by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

      I choose to believe these are the echoes of epic battles of ancient galaxy-spanning civilizations fighting to extinction over the correct pronunciation of "GIF" and whether emacs or vi is the superior editor.

      If they fight that hard over "GIF" it's a good job no one asked if they were iPhone or Android.

      --
      "That's the way to do it" - Punch
    2. Re:I choose to believe... by david_thornley · · Score: 1

      And, obviously, they use vim.

      --
      "When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
  25. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Oswald+McWeany · · Score: 1

    Who many version is there of the bible again?

    To be fair, if the bible is wrong that wouldn't mean evolution is real. It would just mean the bible is wrong.

    / just playing devil's advocate... of course evolution is real.

    --
    "That's the way to do it" - Punch
  26. I'm not saying it's aliens... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ...but it's aliens.

  27. Huh? by Frosty+Piss · · Score: 0

    Isn't it fairly obvious that weak cosmic rays not coming from a nearby source must actually be strong cosmic rays if they are coming from a far away source?

    --
    If you want news from today, you have to come back tomorrow.
  28. Transporters. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Of coarse ... silly people are just looking at the inter galactic worm whole corridors held open by the StarGates ;)

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stargate

  29. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by alexo · · Score: 1
  30. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by lgw · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Nice nic for that comment.

    The fundamental* mistake is to think of the Bible as any sort of science or history. Both religious whackjobs and atheist evangelists keep repeating that mistake. That's not the kind of book the Bible is: it's not a book about "how the world is", it's a book about "how to live in the world".

    Seeing the assholes and idiots on both sides (well, mostly the religious side) keep on about stuff like evolution as if it had any bearing whatsoever on the "truth" of the Bible gets really old. It's a book about psychology and social organization, and the stories therein are true or false based on whether they give good advice.

    *I'm sure you see what I did there.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
  31. Evolution probably is not 100% accurate by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Why specifically the Christian version of the Bible and not any of the texts that pre-date it or any of the more recent texts? How do you know the Mormons aren't the ones who got it right, they are Christians (by their own definition) yet have a dramatically different view on history than you do.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  32. Obvious retort by OrangeTide · · Score: 1

    Satan did them to confuse you and test your faith.

    --
    “Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
  33. The question is two fold: by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    First, how do the particles manage to cross millions of light years thru the slight magnetic field of intergalactic space and still retain a large part of their energy. And secondly, what process gives them that great amount of energy in the first place.

  34. Naturally by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I mean, those are the cosmic rays that have had the time to build up steam, right?

  35. The Senator! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Glory and Honor to Senator Binks of Naboo!

    1. Re:The Senator! by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      I'll drink to that!
      -Jar Jar fan

  36. Cosmic rays by woboyle · · Score: 1

    My father was a cosmic ray physicist, one of the top in the field. He even invented a cosmic ray "telescope: to view these events! It was called meson manner. :-) He also had a lab on top of Mount Evans in Colorado that did the same. I still have sympathies for the graduate students that had to spend a winder there!

    --
    Sometimes, real fast is almost as good as real-time.
  37. Not far away, sorry Star Wars fans by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    FTA: This direction where most of the ultra-high-energy cosmic rays came from is a place "with an increased density of nearby galaxies," Kampert added. "These galaxies, or some subset of these galaxies, contain the sources of these cosmic rays."

    They are probably from "nearby galaxies" based on the direction clustering. This would also imply the rays dissipate or weaken over distance, or else their source should appear roughly uniform across the sky, because "lasting" rays would otherwise be arriving from galaxies all over the universe in all directions. Although red-shifting (expansion) may also account for some distance-based weakening. Magnetic fields, ions, and dust in stuff in between could also weaken the rays over time. The cause(s) of the weakening is only speculative at this time.

    1. Re:Not far away, sorry Star Wars fans by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This would also imply the rays dissipate or weaken over distance [...] The cause(s) of the weakening is only speculative at this time.

      We already know that this happens, and why: high-energy cosmic rays interact with photons of the cosmic microwave background, and through these interactions they lose energy. This follows from measurements of nuclear physics, extrapolated with relativity: if it *didn't* happen, there'd be something wrong with our understanding of either nuclear physics or relativity.

      This process is called the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin effect, after the three guys who predicted it - in 1966, soon after the cosmic microwave background was detected. They figured out the implications for cosmic-ray physics more-or-less immediately.

    2. Re:Not far away, sorry Star Wars fans by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Since it's just about impossible to actually test the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin effect over long distances, models, indirect observations, and extrapolation of lab tests are used; but still imperfect. Perhaps I could have used a different description, but it's not far off.

  38. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nice nic for that comment.

    The fundamental* mistake is to think of the Bible as any sort of science or history. Both religious whackjobs and atheist evangelists keep repeating that mistake. That's not the kind of book the Bible is: it's not a book about "how the world is", it's a book about "how to live in the world".

    The main problem with that is it's written for a version of "the world" that's so out of date the remaining parts that are still relevant are drowned pout by the crap that isn't. Living by it today is like insisting on applying the contents of C++ style guide from the early 90's when you're developing Android apps.

    The rational thing to do with The Bible it relegate it to the self of "books we keep for historical interest but pretty much nobody ever reads or talks about".

  39. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You are reading the Bible as philosophy. It's not bad as philosophy, a bit musty in some corners, but overall pretty good advice on how to live.

    The issue is that the Bible is primarily a theological text and theological explanation of the world. And for many believers, the theology cannot be separated from the philosophy. It's all-in or nothing!

    For a fundamentalist the Bible is both "how the world is" and "how to live in the world".

  40. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    It has nothing to do with the truth in the US.

    The religious zealots do this so they can get public school systems to indoctrinate their children for them.

  41. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by PlaynBass · · Score: 1

    So 6 million years ago, humans wrote with their feet in mud flats? Sound immigration policy, if you ask me.

    --
    PlaynBass
  42. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed, but it proves the fallacy of the original argument.

  43. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Agreed, I was just showing the fallacy of the Bible as an absolute document.

  44. Re:PROOF that evolution is a HOAX. by lgw · · Score: 1

    There's no evidence that human psychology has changed in thousands of years.

    --
    Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.