Mysterious High-Energy Cosmic Radiation?

[JaJa]

hi

i thought the recent discovery of this;

NASA's Chandra Finds Youngest Nearby Black Hole

Astronomers using NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory have found evidence of the youngest black hole known to exist in our cosmic neighborhood. The 30-year-old black hole provides a unique opportunity to watch this type of object develop from infancy.
http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pages/chand ... 0-299.html

might be linked to this 2008 article;

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.

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.

"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."
http://www.physorg.com/news146324339.html

however, the nasa article is saying this alleged baby black hole is some 50 million light years away, whereas the article on physorg is saying;

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.

outside of exotic mainstream explanations, did EU have an explanation for the source of this high-energy cosmic radiation?

JJ

[Nereid]

It's probably better to track down the papers these two articles are based on, and start from there (although one seems to have been published in Nature, so may not be easily obtained, at least not for free).

[JaJa]

It's probably better to track down the papers these two articles are based on, and start from there (although one seems to have been published in Nature, so may not be easily obtained, at least not for free).

thanx Nereid - a very polite way of saying do your own research lol

JJ

[DustyDevil]

The short answer, JaJa, is, "NO, these articles are not related."

The fuller answer is that these articles cannot be related because they are based on VERY different instruments for their data collections.

The 2008 article refers to cosmic ray data collected by a balloon-borne instrument over Antarctica. The instrument collected data on high-energy electrons, otherwise called cosmic ray electrons. According to this article, electrons at the energy levels detected would have to originate within 3000 light years because cosmic ray electrons lose energy as they traverse interstellar space; therefore, if the source was farther then 3000 light years, then these high energy electrons would not have survived at the energy levels detected. Nereid is correct that reading the original paper in Nature may give you the information necessary to understand the mechanism that causes the energy loss in cosmic ray electrons, and would, therefore, explain why the source of these electrons must be within 3000 light years.

The 2010 article refers to data collected by the Chandra X-Ray Observatory which is in orbit about the earth. The article refers to X-ray data collected by 4 different instruments -- Chandra, Swift, XMM Newton, and ROSAT -- over 12 years from 1995 to 2007 from the supernova called SN 1979C in the galaxy M100. The article states that the X-rays from SN 1979C remained steady during those 12 years. The article states that the steady behavior and the X-ray spectrum collected support the idea that there is a black hole that was formed when the supernova exploded. Since this supernova was first detected in 1979, that makes it the "youngest black hole".

The 2008 article refers to a source of high energy electrons which cannot be pin pointed from the data collected; while the 2010 article refers to an X-ray source with a known location. Electrons are not X-rays, and unknown location is not the same as known location. So it is safe to say these 2 articles do not refer to the same sources. However, the EU hypothesis does state that both high energy electrons and X-rays are produced by the plasma processes, such as Birkeland currents, that flow and power stars and galaxies.

I hope this helped.

DD

[Nereid]

It's probably better to track down the papers these two articles are based on, and start from there (although one seems to have been published in Nature, so may not be easily obtained, at least not for free).

thanx Nereid - a very polite way of saying do your own research lol

JJ

The first is based on a paper that is not yet published; however, the preprint is available from arXiv: Evidence for a Black Hole Remnant in the Type IIL Supernova 1979C (the link will take you to the abstract; you can get the preprint itself by clicking on one of the links under "Download").

The second is, as it says in the article itself, based on a paper published in Nature, in November 2008. This link will take you to the abstract; unfortunately to get the paper itself you have to pay money, and there appears to be no preprint in arXiv.

However, as DustyDevil has pointed out, the two do not refer to the same thing (for many different reasons).

[JaJa]

Nereid & Dustydevil

Thanx both, i've managed to make myself look foolish by not explaining myself (i figured both articles weren't related)

I was curious if the EU had addressed this "mystery" in previous literature?

Thanx again - off to register with nature to see what has been said

JJ

[DustyDevil]

Nereid & Dustydevil

Thanx both, i've managed to make myself look foolish by not explaining myself (i figured both articles weren't related)

I was curious if the EU had addressed this "mystery" in previous literature?

Thanx again - off to register with nature to see what has been said

JJ

No you didn't, JaJa; there are no foolish questions, even if the questioner feels they are misinterpreted.

I'm sorry that I was unable to give you what you were seeking the first go round, but here's what you want:

http://www.holoscience.com/news.php?article=74fgmwne

The above link takes you to a web page written by Wal Thornhill; it references a similar excess cosmic ray mystery detected by the Milagro collaboration in the second paragraph from the bottom.

And here's a link to the Milagro information:

http://physics.aps.org/articles/v1/37

And here's a press release that puts your ATIC reference into context with the Milagro results:

http://umdphysics.umd.edu/index.php/com ... e/264.html

Enjoy!

DD

[Nereid]

JaJa, I want also to say that there are no foolish questions!

In fact, if you don't ask questions, how can you ever learn?

I'm sure we've all heard the story of Archimedes, running naked through the streets shouting "Eureka!"; however, have you heard of "That's funny ..."? I think the story comes from Asimov, to do with a more common source of scientific discovery, one that would rarely happen if the scientist to whom the "that's funny ..." thought occurred then went on to think "nah, that's just a foolish question!"

[upriver]

I always refer to this paper for cosmic rays.

Cosmic ray spectrum above 1015 eV (a new approach)
A.A. Petrukhin
Moscow Engineering Physics Institute, Moscow 115409, Russia
Presenter: A.A. Petrukhin (petruhin@nevod.mephi.ru), rus-petrukhin-AA-abs1-og12-oral
A new approach to cosmic ray description based on the model of particle generation and acceleration in plasma pinches and on supposition that a new state of matter appears in cosmic ray interactions above 1015 eV is considered. Consequences for various aspects of cosmic ray physics and some possibilities to check this hypothesis are discussed.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/962389/fil ... 2-oral.pdf

White Paper on Ultra-High Energy Cosmic Rays
http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=w ... XCsTCmf2ng