Gamma Ray Mystery Reestablished By Fermi Telescope 95
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."
Re: (Score:1)
9. Something even worse
Daleks
Nasty creatures, they are...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
"Page Not FoundSorry, but the page or book you tried to access is unavailable.
We are gradually updating all eBooks older than #10.000, and in the process, moving them to a new filing system.
Please use the site map to find what you are looking for. You can search for a book. We apologize for the inconvenience. Thanks for visiting Project Gutenberg, and happy reading!
Web site copyright © 2003-2009 Project Gutenberg Literary Archive Foundation -- All Rights Reserved."
Re: (Score:2)
Well, Google "Cordwainer Smith" and cat and it came up on top. The URL that I gave WAS what I had in my browser window.
Re: (Score:2)
moving them to a new filing system.
Please use the site map to find what you are looking for
rewrite_map, bitches.
Re: (Score:1)
You do realize dragons, in reality, are far more formidable than the lame, stupid bags of hitpoints in various online games, don't you? A godlike genius combined with millenia to hone magical skills nobody this side of 22,000 year old Gandalf can dream of on top of a body that can rip a true ogre in half?
Re: (Score:2)
And neither does magic.
Nor Gandalf.
Nor ogres.
Re: (Score:2)
The Heechee, of course. Duh :)
SB
The Magic Candle III (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Why is it a mystery? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
It just seems to me that there could be black holes that we simply are unable to detect.
Indeed, but its only the active ones (I.E. ones emitting gamma rays as they munch stuff) that actually emit the gamma rays in question.
And black holes that aren't emitting gamma rays aren't a terribly plausible source of gamma rays.
Re: (Score:1)
The sky is dark everywhere that doesn't have sufficient atmosphere and light to create the light scattering effect (don't remember proper name) that makes our daytime sky look blue. It's a similar effect to a prism splitting light into it's separate spectrum, but a little more complicate with nitrogen absorption and a few other things. You ever wonder why the daytime sky seems to change color when the sun gets to an ext
Re: (Score:2)
Rayleigh scattering [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think that's really the answer, though (Score:3, Interesting)
Let's run through these:
While the fractal explanation... (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Three words to explain it: (Score:3, Funny)
BAM! I just proved the existence of intelligent extraterrestrial life. What do I win?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Or, more accurately, he wins as many hours on the Internet as he wants.
Ferengi Telescope? (Score:2)
I thought the title said "... By Ferengi Telescope", so I'll go with your alien story!
Re: (Score:2)
Alien exhaust fumes.
You're blaming the Peruvians? [slashdot.org] I've heard that their environmental laws are a bit lax, but come on now!
Re: (Score:1)
Black (Score:5, Funny)
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.
Re:Black (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
Holly: Well, the thing about a black hole - its main distinguishing feature - is it's black. And the thing about space, the colour of space, your basic space colour, is black. So how are you supposed to see them?
Rimmer: But five of them? . How can you manage to miss five black holes?
Holly: It's always the way, isn't it? You wait three million years for one to come along, then all of a sudden five turn up at once.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Thus the old astrophysicist saying: "Always bet on black".
Re: (Score:2)
The Nothing (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
I know you meant this in jest, but it's a surprising legitimate question [wikipedia.org]. (or at least it was.)
Re: (Score:2)
Black black black. It's depressing.
Black* is beautiful, baby! Maybe that's whay all the white kids annoying attempt to emulate black people. Black is the absense of light, without light you can't see the ugliness.
Interestingly, in China white is the color of mourning.
*Disclaimer -- I'm white
Re: (Score:2)
"Dark" means we have no idea WTF it is.
Dark matter means our equations don't work, and the movements we can observer show there's additional matter out there, but we can't see it.
Dark energy means, notwithstanding the previous "dark" entity, our equations STILL DON'T WORK, so besides that extra mass, there's extra energy out there, too, which we also ca
Oh No! (Score:4, Funny)
This unexplained Gamma Ray Cloud is maki n_g___ M_ e____A_n__G__R___Y_____!
Rarr!!!
Unexplained gamma rays are making me Curious!!!! (Score:2)
Fermi Space Telescope deepens mystery of gamma rays. When Inquisitive Hulk get more curious, Hulk get stronger [wired.com]!
The Gamma Rays, are making me thirsty!! (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Galactic Brownien Motion (Score:3, Funny)
Mmmm
Re: (Score:1)
Heading for tomorrow (Score:4, Funny)
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 [freemindrecords.com.br] - they're near the bluish spectrum, heading towards our time, and they're wearing cheesy 80s style shades.
Re: (Score:2)
All telescopes allow you to see in the past. If you look at our closest neighbor, you see it from four years ago. Actually, it is impossible to see the present even with the naked eye -- everything you see is light that was reflected off of something, and the spped of light id finite and measurable. Even the image of the screen you are looking at is a tiny fraction of a second old; it is from the past.
Re: (Score:2)
I take it you didn't bother clicking the image which your parent-post linked?
Re: (Score:2)
No, but I thought I'd seen the image before, and besides it didn't matter to the point I was making.
Heliopause (Score:2)
Perhaps it is a faint glow from the heliopause?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It would probably be non-isotropic then, with a seasonal variation as the Earth orbits. I'm sure that would have been noticed.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Maybe the universe is in menopause? No, that would only explain its heat and crabbiness. Maybe it's pregnant? That would explain its glow!
"Bubble" Universes (Score:4, Funny)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
That is the most pleasant way to say "bullshit" I've yet come across. Thanks, I suppose, for at least being gentle.
Re: (Score:2)
I've always had a theory that the Extra Gamma ray bursts are the creation of Universes.
It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis. </pedant>
but ALSO, that Space/Time was growing itself, and this would change the laws of Physics over time.
If they are growing at the same rate, how aould that change the laws of physics?
At any rate, it was an interesting comment and should have been modded as such.
Re: (Score:1)
"String Theory" ring any bells (ignoring its controversy ftm)? This is English. We steal from everyone else, mangle to taste, appall those we it stole from, then carry on. What do Giovanni Caboto, Jean Cabot, and John Cabot have in common?
We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities (string theory), but that's a human condition.
Re: (Score:2)
I have the distinct feeling you've said something witty, but I think I'd have to google a lot of Cabots to know for sure.
You might be saying; "Lots of money has gone to String Theory, and it doesn't really have a Proof yet." So thanks, I think.
At some point, there is Authoritative Wild Ass Speculation, mine is merely Arm-Chair Scientist Wild Ass Speculation. In a Universe of possibility -- I think we stand on the same firm ground that exists and does not exist unless observed. ;-)
My BIG difference with Stri
Re: (Score:2)
"String Theory" ring any bells (ignoring its controversy ftm)? This is English.
"String theory" always struck a raw nerve with me. When you're talking to someone in a redneck bar (as I often do), saying "my theory is she's [whatever]) is perfectly valid, but in a technical forum like slashdot or worse, in a scientific paper, saying "theory" when you mean "hypothesis" (as in "string throry", AARG!) is bad bad bad.
We also plow vast piles of cash at planck scale potentialities
I see nothing wrong with that. Mayb
Re: (Score:2)
Forgive me,
I've been corrupted by blogging on Digg so I speak "ID10T" quite fluently.
Of course I KNOW what "Hypothesis" and "Theory" are -- but it's pretty ridiculous in normal every day speech to say; "My Hypothesis." It's kind of a given if someone is saying "My Theory is" it is a caveat, and this is not considered a publicly accepted theory. I have some Proof only for myself.
And you understood as much -- but I didn't guess that was the issue with some others, because they knew enough to NOT say; "What is
Re: (Score:2)
;)
Re: (Score:1)
If you're going to be pedantic, at least get it right.
A theory is something that has already *been* tested, repeatedly. A hypothesis still has to be testable. An assertion that is neither is simply called "an idea".
Re: (Score:2)
It's not testable, so it's not a theory. It's a hypothesis.
A hypothesis is testable or it's not really a valid hypothesis.
A theory is an explaination that best fits the observed facts.
Conjecture is anything plausible given known facts, but not necessarily testable.
Meh, definitions vary, but thats how I like it.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Since this might be in code I took all the capitalized words to mean something and got :
ALSO APPEARS AFFINITY.
MOVE!
VERY REAL CLUE!
DO NOT RESOLVE!
ONLY ONE NOT ANYTHING.
ONE LOCATE OUTSIDE AFFINITY.
I added punctuation for my clarity ... so other than telling me to move, get a clue and that there's 1 affinity I'm still not sure what you're saying...
Re: (Score:1)
Dude - I still don't understand what you just said.
About 3/4 of the way through I was sure it was going to be a Yo Mumma's so Fat joke... maybe it was and he just forgot the punchline?
Re: (Score:2)
If I merely inspired someone to waste the time to pull out THINGS IN CAPITAL LETTERS.
Meh.
I could try explaining something I see visually better -- but would anyone bother holding out that long? So I keep it brief hoping that there is enough interest to see more.
I really am NOT trying to push an idea of an "Electric Universe." Einstein was elegant and didn't pull ideas out of rabbit-holes. Relativity is sublime but it also stops at explaining how objects aren't constantly gaining mass as they accelerate in o
Re: (Score:2)
I'm only looking for ONE person to get what I'm saying -- because I realize that I'm out there on the edge, and people well versed in science are also afraid of looking like an idiot -- I am not however, because I've been right about more ideas than I care to count. Later, when I explain that I was in 6th grade trying to get someone to understand my idea of using fiber optics to do surgery in the body, or how right-angled inverse sound waves could muffle sound -- well, I was ignored then, and mentioning it
Annihalating Dark Matter (Score:2)
---
Dark Matter [feeddistiller.com] Feed @ Feed Distiller [feeddistiller.com]
Re: (Score:2)
You'd need negative (actual) mass for gravity to be attractive - and that's an impossibility pretty much by definition, by my understanding.
A WHAT symbol?! (Score:2)
Okay, maybe this is where I inadvertently let on that I'm not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
> not a physicist, but what is a "dragon here be" symbol?!
Actually, what you just let on is that you're not a computer geek. (You can turn in your card and Slashdot ID later.)
"Here be dragons", from the symbols on ancient maps, is what computer geeks say when they don't understand why a given section of source code is doing what it's doing. Just as ancient peoples found it dangerous to stray beyond the edge of their maps, any programmer wort
It's the ether (Score:1)
I have a *hic* theory (Score:2)
My theory is that the matter:antimatter ratio in the universe is only violated on small solar-system sized scales and the interstellar medium is in a 1:1 ratio. The CMB and excess gamma rays are just remenants of matter:antimatter collisions at the bow shock of our solar system. We gain matter as fast as antimatter so there is no net loss, and we continue in our bubble of matter unmolested save for cosmic rays.
What kicked this off for me is a few things. Seeing that photons are their own antiparticle and al
Dark Matter Annihilation (Score:1)
The favoured particle for dark matter is currently the neutralino as it is likely to be the lightest supersymetric particle. It is believed that interactions with other neutralinos would cause annihilation of itself and create gamma rays. Of course you would expect the gamma rays to originate where the dark matter is concentrated which is currently thought to be the Galatic halo around a galaxy.
Hopefully the LHC will uncover evidence for/against supersymmetry and answer many outstanding questions in physi