Supernovae and the origin of cosmic rays

Apr 22, 2013
A false-color, multi-wavelength image of the remnant material from supernova SN1006, an explosion so bright when it occurred in the year 1006 that it reportedly cast shadows at night. New research on SN1006 argues that supernova remnants like this one are likely sources for cosmic rays, the extremely high energy particles that bombard Earth. Credit: NASA Chandra X-ray Observatory

(Phys.org) —In the spring of the year 1006, one thousand and seven years ago this April, observers in China, Egypt, Iraq, Japan, Switzerland (and perhaps North America) reported seeing what might be the brightest stellar event in recorded history: a supernova ("SN1006") that was relatively close to Earth, only about seven thousand light-years away. It was reportedly so bright that it cast shadows at night. In 1965, radio astronomers identified the residue of this event, a so-called supernovae remnant, in the form of a sixty light-year diameter shell of glowing gas. Current models of the cataclysm find that it resulted when two white dwarf stars (each being a late stage of a star's life) merged together.

Supernovae are critical to life in the universe. They and their progenitor stars create most of the elements in the universe, and their explosive deaths disburse them into where they can later be incorporated into new stars and planets. Supernovae are also active research topics because their bright emission enables them to be used as probes of the very . Not least, supernovae are astrophysical laboratories for the study of very high-velocity shocks and the physics of particles under extreme conditions.

CfA astronomer John Raymond and seven colleagues, writing in the latest issue of Science magazine, investigate the links between and cosmic rays - the very rapidly moving nuclear particles that impact the earth from space. Cosmic rays can have energies millions of times larger than the most produced in man-made , but astronomers are not sure where they come from or how they are accelerated to such fantastic energies. Supernovae have been a likely suspect for over fifty years because their powerful shocks were thought to be capable of accelerating to high energies. In their new paper, the scientists used a new optical spectrometer to analyze in detail the shock activity at the outer edge of SN1006.

They report finding gas motions of over five thousand kilometers per second and evidence for the presence of fast-moving protons (as well as for fast moving but much less massive electrons). The team suggests that such protons may be the seed particles for cosmic rays once they are further accelerated by the shocks. The study with its new techniques offer powerful new evidence towards clarifying the role of supernova remnants in the production of the mystery cosmic rays.

Explore further: Estimating the magnetic field of an exoplanet

Related Stories

The high energy crab

Oct 31, 2011

(PhysOrg.com) -- The Crab Nebula is the remnant of a supernova. Its precursor star exploded in 1054 AD in an event that was recorded by Chinese and (quite probably) Anasazi Indian astronomers. It is called ...

Kepler's supernovae

Sep 18, 2012

(Phys.org)—Supernovae, the explosive deaths of massive stars, are among the most momentous events in the cosmos because they disburse into space all of the chemical elements that were produced inside their ...

Recommended for you

'Blockbuster' science images

13 hours ago

At this point, the blockbuster movie Interstellar has created such a stir that one would almost have to be inside a black hole not to know about it. And while the science fiction thriller may have taken some ...

Estimating the magnetic field of an exoplanet

Nov 20, 2014

Scientists developed a new method which allows to estimate the magnetic field of a distant exoplanet, i.e., a planet, which is located outside the Solar system and orbits a different star. Moreover, they ...

It's filamentary: How galaxies evolve in the cosmic web

Nov 20, 2014

How do galaxies like our Milky Way form, and just how do they evolve? Are galaxies affected by their surrounding environment? An international team of researchers, led by astronomers at the University of ...

User comments : 19

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Apr 22, 2013
Cosmic rays can have energies millions of times larger than the most energetic particles produced in man-made particle accelerators, but astronomers are not sure where they come from or how they are accelerated to such fantastic energies.

Ummm, electric fields can readily accelerate particles to such energy, and electric fields can be found nearly everywhere in the space plasma that pervades the Universe.
Fleetfoot
4.2 / 5 (5) Apr 22, 2013
Plasma tends to short out electric fields but magnetic fields can do it. Probably it's a combination of effects but the details are what remains to be worked out.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2013
Plasma tends to short out electric fields but magnetic fields can do it.

Electric fields are an expected outcome with adjacent plasmas with different potential, this is what occurs in double layers that naturally develop in such an instant. If it does pertain to magnetic fields it would just add to the confusion of astrophysicists.

"Magnetism is a very important topic in astrophysics (despite some pseudo-scientists lying and saying this force is ignored), but it's not well-understood. It's fiendishly complex, so much so that it's a joke in stronomy." Phil Plait
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2013
Electric fields are an expected outcome with adjacent plasmas with different potential ...


Sure, but what are typical potential differences? Compare that with the energy levels observed.

"Magnetism is a very important topic in astrophysics (despite some pseudo-scientists lying and saying this force is ignored), ...


And that is an accusation you have made many times.
GSwift7
4.9 / 5 (7) Apr 22, 2013
so much so that it's a joke in stronomy." Phil Plait


Funny that you mention Phil Plait, since he was one of the most outspoken critics of your electric universe nonsense.
jsdarkdestruction
5 / 5 (6) Apr 22, 2013
"Magnetism is a very important topic in astrophysics (despite some pseudo-scientists lying and saying this force is ignored), but it's not well-understood. It's fiendishly complex, so much so that it's a joke in stronomy." Phil Plait

why did you quote this? He was in no way supporting electric universe/plasma cosmology, in fact he took a solid shot at you guys that was dead on.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Apr 22, 2013
The irony lies in the fact that this rube thinks magnetism so fiendishly complex because the standard theory requires magic to create it, the EUT simply ascribes a real tangible origin to the observed magnetic fields. One of these days stronomists figure it out.
Fleetfoot
4.7 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2013
The irony lies in the fact that this rube thinks magnetism so fiendishly complex because the standard theory requires magic to create it, the EUT simply ascribes a real tangible origin to the observed magnetic fields. One of these days stronomists figure it out.


The irony is that you don't even understand the question.

Standard theory is Maxwell's equations, so go ahead if you think it so simple, show the maths for accelerating protons to 10^19eV using Maxwell's equations using only the energy from a supernova shock.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2013
What is a "supernova shock"? Why do I have to be limited to a phenomenon that obviously will not produce the necessary energy? Let's approach it from a different paradigm, without bow shocks and rocks smashing together and other purely kinetic interactions. Let us consider that what we are dealing with is plasma, and with plasma there will be double layers and plasma sheaths, not "bow shocks". Those double layers are a natural result with two adjacent plasmas, and whether it is a current carrying double layer (CCDL) or a current free double layer (CFDL) there will be an electric field. Even the weakest electric fields can accelerate particles to such energies, something even the most powerful kinetic collision cannot produce.
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2013
What is a "supernova shock"?


That questions defines why ya shouldn't expect your "theories" to be taken seriously.

Why do I have to be limited to a phenomenon that obviously will not produce the necessary energy?


Obviously? Could ya explain the "obvious" thing that others are having trouble noticing?

Let's approach it from a different paradigm, without bow shocks and rocks smashing together and other purely kinetic interactions.


Cosmic rays are a kinematic phenomenon. How would ya approach kinetic phenomena without addressing basic mechanics?

Even the weakest electric fields can accelerate particles to such energies, something even the most powerful kinetic collision cannot produce.


Weak electric fields, transfer weak energies. Powerful kinetic collisions produce powerful changes in momentum. Weak and powerful are general descriptions which only have have meaning when placed in a context of scale.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2013
Cosmic rays are a kinematic phenomenon. How would ya approach kinetic phenomena without addressing basic mechanics?


This quote from Anthony Peratt's website;
"The acceleration of a charged particle is achievable only by means of an electric field. An electric field can arise from a number of processes that include the motion of plasma across magnetic fields lines, charge separation, and time varying magnetic fields."
"Only by means of an electric field" doesn't sound terribly kinematic.

He continues...
"Acceleration of charged particles in laboratory plasmas is achieved by applying a potential gradient between metallic conductors (cathodes and anodes); by producing time varying magnetic fields such as in betatrons; by radio frequency (RF) fields applied to accelerating cavities as in linear accelerators (LINACS); and by beat frequency oscillators or wake-field accelerators that use either the electric field of lasers or charged particle beams to accelerate particles." (cont)

cantdrive85
1 / 5 (2) Apr 23, 2013
Oddly, scientists don't smash rocks together to achieve particle acceleration, they use ELECTRIC FIELDS. Strange.
He also states;
"The magnetospheric plasma is essentially collisionless. In such a plasma, electric fields aligned along the magnetic field direction freely accelerate particles. Electrons and ions are accelerated in opposite directions, giving rise to a current along the magnetic field lines."

What are the kinematics of collisionless? The electric fields within double layers of nearly any magnetosphere will be more than adequate to accelerate the particles to a wide variety of energies.

http://www.plasma...lds.html
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2013
What is a "supernova shock"?


A shock wave that contains the energy released by the supernova.

Why do I have to be limited to a phenomenon that obviously will not produce the necessary energy?


Obviously a supernova does have more than enough energy.

Let us consider that what we are dealing with is plasma, and with plasma there will be double layers and plasma sheaths, not "bow shocks".


OK

Those double layers are a natural result with two adjacent plasmas, and whether it is a current carrying double layer (CCDL) or a current free double layer (CFDL) there will be an electric field.


Nope. Plasma is resistive. Current flowing through a resistance needs power. No shock source, no power, no current.

Even the weakest electric fields can accelerate particles to such energies...


Nope, a 1kV field can only accelerate a proton to 1keV, no more (see the next reply ...)
Q-Star
3 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2013
Cosmic rays are a kinematic phenomenon. How would ya approach kinetic phenomena without addressing basic mechanics?


"The acceleration of a charged particle is achievable only by means of an electric field. An electric field can arise from a number of processes that include the motion of plasma across magnetic fields lines, charge separation, and time varying magnetic fields."
"Only by means of an electric field"


Ya stuck your foot into that one.

doesn't sound terribly kinematic.


Ya apparently have no idea what "kinematic" means. Pssst, It means nothing more than "moves". It is the study and description of "motion" irrespective of the cause of the motion.

How are ya expecting to explain anything science when ya don't even know the what the very first subject that is taught in any kind of physics is called? "KINEMATICS" : The study of HOW things move without consideration of WHY. Would ya like to work on "dynamics" next?
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (1) Apr 23, 2013
This quote from Anthony Peratt's website;
"The acceleration of a charged particle is achievable only by means of an electric field...."
"Only by means of an electric field" doesn't sound terribly kinematic.


No, but it's also wrong as he says himself:

He continues...
"Acceleration of charged particles in laboratory plasmas is achieved by .... producing time varying magnetic fields such as in betatrons; .."


Exactly. Both methods accelerate particles, but to get high energies with small fields, you have to subject particles to vast numbers of small accelerations. Accelerators like the LHC work by sending the particles through intense fields billions of times with RF fields carefully tuned to the cavity and with beam focussing to keep the particles together. If you have a way of replicating that naturally, speak up.

The big problem you have is not just finding the method, without the shock wave, you have no power source to generate either electric or magnetic fields.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (3) Apr 23, 2013
He explains here that the "power generation" or currents are expected in a universe of inhomogeneous astrophysical plasmas of all sizes. The magnetic fields are apparent, so too should the associated electric currents to produce those magnetic fields be present. The filamentary, cellular, and EMR aspect of astrophysical plasmas is further evidence of those currents, all of which is conveniently ignored.
http://www.plasma...nts.html
Q-Star
2.8 / 5 (4) Apr 23, 2013
He explains here that the "power generation" or currents are expected in a universe of inhomogeneous astrophysical plasmas of all sizes. The magnetic fields are apparent, so too should the associated electric currents to produce those magnetic fields be present.


The presence of something, is not sufficient to declare it is causal of any particular phenomenon. Ya have to mathematically provide that it can be responsible for the observation, provide a specific mechanism.

The filamentary, cellular, and EMR aspect of astrophysical plasmas is further evidence of those currents, all of which is conveniently ignored.


Those things are not ignored,,,, your particular "interpretation" is ignored. Because your interpretation is not something that can work within the frame-work of known physics.
Fleetfoot
5 / 5 (2) Apr 24, 2013
He explains here that the "power generation" or currents are expected in a universe of inhomogeneous astrophysical plasmas of all sizes. ...


As in our grid systems, currents both transport power and lose some (in I^2.R losses) but they never generate it, you need a power station at the other end to keep your lights on. That is where the EU community departs from reality, there is no source of power in their model and it is a question that is always dodged. Much of the peripheral stuff such as the effects of electrostatic and magnetic fields is based on genuine physics, just badly exaggerated (i.e. pseudo-science), but trying to eliminate any source of the power is where it switches to pure crank nonsense.

In the discussion here, the kinetic energy of the matter thrown out by the supernova is the power source and while EM effects may possibly be involved in converting that into high-speed cosmic rays, nobody can explain how that happens at present.
vidyunmaya
1 / 5 (2) Apr 25, 2013
Sub: Onset to new dimensional knowledge base
Plasma Regulated Electromagnetic Phenomena in magnetic field Environment- at he Galactic plane
helps to develop new concepts to cosmological Vision development. Here Science in philosophy and philosophy of Science form different frames that merges to Cosmology -origins- vedas. Obviously Space time Energy concepts will find new dimensional comprehension-After attending to IEEE Space plasma groups- more detailed approaches are documented as research reports and available as books. cosmology needs East West interaction and best of brains trust.
I have high regard to Anthony Peratt for putting Cosmological Implications on Science from several perspectives.
A few projections in scribd by me help in this direction. see more in http://vidyardhic...ion.html

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.