Gamma-Ray Bursts Found Innocent in Ray Case

Gamma-ray bursts can't be the source of ultrahigh energy cosmic rays that reach Earth. John Matson reports

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Earth is under siege from outer space! In a way. We get peppered by speedy particles, called cosmic rays, all the time. Some come from the sun, some from supernovas and some via solar-style winds emanating from far-off massive stars. Anything that can accelerate a proton to nearly light speed does the trick.

But all cosmic rays are not created equal. The most energetic among them are single atomic nuclei that strike Earth's atmosphere with the energy of a well-thrown baseball. The source of these ultraenergetic cosmic rays is unclear. But, thanks to a new study, one of the leading candidates has probably been ruled out.

Gamma-ray bursts occur when a massive star collapses in on itself. It had been thought that these ultra-energetic bursts might produce super high-energy cosmic rays. But a giant Antarctic neutrino detector called IceCube has been looking for neutrinos that should accompany the high-energy cosmic rays from a gamma-ray burst. And it hasn't seen any, researchers announced in the journal Nature. [The IceCube Collaboration,"An absence of neutrinos associated with cosmic-ray acceleration in gamma-ray bursts"]


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


There is another possibility: that flaring black holes are what's hurling cosmic baseballs our way. That idea is looking better now that gamma-ray bursts have been called out.

—John Matson

[The above text is a transcript of this podcast.]

[Scientific American is part of Nature Publishing Group.]

 

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe