Researchers have detected one of the most powerful cosmic rays ever seen slamming into Earth — but they have no idea what caused it or where it came from. The extremely energetic particle, which has been named after a Japanese goddess, arrived from the direction of a void in the universe where almost nothing is known to exist, according to new research.
Cosmic rays are highly energetic particles, mainly consisting of protons or helium nuclei, that are constantly raining through every square inch of the universe (including our bodies). But a small subsection of cosmic rays, which hit Earth roughly once per square mile every year, are accelerated to even greater energy levels by some of the universe’s most intense phenomena.
These extra-energetic particles, known as “ultra-high-energy cosmic rays,” have at least one exa-electron volt (EeV), or 1 quintillion (1 followed by 18 zeros) electron volts, of energy, which is around a million times more energetic than the fastest particles from human-made particle accelerators.
On May 21, 2021, researchers detected one of these supercharged cosmic rays with the Telescope Array project — a detector made of individual substations covering more than 270 square miles (700 square kilometers) in Utah. This particular particle had a whopping 244 EeV of energy, which makes it the most energetic cosmic ray since the “Oh My God” (OMG) particle in 1991 — the most powerful cosmic ray ever detected, which had an energy of 320 EeV and traveled at more than 99.9% the speed of light.
Or its empty because nothing filled it yet, and we are seeing the first bursts of a new event. Birth of a star, or some other grand spacial phenomena
A new chunk being loaded into RAM
AFAIK “first burst of a star” is sufficiently understood not to cause that kind of energy level.
The universe is often estimated to be pretty young. Maybe its a type of star formation we have never seen before.
Or maybe its the birth of something else, that previously was extremely rare or hard to see.
Empty space lacking things just seems more likely to be pre-start rather than post-end, from what I understand about reality’s overall age and makeup.
Stars don’t pop into existence from nothing. They form from large clouds of gas. We also understand physics enough to know how that interaction happens to know that isn’t it. Physics has been studied for a long time. Unexplained things usually aren’t explained by simple guesses. It’s probably something either much stranger, or much more mundane, like an error somewhere.
Im assuming when the post says “empty,” they are meaning “empty of light,” since we cannot know the space is genuinely devoid or just not sending detectable radiation our direction.
Im also pretty sure that a particle we have never seen before acting in a way we’ve never seen before is likely going come from a phenomena we’ve never seen before. After studying physics for a long time, we know that new ways to do things we previously thought we understood all the ways to do are discovered when we keep studying physics.
My point wasn’t that it isn’t something new, it’s that it probably isn’t something that simple.
Gas clouds are devoid of visible light often, but they still emit electromagnetic radiation (aka light). It’s pop-science, so who knows what their meaning of words is, but a gas cloud would not be empty, and stars can’t come from nothing. Also, presumably, we’d detect the star formation afterwards. Instead of a star it could be a direct collapse black hole (which we don’t know for sure if this is even possible), which would be harder to detect after, but would still have to form from an even denser gas cloud, so even more EM radiation would be coming from it. Regardless, it’s probably not something like this, assuming they used a reasonable definition of the word “empty”.
You will notice I explicitly said lacking radiation. You will also notice nothing I suggested was even mildly simple.
My comment was not subtly implying that this particle would be a forerunner of an event, moving far ahead of traditional radiation. This would be the beginning of detecting the afterwards.
I also was very clear that I thought it was the birth of a phenomena, and named a new type of star birth as an example of one such possibility.
I do find it kinda funny that youre telling me Im wrong by repeating my comments back to me