World-wide Campaign Sheds New Light on Nature’s “LHC”

by Jean Tate on March 11, 2010

Want to stay on top of all the space news? Follow @universetoday on Twitter

Recent observations of blazar jets require researchers to look deeper into whether current theories about jet formation and motion require refinement. This simulation, courtesy of Jonathan McKinney (KIPAC), shows a black hole pulling in nearby matter (yellow) and spraying energy back out into the universe in a jet (blue and red) that is held together by magnetic field lines (green).


In a manner somewhat like the formation of an alliance to defeat Darth Vader’s Death Star, more than a decade ago astronomers formed the Whole Earth Blazar Telescope consortium to understand Nature’s Death Ray Gun (a.k.a. blazars). And contrary to its at-death’s-door sounding name, the GASP has proved crucial to unraveling the secrets of how Nature’s “LHC” works.

“As the universe’s biggest accelerators, blazar jets are important to understand,” said Kavli Institute for Particle Astrophysics and Cosmology (KIPAC) Research Fellow Masaaki Hayashida, corresponding author on the recent paper presenting the new results with KIPAC Astrophysicist Greg Madejski. “But how they are produced and how they are structured is not well understood. We’re still looking to understand the basics.”

Blazars dominate the gamma-ray sky, discrete spots on the dark backdrop of the universe. As nearby matter falls into the supermassive black hole at the center of a blazar, “feeding” the black hole, it sprays some of this energy back out into the universe as a jet of particles.

Researchers had previously theorized that such jets are held together by strong magnetic field tendrils, while the jet’s light is created by particles spiraling around these wisp-thin magnetic field “lines”.

Yet, until now, the details have been relatively poorly understood. The recent study upsets the prevailing understanding of the jet’s structure, revealing new insight into these mysterious yet mighty beasts.

“This work is a significant step toward understanding the physics of these jets,” said KIPAC Director Roger Blandford. “It’s this type of observation that is going to make it possible for us to figure out their anatomy.”

Over a full year of observations, the researchers focused on one particular blazar jet, 3C279, located in the constellation Virgo, monitoring it in many different wavebands: gamma-ray, X-ray, optical, infrared and radio. Blazars flicker continuously, and researchers expected continual changes in all wavebands. Midway through the year, however, researchers observed a spectacular change in the jet’s optical and gamma-ray emission: a 20-day-long flare in gamma rays was accompanied by a dramatic change in the jet’s optical light.

Although most optical light is unpolarized – consisting of light with an equal mix of all polarizations – the extreme bending of energetic particles around a magnetic field line can polarize light. During the 20-day gamma-ray flare, optical light from the jet changed its polarization. This temporal connection between changes in the gamma-ray light and changes in the optical polarization suggests that light in both wavebands is created in the same part of the jet; during those 20 days, something in the local environment changed to cause both the optical and gamma-ray light to vary.

“We have a fairly good idea of where in the jet optical light is created; now that we know the gamma rays and optical light are created in the same place, we can for the first time determine where the gamma rays come from,” said Hayashida.

This knowledge has far-reaching implications about how a supermassive black hole produces polar jets. The great majority of energy released in a jet escapes in the form of gamma rays, and researchers previously thought that all of this energy must be released near the black hole, close to where the matter flowing into the black hole gives up its energy in the first place. Yet the new results suggest that – like optical light – the gamma rays are emitted relatively far from the black hole. This, Hayashida and Madejski said, in turn suggests that the magnetic field lines must somehow help the energy travel far from the black hole before it is released in the form of gamma rays.

“What we found was very different from what we were expecting,” said Madejski. “The data suggest that gamma rays are produced not one or two light days from the black hole [as was expected] but closer to one light year. That’s surprising.”

In addition to revealing where in the jet light is produced, the gradual change of the optical light’s polarization also reveals something unexpected about the overall shape of the jet: the jet appears to curve as it travels away from the black hole.

“At one point during a gamma-ray flare, the polarization rotated about 180 degrees as the intensity of the light changed,” said Hayashida. “This suggests that the whole jet curves.”

This new understanding of the inner workings and construction of a blazar jet requires a new working model of the jet’s structure, one in which the jet curves dramatically and the most energetic light originates far from the black hole. This, Madejski said, is where theorists come in. “Our study poses a very important challenge to theorists: how would you construct a jet that could potentially be carrying energy so far from the black hole? And how could we then detect that? Taking the magnetic field lines into account is not simple. Related calculations are difficult to do analytically, and must be solved with extremely complex numerical schemes.”

Theorist Jonathan McKinney, a Stanford University Einstein Fellow and expert on the formation of magnetized jets, agrees that the results pose as many questions as they answer. “There’s been a long-time controversy about these jets – about exactly where the gamma-ray emission is coming from. This work constrains the types of jet models that are possible,” said McKinney, who is unassociated with the recent study. “From a theoretician’s point of view, I’m excited because it means we need to rethink our models.”

As theorists consider how the new observations fit models of how jets work, Hayashida, Madejski and other members of the research team will continue to gather more data. “There’s a clear need to conduct such observations across all types of light to understand this better,” said Madejski. “It takes a massive amount of coordination to accomplish this type of study, which included more than 250 scientists and data from about 20 telescopes. But it’s worth it.”

With this and future multi-wavelength studies, theorists will have new insight with which to craft models of how the universe’s biggest accelerators work. Darth Vader has been denied all access to these research results.

Sources: DOE/SLAC National Accelerator Laboratory Press Release, a paper in the 18 February, 2010 issue of Nature.

  • wjwbudro

    Sorry, ticking slower. I think

  • Hannes

    To understand my experiment correctly. Both clocks are at the same height in my experiment. The cesium atoms will be at the exact the same height within the gravitational field in both clocks. I do not want them to differ.

    As LBC states Einstein’s equations will predict no difference in time between the 2 clocks. I fully agree. But I want to put that to the test.

    Important detail is that the Cesium atoms from the balanced clock should be in exact line of the same horizontal plain [stick]. Not on the stick, which would be above the stic.k,

    I should have been more precise, I’m sorry.

    This experiment has btw absolutely nothing to do with EU. If you think so, then you are completely unaware of my line of thought.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Hannes said;
    “This experiment has btw absolutely nothing to do with EU. If you think so, then you are completely unaware of my line of thought.”

    Obviously you haven’t run into the EUJ Anaconda – who often denigrates general relativity. (He uses it, for example, to argue against aspects of the big bang, black holes, dark matter/energy and try to highlight various ‘faults’ or ‘contradictions’ with gravity in general.

    The usual attack is to somehow based replace gravitational explanations of astrophysical / astronomical phenomena with EU ones – usually to place emphasis on some bogus EU explanation. As shown time and again by many bloggers here, it is usual either ill-informed or tainted with the usual propaganda.

    If you don’t know about it now, believe me these EUJ will come out with it some where.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    iantresman said;

    “Crumb, give it a rest, you’re doing exactly what you’re complaining others are doing.”

    Always with the misguided rhetoric. I am far from complaining. I am pointing out the nonsense of the EU agenda – saving the innocent from the gross deception.

    As I said;
    This plasma dragon needs to be finally slain!

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Ah, you seem to be under the illusion we are in some debate about the “electric universe” / plasma cosmology, (whatever you seem to label it) … been there, done that, in endless debates across the Internet and Universe Today for over a year. We’ve about done it all. Now YOU want to be entertained! Oh please.

    Plasma physics is an important branch of science and does have its place. However it is your concept of plasma physics, is deliberately masked behind the delusional parts of so-called “electric Universe” is not what current legitimate science is about.

    An example is on the BAUT forum;
    Electric Universe Model.

    Let me finish with a nice quote from Jean here (not my words);

    “Plasma Cosmology” seems to be used in two respects: the specific cosmological theories associated with Alfven (now thoroughly outdated), and fringe ideas concerning the application of plasma physics to cosmology (and astrophysics in general). This is the middle two above.

    “Electric Universe” seems to apply exclusively to the last, the cranks and crackpots. As such, it seems to be a clear example of exactly what should not be written in the comments on Universe Today stories (“Don’t promote your personal theories”).”

    As I said;
    This plasma dragon needs to be finally slain!

    So sorry. Your really the problem, your not the solution. I’m around to bury you!

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Oh… I forgot to mention….

    You have no place here… and no one to talk too!

    Everyone has left the building!

    (Please turn the lights off. Ta.)

  • IVAN3MAN

    “Electric Universe” = Pseudoscience.

    Enough said!

  • wjwbudro

    Hi Hannes,
    If you agree with Einstein and LC, what outcome are you expecting by putting your experiment to test?

  • Hannes

    @wjwbudro:

    You’ll see.

  • Jean Tate

    Hon. Salacious B. Crumb,

    I have deleted several of your comments; they clearly violate the Universe Today comments policy.

    I will ask you, once again, to please tone down your language.

    Nancy has, in some comments in an earlier story, provided some good advice on dealing with those who use Universe Today story comments to promote “Electric Universe” ideas, and I believe you read her comments. I thank you for providing some quite eye-opening material into what I must admit does look like a cult, and will research this further. However, your language in responding to iantresman’s, and others’, comments is quite unacceptable here; to quote Fraser “be nice”.

  • Jean Tate

    iantresman,

    You seem to be a bit of a fan of Alfven, and have an interest in plasma physics and its applications to astrophysics and space physics. Good.

    However, I sense that you may misunderstand the nature of science, at least the branches we touch on here in Universe Today, over the last half century or so.

    While there are papers written five decades ago (or more!) which are still widely cited today (the Burbidges, Fowler and Hoyle “Synthesis of the Elements in Stars” is an outstanding example), they are very few. And the reason is clear: active fields in science change, and only a tiny, tiny handful of papers retain relevance after a few decades (other than historical, of course).

    The reasons for the lack of contemporary scientific relevance are many, and include the fact that a great many good hypotheses at the time were subsequently shown to be inconsistent with new data or analyses, and the fact that most subsequently successful theories have been developed substantially since their first publication.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Firstly, Jean Tate said of iantresman;

    “However, I sense that you may misunderstand the nature of science, at least the branches we touch on here in Universe Today, over the last half century or so.”

    Actually I disagree. This fellow knows perfectly well about the nature of science, and has from previous experience. However, he has ‘selected hearing’ when it come to plasma physics. He’s far from the innocent he pretends to be.
    You should be aware, that people like iantresman, will manipulate the terminology so that they are looking like they are writing about plasma physics, but in fact are discussing plasma cosmology or electric universe – pretending they are interchangeable terms. If you take the foot of the pedal, we will hear rampant EU and plasma cosmology, but when the pressure is put on them, the it is all about plasma physics and the thin veil of the imaginary support from the IEEE, etc.
    Sadly many of these individuals (like iantresman from the site plasma-univese) are ‘trained’ in how to respond, and have various strategies to raise the profile of their pseudo-scientific philosophies. They have as one of their main methods to influence those who have little or no knowledge of the topic, and persuade them that they views are acceptable ‘alternatives’ to current astronomical / astrophysical theories.

    (I you think that I’m over the top, just look at where targeted kids encyclopaedias on the web (kids net au What chances have people have, when the individuals try to manipulate others who know no better.)

    While astrophysics/ astronomy and plasma physics are somewhat interrelated in several fields of studies, these EU individuals will suggest that they are ‘part of the mainstream’, when they are no better than pseudo-science hitmen.

    As for;

    Nancy has, in some comments in an earlier story, provided some good advice on dealing with those who use Universe Today story comments to promote “Electric Universe” ideas, and I believe you read her comments.

    Yes she has and I have taken her views into serious consideration. However, as other commentary from other bloggers in UT have stated, ignoring the EU individuals, allows them to spread their here-say. (Lawrence and I have already pointed this out in these replies.)
    Time and again, the ire of deceptive EU comes out, and time and again, the responders to the given storyline have to come out again to defend science, the scientific method, and the accepted astrophysics. (Dr Flimmer, Lawrence Crowell, myself, ND, Olaf, etc.)
    What is frustrating is knowing there is a deliberate agenda and being diverted away from not discussing the storyline but defending the science behind it.

    As yet, authors of stories in Universe Today, expect us to ignore the nonsense, but still expect the knowledgeable bloggers to do all science explanations in the comments!

    The EU blogger know this, and this is how their deliberate and endless disruption continues. Their desperately trying to get a voice, but no one listens any more. I wonder why?

    (I notice that iantresman has now formed his pleading thread ” Civility on Universe Today comments?” at BAUT to try and drum up support against me. Thats OK. I already know he has complained directly to Jean and attempted to do as much attention seeking because no one is listen to .)

    Apparently he says; “I feel that a Universe Today poster, “Hon. Salacious B. Crumb”, is being uncivil, and recent ad hominems bring the website into disrepute, and contribute little to the article at hand.”

    Sorry. I disagree. I’ve contributed much to this article, by exposing the nefarious activities of individuals with an alternative organised agenda.

    … Q. What should I do about iantresman deliberate deceptions in this thread? Put up with that too?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    In the end, what is amusing is why ‘iantresman’ turned up here, which was only on a comment by me towards solrey on the assumed “scaleable” nature of EU. (This is the main topic being discussed here in your article.)

    Solrey has said in the past (7th April 2009, in the same UT “Where are all the sunspots” article”;

    “Actually, plasma physics scalability at the stellar level has been confirmed. The aurora, the “flux ropes” connecting Earth and Sun, the Io and Saturn plasma environment, the magnetic torus around the sun, to name a few. Since these things, and more, are confirmed at the tellar level, why not investigate the scalability further? I think the statistical probability, based on what we know from lab to stellar, is quite favorable.

    In the end, they can’t actually answer the question, as they know full well that the whole “Electric Universe” doctrine collapses like a house of cards if it is not “scaleable.” I.e. Most of the large-scale astrophysical phenomena. They have to do this – under the basic tenant of EU that plasma physics work in the laboratory can be extended (scaled up) to all astrophysical phenomena.

    Now as an example of rather deceptive behaviour, iantresman said in this story; “I did not state that the “EU is always “scaleable”.

    Yet if you have read his common position on this (as far back as 2004-2005. (Just Google “iantresman scaleable”)) finds his arguments centres on the problem of ‘scaleable’ EU.

    Of course, the real problem is that providing observational evidence that astronomical phenomena is plasma physics (EU) related – and of coarse, there is little proof. I.e. Galactic and intergalactic fields probably do exist, but they are mostly very weak (~10^-12 Gauss) [and likely tend to be easily fragmented]

    Jet phenomena, especially when caused by strong gravitational sources like black holes (as in this story), find EU’ers coming out in their droves, only because it is one of few phenomena where the plasma and magnetic field strengths are even capable of showing off their laboratory experiments. (It occurs in nearly every black hole story in Universe Today over the last two years.)

    Why do they do this. It is all part of their sick EU agenda?

    And you wonder why I really think;

    This plasma dragon needs to be finally slain!

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Sorry missed the quote…

    iantresman said;

    Thank you Jean for your comments, I agree with pretty much everything you say. However, just because active research moves from one area to another, does not automatically make less popular areas wrong. Research tends to go where the money goes. Of course the converse is true, just because there are no explicit papers falsifying earlier papers does not make them right.
    It’s also worth noting that many active areas of science produce news stories whose results are still puzzling. Again, this does not make older areas of science right, but it does suggest that we may have to cast our net wider for inspiration for a solution.
    I have not proposed any of my own theories, nor speculative theories, nor non-peer-reviewed, nor non-academic theories, and nor do I intend to.

    Oh what a precious innocent little lamb you are! It is like that little boy in school who is upset because all the other boys will not play with him. So he goes and hide behind him mummy’s skirt so he has some additional personal courage to face his accusers. I.e. Desperately wanting to be absolved – “Mea culpa, sorry for the misunderstanding.” (Sound familiar)
    Of course this little reply hides yet another EU tenet doesn’t it.
    When you say “Research tends to go where the money goes.” We all know the IEEE and plasma cosmology cronies are bitter that all the science funding goes into astrophysics and astronomy, and not to research into plasma physics. You all feel it is grossly unfair, and has (apparently) caused the whole of your bitterness against the observational astronomy and current astrophysics.
    Isn’t this really why you lot are so desperate to be the centre of attention?
    We all know that research in plasma physics has already come to a major crossroads – and needs to expand into new avenues to continue to be funded.
    Transparant as a piece of glass, are you not?

  • blueshift0_0

    Iantresman-

    Judging by the sheer number of “allowed” full-frontal attacks made by the (not-so) Hon. S. against you, I can only conclude that the moderators of this forum are getting off on it. I wonder if the Hon. S. realizes he is being used by them in this way?

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Now get ready for the rallying troops – its been coming for absolute ages. Good luck.

  • Hon. Salacious B. Crumb

    Jean said;

    , your language in responding to iantresman’s, and others’, comments is quite unacceptable here; to quote Fraser “be nice”

    Yes. Please read my general responses at the BAUT forum..

    Note: “nice” is very hard against “hardball” players with an organised agenda.

  • blueshift0_0

    Sorry, forgot to add to the bio I pasted in my last post- that Peratt has an extensive list of credentials. Why is he called a fringe element? This might be a case of mistaken ident

  • Jean Tate

    blueshift0_0,

    It’s not the person, it’s the ideas.

    Geoffrey Burbidge, for example, is one (of four) authors of a spectacularly influential paper on nucleosynthesis in stars. He is also author of several papers on quasars, in the last decade or so, that are spectacularly bad, scientifically.

    I cannot comment on Peratt’s papers on plasma physics experiments done in labs, but his published papers on astrophysics range from mildly interesting to merely strange to awful, scientifically (I pointed this out to solrey, in comments on a different Universe Today). Those which purport to be about cosmology are especially bad.

    iantresman,

    Supermassive black holes, accretion disks, AGNs/quasars, the associated jets/blazars, etc are among the most active areas of research in astrophysics today. Plasma physics is crucial to an understanding of the observed phenomena. The potential prizes for spectacular breakthroughs in this area are huge, so I think the chances that a critical insight is to be found in decades-old papers by an author as well known as Alfven are slim to none. But, if you think you have a good insight into this, why not develop it, write it up, and get it published?

  • Jean Tate

    Hannes, and others interested,

    I’ve started a new thread in the BAUT Forum’s Q&A section, on the topic of the ideas you’ve introduced here. Maybe you, and others interested, could continue the discussion there?

Previous post:

Next post: