One of the most vexing unsolved mysteries in the cosmos is the origin, strength, and 'staying power' of Cosmic Rays. It is a given that there is not currently a known mechanism for creating them. It is also known that they seem to penetrate to the Earth from nearly every direction, with no known correlation with local galactic clusters.

But it is also known that these rays should, and do have a great enough cross-section to collide with Cosmic Microwave Background photons -The GKZ effect. This should limit the distance cosmic rays can travel, forcing an origin somewhere relatively close to our own galaxy. Sources consistent with all of these criteria don't seem to exist.

Does the existance of cosmic rays that seem to penetrate from well beyond the local galactic cluster mean that the Cosmic Microwave background is not cosmic?

Since both the CMB and CR cannot both have deep cosmic origins, which one of the two is most likely to originate locally - thus resolving the parodox?

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

There's a nice discussion of this problem in the Jan 1998 Physics Today.
Mentioned here: http://www.aip.org/pt/cont9801.html

This must be a tough one.

When the Cosmic Microwave Background was first discovered, it was concluded to be 'cosmic' because it was omni-directional.

Since then we have learned:

1) There is a directional bias (at least locally)

2) There is evidence of polarization.

3) There is evidence of unmodeled forground contamination and elliptical biases.

...all of which are consistent with a local origin, rather than cosmic, for the Microwave Background.

Local, of course completely contradicts theory, but so do these observations.

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?

How does a neutrino background fit in with this Jerry?

http://www.badastronomy.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=22399

__________________

Feynman
>~~~~<
Science is a way of trying not to fool yourself. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool.

Religion is a culture of faith; science is a culture of doubt.

If our Observable Universe is made of the energy as a Local Big Bang , the Background Radiation may be just this everlasting energy coming from outsides. This Background Radiation may be modified by the effect of matter/antimatter creation in the past.

Neutrinos are oscillating their flavour and it is very difficult to check their origin, almost impossible, I think.

Some nice material here Jerry!

But let's start with your introductory post.Er, you probably meant to say '... for creating the very highest energy ones'; after all, the lower energy CRs were identified a long time ago as originating in the solar system, principally the Sun. SNR and pulsars were also recognised as sources of CRs quite some time ago, and with HESS and CANGAROO results we are now beginning to get a handle on the detailed mechanisms. That at least one quasar/AGN/blazar has been detected in TeV gammas is also a pretty good indication that high energy CRs originate in jets such as those from GRB and AGN.

Whatever. Your main point seems to be about the CMBR, and whether it is, per the concordance model in cosmology, the observed relic of the surface of last scattering.

The papers you cite are all indicative, to me, of a vibrant field of research - lots of questions, lots of theory, some confusion. I.e. situation normal!

My immediate impression is that five years after the second WMAP data release (any day now?) we should return to your points ... and see how many remain with the 'non-cosmic' implications you give. Certainly, they all report effects which are very small, and as you know, no alternative explanation comes anywhere close to accounting for even the far larger aspects of the CMBR (e.g. its blackbody spectrum, its isotropy, the dipole).

Besides, there are some good observations pointing to the CMBR being 'cosmic', for example these.

Finally, the Padmanabhan paper you cite is evidence (2.5 sigma) for the ISW ... a truly cosmic effect!

Thanks for the clarifications, references, and arguments. I don't have any trouble creating a blackbody spectrum at the right temperature, but I do with the isotrophy. The sources helpful, thanks!

__________________
jwj

It's a big universe out there...is it really unwinding, really burning out?