‘Mystery pulse' spotted 25 miles ABOVE Antarctica is ‘unknown to science' as baffled experts say they ‘don't understand'
STRANGE radio pulses detected roughly 25 miles (40km) above Antarctica could be the mark of a new cosmic particle, according to a new study.
This rare signal was first detected by the Antarctic Impulsive Transient Antenna (ANITA) in 2006, a series of tools floating over icy continent carried by balloons.
3
The now-retired ANITA experiment aimed to detect ultra-high-energy (UHE) cosmic neutrinos - or "ghost particles" - and other cosmic rays as they rain down on Earth from space.
While ANITA usually picks up cosmic signals that bounce off the ice, this new radio pulse came from beneath the horizon and under the ice sheet.
Its orientation cannot currently be explained by particle physics, a study in the journal Physical Review Letters wrote.
A similar event was recorded in 2014, and it has continued to baffle scientists.
The mysterious radio waves were being emitted at a steep angle below the ice, suggesting they had to pass through thousands of miles of rock before reaching ANITA.
All those obstacles would typically leave a radio pulse too faint to be detectable - but not this signal.
"It's an interesting problem, because we still don't actually have an explanation for what those anomalies are," ANITA team member and Penn State University researcher Stephanie Wissel said in a statement.
"What we do know is that they're most likely not representing neutrinos."
Scientists have ruled out neutrinos, the most common particle in the universe.
Neutrinos are unofficially known as "ghost particles" due to the fact that they don't have any mass or carry any charge.
"You have a billion neutrinos passing through your thumbnail at any moment, but neutrinos don't really interact," added Wissel.
"So, this is the double-edged sword problem. If we detect them, it means they have traveled all this way without interacting with anything else.
"We could be detecting a neutrino coming from the edge of the observable Universe."
Scientists suspected that a supernova erupting in space could have coughed a slew of neutrinos in Earth's direction.
An international team of researchers attempting to solve the mystery conducted a series of simulations to see if the 2006 and 2014 events align with any significant cosmic events, with data from the the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina.
There was a supernova that aligned with the signals captured in 2014, but not the 2006 event.
So there is no clear indication that this cosmic event is what caused the bizarre radio waves.
What scientists have done, however, is narrow down their set of explanations.
"My guess is that some interesting radio propagation effect occurs near ice and also near the horizon that I don't fully understand, but we certainly explored several of those, and we haven't been able to find any of those yet either," said Wissel.
"So, right now, it's one of these long-standing mysteries, and I'm excited that when we fly [Payload for Ultrahigh Energy Observations], we'll have better sensitivity.
"In principle, we should pick up more anomalies, and maybe we'll actually understand what they are.
"We also might detect neutrinos, which would in some ways be a lot more exciting."
3
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
2 days ago
- The Independent
Astronomers solve mystery of strange bright burst in space
Around midday on June 13 last year, my colleagues and I were scanning the skies when we thought we had discovered a strange and exciting new object in space. Using a huge radio telescope, we spotted a blindingly fast flash of radio waves that appeared to be coming from somewhere inside our galaxy. After a year of research and analysis, we have finally pinned down the source of the signal – and it was even closer to home than we had ever expected. A surprise in the desert Our instrument was located at Inyarrimanha Ilgari Bundara – also known as the Murchison Radio-astronomy Observatory – in remote Western Australia, where the sky above the red desert plains is vast and sublime. We were using a new detector at the radio telescope known as the Australian Square Kilometre Array Pathfinder – or ASKAP – to search for rare flickering signals from distant galaxies called fast radio bursts. We detected a burst. Surprisingly, it showed no evidence of a time delay between high and low frequencies – a phenomenon known as 'dispersion'. This meant it must have originated within a few hundred light years of Earth. In other words, it must have come from inside our galaxy – unlike other fast radio bursts which have come from billions of light years away. A problem emerges Fast radio bursts are the brightest radio flashes in the Universe, emitting 30 years' worth of the Sun's energy in less than a millisecond – and we only have hints of how they are produced. Some theories suggest they are produced by 'magnetars' – the highly magnetised cores of massive, dead stars – or arise from cosmic collisions between these dead stellar remnants. Regardless of how they occur, fast radio bursts are also a precise instrument for mapping out the so-called 'missing matter' in our Universe. When we went back over our recordings to take a closer look at the radio burst, we had a surprise: the signal seemed to have disappeared. Two months of trial and error went by until the problem was found. ASKAP is composed of 36 antennas, which can be combined to act like one gigantic zoom lens six kilometres across. Just like a zoom lens on a camera, if you try to take a picture of something too close, it comes out blurry. Only by removing some of the antennas from the analysis – artificially reducing the size of our 'lens' – did we finally make an image of the burst. We weren't excited by this – in fact, we were disappointed. No astronomical signal could be close enough to cause this blurring. This meant it was probably just radio-frequency 'interference' – an astronomer's term for human-made signals that corrupt our data. It's the kind of junk data we'd normally throw away. Yet the burst had us intrigued. For one thing, this burst was fast. The fastest known fast radio burst lasted about 10 millionths of a second. This burst consisted of an extremely bright pulse lasting a few billionths of a second, and two dimmer after-pulses, for a total duration of 30 nanoseconds. So, where did this amazingly short, bright burst come from? A zombie in space? We already knew the direction it came from, and we were able to use the blurriness in the image to estimate a distance of 4,500 km. And there was only one thing in that direction, at that distance, at that time – a derelict 60-year-old satellite called Relay 2. Relay 2 was one of the first ever telecommunications satellites. Launched by the United States in 1964, it was operated until 1965, and its onboard systems had failed by 1967. But how could Relay 2 have produced this burst? Some satellites, presumed dead, have been observed to reawaken. They are known as 'zombie satellites'. But this was no zombie. No system on board Relay 2 had ever been able to produce a nanosecond burst of radio waves, even when it was alive. We think the most likely cause was an 'electrostatic discharge'. As satellites are exposed to electrically charged gases in space known as plasmas, they can become charged – just like when your feet rub on carpet. And that accumulated charge can suddenly discharge, with the resulting spark causing a flash of radio waves. Electrostatic discharges are common and are known to cause damage to spacecraft. Yet all known electrostatic discharges last thousands of times longer than our signal, and occur most commonly when the Earth's magnetosphere is highly active. And our magnetosphere was unusually quiet at the time of the signal. Another possibility is a strike by a micrometeoroid – a tiny piece of space debris – similar to that experienced by the James Webb Space Telescope in June 2022. According to our calculations, a 22 micro-gram micrometeoroid travelling at 20km per second or more and hitting Relay 2 would have been able to produce such a strong flash of radio waves. But we estimate the chance that the nanosecond burst we detected was caused by such an event to be about 1 per cent. Plenty more sparks in the sky Ultimately, we can't be certain why we saw this signal from Relay 2. What we do know, however, is how to see more of them. When looking at 13.8 millisecond timescales – the equivalent of keeping the camera shutter open for longer – this signal was washed out, and barely detectable even to a powerful radio telescope such as ASKAP. But if we had searched at 13.8 nanoseconds, any old radio antenna would have easily seen it. It shows us that monitoring satellites for electrostatic discharges with ground-based radio antennas is possible. And with the number of satellites in orbit growing rapidly, finding new ways to monitor them is more important than ever. But did our team eventually find new astronomical signals? You bet we did. And there are no doubt plenty more to be found.
The Guardian
2 days ago
- The Guardian
‘It looks more likely with each day we burn fossil fuels': polar scientist on Antarctic tipping points
For more than 20 years, Louise Sime has worked at the British Antarctic Survey specialising in polar climate dynamics. She uses ice cores to reconstruct past conditions and predict future changes. She now leads several international Earth modelling projects. Why are the Arctic and Antarctic regions important for the rest of the world?They are one of the pillars of global climate stability, a giant store of frozen water, an essential 'biotic pump' that helps to store carbon, and an albedo shield that reflects much of the sun's light and heat back out to space. When and why did scientists become concerned about tipping points in Antarctica?It has become a major talking point in the past five to 10 years, though the possibility has been known for much longer. Up until 2016, the sea ice in Antarctica seemed relatively stable. Then everything started to change. At first, the decline was mostly in line with climate models. But suddenly, in 2023, there was an enormous drop. About 2.5 million sq km of Antarctic sea ice went missing relative to the average before 2023. The anomaly was of such a magnitude that it's quite hard for scientists to know what to make of it. It has been described as a five sigma event. What is a five sigma event?Something that may only happen once in 10,000 years, or higher, possibly once in several million years. It was so far outside of expectations that the statistics became really hard to handle. It was very startling. What was the cause? It's still not absolutely clear but it is probably associated with global warming and circulation changes in the oceans. In that year, there was an enormous atmospheric river event over East Antarctica, which was also a five sigma event. This coincided with the biggest heatwave on record, where we had a temperature anomaly in excess of 40C. What effect did this have on the region?When that much sea ice is lost, there are substantial knock-on impacts. While the ocean is covered by ice, the temperature above the surface can easily be -20C, -30C. But as soon as the water is exposed, then the surface temperature cannot go below -2C. And once the surface is opened to the atmosphere, then you start to get evaporation of water vapour. That means a sudden and substantial change of weather around Antarctica. What are the potential tipping points in the polar regions?Tipping points are broadly defined as abrupt changes that are irreversible, at least on human timescales. We know they are possible in polar ecosystems based on ice-core records going back 800,000 years. We are less sure where those tipping points are. That is because these regions are shaped by complex interactions. It also depends what scale we are talking about. Small, local tipping points may have already been passed on particular ice sheets or coastal ice shelves or possibly even sea ice. But it is less certain that the entire region is near a tipping point. What are ice sheets and why do they matter?Ice must cover at least 50,000 sq km of land to qualify as an ice sheet, also known as a continental glacier. They grow when there is more snow than melt-off, and shrink when there is more melt-off than snow or if they slide into the sea. We know this is a risk in Antarctica, because it's got a backward sloping bedrock. If the ice there is thinned, then at some point it starts floating in deep basins and begins melting from below. Then you would have a sort of catastrophic collapse. How do they differ from ice shelves?Ice shelves are floating tongues of ice that flow out from land glaciers over a cold coastal ocean. They range in thickness from 50 to 600 metres, and help to buttress land ice. We've seen examples where they catastrophically collapse because melt water accumulates over the surface and forces cracks into the shelves. An ice shelf that may have been there for hundreds or thousands of years can collapse within months, possibly even weeks. By themselves, the collapse of ice shelves doesn't add much to global sea-level rise, but it can remove the buttress on much bigger ice sheets, which can then slide faster into the ocean. West Antarctica appears to be the area of greatest concern. Why?This is the location of two huge and vulnerable glaciers: Pine Island and Thwaites. We know that their buttressing gate glaciers on the shore are thinning and retreating. That allows more of the ice sheet to flow into the ocean. Satellite images show this has been going on for some time and has accelerated at least since the year 2000. All of those glaciers are connected together so if they slipped into the ocean that would add about four metres to global ocean levels. But the key question is how long this will take. Looking at past records of change in Antarctica, it's likely to take hundreds of years. But a very large acceleration would be felt almost immediately and it would result in the global sea level going up much, much faster in the near future. How does this compare with the situation in the Arctic?The potential for Antarctica to increase global sea levels is scarier than for Greenland. Right now, they're both contributing similar amounts to sea-level rise, but in future, it could be Greenland goes up a bit and then Antarctica goes up catastrophically. Greenland has the potential to raise sea levels by five or six metres, but we don't expect this will come in the form of an absolutely catastrophic, abrupt loss. Most of the ice in Greenland is not below sea level so we can see what is happening and we expect it will melt in a linear fashion. By contrast, Antarctica has 80 metres of potential sea-level rise. We don't expect all of that, but it is harder to know exactly what is happening. Much of Antarctica is below sea level and affected by the ocean, which means it is less stable and harder to observe. We also know there are parts of Antarctica where warm water is encroaching on to unstable shelves and we know that ice could retreat in some of the sloping basins – for example in East Antarctica and Wilkes Land. We don't know where that tipping point is, but if we hit it, there will be an irreversible retreat of the West Antarctic sheet. How long may that take?It's safer to assume that parts of it could happen rapidly. We know that ice shelves can collapse in a matter of weeks or months. On a bigger scale, evidence from the past suggests West Antarctica is unlikely to catastrophically lose all its ice in tens of years. It could unfold over hundreds or even thousands of years, but once you cross the tipping point and initiate that process, it is possible that we'd immediately see a substantial acceleration and jumps in sea level. We need more study. Is it possible that this is already under way?Yes. Some studies have suggested we may have passed tipping points, so the loss of the West Antarctic ice sheet may now be inevitable because of the warming of the oceans. However, this is far from clear. Tipping points definitely exist and we may already have passed some of the minor ones, but there's also a good chance, in my view, that we haven't yet crossed the major ones in Antarctica. What would happen elsewhere if the Antarctic breaches these tipping points?A huge proportion of the global population lives very close to the sea level so if the oceans rise by several metres, I find it personally quite hard to think about the consequences. They would be devastating. How would it affect the climate?A huge amount of the carbon dioxide that is emitted today is being sequestered in the Southern Ocean. But that only happens if ecosystems work effectively as a biological pump that draws carbon dioxide into the depths via plankton, krill and other species. If we cross tipping points in Antarctica, it would undermine that ecosystem. That would change the trajectory of how much carbon dioxide remains in the atmosphere in the coming years, and likely increase global temperature, which will be felt by everyone. What is your gut feeling about whether we have crossed a tipping point in the Antarctic? It's unthinkable, but it's not impossible, and it looks more likely with each day that we continue burning fossil fuels. It's beyond worrying. What difference would it make if we stopped burning oil, gas, coal and trees? If we stop emitting carbon tomorrow, then it's quite likely that we would see no further decreases in Arctic sea ice. And it's quite likely that other parts of the global climate system would immediately stabilise and temperatures would stop going up. So even if we had passed some tipping points, it's very likely that we would not pass any others. Is there any way to reverse what's going on with a technological fix?Studies suggest geoengineering is speculative and could make things worse. I'm personally not against what-if modelling experiments: if we did have giant space mirrors, what would the climate of Earth look like at that point? But it's unlikely in my personal view that any of them actually would be usable. They shouldn't distract us from our primary goal which is to stop the burning of any fossil fuel as quickly as possible. How do you feel about the risk of a tipping point in the Antarctic?As a human being, I have so much trouble trying to think about the magnitude of the sea-level rise, that I'm not sure I have the capacity to really think it through. I really enjoy working on polar science generally. It's a privilege, but I don't really have a good answer for you. We scientists just do our best to encourage everyone to decarbonise, please, for my kids' future, as well as for everyone else's kids. Tipping points – in the Amazon, Antarctic, coral reefs and more – could cause fundamental parts of the Earth system to change dramatically, irreversibly and with devastating effects. In this series, we ask the experts about the latest science – and how it makes them feel. Tomorrow, Tim Lenton talks about positive social tipping points Read more
BBC News
3 days ago
- BBC News
Jodrell Bank: 'Towering figure' in radio astronomy dies at 102
Tributes have been paid to a "towering figure in British astronomy" who has died aged 102. Sir Francis Graham-Smith was believed to be the world's oldest active radio astronomer, according to Jodrell Bank Observatory in Cheshire. Known to his friends as Graham, he served as the observatory's second director and was the Astronomer Royal - a title bestowed upon the UK's most eminent astronomer - between 1982 and 1990. In a tribute shared on social media, Jodrell Bank said Sir Francis had an article published only a few months ago in the Royal Astronomical Society's magazine, Astronomy & Geophysics. Andrew Lyne, emeritus professor of radio astronomy at The University of Manchester, said: "Sir Francis was a towering figure in British astronomy, whose career spanned much of the history of radio astronomy itself, and as a teacher and mentor he enhanced the lives of many scientists, myself included."Sir Francis was appointed a Fellow of the Royal Society and was a former President of the Royal Astronomical Society before being knighted in 1986. He made "foundational contributions to the understanding of the interstellar medium, pulsars, and the development of radio telescopes", Jodrell Bank said. The University of Manchester said Sir Francis interrupted his university studies in Cambridge during World War Two to work on the development of radar. At the end of the war, he returned to Cambridge and began working alongside Martin Ryle, another wartime radar expert. Sir Francis played a key role in pioneering the new science of radio astronomy, providing some of the most accurate positions for the newly discovered sources of cosmic radio waves using devices called 1964, he was appointed as a professor of radio astronomy at the University of Manchester and moved to Jodrell Bank. 'Immeasurable contribution' In 1982 he succeeded Sir Bernard Lovell, who founded Jodrell Bank, as its observatory said Sir Francis's leadership had ensured its "continued international scientific excellence". "His contribution to the field was immeasurable," it added. Sir Francis technically retired in 1988 but continued to be an "active member" of Jodrell Bank's pulsar research group until very recently. The University of Manchester said Sir Francis and Elizabeth, his wife of 76 years who died in 2021, had four from astronomy, he was a keen gardener and an "avid" bee-keeper, a hobby which he enjoyed well into his 90s. Read more stories from Cheshire on the BBC, watch BBC North West Tonight on BBC iPlayer and follow BBC North West on X. You can also send story ideas via Whatsapp to 0808 100 2230.
