Well, not all of it. Some of the Moon’s pale fire is actually snatched from cosmic rays, as seen in the Astronomy Picture of the Day from last Friday.
This is an image of the Moon in gamma rays, taken by NASA’s EGRET telescope. The gamma rays are produced by cosmic rays (which aren’t electromagnetic radiation at all, but mostly high-energy protons) striking the lunar surface. There is no equivalent process for the Sun, and in fact the Moon is much brighter than the Sun in gamma rays.
The Sun has some tricks of its own, of course. The Moon picture reminded me a bit of this one:
They’re both circular false-color blobs, so I suppose the resemblance isn’t so surprising. But this is an image of the Sun in neutrinos, reconstructed using data from the Super-Kamiokande neutrino detector in Japan. (Yes, the one that was essentially destroyed in a freak accident. But it’s now back online, and meanwhile I’m sure Koshiba’s Nobel Prize was some consolation.) The Sun, of course, makes its own neutrinos, but it’s amazing that we can actually image a celestial object using something other than photons!
Besides photons, cosmic rays, and neutrinos, there aren’t that many ways we get to observe the universe. I’m looking forward to the first images of either the Sun or Moon in gravitational waves.
Update: As Alex R. mentions in the comments, Ray Davis passed away on Wednesday. He was the pioneer in solar-neutrino measurments, overseeing the Homestake mine experiment, and shared the Nobel with Koshiba.
Hopefully i will be doing things like that, i am going into imaging sciences next year! woohoo
Sean…Thanks for sharing these images of “the Moon in gamma rays” versus “the Sun in neutrinos.” These images remind me of a depiction of the “Moon in polarization” presented by John Carlstrom in a talk at Fermilab. Furthermore, he made the following “off-the-cuff” comment: perhaps – due to the Moon’s strong connotations of romance, he receives more requests for the DASI/Moon polarization than the DASI/CMB polarization. Finally, I must agree the Moon with a gravitational signature would be an ultimate symbol of lunar romance!
A statement on satellite travel? Would that benefit perspective about these “relations of Sun and moon” in gravitational waves? Hmmm….Qui? NON!
IN regards to “Langrangian perspective” I think we can already do this?
But as to making “conceptual leaps,” the views of earth are now not so smooth as seen below.:) How would this be applicable to the moon? I wonder:)
The first words out of my mouth were: “holy crap, this is way cool” Thanks. Wow!
I agree Spyder. Whenever I’ve seen neutrino photos like this at conferences I’ve always had the same response.
Yeah, this is fantastic! So what other bright neutrino sources are out there? Would a map of the sky be interesting, or are there not enough localised sources?
Sean
Thank you for the title to this thread. Just beautiful, despite it’s evil intentions.
Very cool images. And an equally cool post title.
pada ata lane pad not ogo old wart alan ther tale feur far rant lant tal told
‘Tis in the malice of mankind, that he thus advises us not to have us thrive in our mystery
PK, so far (I hope I’m not embarassing myself here by missing something) there have only been two extraterrestrial neutrino sources ever detected — the Sun, and a brief burst from Supernova 1987a. So, with the current state of detector technology, a map would not be very enlightening. If I understand correctly, both the AMANDA experiment:
http://amanda.uci.edu/
and its successor IceCube:
http://www.usatoday.com/tech/science/discoveries/2006-02-17-icecube-project_x.htm
both in Antarctica, have detected neutrinos, but they are probably secondaries produced when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere, not neutrinos from space. But I could be wrong about that, and someone who knows should chime in. We certainly hope that IceCube and other experiments will be detecting extraterrestrial neutrino sources soon.
Centauro Event- where ever did they get these ideas?:)What does it mean?
Pierre Auger on Cosmic Rays:
— Pierre Auger, Journal de Physique, 43, 12, 1982
Link to second paragraph above
http://www.physics.adelaide.edu.au/astrophysics/FlysEye.html
This stuff is really cool! Though, for the neutrino image of the sun, does anybody have any idea of how statistically significant the image is?
I’m sorry it just seems to get worse and worse as I find links have been changed or updated, some of the articles on cosmic particles, gone?
The Fly’s Eye and the Oh My God Particle?
Anyway here’s is a nice picture while too, any information on John Bachall, reveals another very interesting man.
Regarding neutrino detections, I’m not a neutrino astronomer, but haven’t cosmic ray neutrinos been detected? There seems to be attention and experiments. (Even searching for radio signals from UHE neutrino interactions on the moon!)
Amara, by “cosmic ray neutrinos” I think one means “neutrinos that are produced when cosmic rays hit the atmosphere.” But as for actual neutrinos that traveled a long way through space before being detected here on Earth, the Sun and SN 1897a are the only sources. So far!
I’ve been so much in awe of these photographs that I decided silence was best. Appreciate seems to be the order of the day. However, on the other hand, as scientists araound the world are known to say, sometimes too often for policy wonks, I want to add my thanks for the photographs, one of which I’d seen a few days ago, for your comments as well as for the comments by respondents. These pictures raise a question that I think about from time-to-time: what does it mean to observe something? Makes me want to say, C’mon gravity!
I’ll use this relatively recent solar neutrino post to note the passing of Ray Davis, who, of course, created the experiment that first detected solar neturinos, and who first noticed the fact that a lot of those neutrinos were missing. (He shared the Nobel with Koshiba, mentioned in your post.)