Structure of the galaxy, matter-antimatter annihilation, and origin of the cosmic rays

Дата канвертавання24.04.2016
Памер83.63 Kb.


and origin of the cosmic rays.

Maurice LALOUM

(CNRS/ IN2P3 Paris, LPNHE)

Various outstanding paradoxes in the mechanical balance of the Galaxy are highlighted. There outmost relevance must needs a coherent and likely explanation. We propose a unique and synthetic interpretation, including a cosmological theory of the origin of the observed cosmic rays, especially at the highest energies known. It involves matter-antimatter annihilation in the median plane of the Milky Way. Accordingly, we discuss the structure and equilibrium of the Galaxy, seen as made of two parallel disks of matter versus antimatter dominance, opposed through the repulsion of an annihilation gas, settled in the equator disk. The admitted suppression of antimatter in the Universe, after the “big-bang”, is questioned. Various tests performed, indeed, tend to confirm our theory; in particular, the now classical power-law energy behaviour of the incident flux of energetic cosmic rays is easily derived, quite with expected exponents of -2.5 and –3 (main dependence, including the first knee). Ultra-high energies, further, are easily attainable, with no necessary restriction of the “GZK” kind, for instance. Beyond 1020 eV, rather, a new break is still made possible.

KEY WORDS : Structure, galaxy, matter, antimatter, annihilation, origin, cosmic rays, flux, energy, ultra-high, disk, gas, equator, sources, power-law, knee, ankle, big-bang, globular clusters, logarithmic slope, gamma ray bursts, dark mass.



A series of important paradoxical facts, of mechanical nature, salient from the very stuff of our Galaxy, still remain unexplained.
For instance, it is fully established now, from the mere aspect and behaviour of the old spiral arms, that their kinematics of gravitation requires an enormous rate of unknown extra mass, the so-called “dark mass”, in order to guarantee the overall balance in motion.
The point, however, is not : what is the mysterious nature of this elusive “dark mass”, however remote or invisible it may be ; but what is the cosmological origin and associated productive mechanism ? At first, merely from definitions, such “dark mass” should essentially be exotic ; but on another side, however, being deeply rooted in the very wheels of the Galaxy, it belongs to it and, thus, cannot either be exotic at all ! This self-contradicting assessment, set as it is in the fundaments, unavoidably constitutes a paradox of its own, requiring intelligible answer.

The dynamical structure displayed by the Milky Way, on another side, is by itself blatantly paradoxical to the highest degree. It is rarely pointed out, indeed, that it displays laterally a three-layer form, in a kind of “sandwich shaping”, being made of two brilliant disks, parallel and opposite, but separated by another disk, this one dark and broad, settled in the equatorial region, seemingly almost deprived of luminous stars ; with a similar width, of the order of 1000 ly (light-years), at least (see Fig. 1a). Such a reconstituted shape is by no way exceptional : indeed, quite a lot of galaxies, probably spiral as seen edge-on, in profile, display such a sandwich structure in real observation, through the lengthy side (ex. : M104 , ESO510 , NGC 678/ 891 / 4013 / 4565 / 5866/ 7814 …) [Fig. 1b, 1c] . Even the distorted lengthy galaxy NGC 3718, probably also a spiral one as seen in profile, undergoing gravitational attractions, accordingly displays a similarly distorted median dark stripe. It may be emphasized that such an effect can be observed as well for small-bulb galaxies, as for an huge-bulb galaxy like M104, the famous “Sombrero”. Even the elliptical radio-galaxy NGC 5128 displays such an equatorial stripe, very broad and dark. However, when seen frontally upon a face, spiral galaxies manifest no obvious sign of equatorial obscurity.
The point about it is more that of dark stability, than of primaeval genesis. Obviously, merely from gravitational attraction, the upper and lower parts of the Galaxy should have rejoined long ago, in the long run, and the repelling gas seen settled in the equatorial region should therefore have been displaced, gradually suffusing, permeating the brilliant disks. There is absolutely no sign of such distortion and shift ! Conversely, if the dark plane had been quite starry, actually, and merely veiled by such a gas, the same “obscuring effect” should still have reached the brilliant disks, then harshly polluting them. Then again there is no noticeable sign of such a patent “smearing effect” on disks, from natural contamination, otherwise easily observable in contrast !
The origin, if not the nature, of such a mediating gas, and even the maintenance mechanism, as a paramount mystery, remain unexplained.

The globular clusters, with some apparent “stability” (or meta-stability), concentrate an enormous amount of stars in quite a restricted field of space, whereas gravitational attraction in the gathering process, obviously, should have induced an enormous perturbative kinetic energy among the stars and so, ipso facto, an extreme mechanical instability, unavoidably, with patent effects in the long run (for such old, type-II, populations) ! For instance, “47 Toucan” is quite an old cluster, 7 billion years of age, gathering a regular set of some 2 or 3 million stars, within 200 ly : being observed in extreme detail, almost star by star, it reveals no sign of instability in its core, not even the least “black hole”, as expected!
Generally so, globular clusters present a phenomenon of kinetic stability and steady regularity, perfectly paradoxical on its own, requiring a fully mysterious evacuation of the primordial gravitational energy from gathering, through no obvious standard mechanism, a priori !
In the general frame of astrophysics and cosmology, repetitive observations of the kind stand unexplained, as a fundamental paradox.

The extreme luminosity of some “QUASARS” may occasionally exceed a thousand times the brightest galaxies, from a core of tiny size less than 1 ly , a hundred thousand times smaller than a standard galaxy. It raises thus the problem of a prodigious density of radiative energy, if not of mass density. It stands quizzical on its own, requiring a minimum of rational interpretation. It may be contrasted with the phenomenon of “black holes”, from which conjectural strong radiative emissions should be re-examined, as utterly paradoxical, if not self-contradicting for the name [13].


The observation of the extremely high energies reached by some cosmic rays (≈ 1021 eV), indeed, suggests the existence of a powerful hidden phenomenon of appropriate creation, actually both intense and uniform in the Galaxy, at energies very much superior to those usually occurring in production mechanisms. One has thus to contemplate some process of likely cataclysmic genesis, extended through cosmic space, and still leading to an immense spectrum of effective energies, between ≈ 1010 and ≈ 1021 eV : a flux variation curve almost perfectly smooth, apart from a few casual breaks as duly observed (two small “knees”, one “ankle” etc.) ; and analytically accounted for, in first approximation, by a simple power-law in E-2.7 , versus energy, of sheer decrease [1].

Among the interpretative theories propounded, the eruptive one through a SUPERNOVA, at first sight, is thus natural and particularly commanding attention. It stands as an ancient proposal, by the way, tracing back to Fritz Zwicky in 1938, to Enrico Fermi in 1948, to Evry Schatzman in 1966…, to Marcowith in 2006 [2,3].

Nevertheless, beyond all technical refinements successively set forth in its various versions, this theory is harshly impeded by fundamental objections in principles and enormous obstacles in facts, actually rather numerous. (Other origins propounded : from “QUASARS” [4], “PULSARS” [5], “SUPER-BUBBLES” [12]… are still, likewise, questionable.) “Gamma Ray Bursts” (GRB’s) may still be connected phenomena [9].

And indeed, humanity has not registered more than about ten quite certified SUPERNOVAE, on the whole, within the last 2000 years. There is, however, now a current opinion that SUPERNOVAE should genuinely be much more numerous, perhaps 5 or 10 times ! But, obviously, most of them, being extra-galactic, cannot noticeably contribute (for instance, SN1987A, recently certified SUPERNOVA, from the Large Magellanic Cloud), as it appears in theory (because of small rate reaching our Milky Way, and still generally noticeable angles of incidence, severely restricting any possibility of magnetic confinement). Accordingly, just a small rate of radiation from such explosions of SUPERNOVAE should, actually, be effective : that looks exceedingly poor to engender quite an intense regular flux of energetic cosmic rays !

The more so since the SUPERNOVA mechanism considered is only productive for energies up to ≈ 1014 eV, regularly ! Above, that is from ≈ 1015 to ≈ 1021 eV, the problem is still at stake [3].

Further, a peculiar mechanism of magnetic confinement, of the synchrotron type, is still necessary to maintain cosmic rays in capture within the Galaxy, for extremely long times, after the instant “blast”. Such maintenance should require the existence and action of some rather high magnetic field, uniformly throughout the whole extent of the Galaxy. But precisely, according to specialists themselves, even the galactic field values considered, of ~ 10-10 Tesla, would still be insufficient to stabilise such a long lasting confinement , at least for the highest energies of cosmic rays (above ~ 1019 eV) [3] !

Actually, such an order of ~ 10-10 Tesla for the magnetic field should only be available within the strict vicinity of the star (within 0.01 ly or ~ 1000 ua, e.g.), becoming almost zero far from it, as can easily be estimated, for instance, for any standard solar-type system (same result exactly with a PULSAR, at large distance, even starting with some 108 Tesla at ≈ 100 km). As mean distance between stars is obviously much larger, as we know, the average magnetic field, in between, should thus be much less than the 10-10 Tesla postulated, and so quite insufficient to ensure such a galactic confinement.
Moreover, to be effective, the confining magnetic field must stay roughly, but uniformly, perpendicular to the Galaxy plane ; but, actually, there is no compelling reason for it : star fields should rather be more or less random in direction, a priori, thus resulting in reduced (if not nearly zero) average magnetic field, in the Galaxy.

There are still two fundamental hitches for this mechanism : first, only electrically charged emission is meant in magnetic capture, but we perfectly know that neutral components, such as neutrinos, photons … (if not molecules and neutral atoms), must be lost with a paramount fraction of the SUPERNOVA energy radiated. Besides, such magnetic capture is fully effective only for horizontal emission, i. e., essentially within the plane of the Galaxy : since SUPERNOVA explosion should be isotropic, radiating in every direction, obviously emission must be mostly transversal and, thus, lost for confinement.

On the whole, this old theoretical vision, in many respects, should thus appear exceedingly unrealistic, if not irrational, to stay a convincing one. We shall however maintain the essentials, namely the requirement of a vast cataclysmic mechanism, much more powerful if possible than the mere SUPERNOVA (above ≈ 1014 eV) and, particularly, with much more steady and regular emission, involving the galactic plane in a much more natural way, both geometrically and dynamically, and no neglect of the obviously paramount neutral emissions (’ s, γ’ s …).

All these preliminary conditions, on the basis of observations, look quite compulsory to establish the fundaments of an acceptable and coherent theory of astrophysics.


It is accordingly convenient to go back to the farthest roots of our physical concepts and, thereby, to the nature, nay to the general structure, of the Universe.

We know that, originally, at the precise “BIG-BANG” time, the total baryonic number of the Universe should have been zero. But now, it is too easily admitted that, just immediately after, a paradoxical unbalance occurred and should have depressed, and even almost suppressed, (anti-baryonic) ANTIMATTER versus (baryonic) MATTER, mysteriously, throughout an essential drastic asymmetry, to such a point that, now, we could almost only perceive the latter one, in practice. The total baryonic number of the Universe, accordingly, would henceforth be made largely positive, forever.

But now, another possible assumption is still possible : namely, that hidden matter and antimatter, in similar if not identical proportions, should actually be well balanced throughout the Universe, if not locally, without manifesting it clearly, as a consequence of some primordial separation.

It is uneasily believable that pure matter galaxies, in opposition to pure antimatter galaxies, might distinctly exist, indeed. The reason is that their formal separation, in itself, with condensation a long time after the “BIG-BANG”, would mean no solution to the genuine problem, and look artificial or even unthinkable in the absence of any patent repulsive mechanism, a priori at stance. That is not, however, rigorously impossible.

So, it is much more natural to suppose that matter and antimatter, actually, do cohabit inside the galaxies. Now, they should unavoidably annihilate mutually, then, by contact or by coalescence, which might be at the origin of phenomena in astronomy as quizzical as the mysteriously intensely radiating “QUASARS”, that basic astrophysics can uneasily interpret through usual frames.

That might be, as well, at the origin of the elusive “dark energy”, if not of the unaccountable “dark mass”, according to the dedicated terms, which should constitute the most part of the cosmic world, by far, in spite of their lack of any direct visibility. (The challenge in corpuscular physics, as a matter of fact, has not yet been surmounted in any convincing way.)

Even the “pulsars” raise a problem: it is fully admitted, indeed, that they are neutron stars and, so, somewhat gravitational prisons (close to the so-called “black holes”), paradoxically occasioning massive energetic local emissions of theirs. The point is not that rotating pulsars (with high magnetic fields ≈ 108 Tesla ) could not engender sufficient accelerating electric field (the effect being spatially restricted to the strict vicinity of the magnetic poles) ; but that there is nearly nothing to accelerate (from a neutron star !). If there was, through unlikely ionisation of neutron matter, the acceleration energy produced would still be heavily diminished by the paramount gravitational energy, in extraction from the pulsar.
In that spirit, however, according to some theoretical proposals still, there exists a clear assumption that such emitting pulsars might constitute a source for ultra-high-energy cosmic rays [5] !

Furthemore, the so-called “black holes” are sometimes similarly regarded as intensely radiating sources (just like “white wells”), through some axiomatic arguments : we might, more naturally, connect them to some cosmic regions of matter and antimatter, possibly undergoing violent gravitational attraction, at first, and eventually thus annihilating [6].

(In an associated paper, however, we try to give some classical justification, through a cosmological solution implying “ubiquitous probability waves”, at the frontier of Quantum Mechanics [13].)


We shall surmise that the median disk is constituted by an abnormal amount of some sort of complex “gas”, under very high pressure (whatever may be its composition : atoms, molecules, ions, dust, meteorites … of any sizes). It would result from massive annihilation, be it primordial or not, of stars and “anti-stars” or, more generally, of any coalescing antimatter and matter, following the BIG - BANG. This repulsive gas, casually renewed still by annihilation, should thus suffice to ensure the gravitational balance of the whole : giving poise, in attraction, to the two opposite brilliant disks, one of them being essentially made up, supposedly, of positively baryonic matter (and containing our solar system), and the parallel, remote one, of (anti-baryonic) antimatter, respectively.

Now, let us specify things quantitatively. This conjecture can be deeply probed, indeed, through various fundamental tests.

Being almost perfectly regular between  109 and  1021 eV , the spectrum behaviour suggests a common origin for energetic cosmic rays, differences being essentially mathematical and hardly physical.
Since, actually, genuine products and precise mechanisms implied in the annihilations (probably quite unusual ones), are properly unknown, we shall adopt a purely phenomenological attitude.
To start, let us suppose, at first guess, that the annihilation matter is a perfect gas in adiabatic expansion, and that still non-relativistic equations formally apply (with proper constants).
In usual notations: pV = C st , and pV = nRT , yielding dependences : V(1-)  E , V  E1/[1-] ;
from which the current : jE = ∂2N/∂S.∂t is given by :
E . v = ∂ E/ V . c  V-  E-/[1-] = E1-1/[1- ]
Varying E , we obtain the flux : Φ = ∂jE / ∂E as  = ∂3 N / (∂E.∂S.∂t)  E -1/[1- γ]

Actually now, ultra-relativistic energies are at work ; so that the effective thermodynamic constants at stance should be radically different from the non-relativistic ones, indeed. But paradoxically, in a sense, they should however be much simpler, indeed, since various mechanical degrees of freedom should then automatically vanish (from fixed velocities : v = c ; negligible internal/mechanical energies in rest frames … ).

Accordingly, now,  might be smaller than 1.
Therefore, we shall simply pose : ( - 1) = (1 - ) ; thus defined, the ultra-relativistic  should be larger than 1 (to be used instead of the relativistic γ).
So, we get a flux behaviour of the type :

Φ E 1/[1- Г] with Φ = ∂3 N / (∂E.∂S.∂t) .
We shall just use heuristic, phenomenological values, taking Г equal to 1.4 = 7/5 and to 1.333 = 8/6 , respectively, for such an effective theory.
Power-law spectrum shapes are thus quite naturally resulting in perfect agreement, at first order, as expected, with the observational flux : namely, in E-2.5 and in E-3, respectively, [7] the former term prevailing before the “knee” (≤ 1015 eV), and the latter term above (from ≈ 1015 eV to ≈ 1020 eV). Above 1020 eV, the genuine behaviour is still experimentally controversial [Fig. 2, 3a, 3b].
(All these derivations and results were made straightforward, indeed, without any kind of analytic adjustment or any forcible approximation.)

Such a heuristic analysis, quantifying just through integer numbers, already appears in excellent agreement with the observation data, enabling one to account even for the first “knee”. Well, it may still easily be refined much further, in depth (to account for new details of the spectrum, such as extra “knees”, “ankles”, “toes”…), merely through addition of some extra Г contributions ; but this would imply no great improvement basically, at the level of principles [Fig.2,3].

Pointedly, such a kind of formal behaviour might be quite general : for instance, non–thermal X cosmic rays still appear to display an E-2 behaviour, quite analogous and characteristic, corresponding to the value : Г = 1.5 = 6/4 , as another structure constant, possibly,.


Therefore, all Г terms are symptomatically observed to present the purely heuristic analytical form:

Г = (n + 2) /n , with integer n ; namely, n = 4 , 5 , 6 …

The resulting E exponent: 1/ [1 – Г] is , accordingly, equal to (– n / 2) = – 2 , – 2.5 , – 3 …

Such integers might effectively reflect some unknown relativistic structure constants, at stance. With upper n = 7,8 …, we should still expect Г = –3.5, – 4 … ; and so, possibly, a new steep break above 1020 eV , not incompatible with some recent controversial data [3,8].


The second test is connected with the internal galactic balance.

Our sun, for instance, is attracted by the lower galactic disk, merely in agreement with the law of universal attraction.

However, the total impulse received by the sun per time unit is meant as the sum of all impulses accordingly received from cosmic rays (through space, coming from the gaseous medium, settled in the equator disk of the Galaxy), in the south galactic hemisphere: this makes up the repulsive force acting upon the sun, eventually.

Calculations are straightforward, accordingly, through momentum integration alongside the flux spectrum, established from observations.
F =  Ptot /  t = ∬(E /c).[3N / (E.S.t)]. dE.dS.cos θ
giving roughly : F  2. R2. A0 . E02/ c (R= sun radius, E0 is a turning point of the flux spectrum  108 - 1010eV, A0 the corresponding flux value , c = light velocity).

Conversely, the gravitational force of attraction (exerted upon the sun by the various galactic disks), can be estimated, likewise, through direct integration. (But star and matter distributions are roughly known.)

The two forces, opposed as they are, should be rightly balancing each other, in order to maintain the global galactic equilibrium.

Although quantitatively feasible, this test, unfortunately, looks rough and little significant, because the most relevant contributions, coming from the highest energies (between ≈ 1010 and ≈ 1021 eV, and more particularly from above 1015 eV), appear almost negligible, when compared to lowest-energy contributions (below ≈ 1010 eV), on account of the drastic power–law decrease of the flux spectrum (versus energy).

The overall mechanical stability of globular clusters, in the suburbs or our galaxy, a priori appears quite paradoxical, since their primordial gathering through gravitational attraction should have inherently involved quite an enormous, destabilising, dynamical energy ; the disappearance of such a fundamental energy cannot be explained merely through elementary celestial mechanics. But it should get, now, quite clear and natural through “EVAPORATION AFTER ANNIHILATION”, from old primary stages.


Obviously, from all previous stances, the flux of the high-energy cosmic rays should mainly originate from the galactic plane and, therefore, display quite a characteristic downright asymmetry, being oriented from the southern equatorial region to the “NORTH”, in Galactic coordinates,

And that is precisely what is observed : the cosmic flux, indeed, is isotropic at intermediate energies, while clearly oriented from “SOUTH” to “NORTH” at highest energies. Such a test would be almost incompatible, for instance, with an extra-galactic origin of the radiation, or even with any uniform emission from our own galactic halo.



From previous considerations, it should be obvious that the opposition of disks of matter and antimatter being generally pointless for most elliptical galaxies, confused and compact as they appear, the above studied mechanism of annihilation, abundantly producing “dark matter” and cosmic rays of the highest energy, as hypothesised, should just rarely occur in such instances.
In conclusion, scarcity or “dearth” is predictable for “dark matter”, according to expectations, for most big elliptical galaxies, as a paradox.
And precisely, this amazing fact has been observed on a large scale and just recently notified, in physical astronomy, indeed, It provides another confirmation of our general theory of galactic cosmogenesis, as a fourth test.


We have shown that many mechanical mysteries are at stance in the Galaxy, and deserve a righteous unique, synthetic and likely, interpretation.

Accordingly, we have proposed an astrophysical theory of matter-antimatter annihilation, which should answer any such issues and, most particularly, account for the analytical behaviour of ultra-high energies of cosmic rays, and the very possibility of their existence above 1014 eV.
The origin, if not the exotic nature, of massively dominant “DARK MATTER”, tightly attached to our Galaxy, in regulation of its mechanics, then receives a natural interpretation.
By the way, we thus give general phenomenological indications, in furtherance, for a heuristic theory of ultra-relativistic thermodynamics of cosmic rays and so, possibly, of such galactic dominant dark matter.
In an associated paper about neutrino oscillation in vacuum, we give extra evidence for it as a necessary hidden ether medium [13].
The dark broad stripe which, pointedly, appears in the equator of the Milky Way, as well as of many other spiral galaxies, indeed, resulting from annihilation of opposite luminous disks, when in contact, and thus ensuring their poise by constant repulsion, should then, actually, undergo a permanent renewal, compensating the unavoidable gas evaporation (slow enough, not to smear the brilliant regions).
Similarly, the meta-stability of the old globular clusters, otherwise mechanically puzzling, is now quite understood, as well as the prodigious radiation density observed from some QUASARS.
In the same spirit, we can add that promptly varying emissions from many QUASARS (sensed over several months, nay a few days), have been noted, suggesting violent internal activity. For some ones still , relativistic expansion velocities [9] duly observed testify in the same way.
The amazing opposition of age between usually very young radio PULSARS settled in the equatorial realm, and very old PULSARS outside (uniformly scattered all throughout the Galaxy, as it seems), now, receives clear justification. The fact that, generally, the former ones are isolated, while the latter get binary, goes in the same sense (all these features being meant through violently perturbative phenomena, of course, in agreement with our framing conjecture of massive cosmological annihilation, within the galactic plane.)

These general considerations could be extended to various other mysteries in astrophysics.

Particularly, on such account, the sudden irruption of enormous antimatter meteorites into our solar system is highly improbable and, thus, should rarely be occurring, but still remains always possible. It might still explain, accordingly, some strange phenomena happened through the solar system, such as the probably sudden disintegration of a fifth planet, located between Mars and Jupiter, four times as big as the Earth, and from which gigantic fragments still remain nowadays (among the famous “asteroids”, gravitating on elliptical trajectories, with half major axes close to 2.8 astronomical units, exactly as expected from the Titius-Bode formula).
Such a natural interpretation had been completely abandoned, in the past, actually, as being unlikely with just a common matter meteorite onto such a huge planet.
Now, the disintegration hypothesis can be regularly restored, as being quite natural with impinging real antimatter.
The dilapidated present state of Mars, as well as the somewhat uncertain evolution of Pluto might be related to such phenomena.

At least in some occurrences, what is sometimes qualified as a “BLACK HOLE”, nowadays (from cosmological reasons), while actually characterised as intensely radiating in real stances, could therefore now be interpreted, more simply, as such a big annihilation centre, and as a source of invisible “DARK ENERGY”.

“Gamma - ray bursts” (GRB’s) may be understood on the same account [9, 10] : from recurrent, if not quasi-periodic, violent radiative emissions, provoked by massive local matter-antimatter annihilations.

The recent BESS project (Balloon-borne Experiment with some Superconducting Spectrometer) of a US-JAPAN collaboration, particularly, is aiming to search for antimatter through space radiation, signals of “DARK MATTER” and primordial cosmological “BLACK HOLES”. We can, accordingly, hope for concrete results in that spirit, in some close future.

Anyhow, the usual hypothesis of absolute matter dominance is just of pragmatic origin, and theory is forcibly only adjusted to our biased current observation. In a sense, somewhat, it deeply contradicts the rooted principles of cosmogenesis, of a primordial native equilibrium ; for which the immediate rupture, to the point of almost complete cancellation of some species in favour of the symmetric (almost equivalent) one, far from being obvious, might even seem artificial, axiomatically far-fetched or contrived.
Indeed, merely because we cannot see antimatter where we live, we still suppose that it must be nearly absent from the whole remnant of the Universe. But actually, if we cannot see it, hereby, it is simply because it should soon disintegrate, through contacts with prevailing present matter.

The fundamental CP invariance problem, now at stake, is in tight connection with that of baryonic asymmetry, and absence of antimatter.


[1] R. Engel, Nucl. Phys. B (Proc. Suppl.) 151,437 (2006);

A.V. Olinto, Science 315, 68 (2007).

[2] T. Kobayashi, et al., arXiv: astro-ph/0308470 (2003);

A. Marcowith et al., Astron. Astrophys., 453, 193 (2006).

[3] A. V. Olinto, J. Kor. Astr. Soc., 37, 413 (2004);

H. Takami, et al., Astrophys. J, 639, 803 (2006);

M. Lemoine, arXiv: astro-ph/0501124 (2004);

S. V. Troitsky, arXiv: astro-ph/0505262 (2005);

A. Königl, arXiv: astro-ph/0302110 (2003).

[4] C. Isola, et al., arXiv: astro-ph/0312374 (2003).

[5] A. A. Mikhailov, JETP Lett., 77, 151 (2003).

[6] P. Jain, et al., arXiv: astro-ph/0509324 (2005);

A. Mattei, arXiv: astro-ph/0505616 (2005).

[7] S. Sanyal, Pramana - J. Phys., 60, 443 (2003)

[logarithmic slopes observed : – 2.45 + 0.03 and – 2.91 +

0.05, apply below and above the knee, respectively);

J. R. Hörandel, arXiv: astro-ph/0501251 (2005).

[8] High Resolution Fly’s Eye Collaboration (HiRes):

R. U. Abbasi, et al., Phys. Rev. Lett., 92, 151101-1 (2004).

[9] E. Waxman, Phys. Rev. Lett., 75, 386 (1995);

M. A. Aloy, et al., Astroph. Journal, 640, L115 (2006);

A. Levan, et al., arXiv: astro-ph/0403450 (2004).

[10] Mc Breen, et al., Astron. & Astrophys., 385, 19 (2002);

W. Kawasaki, et al., Astroph. Journal, 576, 679 (2002);

J. A. Nousek, et al., Astroph. Journal, 642, 389 (2006);

D. Proga, arXiv: astro-ph/0701158 (2007).
[11] A. Yamamoto, et al., 28th Int. Cosmic Ray Conf., Tsukuba,

Highlights Tals, 2003;

J.W. Mitchell, et al., Adv. Space res., 2004;

T. Yoshida, et al., Adv. Space res., 2004.

[12] W.R. Binns, et al., Journal of Phys., Conf. Series, 47, 68 (2006).

[13] M. Laloum, “Quantum Mechanics and Neutrino Oscillation”,

to be published, presented at the XIXèmes Rencontres de Blois
(20th-25th May, 2007) : “Matter and energy in the Universe:
from nucleosynthesis to cosmology” .


Fig. 1

(a) Profile classical view of our Galaxy, from numerical simulations, and data, by J.N. Bahcall (Institute for Advanced Study).

(b) The spiral galaxy NGC 891, seen in real profile, with a small bulb, probably quite similar to ours : displays a similar dark broad stripe. The same aspect is, more or less, common to various other galaxies, probably spiral as seen edge-on : ESO 510, NGC 678/ 4013/ 4565/ 5866/ 7814 , distorted NGC 3718. Even an elliptical radio-galaxy such as NGC 5128 similarly displays quite a broad dark median stripe.
(c) The spiral galaxy M 104 (the famous “Sombrero”), at 6° angle, with an enormous bulb, even now, reveals an analogous dark equatorial plane.
(d) Spiral galaxy, such as NGC 4013, with broad dark stripe : the bright disks almost vanished ; what may happen to our own galaxy in a far future !

Fig. 2

Whole flux spectrum of high-energy cosmic rays, from 108 to 1021 eV, from cumulated data : extended over 13 orders of magnitude in energy, and 33 orders of magnitude in cosmic-ray flux. The curve is almost perfectly regular, with a few remarkable details however, in disturbance : a former “knee” set at 5. 1015 eV ; a second “knee” at 3. 1017 eV, is hardly distinguishable; an “ankle” set at 3. 1018 eV ; a questionable “GZK cut” above 8. 1019 eV, in contradiction with controversial data.

Fig. 3a, b

The flux for check is multiplied by an E3 factor, to account for the E-3 dependence, with cumulated data. The curve obtained is flat, indeed, just between the two knees.

FIG. 1d

FIG.3 b

База данных защищена авторским правом © 2016
звярнуцца да адміністрацыі

    Галоўная старонка