Correlation of the highest-energy cosmic rays with the positions of nearby active galactic nuclei · HackerPapers discussions

Correlation of the highest-energy cosmic rays with the positions of nearby active galactic nuclei — mentioned by smueller1234

Wed, 02 Sep 2026 15:30:40 GMT

Or this[2] 2007 Science paper on ultra high energy cosmic ray source candidates ("anisotropy") that we had to retract because significance started dropping almost the day the paper was approved. It was a fascinating experience as a junior member to follow the collaboration internal conversation and investigation on this, because a lot of extremely principled scientists were clearly deeply worried about losing their hard earned reputation. In the end, I am convinced that we were simply unlucky. [2] https://arxiv.org/pdf/0712.2843

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Correlation of the highest-energy cosmic rays with the positions of nearby active galactic nuclei — mentioned by smueller1234

Mon, 14 Feb 2022 08:02:29 GMT

The state of the art observatory for ultra high energy cosmic rays is the Pierre Auger Observatory in Argentina (auger.org). Unfortunately the funds for building a 7x larger northern observatory in Colorado were scraped but the NSF during the crisis in 2008. :( The PAO published an article on the highest energy arrival directions in 2007 (https://arxiv.org/abs/0712.2843) and I was very sad that I wasn't on the author list (yet) at the time since I hadn't been around for a full year. The discovery was a correlation in arrival directions with the known location of supermassive black holes in…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.

Correlation of the highest-energy cosmic rays with the positions of nearby active galactic nuclei — mentioned by smueller1234

Sat, 27 Apr 2019 18:36:55 GMT

The Pierre Auger Observatory, which can be described as doing astronomy using particle physics, published in Science about an exciting anisotropy at very high energies at about 2.5 sigma. (It was a prescription, so it would have been published even as a negative result but likely not in Science.) Alas, it turned out to be a statistical fluke as well. We had to publish a note to the effect later. The particle physicists in the collaboration were by and large against calling it a discovery. The astronomers (by and large) shared your sentiment about the particle physicists being curious folk. :)…

Paper and discussion history. A mention is not an endorsement.