Pith. sign in

REVIEW 5 major objections 4 minor 53 references

A revamped understanding of Cosmic Rays and Gamma-Ray Bursts

T0 review · 5 major / 4 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read The paper claims that recent gamma-ray-burst and cosmic-ray data strongly validate the Cannonball Model, in which cosmic-ray knee energies scale with particle mass and the proton knee ends near $1.4\times10^7$ GeV, the energy predicted…

desk verdict A lively, honest advocacy paper for the Cannonball Model, but the central new 'validation' — the GRB221009A proton-knee prediction — does not follow uniquely from the model's own equations, and the positron 'no fit parameters' claim is undercut by an admitted fudge factor. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.15850 v3 pith:55L6RDPB submitted 2024-11-24 hep-ph astro-ph.HE

A. De Rújula This is my paper · ORCID
classification hep-phastro-ph.HE PACS 98.70.Sa14.60.Cd97.60.Bw96.60.tk
keywords CannonballModelcosmic-raykneeGRB221009AmassscalingelectronspositronspectrumGRBneutrinossupernovaejecta
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that four recent observational results—the record peak energy of GRB221009A, the newly seen knee in the cosmic-ray electron spectrum, the measured positron spectrum, and the non-detection of high-energy neutrinos in coincidence with GRBs—fit the Cannonball Model, in which gamma-ray bursts and cosmic rays are produced together by relativistic blobs of ordinary matter ejected by supernovae. The central quantitative claim is that the spectral knee of each cosmic-ray species sits at a mass-proportional energy, with the proton knee ending at $1.4\times10^7$ GeV. That endpoint follows from the Lorentz factor $\gamma_0\approx 1.87\times10^3$ that the model extracts from GRB221009A's peak energy, so the cosmic-ray knee becomes a direct reading of the Lorentz-factor distribution of gamma-ray-burst ejecta rather than an independent accident.

What carries the argument

The load-bearing object is the "cannonball": a blob of ordinary matter with baryon number of order $10^{50}$, ejected at a Lorentz factor $\gamma_0$ of order $10^3$ in a stripped-envelope supernova, whose external magnetic field acts as a relativistic magnetic racket. The central identity is the elastic-collision maximum energy $E_{\max}=2\gamma_0^2 M$ (Eq. 2), which fixes each cosmic-ray species' knee at a mass-proportional energy. Together with the universal spectrum below the knees, $dF_{\mathrm{elast}}/d\gamma \propto n_A \int d\bar\gamma \,\bar\gamma^{-7/3} \int d\gamma_{\mathrm{co}} \,\gamma_{\mathrm{co}}^{-4}$ (Eq. 7), this identity carries the argument: Eq. (2) turns the inferred Lorentz factor of GRB221009A into the predicted end of the proton knee, and Eq. (7) provides the common spectral shape whose $A^{1.75}$ rescaling explains elemental abundances and whose mass scaling places the electron knee.

What would settle it

Measure the iron knee precisely enough to distinguish a mass-scaled break at $E_{\mathrm{Fe}}^{\mathrm{break}} = (m_{\mathrm{Fe}}/m_p)\,E_p^{\mathrm{break}} \approx 56\times1.4\times10^7$ GeV from a charge-scaled break at $26\times1.4\times10^7$ GeV; the paper notes that current data cannot yet tell these apart.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that cosmic-ray electrons and nuclei are accelerated when a cannonball's external magnetic field collides with ambient interstellar matter, with a maximum energy $E_{\max}=2\gamma_0^2 M$ (Eq. 2), so each species' knee falls at an energy proportional to its mass. Using the measured peak energy $(1+z)E_p = 3503\pm133$ keV of GRB221009A in the CB-model relation $(1+z)E_p \approx \gamma_0\delta_0\epsilon_p$ with $\epsilon_p=1$ eV yields $\gamma_0\approx 1.87\times10^3$, and with Eq. (2) a predicted end of the proton knee at $1.4\times10^7$ GeV. The claimed validation also covers the electron knee, predicted at $(m_e/m_p)$ times the proton knee; elemental abundances from H to Ni, reproduced by a universal source spectrum $dF/d\gamma\propto n_A\gamma^{-13/6}$ times a mass factor $A^{1.75}$; the measured positron spectrum, whose source term the model computes with no adjustable parameters; and the non-detection of high-energy neutrinos from GRBs, explained by a neutrino opening angle much narrower than the gamma-ray beam.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that a cannonball's external magnetic field converts ambient interstellar matter into cosmic rays with exactly the same universal spectrum as the older internal-diffusion picture, an equivalence the paper asserts without a first-principles derivation and itself says would be difficult and welcome to simulate.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • The end of the proton knee at $1.4\times10^7$ GeV becomes a sharp target: any future measurement of the proton spectrum's elastic cutoff can confirm or reject the model.
  • The electron knee should sit at $(m_e/m_p)$ times the proton-knee energy, roughly $7.6$ TeV, giving cosmic-ray electron detectors a specific energy at which to look for the spectral break.
  • The iron knee should sit at about $56$ times the proton-knee energy, so higher-precision heavy-nucleus data can separate mass scaling from charge scaling.
  • Elemental abundances at fixed energy per nucleus should track ambient abundances multiplied by $A^{1.75}$, a rule already tested from H to Ni.
  • The measured positron spectrum should continue to follow the model's source term plus a diffuse background, with no extra positron sources required.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Extension: if the knee positions scale with mass, a joint fit of the electron, proton, helium, and iron knees would constrain the underlying distribution of $\gamma_0$ values directly from cosmic-ray data, cross-checking the distribution the model derives from GRB afterglows.
  • Extension: the mass-scaling rule implies a very precise electron-knee location near $7.6$ TeV; a dedicated measurement centered there would test the model more sharply than the broad knee region in the current data.
  • Extension: the narrow-neutrino-beam explanation suggests a stacking search for neutrinos from GRB jets observed at small off-axis angles, where the model predicts a much higher neutrino-to-gamma ratio than for the sample as a whole.
  • Extension: a first-principles magnetohydrodynamic simulation of a spinning, highly magnetized blob crossing ionized interstellar gas, which the paper itself calls for, could settle whether the universal spectrum of Eq. (7) actually emerges from the revamped acceleration mechanism.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

5 major / 4 minor

Summary. The paper argues that recent observations of GRB221009A, the cosmic-ray electron spectrum, the AMS positron spectrum, and IceCube neutrino upper limits together strongly validate the Cannonball Model of gamma-ray bursts and cosmic rays. The model asserts that cosmic rays are accelerated by elastic scattering off the magnetic field of relativistic cannonballs, producing knees at Emax = 2 gamma0^2 M, with gamma0 inferred from the peak energy of GRB221009A. The paper claims that the proton knee ends at 1.4x10^7 GeV as predicted via this gamma0, that the electron and nuclear knees scale with mass, that the positron spectrum is a parameter-free prediction, and that the absence of GRB neutrinos has a simple geometrical explanation.

Significance. If the central claims were correct, the paper would establish a common origin for GRBs and cosmic rays within a single, highly predictive model, and it would offer concrete falsifiable predictions for the knee energies and spectral shapes. The paper is transparent about several of its uncertainties, and it does make quantitative predictions (e.g., Eq. (2), Eq. (10)) that are in principle testable. However, as detailed below, the headline numerical prediction does not follow from the paper's own equations, and several validation claims are overstated relative to the internal caveats. The significance as a validated result is therefore low, although the underlying model remains a falsifiable alternative worth further scrutiny.

major comments (5)
  1. [Section I C and Eq. (2)] The stated prediction that the proton knee ends at 1.4x10^7 GeV does not follow from the paper's own equation. With gamma0[221009A] = 1.87x10^3 and M = m_p = 0.938 GeV, Eq. (2) gives Emax = 2 gamma0^2 M ≈ 6.6x10^6 GeV, a factor of about 2.1 smaller than the quoted 1.4x10^7 GeV. The quoted value matches 4 gamma0^2 m_p, which is not the factor appearing in Eq. (2). Since this prediction is the central validation claim, this arithmetic discrepancy is load-bearing.
  2. [Section I C, Eqs. (1)-(3)] The derivation of gamma0 is internally inconsistent. The text states that GRB221009A was observed at a small angle so that delta0 ≈ gamma0, but Eq. (1) gives delta0 = 2 gamma0 in the on-axis limit theta -> 0. Using delta0 = 2 gamma0 in Eq. (3) with (1+z)E_p = 3503 keV and epsilon_p = 1 eV yields gamma0 ≈ 1.32x10^3, not 1.87x10^3, and consequently Emax ≈ 3.3x10^6 GeV. Legitimate readings of Eqs. (1)-(3) therefore produce cutoff energies spanning roughly 3.3x10^6 to 1.4x10^7 GeV, so the claimed agreement with the observed proton spectrum extending to ~10^7 GeV is not a unique consequence of the model.
  3. [Conclusions vs Section VI] The Conclusions describe the AMS positron spectrum as "a calculation –with no fit parameters," but Section VI states that the source term was "reduced to 0.8 its calculated value" and that the diffuse background was chosen by adopting the Lipari spectrum. These are adjustable choices, and the 0.8 factor is explicitly introduced as a fudge. The positron result therefore cannot be called parameter-free, and the validation drawn from it is substantially weaker than claimed.
  4. [Section IV vs Conclusions] Section IV states that "the data are insufficiently precise to test whether the knee positions scale as A or Z" for nuclear CRs, yet the Conclusions present the mass scaling of the electron, H, He, and Fe knees as an established result. The electron-to-proton mass scaling is an input assumption of the model (common dF/dgamma plus Eq. (2)) rather than an independent empirical determination, and the paper's own admission that the nuclear data cannot distinguish A from Z scaling undermines the strength of the claimed validation.
  5. [Section I F] The revamped acceleration mechanism, in which the external magnetic field of a CB converts ISM matter into CRs, is asserted to leave all predictions unchanged, with Eq. (7) carried over unchanged. This is not derived from first principles; the paper itself states that "First-principle simulations of a rapidly moving and rotating magnetized CB encountering the ISM and producing CRs would be difficult, and welcome." If the external-field mechanism yields a different spectral shape or normalization, the CR predictions would not remain as stated. This assumption is load-bearing for the paper's cosmic-ray argument.
minor comments (4)
  1. [Section I C] The phrase "its measured its measured" appears in the text near the discussion of GRB221009A's peak energy and should be corrected.
  2. [Section I C] The conclusion says "This is the first of the a series of good news"; this is a typographical error that should read "the first of a series."
  3. [Reference [2]] Reference [2] is a retail link to a poster rather than a scholarly source; it should be replaced with an appropriate citation or removed.
  4. [Section I C and Fig. 2] The text does not explicitly define the selection criterion for the Lorentz-factor distribution shown in Fig. 2, nor whether the distribution is normalized over a particular GRB sample; this should be clarified.

Circularity Check

4 steps flagged · score 6.0 of 10

Headline knee prediction (1.4×10^7 GeV) does not follow from the paper's own Eq. (2) with the quoted γ0, the δ0≈γ0 assumption conflicts with the paper's Eq. (1), and the AMS positron 'prediction' is an admitted 0.8-rescaled, prior-adjusted fit.

  1. other [Section I C, Eq. (2) and text following Fig. 3]
    "Emax = 2γ0²M ... Combine Eqs.(2) and γ0[221009A]≈1.87×10^3 to obtain a predicted 'end of the proton's knee' at an elastic cutoff energy 1.4×10^7 GeV, shown in Fig.(3)."

    Plugging the paper's own inputs into its own Eq. (2) gives Emax = 2×(1.87×10^3)²×0.938 GeV ≈ 6.6×10^6 GeV, a factor of about 2.1 below the claimed 1.4×10^7 GeV. The quoted value matches 4γ0²×1 GeV, a factor that appears nowhere in the stated elastic formula for massive particles. The claimed agreement with the observed knee's upper edge near 10^7 GeV is therefore not the output of the paper's stated derivation; the specific reduction Eq. (2) plus the quoted γ0 yields a different number than the headline claim.

  2. other [Section I C together with Eq. (1)]
    "Being so energetic, the CB model implies that it was observed at a small angle, so that δ0≈γ0 and Eq.(3) implies a large γ0[221009A]≈1.87×10^3. ... δ0 = 2γ0/(1+γ0²θ²)."

    The paper's own Eq. (1) gives δ0 → 2γ0 as θ → 0, so a truly 'small angle' (head-on) observation implies δ0 ≈ 2γ0, not δ0 ≈ γ0; δ0 ≈ γ0 corresponds to the beam-edge angle θ ≈ 1/γ0. Using δ0 = 2γ0 in Eq. (3) with the same observed (1+z)Ep = 3503 keV yields γ0 ≈ 1.32×10^3 and, under Eq. (2), Emax ≈ 3.3×10^6 GeV. The paper selects the δ0 ≈ γ0 branch of its own formulas, so the headline 1.4×10^7 GeV is not a unique consequence of the model; the paper's own equations permit cutoffs spanning roughly 3.3×10^6 to 1.4×10^7 GeV.

2 more flagged steps
  1. fitted input called prediction [Section VI (footnote 4) and Conclusions]
    "For esthetics, the 'source term' CB model's prediction has been reduced to 0.8 its calculated value, this fudge factor being much less important than the uncertainties in the inputs. ... As shown in [27], Shlomo Dado made a perfect fit to the data by slightly adjusting the input priors. ... A calculation –with no fit parameters– of the positron spectrum observed by AMS gives a convincing result."

    The Conclusions' 'with no fit parameters' claim is contradicted by the paper's own Section VI and footnote: the predicted source term is rescaled by an admitted 0.8 'fudge factor,' the diffuse background is a chosen input ('Lipari'), and the footnote discloses that slightly adjusting input priors produces a perfect fit. The claimed predictive success of Fig. (9) thus reduces, by the paper's own admissions, to a chosen background plus a normalization-scaled model term with adjustable priors.

  2. fitted input called prediction [Section II]
    "In DD2008 we adopted a value βc = 0.6 [22], resulting in βs+βc ≈2.77, in good agreement with the individual spectra and in excellent agreement with the all-particle value 2.75, recently measured by LHAASO-KM2A. ... There we chose in τ–the CR confinement-time power law– a value of βc [22] compatible with the data."

    The predicted slope βs+βc ≈ 2.77 is presented as an agreement with the measured 2.75, yet the paper admits the input βc was chosen to be 'compatible with the data.' The agreement is therefore a repackaging of an empirically chosen input as a model prediction; Section II itself concedes 'One cannot say that Fig.(4) is a precise test of the predictions in DD2008.'

full rationale

The paper has a genuine cross-validation skeleton: the γ0 distribution that shapes the CR knee is extracted from CB-model fits to GRB afterglows (self-citations [6,7], but on external data), explicitly 'not from data concerning CRs,' and the εp = 1 eV calibration is a stated model prior; that structural part is not circular and I do not score it against the paper. The defects are in the specific reductions. (1) The headline end-of-knee at 1.4×10^7 GeV does not follow from the paper's own Eq. (2): with γ0 = 1.87×10^3 and mp ≈ 0.938 GeV one obtains ≈ 6.6×10^6 GeV, and the quoted number matches 4γ0²mp, an unstated factor. (2) The γ0 extraction takes δ0 ≈ γ0 for a 'small angle,' whereas the paper's own Eq. (1) gives δ0 → 2γ0 head-on, which would shift γ0 to ≈ 1.32×10^3 and Emax to ≈ 3.3×10^6 GeV; the claimed strong validation is achieved only by selecting one branch of the paper's own formulas. (3) The AMS positron 'prediction' is, by the manuscript's own footnote and text, a 0.8-rescaled source over a chosen background with adjustable priors — an admitted fit presented in the Conclusions as parameter-free. (4) The βs+βc ≈ 2.77 slope agreement re-derives an input that the paper says was chosen to be data-compatible. Separately, Section I F carries Eq. (7) over to the new external-field mechanism by assumption, with the paper's own caveat that first-principle simulations 'would be difficult, and welcome' — an unverified premise rather than circularity. These are partial circularities and arithmetic failures in the central claims, so the Conclusions' 'strongly validate' statement is not supported by the paper's own derivation chain.

Assumptions & free parameters 5 free parameters · 5 assumptions · 1 invented entities

The central claim that new data strongly validate the CB model rests on a chain of assumptions: the CB ejection mechanism, the glory photon reservoir with a chosen peak energy, the external magnetic field mechanism for CR acceleration (new in this paper), and a simplified confinement-time model. Several numerical inputs (beta_c, epsilon_p, positron normalization, background choice) are either fitted to data or chosen by hand, so the 'validations' are not parameter-free.

free parameters (5)
  • CR flux normalization = adjusted to data
    The absolute normalizations of the predicted p and He fluxes in the low-energy plot are adjusted within uncertainties; the introduction admits 'only one parameter chosen to fit the data'.
  • beta_c (confinement-time index) = 0.6
    Adopted from [22] to match CR data, sets the predicted spectral index beta_s + beta_c approximately 2.77; Section II.
  • epsilon_p (glory peak energy) = 1 eV
    A 'prior' chosen in DD2008; calibrates Eq. (3) relating GRB peak energy to gamma0, hence the predicted proton knee end energy.
  • positron source normalization factor = 0.8
    Explicitly reduces the calculated AMS positron source term 'for esthetics'; Section VI.
  • positron diffuse background (Lipari term) = selected by hand
    The secondary positron background is not derived; the paper chooses the Lipari model for the diffuse term.
assumptions (5)
  • domain assumption A stripped-envelope SNIc produces opposite jets of CBs with initial Lorentz factors of order 10^3
    Basic postulate of the CB model, stated in the Introduction.
  • domain assumption GRB photons are produced by inverse Compton scattering of 'glory' photons, with E_p relation Eq. (3) and epsilon_p = 1 eV
    Used in Section I C to extract gamma0 for GRB221009A from its peak energy.
  • ad hoc to paper CRs are accelerated by elastic scattering off the CB's external magnetic field, producing the same universal spectrum as Eq. (7)
    The revamped mechanism in Section I F is asserted without a first-principles derivation; the paper invites future simulations.
  • domain assumption The CR confinement time scales as tau proportional to (Z/p)^beta_c with beta_c = 0.6
    Simplified Galactic propagation model adopted from [22]; used to derive Eq. (10).
  • domain assumption GRB221009A was observed nearly on-axis, so delta0 is approximately gamma0
    Section I C assumes on-axis viewing to convert the peak energy into gamma0.
invented entities (1)
  • CB 'magnetic domain' (external magnetic field of a cannonball)
    purpose: To accelerate ISM particles to cosmic-ray energies and to evade the critique that CRs would be overtaken by the CB
    The revamped mechanism is new to this paper; no direct measurement of the field; its spectrum is assumed identical to the old internal-field formula Eq. (7).

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of A revamped understanding of Cosmic Rays and Gamma-Ray Bursts." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/55L6RDPB

@misc{pith2026241115850,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: A revamped understanding of Cosmic Rays and Gamma-Ray Bursts},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/55L6RDPB}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.15850}
}
read the original abstract

Interesting data on Gamma Ray Burts (GRBs) and Cosmic Rays (CRs) have recently been made public. GRB221009A has a record ``peak energy". The CR electron spectrum has been measured to unprecedented high energies and exhibits a ``knee" akin to the ones in all-particle or individual-element CR nuclei. IceCube has not seen high-energy neutrinos associated with GRBs. AMS has published a CR positron spectrum conducive to much speculation. We examine these data in the light of the ``CannonBall Model" of GRBs and CRs, in which they are intimately related and which they do strongly validate.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.15850 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. (a) The [Ep, Eiso] correlation, with a slope interpo￾lating the ones of Eqs.(5) and (6). By definition the blue line separates GRBs from XRFs. (b) Results for 315 long GRBs with known redshift observed by Konus-Wind [9]. The color of each data point represents the GRB’s redshift. Error bars are not shown. GRB221009A is indicated by a red star. The best fit “Amati” correlation is plotted as a dashed line. B. An inter… view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. The p (or “H”) knee extends from Ep ≃106 to ≃107 GeV. Above the knee the “inelastic” contribution, discussed in Section IV, dominates. implications of its measured its measured (1 + z) Ep = 3503±133 keV, are. Being so energetic, the CB model im￾plies that it was observed at a small angle, so that δ0 ≈ γ0 and Eq.(3) implies a large γ0[221009A]≈1.87×103 . This result is shown in black in Fig.(2), where GRB221009A is s… view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. AMS results [21] for various primary CRs as func [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: The Fe knee with its predicted break [12]. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The p spectrum (red), its (black) predicted slopes [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_7.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An observed GRB and its missing neutrinos. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_10.png]
Figure 12
Figure 12. Figure 12: An ‘artist’s view’ (not to scale) of the CB model of [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_12.png]
Figure 13
Figure 13. Figure 13: The expected CB-model angular distance between [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_13.png]
Figure 14
Figure 14. Figure 14: The very low energy fluxes of protons and [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p009_14.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

53 extracted references · 49 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    Shlomo Dado and Arnon Dar, Journal of Modern Physics,15, 125 (2024)

    work page 2024

  2. [2]

    https://www.etsy.com/listing/1219140266/printable- wall-art-baron-munchausen

    work page arXiv

  3. [3]

    aLw/6exlra//BdEylgfbXQ/tmiQ=

    and the SN wind’s surface density (1016g/cm2). Other inputs are the number of CR gener- ating SNe in the Galaxy (1/100y), and the number of CBs per SN (10, twice the average number of GRB pulses). The result of the above calculation [27] is shown in Fig.(9) as the dashed line. Some comments: secondary 6 (AMS) (Lipari) Diffuse term Source term Energy [GeV]...

    work page 2003

  4. [4]

    Goodman, A

    J. Goodman, A. Dar, S. Nussinov, ApJ,314, L7 (1987)

    work page 1987

  5. [5]

    Key ideas underlying the CB model were adopted from: N. J. Shaviv, A. Dar, ApJ,447, 863 (1995), arXiv:astro- ph/9407039. A. Dar, ApJ,500, L93 (1998), arXiv:astro-ph/9709231. A. Dar A&AS,138, 505 (1999), arXiv:astro-ph/9902017. A. Dar, R. Plaga, A&A349, 259 (1999), arXiv:astro- ph/9902138. A. Dar, A. De R´ ujula, 2000, arXiv:astro-ph/0012227. S. Dado, A. D...

    work page arXiv 1995

  6. [6]

    Towards a complete theory of Gamma Ray Bursts

    A. Dar and A. De R´ ujula, Phys. Rep.405, 203 (2004), arXiv:astro-ph/0308248

    work page Pith review arXiv 2004

  7. [7]

    M. J. Rees, P. Meszaros, MNRAS,25, 29 (1992)

    work page 1992

  8. [8]

    The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 905, Number 1

    Bon-Chul Koo et al. The Astrophysical Journal, Volume 905, Number 1

    work page

Show all 53 references
  1. [9]

    Dar and A

    A. Dar and A. De R´ ujula, Phys. Rept.466, 179 (2008), hep-ph/0606199

    2008 arXiv

  2. [11]

    Frederiks et al

    D. Frederiks et al. The Astrophysical Journal Letters, 949, L7 (2023)

    2023

  3. [12]

    De R´ ujula, Phys

    A. De R´ ujula, Phys. Letts. B 790C,444(2019), arXiv.1802.06626

    2019 arXiv

  4. [13]

    Amati, F

    L. Amati, F. Frontera, M. Tavani, et al., A&A,390, 81 (2002), arXiv:astro-ph/0205230

    2002 arXiv

  5. [14]

    Porter, Gudlaugur Johannesson & Igor V

    Troy A. Porter, Gudlaugur Johannesson & Igor V. Moskalenko, The Astrophysical Journal Supplement262, 30 (2022), arXiv:2112.12745

    2022 arXiv

  6. [15]

    Silva & al., Astrophys

    L.O. Silva & al., Astrophys. J.596, L121 (2003). T. Haugboelle & al., Procs. 22nd Texas Symp. on Rela- tivistic Astroph. (2004), astro-ph/0503332v1. Jacob Trier Frederiksen & al., Astroph. J. Letters722, L114 (2010), arX1003.1140v4

    2003 arXiv

  7. [16]

    De R´ ujula, Int

    A. De R´ ujula, Int. J. of Modern Physics A34, No. 32, 1930015 (2019)

    2019

  8. [17]

    De R´ ujula, Howard Georgi & S.L

    A. De R´ ujula, Howard Georgi & S.L. Glashow, Phys.Rev. D12 147 (1975)

    1975

  9. [18]

    Universe

    S. Dado, A. Dar and A. De R´ ujula, Spe- cial issue on GRBs, MDPI journal “Universe”, https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1997/8/7/350/pdf, arXiv:2204.04128

    1997 arXiv

  10. [19]

    Zyla et al

    P.A. Zyla et al. (Particle Data Group), Prog. Theor. Exp. Phys. 2020, 083C01 (2020) and 2022 update

    2020

  11. [20]

    De R´ ujula, arXiv:hep-ph/0611369

    Arnon Dar & A. De R´ ujula, arXiv:hep-ph/0611369

    arXiv

  12. [21]

    A.M Hillas, astro-ph/0607109v2

    arXiv

  13. [22]

    See, e.g. S.P. Swordy & al., Astrophys. J.349, 625 (1990)

    1990

  14. [23]

    Rep.894, 1 (2021), https://indico.cern.ch/event/1275785/

    For AMS results, see, e.g., Phys. Rep.894, 1 (2021), https://indico.cern.ch/event/1275785/

    2021

  15. [24]

    www.mpi-hd.mpg.de/HESS/pages/home/som/2017/09/

    2017

  16. [25]

    Zhen Cao & al. Phys. Rev. Lett.132, 131002

  17. [26]

    Grevesse & A.J

    N. Grevesse & A.J. Sauval, 1998, Sp. Sci. Rev.85, 161 (1998); N. Grevesse & A.J. Sauval, Adv. Sp. Res.30, 3, (2002)

    1998

  18. [27]

    Wiebel-Sooth, P

    B. Wiebel-Sooth, P. Bierman & H. Meyer, Astron. & 10 Astrophys.330, 37 (1998)

    1998

  19. [28]

    De R´ ujula, Il Nuovo Cimento C,1(2023), arXiv:2204.07418

    A. De R´ ujula, Il Nuovo Cimento C,1(2023), arXiv:2204.07418

    2023 arXiv

  20. [29]

    De R´ ujula, arXiv:1909.01277

    A. De R´ ujula, arXiv:1909.01277

    1909 arXiv

  21. [30]

    Lipari, arXiv:1810.03195v1

    P. Lipari, arXiv:1810.03195v1

    arXiv

  22. [31]

    G. B. Taylor, et al., ApJ,609, L1 (2004), arXiv:astro- ph/0405300v1

    2004

  23. [32]

    De R´ ujula, 9th International Symposium on Neutrino Telescopes

    A. De R´ ujula, 9th International Symposium on Neutrino Telescopes. 637-659, hep-ph/0105203

    arXiv

  24. [33]

    Abbasi, et al., arXiv:2205.11410

    R. Abbasi, et al., arXiv:2205.11410

  25. [34]

    Mirabel & L.F

    I.F. Mirabel & L.F. Rodriguez, Annu. Rev. Astron. As- trophys.37, 409 (1999)

    1999

  26. [35]

    M. J. Hardcastle et al. MNRAS,455, 3526 (2016)

    2016

  27. [36]

    A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula, arXiv:astro-ph/0012227; S. Dado, A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula, Astroph. J.663, 400, (2007), Astroph. J.693, 311, (2009), Astroph. J.696, 994, (2009)

    2007 arXiv

  28. [37]

    Eikenberry & al., Astrophys

    S.S. Eikenberry & al., Astrophys. J.561, 1027 (2001); D.R. Gies & al., Astrophys. J.566, 1069 (2001); M.G. Watson & al., Mon. Not. Roy. Astron. Soc.222, 261 (1986); T. Kotani & al., Publ. Astron. Soc. Jap.48, 619 (1996); H.L. Marshall, C.R. Canizares & N.S. Schulz, Astrophys. ...

    2001

  29. [38]

    S. Dado, A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula, Astron. & Astrophys. 388, 1079 (2002). [39]Is there a 1998bw-like supernova in the afterglow of gamma-ray burst 011121?Astrophys. J. Lett.572, L143 (2002), astro-ph/0203440. What we learn from the afterglow of GRB 021211Astro- phys. J.593, 961...

    2002 arXiv

  30. [39]

    Dado & A

    S. Dado & A. Dar, Astroph. J.755, 16, (2013)

    2013

  31. [40]

    Dado & A

    S. Dado & A. Dar, Phys. Rev.D94, 063007 (2016)

    2016

  32. [41]

    S. Dado, A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula, Astroph. J.594, L89 (2003)

    2003

  33. [42]

    S. Dado, A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula, Astroph. J.646, L21 (2006)

    2006

  34. [43]

    Corbel & al., New Astron

    S. Corbel & al., New Astron. Rev.47, 477 (2003)

    2003

  35. [44]

    Nisenson & C

    P. Nisenson & C. Papaliolios, Astrophys. J.518, L29, (1999)

    1999

  36. [45]

    S. Dado, A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula, arXiv:astro- ph/0402374, astro-ph/0406325, unpublished

  37. [46]

    Courdec, Annales d’Astrophysique2, 271 (1939)

    P. Courdec, Annales d’Astrophysique2, 271 (1939). M. J. Rees, Nature,211, 468 (1966)

    1939

  38. [47]

    Dennis Overbye, https://www.nytimes.com/2003/06/20/us/ astronomers-link-gamma-ray-bursts-to-supernovas.html

    2003

  39. [48]

    https://www.nytimes.com/2003/05/29/us/biggest- blast-in-cosmos-reveals-its-dark-heart.html

    2003

  40. [49]

    Bloom et al., Astron

    J.S. Bloom et al., Astron. J.127, 253, (2003), arXiv: astro-ph/0308034

    2003 arXiv

  41. [50]

    S. Dado, A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula. arXiv:1712.09970

    arXiv

  42. [51]

    N. J. Shaviv and A. Dar, ApJ447, 863 (1995)

    1995

  43. [52]

    S. Dado, A. Dar & A. De R´ ujula, arXiv:astro- ph/0403015; arXiv:astro-ph/0701294 and in Proceedings of the Vulcano Workshop on Frontiere Objects in Astro- physics, May 21-27, 2006, Vulcano Italy

    2006

  44. [53]

    are>47%, but two, 930131 and 100826A, whose polarizations are also incompatible with Π = 0, the stan- dard expectation for synchrotron radiation of electrons in a non ad-hoc-structured magnetic field

  45. [54]

    GRB 021206. W. Coburn & S. E. Boggs, Nature423, 415 (2003). GRBs 930131, 960924. D. R. Willis, & al. 2005, A&A, 439, 245 (2005). GRB 041219A: E. Kalemci & al. ApJS,169, 75 (2007). GRB 041219A: McGlyn & al. A&A,466, 895 (2007). GRB 100826A: Yonetoku & al. ApJ,743, L30 (2011). G...

    2003

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.