Slashdot Mirror


Quark Matter Blamed for Paired 1993 Seismic Events

Ethanon writes "In an article posted by BBC, scientists have suggested that two "unassociated" seismic events that occurred in 1993 were actually strange Quark matter passing through the Earth at a speed of perhaps 250 miles per second. A spec of strange Quark matter the size of a human cell is said to be so dense that it could weigh a tonne! Check it out "

23 of 366 comments (clear)

  1. Old News... by Ironix · · Score: 5, Informative

    I think this was posted before.

    --
    Still #1 -- Lonely Gay Geek
    1. Re:Old News... by KILNA · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your meta-comment regarding copy-paste karma whoring on repeated stories is intriguing and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter. Please only subscribe me once, as I will no doubt post this comment again.

      --
      Error: PANTS NOT FOUND. Press <F1> to continue.
  2. ...in other news... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    scientists have found that multi-posts of stories on slashdot are due to a quirk matter that passes through the slashdot queue at the high speed of 100 submissions/day.

  3. Doesn't add up... by Mike+Schiraldi · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The graphic at the top says that the Oct 22, 1993 particle entered at 09:55:47 and left at 09:56:14. That's 27 seconds.

    The article says, "One event occurred on 22 October, 1993, when, according to the researchers, something entered the Earth off Antarctica and left it south of India 0.73 of a second later."

    Which is it?

    1. Re:Doesn't add up... by nzhavok · · Score: 5, Funny

      Perhaps they forgot to synchronize their watches? Scientists are terribly forgetful about things like this :)

      --

      He who defends everything, defends nothing. -- Fredrick The Great
    2. Re:Doesn't add up... by Liquor · · Score: 5, Interesting

      It's pretty obvious that the article has the amount of time wrong. The suggestion of speed given by the article is that the particles might travel at about 400 Km/s, and this particular track apparently went in near a pole and came out near the equator - a rough guess (somebody else can do the actual spherical trig.) is 8500 Km of travel through the earth, and at 400 Km/s that's about 21 seconds, which is on the close order of the 27 seconds you noted from the map.

      Now if it WAS .73 of a second, then the alleged particle was travelling close to 12,000 Km/s - 4% of lightspeed - I suspect that 400 Km/s is more in tune with both the energies (not) observed, and the (escape) velocity that could be imparted by falling into the solar system from interstellar space. (At least, either way, it sounds like this one won't be coming back.)

      --

      Liquor
      Sanity is a highly overrated commodity.
    3. Re:Doesn't add up... by Safety+Cap · · Score: 5, Informative
      the shockwave itself, traveling at the speed of sound, took 27 seconds
      Neither P, S, nor Body waves travel at the speed of sound. Their speed depends upon the medium; remember that liquid mediums do not transmit waves as fast as solid ones; liquid mediums also do not transmit shear waves.

      You can compute the speed of compressional waves with the formula V=sqrt((k+.75mu)/rho), where mu is the rigidity and k is the bulk modulus.

      Air is typically 330 m/s at sea level whereas Granite is around 5k-7k m/s.

      --
      Yeah, right.
  4. More BBC 'science'.. by stratjakt · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >> They searched the world's seismographic records for so-called "unassociated events". They looked at more than a million records collected by the US Geological Survey between 1990 to 1993

    Generally when you go looking through enough data, expecting to find something, you do.

    An alternate theory, perhaps. Some drunken teenagers kicked the seismographs?

    Not that this is something that really matters to anyone, alive or dead, either way.

    --
    I don't need no instructions to know how to rock!!!!
    1. Re:More BBC 'science'.. by krlynch · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Generally, when you go looking through enough data, expecting to find something, you do.

      You only find it if you aren't doing your job right; when looking for events that match a certain profile, you also have to take into account the number of events that match the profile but that would be generated by different processes. Those other processes are called "background" processes. If you don't expect to see any background events, and you do see events, you have support for the foreground hypothesis. If you do expect background events, and you see exactly the number you expect to see, you don't have support for the foreground hypothesis.

      This is a vast simplification of the process of teasing foreground from background, or course, not doing justice to the amount of work you have to do to understand what you are talking about ... and you aren't assured of getting it right, of course. However, the statements that this hypothesis has some support in the data was based on this exact type of analysis, and are clearly not of the "look at enough data you'll find what you want to" kind. You probably have to go to the original source article to find the details (the foreground/background analysis was most of the paper, if I remember correctly).

      Your alternate theory, once properly formulated, would also make a prediction as to the number of events of this kind that are expected ... go make that prediction, and then we can test it :-)

  5. Now that's FAST!! by vizualizr · · Score: 5, Funny

    250 Miles per second?

    now that's what i call a . ..

    QUARK EXPRESS

    --
    anything i tell you will cloud your opinion.
  6. Re:I don't think so. by Xerithane · · Score: 5, Funny

    And there is no reasonable argument for the choice of 11 dimensions (1 time, 10 space, 6 compactified).

    Are you sure you are a mathematician? ;)

    --
    Dacels Jewelers can't be trusted.
  7. Link to original paper by abhinavnath · · Score: 5, Informative

    tconnors(UID #91126) posted a link to the original paper, the last time this was posted on /.

    Not to karma whore or anything :), but this is a fascinating paper. They talk about how Strange Quark Nuggets contain strange, up and down quarks, which makes them stable enough to exist without condensing into protons and neutrons. It also talks about how SQNs are dark matter candidates - so these paired seismic events may be proof of this form of dark matter.

    This seems like an amazing amount of work - they went through nearly 10 million seismic event records, from 1981 to 1993.

    --
    My other sig is also a .Porsche
  8. Re:I don't think so. by exp(pi*sqrt(163)) · · Score: 5, Informative
    There is almost no experimental proofs for quantum field theory
    How about the prediction of the anomalous electron magnetic moment to quite a few decimal places? That prediction uses QFT.

    And there is no reasonable argument for the choice of 11 dimensions
    What does that have to do with it? QFT works in 4 dimensions. Are you confused between QFT and supersymmetric QFT? And strangeness has nothing to do with supersymmetry. I think you should go back to your mathematics.

    Hmmm...and I've never heard of Yang-Chibara manifolds and they aren't mentioned anywhere in arxiv.org.

    OK, I've been succesfully trolled.

    --
    Doesn't it make you feel good to know that our freedoms are protected by politicans, lawyers and journalists.
  9. So where did it come from? by mengel · · Score: 5, Interesting
    Okay, so we know where it came in, and where it went out, and fairly precisely what time it was... So then you are in a pretty good position to extrapolate the path of the object backwards, and figure out where it came from, right? If it was moving at 400km/h, its patj would have been warped somewhat by the sun's gravitation, but that should be able to be figured in. Then you should point all your best telescopes off in the direction that it must have come from, and see what's there.

    Any good amateur rocket/astronomy folks out there? If you shot something from Antartica opposite the direction of the tip of India at 450km/sec, on October 22, 1993, 09:55:57 GMT, where would it go?

    --
    - "History shows again and again how nature points out the folly of men" -- Blue Oyster Cult, 'Godzilla'
  10. Not a whole hell of a lot. by RatBastard · · Score: 5, Informative

    Sure, it's heavy. Sure, it's going really fast. But the impact area is only the size of a cell. It would rupture cells along the path through your body, but the holes created wouldn't be big enough for blood to flow out of, and unless it struck a nerve cell you'd never feel it. The mass is not high enough for it to have any tidal effects. Even if it did hit your brain it probably wouldn't do enough damage to register.

    --
    Boobies never hurt anyone. - Sherry Glaser.
    1. Re:Not a whole hell of a lot. by pVoid · · Score: 5, Informative
      You're not really taking into account that this thing has seismic effects felt around the globe.

      It's like saying f'(x) = df/dx is 0 because df is almost zero... you are neglecting the very important fact that dx is almost zero too.

      To apply it back to this case: (a previous post mentionned it too) if that thing weighed only a gram, but was traveling at the speed of light, you'd probably vaporize from the energy it would release in you. In the same veine, if it were traveling at reasonable speeds, weighed only 1kg, but the impact point was concentrated into one square nanometer, the damage done might just as well rupture every single cell in your body.

      Another example is icebergs, those giants move at something like 2-3 km/h, but the energy they would release if they hit a oil-platform is greater than the energy a 747 would if it were to crash into the platform at cruising speed.

      The bottom line is you have to know how much energy the particle contains, and also, how much of it would be released in your body. The fact that it's small doesn't indicate anything whatsoever...

      My uninformed guess is that if this thing can cause mini-earthquakes, it could be quite a powerful blast on the body.

  11. Slackers.. by grub · · Score: 5, Funny


    People blame sub-atomic particles for everything now.

    What caused those earthquakes? Quarks.
    What destroyed the World Trade Center? Quarks.
    Who left the toilet seat up? Quarks.

    Its about time people took responsibility for their actions and quit blaming the poor quarks.


    --
    Trolling is a art,
  12. Re:Imagine.. by Arcturax · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Yes but it would only impart a tiny bit if that energy into you as it struck. It would for the most part just pass right through you and do little to no damage that you could notice in the process.

    After all, if it dumped all its energy right then and there, it would create an energetic event equal to an asteriod hitting the planet.

    While it does dump 50kt worth of energy on its way through Earth, think about how thick the Earth is and then calculate how much damage is done per square centimeter. Not a lot really.

    So yes it has a lot of energy, but it loses it only a bit at a time as it zips through objects. It will have to zip through a lot more very large objects before it ever could be stopped (or hit with a huge enough repelling force which would require enormous amounts of energy to generate).

    --

    --Won't that be grand? Computers and the programs will start thinking and the people will stop. - Dr. Walter Gibbs
  13. Spontaneous human combustion? by Phosphor3k · · Score: 5, Funny

    Maybe this is finally a scientific reason for spontaneous human combustion?

    1. Re:Spontaneous human combustion? by Jboy_24 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I believe that in most cases 'Spontanious Human Combustion' it has been shown that the person died from a slow burn of their fat in an oxygen depleted atmosphere. Most = 99%.

      In these cases, the person was always

      a) alone
      b) in a closed room
      c) smoking or near a lit fire
      d) either intoxicated to the point of unconciousness or already dead from natural causes
      e) Mildly to Fully Obese
      f) Room has heavy waxy soot on ceiling or high points of the wall

      In fact because of the extremely high rate of intoxication among the victums it was thought at one point they died from the alcholol in the blood stream combusting.

      What happened really was:
      a) Person passes out
      b) Cigarette or Fire catches clothing on fire
      c) Due to lack of oxygen fire become a slow burn
      d) fat from body melts from fire
      e) clothing uses molten fat as fuel, ie a human candle

      While the heat is strong at the point of the burn, it doesn't turn into a huge fire, thus the lack of damage to other features in the room.

      THus, in the end, no Paranormal activties needed.

  14. quark@home? by TarPitt · · Score: 5, Interesting
    They looked at more than a million records collected by the US Geological Survey between 1990 to 1993 that were not associated with traditional seismic disturbances, such as Earthquakes


    These guys could use some help. Here's my idea: Put the information on line, distribute a client to analyze it. Surely the possibility of a quark collision is at least as good as finding an intelligent signal from another planet?

    --
    If your children ever found out how lame you are, they'd murder you in your sleep
  15. Re:I don't think so. by Guppy06 · · Score: 5, Funny

    " As a mathematician I'm usually very spectical of ..."

    "Usually there is some problems..."

    Whether or not you're a mathematician is debatable, but I'm pretty sure you'll never get confused with an English major. You have some "specticalular" problems with subject/verb agreements...

    "There is almost no experimental proofs for quantum field theory."

    Psst! You're a mathematician. You're supposed to be satisfied when the equations work out. Experimental proof is something done by... well... physicists.

    "And there is no reasonable argument for the choice of 11 dimensions (1 time, 10 space, 6 compactified)."

    Forget the funky math you just did, if you made up new math functions as often as you made up new words ("compactified?"), you'd be the next Newton.

    "can by explained much easier due to the fact that several cohomology groups of the Yang-Chibara manifolds are simple and the remaining ones freely generated."

    Dude! Paramount is looking for you! They need you to help write the next Star Trek series!

    "The other well known phenomena of earth core oszillations"

    We're off to see the wizard! The wonderful Wizard of Osz!

  16. Re:Imagine.. by fenix+down · · Score: 5, Informative

    Actually, it probably wouldn't be that much worse getting one to the head than the rest of your body. I got a nail right into the back of my head once, and it did basically nothing. Admittedly, I was a springy-brained kid at the time, but a needle of a line through most any part of your brain is no real problem to work around.

    Anybody remember that thing a few years ago about how MRI's don't show brain activity until after you do something? That wasn't really saying that your life is random and you're just rationalizing it, it just pointed out that your higher brain really isn't doing that much most of the time. 90% of the time you're coasting on the middle and lower brain. Conversations with coworkers are predictable and formulaic, so your big fancy brain hands it off to your brain stem and saves some glucose in case a puma tries to eat you.

    For this post, the most my higher brain probably put in was the subject. Then some subroutines just stuck together memories and turned them into text. I didn't even have to consider typing it, that got handed off when I first sat down.

    This means a lot for brain damage. Like in Hannibal. If somebody scoops out the right brain-bit, you could actually loose your subroutine for manners. There are actually people who've had strokes and lost certain, highly specific abilities. Like the ability to name fruit, in one textbook case. Just fruit, vegetables are fine, and just names. Show them an apple, they'll know it gets made into pies, they'll know if they like it or not, but the name they'll be clueless about. You could tell them it, and they'll remember as long as it's in their short term memory, but a few seconds later, it'll be gone, because the fruit naming call-up function got crushed by a blood clot.

    From what I understand, that kind of thing will get adapted to in most cases, like your brain will start putting fruit under vegetables, and making a meta-function to deal with that irregularity.

    Not like that stuff happens every time you get knocked in the head, it's just cool. My point is, a cell-sized hole through your head would have to be lined up incredibly well to kill you. You probably wouldn't even notice. And I'm not a neurosurgeon, I just play one on TV.