Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Origin of Cosmic Rays Confirmed

Posted by kdawson on from the just-as-we-suspected dept.

cats-paw writes in with news of research that seems to confirm and support current theories of how cosmic rays are created. The prevailing thinking has been that cosmic rays are generated in the regions where supernovas' shock waves interact with the interstellar medium. The new research used the variability in X-ray emissions from a supernova remnant to estimate the strength of the magnetic fields present in that environment. The results lend support to the possibility of protons and nucleii being accelerated in supernova remnants to energies of 1 PeV (10^15 eV) and beyond. Here is the abstract from Nature.

155 comments

  1. Synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

    The Cosmos

    1. Re:Synopsis by HomeLights · · Score: 0

      WOW I would never have guessed that. I would have figured it was {kAp}-xy^3 Nice discovery :--)

      --
      Stop by and watch a Christmas movie, commercial or cartoon! -->http://www.XmasDVD.com
  2. d'oh by User+956 · · Score: 4, Funny

    research that seems to confirm and support current theories of how cosmic rays are created.

    Oh, great, now that everyone knows how to make them, the Fantastic Four are going to be up to their eyeballs in supervillainry.

    --
    The theory of relativity doesn't work right in Arkansas.
    1. Re:d'oh by Mister+Kay · · Score: 0

      I for one welcome a world of super heroes and villains. Though this will probably hurt that Marvel MMO that's coming out and city of heroes/villains.

    2. Re:d'oh by yourfnmom · · Score: 1

      After seeing the movie, I don't think I'd call them Fantastic. Maybe the 'Adequate Four', or the 'Marginally OK Four.'

  3. When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by nexuspal · · Score: 3, Funny

    It comes back with .00160217 joules. Isn't this a very small amount of energy, or am I missing something?

    --
    I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
    1. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by the_brobdingnagian · · Score: 5, Informative

      Not if that's the energy of a single proton.

    2. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You need to use scientific notation instead.

      1 electron volts = 1.60217646 × E-19 joules

      so

      1E15 electron volts = 1.60217646 × E-4 joules

      It's an order of magnitude smaller still. Good news is, NASA will hire you! ;-)

    3. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by nexuspal · · Score: 1

      ohh no, I punched in 10 000000000000000 (fifteen zeroes without the space) eV to joules and it came back with that answer.

      --
      I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
    4. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by nukeade · · Score: 5, Informative

      It is, but it's all in one tiny particle (often a relativistic nucleus with all of its electrons stripped away). The energy density, then, is truly outrageous.

      ~Ben

    5. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Bonker · · Score: 5, Informative
      For Comparison

      * 3.2×1011 joule or 200 MeV - total energy released in nuclear fission of one U-235 atom (on average; depends on the precise break up)
      * 3.5×1011 joule or 210 MeV - total energy released in fission of one Pu-239 atom (also on average)


      So, imagine the energy level to be 8-9 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (or around a billion times) more energetic than a nuclear fission chain reaction.
      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    6. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 1

      That is a lot of energy for one proton, but not compared to the highest energy cosmic rays that have been observed. Those pack almost 10^21 eV (about the energy of a pitched baseball) into a single particle.

    7. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by geekboy642 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Those numbers are 3.2x10^-11 and 3.5x10^-11 respectively. Formatting is a bitch. Guess that's why they invented "Preview", eh Paco?

      --
      Just another "DOJ fascist authoritarian totalitarian bootlicker" -- Zeio
    8. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by viking80 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Multiply that with Avogadro's number, and you get the energy of a regular bullet with 'cosmic ray' speed:
      6x10^20 J. That, amazingly, equals the total enery production on earth in one year. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_resources_and_consumption

      --
      don't cut it off www.mgmbill.org
    9. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Omnifarious · · Score: 5, Informative

      So, it takes 4.1868 joules to heat one cubic centimeter of water (one gram of water) one degree centigrade. So 0.00160217 joules is enough to heat one gram of water 383 microdegrees.

      So, yes, in one sense that's not very much energy.

      But, if you're going to scale the mass up, you should scale the energy up. So, it's one proton that has that much energy. The gram of water has approximately 6.02*10^23 proton masses. If every proton mass in the gram of water had that much energy, it would be equivalent to that gram of water being heated by 2.3*10^20 degrees. This is 230 trillion trillion degrees (yes, that's two trillions).

      I hope this gives you a sense of the scale involved here.

      When you have a single proton with enough energy to make a measurable difference in the temperature of a gram of water, you are talking an amazingly huge amount of energy.

      --
      Need a Python, C++, Unix, Linux develop
    10. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by PPH · · Score: 1

      That's the energy per particle (proton). Its quite a bit for such an itsy-bitsy (sorry for the technical jargon) thing.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
    11. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      "or am I missing something?"


      Oh, just a high-school education.

    12. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      It comes back with .00160217 joules. Isn't this a very small amount of energy, or am I missing something? And it's in a proton about .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000007m^3 big.
      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    13. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by cgraeff · · Score: 1

      13.6 eV is the ground state energy of hydrogen. With that energy you can split a hydrogen atom in a proton plus an electron. 10^15 eV in atomic scale is indeed a lot of energy.

    14. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Kjella · · Score: 1

      If you had a kilo of that stuff, it'd be enough to power the world's energy consumption for the next 200 years. I think that's as close as you get to a layman's understanding of how much power that is.

      --
      Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
    15. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by MoxFulder · · Score: 4, Informative

      Indeed. The wikipedia article on ultra-high-energy cosmic rays has more info. The energy of such a particle is simply insane...

      Some of them apparently violate a theoretical limit on the energy of a particle that has traveled a long way across the universe... leading to the question of where exactly they come from.

      --
      My bicyles
    16. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Dark_MadMax666 · · Score: 1

      So, imagine the energy level to be 8-9 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (or around a billion times) more energetic than a nuclear fission chain reaction Damn that is awesome! When we can start making all new, more powerful bombs out of this ?!?! Somebody tell the military quick so we do not get cosmic ray gap!
    17. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by khallow · · Score: 1

      BTW, the current record for a cosmic ray (most likely a single proton) was estimated to have the kinetic energy of a thrown baseball. But it weighed 26 orders of magnitude less (assuming it was a proton).

    18. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Kingrames · · Score: 1

      So that means with this technology, we can make a gun that we fire once a year to keep the earth fully powered?
      Awesome.

      --
      If you can read this, I forgot to post anonymously.
    19. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Bonker · · Score: 4, Informative

      While the above poster is obviously in jest, it's worth pointing out the difficulties with his suggestion.

      The only way we currently have of energizing protons to even a measurable fraction of energy like this is in particle accelerators. They're spun around in magnetic fields to faster and faster speeds, gaining mass and energy or energy as they go. That energy ultimately comes from some kind of generator and the fuel it uses.

      Eventually, they're slammed into a stationary target or a particle going the other way in the same accelerator. The more mass and energy the particles have accumulated, the more exotic the reactions that occur when that happens. The point of the experiment is to funnel a massive amount of fuel energy into one spot and see what happens when it goes 'boom'.

      The super-energetic cosmic rays use the magnetic shockwave created by a Supernova to achieve about the same effect. Rather than being spun around a particle accelerator, they're being spun around the coiled loops of magnetic flux created when a super-massive star decides to disembowel itself.

      So, to get anywhere near the ability to create one of these, let alone some kind of ray weapon utilizing them, we'd need a particle accelerator larger than the Sun (or able to churn out more energy than the Sun does). By the time we were able to build one, we'd be dismantling planets by other means anyway.

      --
      The next Slashdot story will be ready soon, but subscribers can beat the rush and slashdot the links early!
    20. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by British · · Score: 4, Funny

      But it would take a year to charge the gun. Kinda cancels itself out.

    21. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by cheater512 · · Score: 1

      We are talking about photons so it may be just a little bit more than 200 years.

    22. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Yeah, but how many libraries of congress does it take to heat one cubic centimeter of water?

      Try it, I think you'll be pleasantly surprised.

    23. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Kagura · · Score: 1

      So, imagine the energy level to be 8-9 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (or around a billion times) more energetic than a nuclear fission chain reaction.

      Also, try to imagine all life as you know it stopping instantaneously and every molecule in your body exploding at the speed of light.

      Woah.

    24. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by brouski · · Score: 1

      OK, that sounds bad.

      --
      Proud member of the American Non Sequitur Society. We might not make much sense, but boy do we love pizza!
    25. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Dracophile · · Score: 1

      For Comparison

      • 3.2×1011 joule or 200 MeV - total energy released in nuclear fission of one U-235 atom (on average; depends on the precise break up)
      • 3.5×1011 joule or 210 MeV - total energy released in fission of one Pu-239 atom (also on average)

      So, imagine the energy level to be 8-9 ORDERS OF MAGNITUDE (or around a billion times) more energetic than a nuclear fission chain reaction.

      Imagine a Beowulf cluster of these!

      --
      Athy, athier, athiest.
    26. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by mortonda · · Score: 1

      Oh man, I haven't heard about Paco in ages.

    27. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I'm sorry, I don't understand that. How much energy is that in terms of cans of hot grits?

    28. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Avogadro's number is up.

      Apparently all his trees in California have burnt down.
      So much for guacamole!

    29. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The energy density, then, is truly outrageous. Jem, is that you?
    30. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're doing it wrong. There is no reason to build a bomb that utilizes these particles because they don't produce energy. The energy used to accelerate a particle can already be used for a 'normal' explosion, using that energy to accelerate a proton has no advantage (in fact, you're probably losing energy).

      I also think you're wrong about the size of that particle accelerator. Since stars are not designed to produce cosmic rays, they are unlikely to do so very efficiently. The cosmic rays are a side effect, and they can probably be produced much more efficiently by a machine that is built to do just that. After all, there is no need to produce energy levels comparable to those in a supernova. The most energetic particle detected had an energy of about 50 joules, right? 50 joules is nothing. It's just very difficult to put that energy in a single particle. But we just might get there.

      A ray weapon of these would be awesome.

    31. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by BlueParrot · · Score: 2, Funny
      No shit. Quoting wikipedia:

      The Oh-My-God particle (a play on the nickname "God particle" for the Higgs boson) is the nickname given to a particle observed on the evening of October 15, 1991, over Dugway Proving Grounds, Utah, estimated to have an energy of approximately 3 × 10**20 electronvolts, equivalent to about 50 joules


      50 joule proton... Almost makes you suspect the gods made a mistake with their pointer arithmetic. Either that or someone crossed the streams.
    32. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Muad'Dave · · Score: 1

      Oh God, you just revived an old memory. Jem and the Holograms! Truly Outrageous!

      --
      Tiller's Rule: Never use a word in written form that you've only heard and never read. You will end up looking foolish.
    33. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by ILongForDarkness · · Score: 1

      That is a tiny amount of energy, but it is on a single photon, not a bunch. We don't currently have a particle accelerator that can go to that high of an energy. Typical energys are 5X10^3 for medical X-ray imaging, and 4-20X10^6 for radiation treatments. This is a billion times more energy.

    34. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Fieryphoenix · · Score: 1

      I can't say exactly, but I think it may be best expressed by mentioning pantloads.

    35. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Xerxes314 · · Score: 1

      Some of them apparently violate a theoretical limit on the energy of a particle that has traveled a long way across the universe... leading to the question of where exactly they come from.

      This is a really interesting topic called the GZK cutoff. Basically, you expect that a particle with sufficiently high energy could scatter off of the microwave photons in the cosmic microwave background that permeate the entire universe, left over from the Big Bang billions of years ago. The particles have so much energy that when they hit the little photon, they pop off an entire pion (mass about a 15% of the proton). Since the universe is dense with such photons, you'd think these high-energy particles would just continuously pop off pions until their energies are below the GZK cutoff.

      And recent high-statistics experiments verify the existence of the cutoff, refuting earlier suggestions that there were anomalously high-energy cosmic rays: Observation of the GZK Cutoff by the HiRes Experiment

    36. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by nukeade · · Score: 1

      Hah! Well, it's better than reviving this memory: Pathetic Geek Stories!

      ~Ben

    37. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      This is a really interesting topic called the GZK cutoff. Basically, you expect that a particle with sufficiently high energy could scatter off of the microwave photons in the cosmic microwave background that permeate the entire universe, left over from the Big Bang billions of years ago. The particles have so much energy that when they hit the little photon, they pop off an entire pion (mass about a 15% of the proton). Since the universe is dense with such photons, you'd think these high-energy particles would just continuously pop off pions until their energies are below the GZK cutoff.

      And recent high-statistics experiments verify the existence of the cutoff, refuting earlier suggestions that there were anomalously high-energy cosmic rays: Observation of the GZK Cutoff by the HiRes Experiment

      Hmmm... interesting. So is there any current theory that could plausibly explain the detection of these high-energy cosmic rays? Are they thought to be just measurement anomalies?

      Is the GZK cutoff truly isotropic like the CMBR, or are there magnetic or other interactions that can disrupt it?
      --
      My bicyles
    38. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The energy density, then, is truly outrageous.


      Just like Jem!
    39. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by pclminion · · Score: 1

      That's equivalent to a 1 gram mass traveling at about 1.8 meters per second. Depending on the hardness of such an object, you'd probably say "Ouch" if it hit you in the eye. Now imagine all that energy packed into a SINGLE SUBATOMIC PARTICLE. Yeah. That's a lot of energy.

    40. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by MoxFulder · · Score: 1

      I like it! "Cosmic rays... nature's FPU errors" :-)

      --
      My bicyles
    41. Re:When I punch 10^15 eV into Google... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      That is not completly true. The limit is called GZK limit. But it only applies if the high energy particle travels a certain distance to reach detection. So there is a constrain between energy and distance travelled.
      In this study all the objects correlated with events are within 10Mpc (if I am not mistaken), so for the energy detected they are within the GZK limit constrains.
      By the way, this study is in last friday's Science cover.

  4. [OT] Nitpicking summary by noidentity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    [...] news of research that seems to confirm and support current theories of how cosmic rays are created. [...] The results lend support to the possibility of protons and nucleii being accelerated in supernova remnants to energies of 1 PeV (10^15 eV) and beyond. Here is the abstract from Nature.

    So this research confirms... supports...well lends support to the possibility. Care to soften it further?

    1. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      The wording in the summary is a good representation of the article. The work confirms the origins of cosmic rays in supernova remnants and lend support to the idea that they can reach energies of 1 PeV, which is energy in excess of what has been theorized as being possible. In other words, a new upper limit. They are two separate and accurate statements.

    2. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by noidentity · · Score: 1

      OK, I'm busted. Apologies.

    3. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by fritsd · · Score: 1

      Why is there an upper limit to how fast you can accelerate a proton? I mean in energy, as it approaches c, does something bad happen as it reaches that threshold? Relativistics was never my forte.

      --
      To be, or not to be: isn't that quite logical, Slashdot Beta?
    4. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by ResidntGeek · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I believe it's an upper limit to how fast this particular mechanism can accelerate a proton, not how fast a proton can be accelerated under any circumstances.

      --
      ResidntGeek
    5. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by pln2bz · · Score: 1, Interesting

      The study cannot absolutely confirm the origin of cosmic rays unless it considers all possible cosmological theories. It would perhaps be more accurate to say that within conventional stellar theory, supernovae can account for the high energies necessary. But within other stellar models -- like in plasma-oriented cosmologies -- it is not so difficult to achieve the necessary energy levels.

      For instance, a relatively low density plasma can support a weak electric field. Consistent with this, a low amplitude (positive) electric field can extend from the Sun's corona. This would result from the Sun being at a higher voltage level than is distant space beyond the heliopause. One can make a good case that the outward force on positive ions due to this electric field causes the observed acceleration of +ions in the solar wind.

      It's interesting that astrophysicists would propose that supernovae are the only mechanism for accelerating cosmic rays when they have yet to establish a believable mechanism within their own models for how the solar wind continues to be accelerated even as it passes the planets. The notion that cosmic rays are in fact the solar winds of other larger stars, whose electric fields would dwarf our own Sun's electric field, is only dismissed because it is irrelevant to the popular models. But by not considering such possibilities within a fair framework of alternative cosmologies, the mainstream astrophysicists fail to take advantage of an opportunity to rigorously compare and contrast the various stellar models. What we get instead is a consideration of only a limited set of possibilities to begin with based upon a dramatic assumption that the current stellar theories are without fault. This constrained set of possibilities improves our understanding of the popular theories, but it would be false to assert that this selective consideration of possibilities is rigorous.

      I'd love to hear why I might be wrong on this.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    6. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This is space science. The collective wisdom changes more often than if eggs or red wines are actually healthy for you. The kicker is, Food and The Universe already "are" something, we just haven't figured it out or agreed about it yet. Discovery is 70% debate.

    7. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by Scott+Carnahan · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Can you propose a mechanism for star formation that would give the sun a sufficiently large positive charge to accelerate ions at large distances? That voltage difference had to come from somewhere, and large charge imbalances counteract the gravitational attraction needed for nuclear fusion.

      Maybe I'm wasting my time. It seems clear that "alternative cosmologies" means the electric universe theory, which doesn't make any useful, testable predictions.

      --
      "Your notation sucks!" -- Serge Lang (1927-2005)
    8. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by heinousjay · · Score: 1

      As long as we're just opening it up to everything, I'd like to propose that Zeus is the cause, because he likes to fuck with us.

      --
      Slashdot - where whining about luck is the new way to make the world you want.
    9. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      the article points out *a* possible source for cosmic rays within a certain energy range. I don't think these scientists are attempting to explain all cosmic rays, as they come in a variety of compositions, arrival directions and energy levels. There is a spectrum of cosmic rays and this might be one explanation for a region of the spectrum from one arrival location.

      For further research, look up "GZK cutoff" and some of the theories of Enrico Fermi (who proposed charged particles could gain energy by interacting with magnetic fields in space).

    10. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by Khashishi · · Score: 1

      Yes, they start to collide with the microwave background radiation. I can't cover it as well as wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GZK_cutoff

    11. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by weicco · · Score: 1

      Cosmic radiation coming this way?! OMG! It's the rise of the Silversurfer!

      --
      You don't know what you don't know.
    12. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by E++99 · · Score: 1

      So this research confirms... supports...well lends support to the possibility. Care to soften it further?

      Okay, fine, it proves it beyond any shadow of a doubt. Have fun with your comic book science.
    13. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by forand · · Score: 1

      There are a few things that do not make sense in your post: First, the statement "within other stellar models -- like in plasma-oriented cosmologies..." Cosmology is not stellar evolution nor stellar models so what are you trying to say? Second of all I think you are mistaken. The energies discussed in the article require a magnetic field density that is only found is some very unique places in our galaxy/universe. Secondly, astrophysicists have most certainly NOT claimed that super novae are the ONLY source of high energy cosmic rays. As a matter of fact they CANNOT be the source of cosmic rays above about 10^18.5 eV, due to issues of acceleration. Overall I think you are not entirely familiar with the topic.

    14. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Can you propose a mechanism for star formation that would give the sun a sufficiently large positive charge to accelerate ions at large distances? That voltage difference had to come from somewhere, and large charge imbalances counteract the gravitational attraction needed for nuclear fusion.

      It sounds as if you're asking me to explain what a z-pinch is. There are plenty of plasma physics textbooks that do as much. One of the EU Theory advocates in fact, Anthony Perratt, wrote his own such plasma physics textbook.

      You appear to be acting as if there are no problems with the standard solar model when in fact there remain issues related to some very fundamental observations of the Sun:

      - The apparent anti-correlation between sunspots and solar neutrinos
      - The acceleration of the solar wind, which continues even as it passes the planets
      - The inverse temperature problem associated with the corona

      We still do not know what is happening within the Sun's interior. People appear to easily forget the problems that the oxygen ratio crisis posed for helioseismology.

      Maybe I'm wasting my time. It seems clear that "alternative cosmologies" means the electric universe theory, which doesn't make any useful, testable predictions.

      At least none that you'd be interested in reading about, eh?

      You know, those guys are making predictions all of the time, some more impressive than others. The most interesting was Wallace Thornhill's Deep Impact predictions, which turned out to largely be true. Of the numerous predictions made about that mission that came true was the specific prediction that the contact would involve two separate flashes. This is important and relevant to this discussion because it demonstrated support for the idea that bodies in space can acquire charge density from deep space that differs from the typical charge density near the Sun. The pre-impact flash was in fact a charge neutralization between the impactor and comet Tempel 1's plasma sphere. But, of course, the mainstream alleges that the second flash was in fact a "post-impact" flash. The only problem is that, in order for that to be true, the object would have had to travel an amazing distance into the comet, which the light would have then had to subsequently escape through.

      But, while we're talking about predictions, I recommend that you pay close attention to Enceladus. The hot spots on Enceladus offer convincing proof that space plasmas can become highly electrical. Attempts to explain away the observations using mainstream theories will become increasingly absurd as the quality of observations increases.

      What's particularly disturbing to me though is the fact that you surely realize that the technology to identify electrical plasmas in space did not even exist until the last couple of decades. Mainstream advocates like to pretend that everybody had an equal head start as this tends to minimize the historical fact that consensus solidified on the mainstream theories before synchrotron radiation could even be detected in space.
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
    15. Re:[OT] Nitpicking summary by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      Cosmology is not stellar evolution nor stellar models so what are you trying to say?

      You know, in plasma cosmology, the theories associated with the creation and sustenance of stars cannot be so easily picked apart from the cosmology itself. Within plasma cosmology, stars form as a natural byproduct of electrical plasma behavior that we observe within the laboratory. The continued operation of the star is then subsequently a function of the star's plasma surroundings. Within plasma cosmology, there is no stellar ageing. I've received irrelevant criticism on the semantics of the situation like this for quite a while now. But you're so pseudo-skeptical of anything against the mainstream that you're not even reading my text properly. Try reading the quote more carefully and you'll notice that you're nitpicking.

      Are you alleging that there are no electric fields in space that might be accelerating charged particles?
      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  5. According to the creation museum in Kansas by antifoidulus · · Score: 5, Funny

    they are created when God puts foil in his microwave :P

    --
    Monstar L
    1. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by StikyPad · · Score: 1

      You joke -- obviously God doesn't need a microwave when he can simply will his food to be cooked -- but in all seriousness, they come from his X-Ray vision.

      --
      https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
    2. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by tshetter · · Score: 1

      Yea, but that can get boring.

      Everyone loves a good RPG from time to time.

      The big guy might like living like a college kid, drinking beer, partying.

      Then at night, boom, hes a super hero fighting crime, getting wimmins.

      Fluffy clouds and angels might get old after a bit, ya know?

    3. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by ArikTheRed · · Score: 1

      Not the be a stickler, but the creation museum is in Kentucky. Kansas is the state with the retarded schoolboard.

      --
      http://www.coderoshi.com/
    4. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by rucs_hack · · Score: 1

      You joke -- obviously God doesn't need a microwave when he can simply will his food to be cooked -- but in all seriousness, they come from his X-Ray vision.

      Well that's almost true. Actually he sub contracts the job to Chuck Norris.

    5. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by CompMD · · Score: 1

      Not to be a sticker, but Kansas *was* the state with the retarded school board. We voted out those idiots.

    6. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by MarsDefenseMinister · · Score: 1

      What does God need with a cheeseburger?

      --
      No weapon in the arsenals of the world is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men.-Ronald Reagan
    7. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by scoot80 · · Score: 1

      cheese?

    8. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by drtomaso · · Score: 1

      Microwaving it just releases the jebons

    9. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by MLease · · Score: 1

      Mustard, ketchup and pickles. Biggie fries and a shake, if He's feeling extra peckish that day. And trust me, you do not want to screw up His order!

      -Mike

      --
      I'm sorry; I don't know what I was thinking!
    10. Re:According to the creation museum in Kansas by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Bravo!!. But you should Voted out the Big Idiot too.

  6. a good science post? by Goldsmith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Give credit to cats-paw for giving us the link to the abstract for the original paper and to the editors for putting this up rather than a link to some half-baked pseudo-science blog about it.

    I think if I was not an experimentalist, I would want to study this area of physics (supernova observation). Going through the steps of a supernova exposes you to some of the most amazing physics we know of, and this research only adds to that.

    1. Re:a good science post? by Icarus1919 · · Score: 4, Funny

      I'm sorry, but I refuse to read science news unless it's been submitted by Roland.

    2. Re:a good science post? by MollyB · · Score: 1

      Going through the steps of a supernova exposes you to some of the most amazing physics we know of, [...] Yeah, blink and you've missed it...
    3. Re:a good science post? by rts008 · · Score: 1

      Just from this post I ca see where your username 'icaris' cme about. Glad to see the + Funny going on here!

      Well done.

      --
      Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
    4. Re:a good science post? by El+Icaro · · Score: 1

      And I am the cheap mexican knockoff...

    5. Re:a good science post? by analog_line · · Score: 1

      I personally refuse to read science news unless it's about some brand new advance in the symantic web.

  7. yes but.. by sponga · · Score: 1

    have they figured out how they get those small model ships in those glass bottles?

  8. nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Stop trying to sound "smart" by ending words with "ii". To make Latin words ending "us" plural, remove the "us" and add ONLY ONE "i".

    "nucleus" -> "nuclei"

    "radius" -> "radii" (because there's already an "i" before the "us")

    1. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by bazald · · Score: 2, Funny

      Stop trying to sound "smart" by ending words with "ii". Isn't it more likely that it was a simple error?
      --
      Insert self-referential sig here.
    2. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      EVERYONE knows it's nuculusses.

    3. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by ockegheim · · Score: 2, Funny

      "nucleus" -> "nuclei"

      For George Bush it's "nuculi", though "nuculei" sounds cooler.
      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    4. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by ockegheim · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      A joke modded Offtopic... oh, the indignity!

      --
      I’m old enough to remember 16K of memory being described as “whopping”
    5. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      Nope. Never attribute to incompetence what can be explained by douchebaggery.

    6. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's "nuculeii", dumbass.

    7. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      For him, aren't they Weapons of Mass Destruction? We must attack now. Check if they have oil first!

    8. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Stop trying to sound "smart" by ending words with "ii".

      But but... Wii like it so much ^__^

    9. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The section of the article where he copy/pasted that part from has "nuclei", so no, i doubt it was a simple error.

      - OP AC

    10. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

      Wait... Are you saying that Wii is the plural of Wus?

      --

      The enemies of Democracy are
    11. Re:nuclei, NOT nucleii by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0
      While you do have a point about the latin I can't help thinking of Monty Python's Life of Brian.

      "Romanes Eunt Domus"

      Brian: Third person plural, present indicative. "They go!"
      Centurion: But "Romans, go home" is an order, so you must use the...?
      Brian: The... imperative!
      Centurion: Which is...?
      Brian: I!
      Centurion: [twisting Brian's ear] How many Romans?
      Brian: [yelling] I.. Plural, plural! Ite, ite!
      Centurion: [writing] Ite. Domus? Nominative? But "go home", it is motion towards, isn't it, boy?

      full transciprt of this scene can be found
      http://web.comhem.se/hansdotter/romanes.html

      Ta ;)

  9. Summary incorrect... by azuredrake · · Score: 1

    The research doesn't confirm anything. In fact, no science does. It just shows that there's yet another phenomenon which does not demonstrate the prominent possibility to be incorrect. It seems a minor distinction, but it's important to science that science can't "prove" anything - only attempt to disprove by null hypothesis.

    --
    Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
    1. Re:Summary incorrect... by nexuspal · · Score: 1

      So, by your words... We accept the null, and... :-p

      --
      I've read Slashdot for the last 5 years, and now I start posting... Go figure :-P
    2. Re:Summary incorrect... by grammar+fascist · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yet again, another armchair commenter wants to clarify what Science Is. Summary says:

      ... seems to confirm and support current theories... The results lend support to the possibility of protons and nucleii being accelerated...

      Additionally, the abstract says their research "provide[s] a strong argument" for a theory. I suppose these statements are way too hard-line for Real Science. Sheesh. These are people who know very well they're doing inference rather than deduction - including the submitter! - and you take them to task for jumping to conclusions.

      You say:

      ... yet another phenomenon which does not demonstrate the prominent possibility to be incorrect. It seems a minor distinction, but it's important to science that science can't "prove" anything - only attempt to disprove by null hypothesis.

      The hypothesize/predict/experiment cycle isn't nearly as boolean as you make it out, even though we teach it that way in school.

      If a result doesn't disprove a theory, it actually increases its probability among other possibilities. Bayesian statistics models this quite well, and scientists think about it that way but without such a rigorous foundation. For example, in all forces, we've measured the differential relationships among position, velocity and acceleration to ridiculous precision. Doesn't this increase the probability that we've got it right? In this area, if there's a conflict between predicted and expected outcomes, we regard the explanation that the theory is wrong as the less probable one - much less probable.

      Part of the problem is classical statistics. Null hypotheses and tests against them are kludgy nonsense, everyone knows it, and everyone has their own way of doing it "properly". (Think about it this way: Pr(null hypothesis), where the null hypothesis has a continuous component - and this is done all the time - is ZERO.) Doing inference without priors is a misguided attempt at objectivity. These mindsets are well-preserved in scientific philosophy, and they've got to go. Nobody actually thinks about real inference the classical way. It'd be ridiculous to try it on any hypothesis of moderate complexity.
      --
      I got my Linux laptop at System76.
  10. God did it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God created everything from cosmic rays to herpes.

    1. Re:God did it! by tm2b · · Score: 4, Funny

      God created everything from cosmic rays to herpes.
      But obviously, in different stages of the relationship.
      --
      "It is our blasphemy which has made us great, and will sustain us, and which the gods secretly admire in us." - Zelazny
  11. Very, very hot by Lord+Byron+II · · Score: 1

    Converting from eV to fahrenheit gives that these interactions are taking place at: 6,446,700,000,000,000,000 degrees! That's 6.4 billion billion degrees.

    1. Re:Very, very hot by Annymouse+Cowherd · · Score: 3, Funny

      Thats almost 6,500,000,000,000,000,000 degrees!!!!

    2. Re:Very, very hot by White+Flame · · Score: 5, Funny

      6,446,700,000,000,000,000 degrees! That's 6.4 billion billion degrees.

      But how many Libraries Of Congress On Fire is that?

    3. Re:Very, very hot by tshetter · · Score: 1

      Libraries of Congress (LoC) are an infinitly flexible unit of measure.

      Because of this the LoC is also the most fundamental of all units.

      The Planck units therefore must replaced!

      Planck Libraries of Congress, PLoC!!


      /oohhh, Supper is ready.....

    4. Re:Very, very hot by dwywit · · Score: 1


      Billions and billions..........
      </Sagan>

      --
      They sentenced me to twenty years of boredom
    5. Re:Very, very hot by Tolkien · · Score: 2, Informative

      ...Also known as 6 quintillion, 446 quadrillion, 700 trillion.

      While we're at it, a million millions is one trillion.

      No offense, but geez, call it what it is.

      --
      how is babby formed?
    6. Re:Very, very hot by Noodly+Appendage · · Score: 1

      Someone, in some amazingly convoluted way, is bound to work this out before morning.

    7. Re:Very, very hot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Actually, since we only need to heat up a single particle to that temperature, 1 LoC should be more than enough (assuming more than 50 J is produced when one burns 1 LoC - a reasonable assumption).

    8. Re:Very, very hot by mkarcher · · Score: 1

      6,446,700,000,000,000,000 degrees! That's 6.4 billion billion degrees.

      But how many Libraries Of Congress On Fire is that?

      Please, please, the unit of choice for this is obviously Libraries of Alexandria...
      --

      These opinions are my own and not necessarily
      the opinions of God or any other supreme being.
  12. Interesting... by kitsunewarlock · · Score: 1

    Cosmic ray soaring over...
    Scientists wish for its egg...
    Does haiku mod up?

    --
    Ginga no Rekshiya Mata Each page.
    1. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Only if you get the right number of syllables ;)

    2. Re:Interesting... by scarboni888 · · Score: 1

      haiku does mod up but your post is not haiku it's 5, 7, 5!

    3. Re:Interesting... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      No No No No No
      No No No No No No No
      No No No... Maybe

  13. Ya Know..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 2, Funny

    I think "Cosmic Ray's" would be a great name for a futuristic bar. That, or the "Space Bar".

    --
    Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
    1. Re:Ya Know..... by Lord+Ender · · Score: 1

      Liberalism: Finding the gray area in a coin flip. Ethics Shmethics.
      Only the Sith deal in absolutes.
      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Ya Know..... by bjk002 · · Score: 1

      or the "Space Bar".

      Would this be an InterStellarNet Cafe?

      --
      Opinion:=TMyOpinion.Create(Me);
    3. Re:Ya Know..... by IHC+Navistar · · Score: 1

      Only an idiot thinks that line works in real life.

      --
      Knowing Google's lust for data collection, the Soviet Union is still alive and well inside the psyche of Sergey Brin....
  14. In Soviet Russia... by Nom+du+Keyboard · · Score: 0, Troll

    In Soviet Russia, we discovered this 5 years ago!

    --
    "It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
  15. It's Roland's day off. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Tune in tomorrow to see articles split into individual paragraphs across thirty nine Ad-laden pages.

    Sorry for any inconvenience caused.

  16. Or perhaps ... by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... they are shrapnel from some distant intergalactic war.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Or perhaps ... by Mogster · · Score: 1

      maybe from the explosion of a large moonish looking space station in a galaxy far, far away?

      --
      ACK NAK RST
    2. Re:Or perhaps ... by Austerity+Empowers · · Score: 2, Funny

      that's no galaxy

  17. Oh My God Particle by somepunk · · Score: 2, Interesting

    First of all, the summary (but also the article) refer to "cosmic rays", as if they are all the same. Most, actually, come from the sun. The nature abstract talks about "galactic cosmic rays", which better, but there are thought to be many flavors of these as well, as there are many ways to accelerate charged partcles.

    The poster child of uber-freaked out cosmic rays is a crazy bugger detected in 1991 that had an energy of 3.2 x 10^20 eV. One scientist compared it to dropping a brick on your toe! Cosmic rays with this much energy are too enegetic to fit the supernova shock wave model nicely. They might come from gamma ray bursts or black holes on a feeding frenzy.

    --
    Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do. (Isaac Asimov)
    1. Re:Oh My God Particle by hubie · · Score: 2, Informative

      Most, actually, come from the sun.

      Maybe at 1AU, but out beyond the magnetosphere that isn't true.

      For what it's worth, the many flavors of galactic cosmic rays you mention is pretty much the periodic table. While true there are a variety of ways to accelerate a charged particle, there are not that many known ways to get them to those energies that don't stick out like sore thumbs (which is why supernovae were always the best candidates). For the galactic cosmic rays, at least one of the methods must be able to accelerate very large nuclei such as silicon or iron, without blowing apart the nuclei while accelerating them.

      The problem with the really really high energy cosmic rays is that when they travel at those speeds everything is blue-shifted up. The cosmic background radiation shifts up to x-rays and gamma rays and so these particles would interact like crazy with the background and thus should not be able to travel very far (like across the universe). So where the hell do they come from? If I knew, I'd have a nice tenured position somewhere.

  18. Aunt Petunia's favorite nephew by Trikenstein · · Score: 1

    Benjamin Jacob Grimm says "Wear your lead lined skivvies if your going into space, kids"

    1. Re:Aunt Petunia's favorite nephew by BlueParrot · · Score: 2, Funny

      Benjamin Jacob Grimm says "Wear your lead lined skivvies if your going into space, kids"


      Of course, at this energy the impact of the proton with the lead would result in a lot of neutrons being released, and lead doesn't stop those very well. Maybe if you made some sort of composite-sandwich with lead followed by neutron moderating material and a neutron absorber. Of course, then the neutron-activation of the absorber would cause gamma-ray emissions, so you'd need another layer of lead, possibly followed by another neutron absorber. So, well, you might need something like lead-carbon-cadmium-lead-carbon-cadmium-lead lined underwear. Dry cleaning only, keep out of reach of children.
  19. Re:nigger loving slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    you are definately retarded.... fuck you coward. mod me down if you agree

  20. Olbers Anti-Paradox? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Interesting

    The Olbers paradox asks why the night sky is dark, and the answers usually invoke stars' finite lifetimes, the age and expansion of the universe. But if our eyes saw cosmic rays, would we think the sky is dark in the first place?

    1. Re:Olbers Anti-Paradox? by habig · · Score: 2, Informative

      Interestingly, there's about the same energy density in a cc of space from cosmic rays as there is from starlight. The difference is that photons travel straight so you see the stars as points of light, cosmic rays get all scrambled from the magnetic field so things would appear hazy.

      But Olber's paradox says that if the universe were infinitely large and infinitely old, then no matter where you looked you'd eventually see the surface of a star, so the sky wouldn't just be bright: it would be be sun-bright, rather than just faintly hazy.

  21. Bah! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    God is subcontracted to Chuck Norris!

  22. Huh? No, I just farted. by throatmonster · · Score: 1

    That explains it all.

    --
    All pass beyond reach of medicine. None pass beyond the reach of love.
  23. Latin plurals by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Not all Latin words ending in "-us" have a "-i" plural. Fourth-declension masculine nouns ending in "-us" have "-us" as their plural (with a long mark over the "u", pronounced "oos" rather than "us").

  24. Roasting Times by maz2331 · · Score: 3, Funny

    So, if I need to cook a turkey, how long should I leave it in at 6,446,700,000,000,000,000 degrees?

    1. Re:Roasting Times by DanielJosphXhan · · Score: 1

      According to my calculations, not very long at all. Less than a picosecond.

      --
      [ think ]
    2. Re:Roasting Times by Farmer+Tim · · Score: 2, Informative

      15 femtoseconds per pound.

      --
      Blank until /. makes another boneheaded UI decision.
    3. Re:Roasting Times by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      So, if I need to cook a turkey, how long should I leave it in at 6,446,700,000,000,000,000 degrees?

      0.0000000003186 seconds

  25. Wow by algoa456 · · Score: 1

    Who would have thought?

  26. Good! by spineboy · · Score: 1

    Now I can sleep at night.

    --
    ..........FULL STOP.
  27. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  28. Re: by LandruBek · · Score: 1

    nuclei, NOT nucleii

    My roommate called me a WUS, so I said, "It takes one to know one!" Then we played a game of Bowling on our game console, the one with motion sensing . . . ach, what is it called???
    --
    $META_SIG_JOKE
  29. Re:Paco by mortonda · · Score: 1

    Let me post a better reply: for those who don't get the joke, paco was a one shot post over on perlmonks. The post gained a lot of publicity over time, and perl monks all over await the return of paco.

  30. One of the tags titled here just says it all by zukinux · · Score: 0

    OMG!

    --
    Read and Comment at my BLOG
    !!!
  31. Moderators, this is crackpottery by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Please moderate down, as this person is reciting, in a well-obscured manner, the thoroughly debunked "electric universe" theories.

    1. Re:Moderators, this is crackpottery by pln2bz · · Score: 1

      By thoroughly debunked, are you referring to Tim Thompson? There exists a rejoinder to his assertions which has yet to be responded to by anybody at http://www.electric-cosmos.org/Rejoinder.htm. By the way, Tim Thompson is well known for just throwing up a bunch of garbage to see what will stick. For instance, his assertion that the various Venus albedo values should be averaged in spite of the fact that some of the values were created in the late 1800's is a prime example. Even to this day, people continue to believe that he was victorious in those exchanges even though an unbiased review of the details demonstrates that Taylor did nothing more than repackage his assumption of Venus in thermal equilibrium into the conclusion. What's particularly unusual about that situation is that the wikipedia censors will not even allow mention of this fact onto wikipedia as they interpret the whole situation as you do without actually looking at ad thinking about the references that are being discussed.

      Or perhaps you are talking about attempts to argue EU Theory on the Bad Astronomy Forum, as if these forums are not structured and wholly intended to defend the mainstream theories. On that forum, simplistic calculations are sufficient reason to discredit entire theories. People made a big deal, for instance, of the calculations that supposedly demonstrated that there was not enough charged particles to power the Sun. The problem is that the details of the solar wind's structure continue to reveal itself to be filamentary, and demonstrate that such calculations are now rather antiquated.

      For the benefit of everybody, you should clarify exactly which attempt to debunk EU Theory you are referring to.

      --
      "A man cannot begin to learn that which he thinks he already knows." --Epictetus, 1st Century A.D.
  32. compressed synopsis by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    42

  33. Though it all makes sense... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...wouldn't it just be easier to say that God did it? That way, we don't need to muck about with all that complex math stuff. I hate complex math stuff.

  34. Re:nigger loving slashdot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Nobody agreed.