Terrestrial Gamma Ray Bursts Very Common

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Terrestrial Gamma Ray Bursts Very Common

Posted by samzenpus on Wednesday December 17, 2014 @05:28PM from the planet-hulk dept.

Rambo Tribble writes It was long thought that gamma ray bursts were the exclusive province of deep space sources. More recently it was found that storms could produce such emissions, but such occurrences were thought rare. Now, data from NASA's Fermi satellite suggest such events happen over a thousand times a day. Per Prof. Joseph Dwyer, from the University of New Hampshire, "These are big, monster bursts of gamma rays, and one would think these must be monster storms producing them. But that's not the case. Even boring-looking, garden-variety, little storms can produce these."

70 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Don't Make Storms Mad by l0ungeb0y · 2014-12-17 17:34 · Score: 0

"These are big, monster bursts of gamma rays, and one would think these must be monster storms producing them. But that's not the case. Even boring-looking, garden-variety, little storms can produce these."
When they get angry, they can become hulking MONSTER storms
1. Re: Don't Make Storms Mad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 17:57 · Score: 0
  
  Don't worry, there is a solution. Name all storms Johnny, then they'll just burn us to death.
2. Re:Don't Make Storms Mad by hedgemage · 2014-12-17 19:14 · Score: 1
  
  The parent post is an Abomination. You should be a Leader and not Ravage this message board with your... uh... Doc Samson?
3. Re:Don't Make Storms Mad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 21:51 · Score: 0
  
  You wouldn't like them when they're angry.
4. Re: Don't Make Storms Mad by Culture20 · 2014-12-18 03:10 · Score: 1
  
  Don't worry, there is a solution. Name all storms Johnny, then they'll just burn us to death.
  That's cosmic, man. Cosmic rays, that is.
5. Re:Don't Make Storms Mad by Culture20 · 2014-12-18 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  I'm glad someone here is willing to start Harpying to remind us that A-Bombs aren't the only source of gamma rays, and that Thunderbolts* are more common.
  
  *Spoiler alert. Who is the Red Hulk?
The Earth is connected by __aanbvm4272 · 2014-12-17 17:52 · Score: 0, Troll

to the rest of the solar system in ways we are just beginning to see. The electric sun theory explains most of it. Now we are filling in the "we're not sure why" parts and it is amazingly simple. Physics rule. Radioactive decay releases energy that has to go somewhere. Since you can not destroy energy, just transfer it, Storms are conduits to the ground or a catalyst. The gamma rays go out to be balanced with the force needed to equal the force absorbed electrically or magnetically (Ion based) by the Earth. Ions and gamma rays Oh my! A sort of St Elmo's fire? Only with a radioactivity spectrum. No telling what we might see next with our new eyes.
1. Re:The Earth is connected by TechyImmigrant · 2014-12-17 18:20 · Score: 5, Informative
  
  to the rest of the solar system in ways we are just beginning to see.
  The electric sun theory explains most of it. Now we are filling in the
  "we're not sure why" parts and it is amazingly simple. Physics rule.
  Radioactive decay releases energy that has to go somewhere.
  Since you can not destroy energy, just transfer it, Storms are conduits to the ground or a catalyst.
  The gamma rays go out to be balanced with the force needed to equal the force absorbed electrically
  or magnetically (Ion based) by the Earth. Ions and gamma rays Oh my!
  A sort of St Elmo's fire? Only with a radioactivity spectrum.
  No telling what we might see next with our new eyes.
  It's like you paid attention to 20% of your physics classes, then figured you understood 100% of it and don't know when to quit.
  
  --
  I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
2. Re:The Earth is connected by TheTurtlesMoves · 2014-12-17 22:28 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  the electric sun theory explains exactly nothing. The electric universe theory explains even less. Your explanation makes less sense than the star trek technospeak.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
3. Re:The Earth is connected by binarylarry · 2014-12-17 23:20 · Score: 2
  
  Gene Ray, is that you?
  
  --
  Mod me down, my New Earth Global Warmingist friends!
4. Re:The Earth is connected by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  Too much late night talk radio for you.
5. Re:The Earth is connected by blue+trane · 2014-12-18 14:24 · Score: 1
  
  The first 20% or so is axioms and suppositions and assumptions. If you don't agree with those, the rest comes tumbling down. Conservation laws, for example, are philosophy, not science. Dark energy violates conservation, so does the Big Bang itself, and conservation is not needed in General Relativity.
6. Re:The Earth is connected by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 16:42 · Score: 0
  
  . Conservation laws, for example, are philosophy, not science.
  They make testable predictions that match observation... that is pretty solidly in the science category.
  
  The first 20% or so is axioms and suppositions and assumptions.
  There are no axioms in physics in the sense of axioms from mathematics that are just taken as a given because no further proof can be given. Sometimes the basic tenets of a theory are called an axiom, but nonetheless, it is still part of a theory that is subject to scrutiny as is any other part of science. About the only inherent assumption in such things is that there is some sort of order to the universe that can be observed. Stuff like conservation laws are no where near as abstract or assumed as that, and are the result of centuries of experiments.
  
  so does the Big Bang itself
  The Big Bang is not inconsistent with energy conservation in the sense there are proposed mechanisms that would conserve energy, but that doesn't really matter as it is possible for the Big Bang to not conserve energy but everything afterwards to conserve energy. But it is moot because that would precede potential observation and testable aspects of theories (speaking of philosophy...).
  
  conservation is not needed in General Relativity.
  GR conserves energy both locally and non-locally, although there are a lot more complexities involved in handling that (e.g. compared to just Newtonian gravitational potential). There are still some open questions about when this is applied to the universe as a whole, but still doesn't contradict the basic principles in an intro physics course.
  
  Dark energy violates conservation
  By considering an inherent pressure to space, the first law of thermodynamics still holds, although no longer becomes simply energy conservation.
Re:game tester at home by Noah+Haders · 2014-12-17 17:54 · Score: 3, Funny

i test games all day too, but i don't get paid for it. also the games have already been released. i just finished testing far cry 4.
More important: how is this happening? by erice · 2014-12-17 18:07 · Score: 4, Insightful

Unfortunately, TFA doesn't suggest the question. Gamma bursts were not expected on Earth because they are created by nuclear interactions. Common for stars and other cosmic objects but not expected in thunderstorms. The source could be electrical, which means they are technically x-rays but at a higher energy then thought possible. Alternatively, there is significant nuclear fusion going on in those storms.
1. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Khyber · 2014-12-17 18:19 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  Uhhh, have you paid attention to the news lately? Lightning bolts are now known to create anti-matter. To produce a gamma ray is pretty much EXPECTED.
  
  --
  Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
2. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 18:24 · Score: 0
  
  Thank you for the additional info, cock-top.
3. Re:More important: how is this happening? by jasno · 2014-12-17 18:54 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Wow, you're right!
  http://www.nasa.gov/mission_pa...
  
  --
  
  http://www.masturbateforpeace.com/
4. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 19:15 · Score: 0
  
  Uhhh, have you paid attention to the news lately? Lightning bolts are now known to create anti-matter. To produce a gamma ray is pretty much EXPECTED.
  Well, smack me and call me Sally, you weren't kidding. Neat!
5. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 19:44 · Score: 0
  
  There has got to be an energy source in that. If natural, uncontained currents are creating matter-antimatter annihilations with enough energy to be easily detectable from space we should be able to replicate this and make it a few orders of magnitude more efficient. Anyhow, this lends a bit of believably to "focus fusion" research.
6. Re:More important: how is this happening? by advocate_one · 2014-12-17 19:48 · Score: 2
  
  looks like you just killed NASA's server...
  
  --
  Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
7. Re:More important: how is this happening? by reve_etrange · 2014-12-17 20:40 · Score: 1
  
  That link didn't work for me, but this one does.
  
  --
  .: Semper Absurda :.
8. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 20:57 · Score: 0
  
  Theory #1: Masking tape? We already know it makes X-rays. Why not Gamma rays? :)
  Theory #2: OP's mom's Hawking radiation? :D (Sorry that one was a gimme.)
9. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 22:55 · Score: 1
  
  From what I read on that nasa.gov link below, the antimatter is created by the gamma ray burst in the thunderstorm. So using the antimatter as an explanation for where the gamma ray bursts come from might not be possible.
10. Re:More important: how is this happening? by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-17 23:22 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Gamma rays are produced by many processes, not only nuclear fusion.
  In this case they are very likely produced by simple ionization of gases and extreme acceleration of electrons. So, yes it is electric.
  The distinction between X-Rays and gamma rays is not the way how they are produced but the energy level.
  It is the same type of interaction like high atmosphere gamma rays that are produced by very high energetic solar wind particles.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
11. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 00:17 · Score: 0
  
  The distinction between X-Rays and gamma rays is not the way how they are produced but the energy level.
  Depends on who you ask and what field they work in, as the distinction historically was exactly how they were produced. Some fields kept that distinction, even though it means that the energy ranges overlap as there are low energy nuclear transitions and high energy electronic transitions. The idea of picking arbitrary energy divisions between parts of the spectrum is a more recent idea, as historically a lot of things were named based on how they were produced or detected, and not everyone uses the same arbitrary cut off.
12. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Chris+Mattern · 2014-12-18 00:47 · Score: 2
  
  The source could be electrical, which means they are technically x-rays but at a higher energy then thought possible.
  What? The difference between x-rays and gamma rays is not how they're produced but solely their wavelength (or photon energy, which is just another way of stating the same thing). If the wavelength is below 10 picometers (photon energy above 100 keV), it's a gamma ray, regardless of how it's been created.
13. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 01:00 · Score: 1
  
  When antimatter and matter combine, you typically get a bunch of gamma rays, especially with low energy positrons. This produces a distinctive 511 keV gamma rays which is how they detected the positrons in the first place. Converting gamma rays into positrons usually requires much higher energy gamma rays on the order of several MeV before you get a decent conversion rate (in theory, a 1.022 MeV gamma ray can produce a positron-electron pair, but it is not going to happen and the chances of it converting when hitting another charged particle increases with energy).
14. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 01:08 · Score: 3, Informative
  
  If the wavelength is below 10 picometers (photon energy above 100 keV), it's a gamma ray, regardless of how it's been created.
  This varies from flat out wrong to just horrible simplification depending on what field's literature you're looking at. The distinction is arbitrary in the sense that different fields will draw the line where convenient, which includes depending on how it is detected or in many places still distinguishing gamma rays from x-rays by the creation process, even if there is overlap in energy ranges. Astronomy and plasma physics tend to draw arbitrary lines (and not necessarily right at 10 pm... more often some where between 10 and 500 keV), because they involve a lot of non-nuclear processes generating photons. Nuclear physics will use it to distinguish high energy inner electron transitions from nuclear events, even though there are electron transitions over a keV and nuclear transitions below a keV. It is similar to how a beta particle, Auger electron, delta particle, etc. are all electrons, but names distinguishing the process that created them.
15. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Applehu+Akbar · 2014-12-18 01:16 · Score: 1
  
  Low-energy nuclear reactions - a crazy idea that won't go away.
16. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 01:34 · Score: 0
  
  Well, Pu239 has a gamma ray at 76.8 eV that is practically in the vacuum UV region of the spectrum...
17. Re:More important: how is this happening? by rwise2112 · 2014-12-18 02:21 · Score: 1
  
  Unfortunately, TFA doesn't suggest the question. Gamma bursts were not expected on Earth because they are created by nuclear interactions. Common for stars and other cosmic objects but not expected in thunderstorms. The source could be electrical, which means they are technically x-rays but at a higher energy then thought possible. Alternatively, there is significant nuclear fusion going on in those storms.
  Actually gamma-rays are very common on earth. In fact, a common geophysical method of exploration called airborne gamma-ray spectrometry (sometimes called radiometrics) is widely used for regional mapping and mineral exploration. One of the corrections applied to this data is the removal of the cosmic component. The cosmic gamma-rays have greater energies than those from the decay of naturally occurring potassium, uranium, and thorium in rocks and soil.
  The article just says gamma bursts, but they must mean high-energy gamma bursts.
  
  --
  
  "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
18. Re:More important: how is this happening? by radtea · 2014-12-18 07:40 · Score: 2
  
  The distinction between X-Rays and gamma rays is not the way how they are produced but the energy level.
  As others have pointed out, this is false. Here's a simple guide to the complex language of electromagnetic radiation:
  1) If it was produced by an atomic process it's an x-ray, no matter what the energy.
  2) If it was produced by a nuclear process, it's a gamma-ray, no matter what the energy
  3) If the source is neither atomic nor nuclear, or unknown, it's field-dependent and circumstance dependent. I tend to think of bremstrahlung as gamma radiation unless I'm talking about x-ray sources for imaging or medical treatment. This is a purely cultural difference, with the terms "x-ray" and "gamma ray" being understood as interchangeable by practitioners, but with one or the other being preferred depending on context. Annihilation radiation is called gamma or x-ray depending on the field as well.
  With regard to the EM radiation from storms, there are multiple possible origins. It's pretty easy to create neutrons from high-energy plasmas, as in the Farnsworth Fusor. Subsequent capture of those neutrons on nuclei will produce "true" gamma rays. On the other hand, various purely EM processes could be producing x-rays as well. So the EM radiation from storms could well be a mix of both nuclear and atomic processes. Call 'em gammas or x-rays, and don't make a big deal of it.
  
  --
  Blasphemy is a human right. Blasphemophobia kills.
19. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 07:52 · Score: 0
  
  Except you're wrong. People are divided on the issue, but most people agree with parent and not with you because the nuclearatomic definition has a lot of problems. It's all described in the lede if you look up X-ray on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X-ray
20. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 08:03 · Score: 1
  
  Except the lede of the x-ray and gamma ray articles both say nothing about "most people" agree with the energy definition, only that the definition varies and there can be overlap in things. Having worked in research with nuclear decay, you can see gamma rays so low in energy that they could be classified as UV, but still get called gamma rays due to a source based definition. There are plenty of places different fields overlap and see both definitions get used, and it is rather easy to deal with. But it is still wrong to say that the definition has nothing to do with source, as that is sweeping all of this stuff under the rug and falsely saying that there is a single, exact definition.
21. Re:More important: how is this happening? by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-19 02:58 · Score: 1
  
  Sorry, your explanaitions are all wrong.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G...
  Gamma rays are of magnitudes higher energy than x-rays.
  The process how either of both is created is irrelevant.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
22. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-19 04:08 · Score: 0
  
  From the very thing you linked (does no one around here know how to actually read?):
  
  Gamma rays from radioactive decay are defined as gamma rays no matter what their energy, so that there is no lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay.
  Radioactive decay can produce gamma rays down below 100 eV, which can actually fall below the typical UV vs. x-ray cutoff. Some fields do use an energy cutoff, but it is not necessarily the exact one you gave in your previous comment, and it is not wrong to use the definition from the numerous fields that do consider production method as part of the definition.
23. Re:More important: how is this happening? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-19 07:06 · Score: 0
  
  This AC needs a serious up-mod.
  At least someone knows how to read and understand basic math and science. It's like the basics of science laws, like Newton's 3rd law (which applies here, every action has an opposite and equal reaction) suddenly got ignored.
Bremsstrahlung effect? by cachimaster · 2014-12-17 19:37 · Score: 2, Interesting

Xrays produced by the Bremsstrahlung effect are proportional to the voltage of free-electrons hitting an atom. That is, a 30kV electron would produce X-ray light with a spectrum centered in 30kV.
Rays have millions of volts and should be expected to produce X-rays of mega-electronvolts energy, this is gamma-ray energy levels.
But Bremsstrahlung needs vacuum, so I probably don't know what I'm talking about.
1. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by visavillem · 2014-12-17 20:36 · Score: 1
  
  Well, if you talk about electrons deflected by another particle or nucleus of an atom, it is no longer vacuum in the strictest sense, so i don't think the Bremsstrahlung effect needs vacuum, it can occur in any media. In fact the effect should be more prominent in thicker mediums, because the free electrons have bigger chance to get close enough to something to slow down. The Bremsstrahlung effect is caused by the electron losing it's kinetic energy because of deflection by another particle/atom nucleus etc. And also wikipedia page about the Bremsstrahlung says:
  
  "However, the term is frequently used in the more narrow sense of radiation from electrons (from whatever source) slowing in matter."
  
  Yeah, i know, might not be the most reliabe source. But what they are saying makes sense. So the Bremsstrahlung effect cannot actually occur in the vacuum (in it's strictest sense, I.E. the total lack of particles), because there is nothing to deflect and slow down the electron.
  
  --
  I'm not really here, it's just more probable that i'm here, than anywhere else.
2. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 22:52 · Score: 0
  
  Xrays produced by the Bremsstrahlung effect are proportional to the voltage of free-electrons hitting an atom. That is, a 30kV electron would produce X-ray light with a spectrum centered in 30kV.
  How on god's earth was this voted up?
  A 30 kV electron can generate a photon with at most 30 kV energy in the very unlikely case that it is stopped to a halt. The spectrum is certainly NOT centered at 30 kV - it starts there. And how can "Xrays" be proportional to something? You don't make any sense.
3. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by angel'o'sphere · 2014-12-17 23:26 · Score: 1
  
  Bremsstrahlung does not need vacuum.
  How do you come to that idea? You have a fast moving particle and you "brems" it, slow it down, somewhere its energy needs to go. E.g. sending electrons in any material will slow them and produce Bremsstrahlung, that is how the phenomena was discovered.
  
  --
  Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
4. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 00:24 · Score: 0
  
  How do you come to that idea?
  
  Because the ability of the electron to accelerate to high energies depends on the collisionality of the environment it is in? If you can't get an electron accelerated to 10s of keV or more or higher because it collides with things before reaching that energy, you'll never get bremsstrahlung at that high of energy. It is not an alien concept considering this will come up in just about any practical discussion of the topic. To make a reliable x-ray source, you need a vacuum tube that allows the electrons to accelerate before they hit a solid object that causes them to slow down quickly. In plasma physics, the issue comes up a lot because electric fields will accelerate electrons, but typically the collisionality is too high to allow them to reach high energy, however plasmas that are hot and thin enough can allow electrons to sometimes speed up enough that the collisionality decreases and you get a runaway electron effect. This is at temperatures way above and densities way below lightning, which may come down to a few lucky electrons accelerating for enough time without hitting an air molecule and losing energy before reaching the higher energies of interest.
5. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 00:35 · Score: 1
  
  You need to hit something to slow down or stop a high energy charged particle to create Bremsstrahlung, so in that sense you can't have a complete vacuum. However, in order to get that high energy particle in the first place, you typically need something close to a vacuum or a rather extreme environment along with an electric field, otherwise, the particle will hit too many things before accelerating to high speeds. It is like trying to play a game of red rover or British bulldog, where yes you need people to run at or from to play, but if you stick a crowd of people in the middle, you'll never reach running speed.
  X-ray sources will use a vacuum tube to accelerate electrons and then have them hit a dense metal target so they slow down quickly. Some effects like cellophane tape producing x-rays only happen in vacuum because the static electricity can then accelerate electrons over a distance of millimeters to high energies, instead of the electrons hitting an atom in air in a couple microns and losing the energy it gained. If you have a plasma that is pretty thing and really hot so the electrons are already going fast enough, you can sometimes accelerate the electrons fast enough that they become less likely to lose all of their energy hitting things, and then get a runaway effect, which is a potentially serious issue in magnetically confined fusion reactors converting ~10 keV electrons to MeV and damaging things, but the conditions of that happening are far more extreme than what is in a lightning bolt.
  In the end it comes down to how fast it accelerates (i.e. how strong the electric field is) and how long the electron has before it hits something. In the part of lightning we see, the electric field is not particularly strong (there may be millions of volts involved, but electric field is volts / meter and the lightning bolt can be formed over quite large distances), and the density of air is rather high by electron accelerating standards. However, there is still the chance of some electron getting lucky and missing stuff near tip of break down, or more likely, stuff in the upper atmosphere where the electric field might be high and the air density lower.
6. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 00:40 · Score: 0
  
  "But Bremsstrahlung needs vacuum"
  You do realize that what causes thunder after a lightning strike is the air rushing in to fill the void (i.e. vacuum) left as the lightning bolt completes - right?
7. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 00:47 · Score: 0
  
  Umm, lightning is not air rushing into a vacuum, but a sudden heating of air causing it to expand outward quickly. There will be a rush of air back inward, but on a much slower thermal timescale than the time it takes the air to heat up and expand from the electrical current. And even when it does heat up to a temperature of hundred times typical air temperature, assuming the expanding air can move out of the way to keep pressure constant (it can't...), you would still only end up with a pressure of around a hundredth of an atmosphere then, which is still very large those needed to get good acceleration of charged particles in comparable electric fields.
8. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by hairykrishna · 2014-12-18 02:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's not really 'centered' at 30kV. That is the maximum energy of the photons produced. Bremsstrahlung doesn't need a vacuum. You can get it whenever a charged particle accelerates.
  
  --
  "Physics is to math as sex is to masturbation." -R. Feynman
9. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Vitriol+Angst · 2014-12-18 05:27 · Score: 1
  
  Isn't thunder created by the vacuum of a collapsing ion trail from the lightning itself?
  So the lightning creates a super charged plasma, and that heat and ionization forms a vacuum. Coupled with anti-matter and xray burst you get your perfect Gamma-Ray engine.
  Now I did read that we could scan for life outside our solar system by looking for ionized light -- seems that the "left-handed chirality" of amino acids is do to the right-handedness of the more common organic compounds that a Yellow star creates. The right and left-handed carbon compounds cancel out over many reactions and the slight nod to right-handed means they are more plentiful. Since "more building blocks" equals less energy, life -- at least on earth, ended up being left-handed chemical bonds.
  A plethora of left-handed carbon compounds on a planet full of life means that the light that bounces off of it will be polarized.
  However -- if we can say that Lightning is created on planets with magnetospheres and oxygen, and likely is the catalyst for life (well, that's my guess -- regards to Mary Shelley). Then we might "more easily" find likely life-baring planets by detecting Gamma-Ray bursts. Should stick out more than polarized light.
  Detecting both gamma-ray and polarization might give us a statistical probability for life. We will need some actual sample data more than one, however.
  
  --
  >>"ad space available -- low rates!!!"
10. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 06:00 · Score: 0
  
  Isn't thunder created by the vacuum of a collapsing ion trail from the lightning itself?
  Because the extremely rapid expansion of air that creates that region of low pressure doesn't contribute to sound? Especially considering it is much faster than the cooling process which would not be air caving into a vacuum, but a region of high temperature, lower density, but still higher pressure gas cooling and returning to normal.
  
  Coupled with anti-matter and xray burst you get your perfect Gamma-Ray engine.
  Creation of antimatter takes more energy than gamma rays, especially of the energies being talked about here, so processes that could create positrons would be creating gamma rays anyway, and the antimatter is not factor in that sense.
  
  if we can say that Lightning is created on planets with magnetospheres and oxygen,
  Lightning requires neither a magnetosphere or oxygen. Lightning has already been observed on Venus, Jupiter and Saturn.
  
  by looking for ionized light -
  You probably made a 'typo' here by saying ionized...
11. Re:Bremsstrahlung effect? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  This paper seems to think it's plausible. While V/m reduces how much fun the whole air-ground interaction can be, the initial interaction involves a large electric potential carried by ionized air getting closer and closer to a similar oppositely charged streamer from the ground. It's not as energetic as the return stroke, of course. The paper argues that the upward-moving charge of the return stroke should accelerate electrons downwards, often enough and at a high enough energy to produce measurable bremsstrahlung in the UHF spectrum. Overall I think the physics involved are more complicated that what you're assuming.
New type of accellator by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-17 20:36 · Score: 0

Whoever can figure it out first, can build the next particle acellerator.
health risks? by fsiefken · 2014-12-17 21:08 · Score: 1

I wonder if this could mean people living in an area with lots of storms have a significantly higher risk of cancer. High altitudes do have risks:
"A seven hour airplane trip exposes passengers to 0.02 mSv of radiation, which is a fraction of the exposure of a standard Chest x-ray (0.1 mSv). Domestic airline pilots are exposed to an additional 2.2 mSv per year, about the same dose as a brain CT." http://www.xrayrisk.com/faq.ph...
"the high-altitudes expose climbers to an extra 1milliSievert (mSv) of radiation, which is five times more than the average annual exposure in a nuclear power plant." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sci... How much mSv is a gamma ray burst from a thunderstorm?
1. Re:health risks? by Mr+D+from+63 · 2014-12-17 23:41 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  I wonder if this could mean people living in an area with lots of storms have a significantly higher risk of cancer.
  Higher risk, maybe, but imperceptibly small based on physical evidence. Even these "higher doses" are relatively small, well under the point where real world statistical evidence shows any increase in cancer rates. Fact is, other environmental causes dwarf radiation even at much higher doses when it comes to cancer risk. Now, if you get a hundred times these doses on a regular basis, you may expect to see some observable increases in certain cancers.
  
  Higher altitude exposure to UV is a real risk. Plenty of evidence for that.
Wonderful Nature by watchcriclive1111 · 2014-12-18 00:54 · Score: 1

Perhaps its phenomenons like these that inspire imagination of comic book heroes and si-fi stuff in movies...
Who's modding this stuff up? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 01:12 · Score: 0

Who's modding posts up like this that are wrong? Another AC has already explained why it is wrong, and it is wrong enough that Wikipedia has to have a whole section in the gamma ray article to address the variation/inconsistency used in defining gamma rays versus x-rays.
Put up your deflector shields by Dareth · 2014-12-18 02:37 · Score: 1

Put up your deflector shields and ignore this jerk. Today's "technospeak" is tomorrow's future reality.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling
1. Re:Put up your deflector shields by TheTurtlesMoves · 2014-12-23 21:35 · Score: 1
  
  Technospeak in star trek is called techobabble.It is actually a thing, about mixing words that make no sense at all, to sound technical. It has less chance of becoming tomorrow future reality than Harry fucking Potter.
  
  --
  The Grey Goo disaster happened 3 billion years ago. This rock is covered in self replicating machines!
So, why aren't we all dead? by tekrat · 2014-12-18 02:42 · Score: 1

I keep hearing that Gamma Rays are deadly, even a star 100 light years away can kill all life on earth. So, how are we producing these bursts without extinguishing life on Earth?

--
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
1. Re:So, why aren't we all dead? by ChromaticDragon · 2014-12-18 03:02 · Score: 1
  
  Size matters. Length matters.
  Or more appropriately, what matters here is the overall energy from the sum of all the photons involved in the dicsussion which are being called gamma rays here.
  If I shine a flashlight on you, you may barely, barely feel a bit of extra warmth from the photons hitting your body. If somehow I am able to shine a million such flashlights from the same distance simultaneously, you'll get a million more photons and you'll feel quite a bit warmer.
  What is disturbing about these DISTANT gamma-ray bursts is that the energy from so far away follows an inverse-square law as it travels to us. Essentially it spreads out. If you measured the energy hitting a sheet of paper 1 light-year away, you'd find it to be roughly 4 times as much as the energy when you measure at 2 light-years away.
  These gamma-ray bursts appear to be from so far away that when we work backwards to calculate what the energy would be like if you were "near" it is mind-boggling.
2. Re:So, why aren't we all dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 03:32 · Score: 0
  
  In a storm, it's a tiny one, in comparison. The difference in the gamma rays produced vs a GRB from a cosmic event is many time more than the difference between a glow stick and the noon-day sun. You'd probably have to be within feet of a strike to get even a "standard banana" of exposure.
3. Re:So, why aren't we all dead? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 03:58 · Score: 0
  
  So, how are we producing these bursts without extinguishing life on Earth?
  The same way that people can drink alcohol and not die, even though deaths due to drinking and alcohol poisoning end up in the news a lot. Quantity of "deadly" things is incredibly relevant in such situations.
+5 WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 03:46 · Score: 0

Wow, I guess Slashdot only cares about attitude and confidence, and not actually being right. This "correction" has been modded higher than the original post, even though it is so wrong it contradicts the introduction to the Gamma ray article on Wikipedia.
1. Re:+5 WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 06:09 · Score: 0
  
  Wow, I guess Slashdot only cares about attitude and confidence, and not actually being right. This "correction" has been modded higher than the original post, even though it is so wrong it contradicts the introduction to the Gamma ray article on Wikipedia.
  WTF are you talking about. The second paragraph of your linked Wikipedia article says,
  
  Rare terrestrial natural sources produce gamma rays that are not of a nuclear origin, such as lightning strikes and terrestrial gamma-ray flashes.
  and this in paragraph three,
  
  Gamma rays typically have frequencies above 10 exahertz (or >1019 Hz), and therefore have energies above 100 keV and wavelengths less than 10 picometers (10-12 meter), which is less than the diameter of an atom. However, this is not a hard and fast definition, but rather only a rule-of-thumb description for natural processes. Gamma rays from radioactive decay are defined as gamma rays no matter what their energy, so that there is no lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay. Gamma decay commonly produces energies of a few hundred keV, and almost always less than 10 MeV. In astronomy, gamma rays are defined by their energy, and no production process need be specified.
  So, not only does it seem that you lack reading comprehension skills, but are completely clueless as to how EM radition works and is classified.
2. Re:+5 WTF? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 07:25 · Score: 0
  
  From the incorrect but upmodded poster:
  
  The distinction between X-Rays and gamma rays is not the way how they are produced but the energy level.
  And from the wikipedia article, right in your quote:
  
  Gamma rays from radioactive decay are defined as gamma rays no matter what their energy, so that there is no lower limit to gamma energy derived from radioactive decay.
  That looks a lot like a definition that depends on the production methods, which makes the original poster in this thread's use of the words quite reasonable. Some fields tend not to use this definition, but that still makes it wrong to correct someone who does use that definition. You were saying about reading comprehension?
Re:game tester at home by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 05:21 · Score: 0

skimmed too fast, parsed as "I tested Mother 3" and stopped to read
Okay, fess up... by q4Fry · 2014-12-18 06:30 · Score: 1

Who else misread this as "terrorist gamma ray bursts?"
I read about this on a site called /. back in 2013 by Anonymous Coward · 2014-12-18 14:37 · Score: 0

http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/04/09/0049208/dark-lightning-could-expose-airline-passengers-to-radiation