Cosmic Rays

This link has been the key to my decoding how standard theory is presented as in relation to the exercise I developed to understand physics without complex numbers. It has been a bit like trying to adjust your eyes to view the 3D in a 3D print and the picture resolves suddenly. It would help to be able mentally establish whether cosmic rays are genuinely a mystery and a theory of gravity has been established since the Manhattan Project or if standard theory presentation is without misdirection. I have identified a course of action that will establish this.

This can be achieved by assessing whether the particle colliders that have been built have had their position on the globe specifically chosen. If they haven’t there are degrees of concern to be involved. The minimal concern is that the efficiency of the colliders is not maximized. The larger concern would be that if colliders are not specifically placed on the globe they may contribute to a dispersal of cosmic ray deteriation that maximizes the harmful effects of their interaction with our atmosphere.

It would help if I could be supplied a list of known colliders so that I can research their positions.

If cosmic rays are a genuine mystery certain things will have to be assessed to confirm their source. To provide an initial direction for this I would predict that for the cosmic rays that are detected in our upper atmosphere that are described as ‘the nucleus of known atoms stripped of electron shells’ one could approximate the annihilation path of these stripped electrons to the convection zone that is known as the marianis trench.

The Mediteranean convection zone and the zone south and east of Yellowstone Park would subsequently be the deteriotation paths of more complex cosmic rays detected in the upper atmosphere.

Any relevant information would be appreciated.

Postpocelipse said:

If cosmic rays are a genuine mystery certain things will have to be assessed to confirm their source. To provide an initial direction for this I would predict that for the cosmic rays that are detected in our upper atmosphere that are described as ‘the nucleus of known atoms stripped of electron shells’ one could approximate the decay path of these stripped electrons to the convection zone that is known as the marianis trench.

fixed

> to understand physics without complex numbers

If I remember correctly, complex numbers are an essential part of quantum mechanics. The Dirac equation, for instance, needs complex numbers.

> If cosmic rays are a genuine mystery certain things will have to be assessed to confirm their source. To provide an initial direction for this I would predict that for the cosmic rays that are detected in our upper atmosphere

The origins of cosmic rays have been studied in a whole heap of detectors around the globe, including the famous Pierre Auger Observatory, the Very Large Telescope and PAMELA. Gamma ray observatories also observe cosmic rays.

A problem is that cosmic rays are electrically charged and that means that their direction is bent by magnetic fields, the magnetic field of the Earth, the magnetic field of the Solar System, the magnetic field of the Milky Way. Because the direction of approach is altered by these magnetic fields, only the most powerful and the ones with closest origin can be pinned down to a certain source. Most cosmic rays come from the Sun.

For the most powerful cosmic rays, “in 1951, Y. Sekido et al. identified the Crab Nebula as a source of cosmic rays. Since then, a wide variety of potential sources for cosmic rays began to surface, including supernovae, active galactic nuclei, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts.”

Basic logic would identify the most gravetically confined position to build particle accelerators would be the polar extremities. I would position hadron colliders proximal to the north pole and lepton colliders at the south. I have to conclude that equatorial colliders would not only be least efficient in product but would likely interfere with the dispersal of cosmic rays to our atmosphere.

So least likelihood of a theory of gravity having been established with the Manhattan Project.

mollwollfumble said:

The origins of cosmic rays have been studied in a whole heap of detectors around the globe, including the famous Pierre Auger Observatory, the Very Large Telescope and PAMELA. Gamma ray observatories also observe cosmic rays.

A problem is that cosmic rays are electrically charged and that means that their direction is bent by magnetic fields, the magnetic field of the Earth, the magnetic field of the Solar System, the magnetic field of the Milky Way. Because the direction of approach is altered by these magnetic fields, only the most powerful and the ones with closest origin can be pinned down to a certain source. Most cosmic rays come from the Sun.

For the most powerful cosmic rays, “in 1951, Y. Sekido et al. identified the Crab Nebula as a source of cosmic rays. Since then, a wide variety of potential sources for cosmic rays began to surface, including supernovae, active galactic nuclei, quasars, and gamma-ray bursts.”

Thank you Mollwollfumble. What I believe can be measured is that interaction with cosmic rays is part of the process of convenction beneath the mantle. The primary particles that are measured in our upper atmosphere would have measurable components that are detected toward our core. The simplest atmospherically detected cosmic ray to locate the missing aggregate to would be the nuclei stripped of their electron shells.

For these to be detected in our atmosphere the electron shells decay path is involved in convection of the Marianis Trench. I would identify any body massive enough to internally convect as providing the source for the introduction of cosmic rays to the universes light cone.

Postpocelipse said:

The simplest atmospherically detected cosmic ray to locate the missing aggregate to would be the nuclei stripped of their electron shells.

For these to be detected in our atmosphere the electron shells decay path has become involved in convection of the Marianis Trench. I would identify any body massive enough to internally convect as providing the source for the introduction of cosmic rays to the universes light cone.

ie, The detection of this particle in our atmosphere is definable as it’s electrons having been lost to our electromagnetosphere. As you indicate Moll these particles are highly charged and I would indicate this as the reason I would associate the detection of this particle with convenction of the Marianis trench.

mollwollfumble said:

Postpocelipse said:

If I remember correctly, complex numbers are an essential part of quantum mechanics. The Dirac equation, for instance, needs complex numbers.

The exercise was my own study of divisables and non-divisables. I had the choice of concentrating on that, starting an established study on indivisables, or diverting to understanding physics algebra in intricate detail. I tried to put the exercise out of my head but the only way I could absorb physics content quickly was to refer to it and that would start it demanding to be solved again. When you asked me for diagrams I went through the guts of it to figure out a diagram to pass on and in that process understood how to resolve it and then immediately went looking for cosmic ray info.

The origins of cosmic rays have been studied in a whole heap of detectors around the globe, including the famous Pierre Auger Observatory, the Very Large Telescope and PAMELA. Gamma ray observatories also observe cosmic rays.

So least likelihood of a theory of gravity having been established with the Manhattan Project.

Is theory complete and only presented in a manner that does not provide the answer to someone seeking to become qualified in the area?

International subterfuge asside there are completely logical reasons to present material of the complexity of ‘The Standard Theory’ as not having been completed just from the teaching point of view. If I could assume it is complete I at least could cease presenting anything as something that has not been investigated. All this reading between everybodies lines is getting a little disorienting.

Postpocelipse said:

International subterfuge asside there are completely logical reasons to present material of the complexity of ‘The Standard Theory’ as not having been completed just from the teaching point of view.

“We don’t know (this or that)” is teacher talk for ‘if I give you the answer you will have cheated on the test”. I’m not being tested. I just chose to study physics from the point of view that anything marked ‘theory incomplete’ or ‘not understood’ might be strung together to complete the picture. I got that impression after reading Stephen Hawking, which put that exercise in my head.

A simple “Yes Standard Theory is complete and is presented in a manner that preserves the integrity of the answers to tertiary exam testing” would be reassuring.