Showing posts with label IceCube. Show all posts
Showing posts with label IceCube. Show all posts

Monday, December 23, 2013

The Neutrino Sky

A neutrino sky map based on data taken with 40 and 59 strings in the IceCube detector.
Image credit: Juan Aguilar/IceCube.
Astrophysical neutrinos are produced in the interactions of cosmic rays with an ambient medium of gas (protons) and photons of different energies. Once produced, these cosmic neutrinos can propagate cosmological distances and reach the Earth practically without interactions. They therefore carry unique information about the sources of cosmic rays, their acceleration and the composition of the most energetic phenomena in the universe. See:Looking at the neutrino sky





Those are the colorful names given to two events observed over the last couple of years by Ice Cube. What makes them remarkable is their very high energies; over 30 trillion electron volts (TeV). See: Neutrinos From the Sky


 
A 200 GeV iron shower, animated


 
Air shower formation in the atmosphere. First proton collides with an air molecule creating pions, protons and neutrons.




See Also:

Saturday, August 24, 2013

How to Make a Neutrino Beam

Hey why not get an animated view of the reasons how? It is from an Symmetry Magazine article on November of 2012. It is information worth remembering in the scheme of particle reductionism..




Neutrinos are elusive particles that are difficult to study, yet they may help explain some of the biggest mysteries of our universe. Using accelerators to make neutrino beams, scientists are unveiling the neutrinos’ secrets. See: How to make a neutrino beam



You might be interested in what they have been doing while us lay people have been pondering what this particle reductionism is all about.  I mean sure there must be benefits from the work that goes on right?



DEMONSTRATION OF COMMUNICATION USING NEUTRINOS




 See Also:

Monday, April 01, 2013

Dark Matter Results From AMS II are Coming.

  April first is always a good day to carry out some prank which will catch the believers fully engaged. So when our teachers goad us,  we realize that they are toying with the gullible and most eager ears,  as to have fun with us.  All in a good jest I am sure. A sincere belief then, that not to many are standing on that precipice of change. As some perceived expectant believers,  there is a calling for the waters to depart, to make way for the road toward this new promise land.

 Little is known about the ultra high-energy cosmic rays that regularly penetrate the atmosphere. Recent IceCube research rules out the leading theory that they come from gamma ray bursts. (Credit: NSF/J. Yang)
A Blue Flash in Ice

So in a sense while we are still looking to the April 3 Announcement from Cern, I thought I would lay out some information that had me stop to think and ponder about. If you ask me how this is all connected all you would have to do is surmise that my attention while directed to CERN,  is also directed to the cosmological outlay of our universe.

So many experiments are connected, that while we do not see it's significance in the experiments isolation, it is part of a much bigger plan to ask what it is, is at the basis of our progression and predictions about the causes of the universe.





  • Clues to the nature of dark matter could come from evidence that high-energy neutrinos are produced in the Sun. The neutrinos, according to certain dark matter theories, would result from particles called WIMPs (weakly interacting massive particles) becoming trapped by the Sun’s gravitational field and annihilating with each other. Now, the collaboration running the world’s largest neutrino telescope, the IceCube experiment at the South Pole, reports in Physical Review Letters its most comprehensive search to date for the predicted neutrinos. See: Synopsis: A Year-Long Search for Dark Matter
  • We have performed a search for muon neutrinos from dark matter annihilation in the center of the Sun with the 79-string configuration of the IceCube neutrino telescope. For the first time, the DeepCore subarray is included in the analysis, lowering the energy threshold and extending the search to the austral summer. The 317 days of data collected between June 2010 and May 2011 are consistent with the expected background from atmospheric muons and neutrinos. Upper limits are set on the dark matter annihilation rate, with conversions to limits on spin-dependent and spin-independent scattering cross sections of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) on protons, for WIMP masses in the range 20–5000  GeV/c2. These are the most stringent spin-dependent WIMP-proton cross section limits to date above 35  GeV/c2 for most WIMP models.See: Search for Dark Matter Annihilations in the Sun with the 79-String IceCube Detector




The ATLAS Experiment offers the exciting possibility to study them in the lab (if they exist). The simulated collision event shown is viewed along the beampipe. The event is one in which a microscopic-black-hole was produced in the collision of two protons (not shown). The microscopic-black-hole decayed immediately into many particles. The colors of the tracks show different types of particles emerging from the collision (at the center).
Photo #: black-hole-event-wide

 A message from the Past perhaps?







See Also:

Saturday, April 21, 2012

A Blue Flash in Ice

Little is known about the ultra high-energy cosmic rays that regularly penetrate the atmosphere. Recent IceCube research rules out the leading theory that they come from gamma ray bursts. (Credit: NSF/J. Yang)

Future directions 

The lack of observation of neutrinos in coincidence with GRBs implies, at face value, that the theoretical models need to be revisited. “Calculations embracing the concept that cosmic ray protons are the decay products of neutrons that escaped the magnetic confinement of the GRB fireball are supported by the research community and have been convincingly excluded by the present data,” says Francis Halzen, IceCube principle investigator and a professor of physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "IceCube will continue to collect more data with a final, better calibrated and better understood detector in the coming years." Since April 2011, IceCube has collected neutrino data using the full detector array. With the larger detector, researchers can see more neutrinos, providing a “higher resolution” picture of the neutrino sky. See: Cosmic Rays: 100 years of mystery

See Also: IceCube Neutrino Observatory Explores Origin of Cosmic Rays




IceCube’s 5,160 digital optical modules are suspended from 86 strings reaching a mile and a half below the surface at the South Pole. Each sphere contains a photomultiplier tube and electronics to capture the faint flashes of muons speeding through the ice, their direction and energy – and thus that of the neutrinos that created them – tracked by multiple detections. At lower left is the processed signal of an energetic muon moving upward through the array, created by a neutrino that traveled all the way through the Earth.


“This result represents a coming-of-age of neutrino astronomy,” says Nathan Whitehorn from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, who led the recent GRB research with Peter Redl of the University of Maryland. “IceCube, while still under construction, was able to rule out 15 years of predictions and has begun to challenge one of only two major possibilities for the origin of the highest-energy cosmic rays, namely gamma-ray bursts and active galactic nuclei.”


Redl says, “While not finding a neutrino signal originating from GRBs was disappointing, this is the first neutrino astronomy result that is able to strongly constrain extra-galactic astrophysics models, and therefore marks the beginning of an exciting new era of neutrino astronomy.” The IceCube Collaboration’s report on the search appears in the April 19, 2012, issue of the journal Nature. See: Where Do the Highest-Energy Cosmic Rays Come From? Probably Not from Gamma-Ray Bursts

Thursday, April 19, 2012

A Message from the Past?

The ATLAS Experiment offers the exciting possibility to study them in the lab (if they exist). The simulated collision event shown is viewed along the beampipe. The event is one in which a microscopic-black-hole was produced in the collision of two protons (not shown). The microscopic-black-hole decayed immediately into many particles. The colors of the tracks show different types of particles emerging from the collision (at the center).
Photo #: black-hole-event-wide


I was looking for something in the cosmos that would reveal what is also being revealed in the LHC. We are looking at "interaction points" that are a determinate for the collision point while information which has come from what existed "before" and is being expressed today?



 If such "a point on a line" recognizes that the lines extends "before" the universes birth then where did this information come from? Is it really a void?

Brookhaven National Laboratory
HOT A computer rendition of 4-trillion-degree Celsius quark-gluon plasma created in a demonstration of what scientists suspect shaped cosmic history.

If super fluids can exist in nature then in what circumstances can such information be transferred through that interaction point? Cosmologically this looks real while such comparative natures would say how could such microscopic conditions allow for cosmic particle decays? Chernenko in the ice transmitted through to these detectors as information containing the subject of the particle which collided and came from the cosmos and helped with the new creation of particle determinants?


 See Also:

Thursday, October 27, 2011

ICECUBE Neutrinos

Another Big thank you to ICECUBE Blog.


The IceCube project at the South Pole needed a new server cluster to reconstruct raw data, so it selected Dell PowerEdge servers for the HPC solution.



The IceCube Neutrino Observatory has just completed construction in Antarctica as of January 2011, and will help scientists search for elusive neutrinos that can help us map out the universe in new and exciting ways. I traveled to the South Pole in November and December 2009 to participate in this project, and reported back to classrooms across the US. This stop-motion animated video is an introduction to the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, answering basic questions such as: What is a neutrino? how can we detect them? How does IceCube work? See: Dell Powers IceCube Neutrino Observatory in Antartica

ICECUBE Blogging Research Material and more

In regards to Cherenkov Light

Thinking outside the box See: A physicist inthe cancer lab

Ackerman became interested in physics in middle school, reading popular science books about quantum mechanics and string theory. As an undergraduate at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, she traveled to CERN, the European particle physics laboratory near Geneva, to work on one of the detectors at the Large Hadron Collider, the most powerful particle collider in the world. Then she spent a summer at SLAC working on BaBar, an experiment investigating the universe’s puzzling shortage of antimatter, before starting her graduate studies there in 2007.

 Linking Experiments(Majorana, EXO); How do stars create the heavy elements? (DIANA); What role did neutrinos play in the evolution of the universe? (LBNE). In addition, scientists propose to build a generic underground facility (FAARM) ...

 Dialogos of Eide: Neutrinoless Double Beta DecayCOBRA · CUORICINO and CUORE · EXO · GERDA · MAJORANA · MOON · NEMO-3 and SuperNEMO · SNO+. See Also:Direct Dark Matter Detection.

Also From my research:

  1. Neutrinoless Double Beta Decay
  2. A first look at the Earth interior from the Gran Sasso underground laboratory
  3. Mysterious Behavior of Neutrinos sent Straight through the Earth
    *** 
     
ICECUBE Blog put up some links that I wanted to go through to see what is happening there. Their links provided at bottom of blog post here. Each link of theirs I have provided additional information in concert while I explore above.

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Aspera

Home Site Located in Title


A European Network For Astroparticle Physics in Europe

ASPERA is a network of national government agencies responsible for coordinating and funding national research efforts in Astroparticle Physics



***

See Also: LAGUNA large neutrino observatory design moves forward

Thursday, September 29, 2011

Cassiopeia A

In conclusion, we have a rich panorama of experiments that all make use of neutrinos as probes of exotic phenomena as well as processes which we have to measure better to gain understanding of fundamental physics as well as gather information about the universe. See:Vernon Barger: perspectives on neutrino physics May 22, 2008


This image presents a beautiful composite of X-rays from Chandra (red, green, and blue) and optical data from Hubble (gold) of Cassiopeia A, the remains of a massive star that exploded in a supernova. Evidence for a bizarre state of matter has been found in the dense core of the star left behind, a so-called neutron star, based on cooling observed over a decade of Chandra observations. The artist's illustration in the inset shows a cut-out of the interior of the neutron star where densities increase from the crust (orange) to the core (red) and finally to the region where the "superfluid" exists (inner red ball). X-ray: NASA/CXC/UNAM/Ioffe/D. Page, P. Shternin et al.; Optical: NASA/STScI; Illustration: NASA/CXC/M. WeissSee Also:Superfluid and superconductor discovered in star's core

Illustration of Cassiopeia A Neutron Star
This is an artist's impression of the neutron star at the center of the Cassiopeia A supernova remnant. The different colored layers in the cutout region show the crust (orange), the higher density core (red) and the part of the core where the neutrons are thought to be in a superfluid state (inner red ball). The blue rays emanating from the center of the star represent the copious numbers of neutrinos that are created as the core temperature falls below a critical level and a superfluid is formed.
(Credit: Illustration: NASA/CXC/M.Weiss)


X-ray and Optical Images of Cassiopeia A
Two independent research teams studied the supernova remnant Cassiopeia A, the remains of a massive star, 11,000 light years away that would have appeared to explode about 330 years as observed from Earth. Chandra data are shown in red, green and blue along with optical data from Hubble in gold. The Chandra data revealed a rapid decline in the temperature of the ultra-dense neutron star that remained after the supernova. The data showed that it had cooled by about 4% over a ten-year period, indicating that a superfluid is forming in its core.
(Credit: X-ray: NASA/CXC/UNAM/Ioffe/D.Page,P.Shternin et al; Optical: NASA/STScI)
***

See: Galactic Neutrino Communications

Friday, June 17, 2011

TAUWER Test


TAUWER is a proposed astroparticle experiment to detect ultrahigh energy TAU neutrinos, using detector towers arrayed on a mountainside looking down into a valley. This test is to study the possibility of replacing Hamamatsu miniature PMTs with SiPMs for readout by determining the response of scintillation detectors with SiPM readout to low energy electrons, 2 GeV or lower, as the beam will provide. The detector itself is a compact package, previously used in a parasitic test beam run on December 15, 2010, to compare the relative timing of the signals from three counters for Minimized Ionized Particles.

The experiment will take some electron data with 1.5 cm of Pb in front of counter 2 or counter 3, and without the Pb for calibration purposes. The three scintillators are 0.7, 1.4, and 0.7 cm thick, each 19 x 19 cm square. Each has a single SiPM readout, seen in the picture. The SiPM operating voltage is 34 volts. This is introduced by BNC cables from power supplies in the electronics area. The red and white wires adapt the BNC cable to separate power and ground leads for the center counter. The SiPM signals are taken on RG174 cables to a local waveform digitizer (DRS4) adjacent to the optical box. The DRS4 is controlled by a PC located in the beam enclosure, operated remotely from the control room.
Name of Experiment:TAUWER Test

See Also: TAUWER aims for cosmic heights

Sunday, December 12, 2010

Antarctic Muon And Neutrino Detector Array....

Diagram of IceCube. IceCube will occupy a volume of one cubic kilometer. Here we depict one of the 80 strings of opctical modules (number and size not to scale). IceTop located at the surface, comprises an array of sensors to detect air showers. It will be used to calibrate IceCube and to conduct research on high-energy cosmic rays. Author: Steve Yunck, Credit: NSF




.....(AMANDA) is a neutrino telescope located beneath the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station. In 2005, after nine years of operation, AMANDA officially became part of its successor project, IceCube.

AMANDA consists of optical modules, each containing one photomultiplier tube, sunk in Antarctic ice cap at a depth of about 1500 to 1900 meters. In its latest development stage, known as AMANDA-II, AMANDA is made up of an array of 677 optical modules mounted on 19 separate strings that are spread out in a rough circle with a diameter of 200 meters. Each string has several dozen modules, and was put in place by "drilling" a hole in the ice using a hot-water hose, sinking the cable with attached optical modules in, and then letting the ice freeze around it.

AMANDA detects very high energy neutrinos (50+ GeV) which pass through the Earth from the northern hemisphere and then react just as they are leaving upwards through the Antarctic ice. The neutrino collides with nuclei of oxygen or hydrogen atoms contained in the surrounding water ice, producing a muon and a hadronic shower. The optical modules detect the Cherenkov radiation from these latter particles, and by analysis of the timing of photon hits can approximately determine the direction of the original neutrino with a spatial resolution of approximately 2 degrees.

AMANDA's goal was an attempt at neutrino astronomy, identifying and characterizing extra-solar sources of neutrinos. Compared to underground detectors like Super-Kamiokande in Japan, AMANDA was capable of looking at higher energy neutrinos because it is not limited in volume to a manmade tank; however, it had much less accuracy because of the less controlled conditions and wider spacing of photomultipliers. Super-Kamiokande can look at much greater detail at neutrinos from the Sun and those generated in the Earth's atmosphere; however, at higher energies, the spectrum should include neutrinos dominated by those from sources outside the solar system. Such a new view into the cosmos could give important clues in the search for Dark Matter and other astrophysical phenomena.

After two short years of integrated operation as part of IceCube[1], the AMANDA counting house (in the Martin A. Pomerantz Observatory) was finally decommissioned in July and August of 2009.

See also

References

  1. ^ http://icecube.wisc.edu/science/publications/pdd/pdd12.php

External links


****
When a neutrino collides with a water molecule deep in Antarctica’s ice, the particle it produces radiates a blue light called Cerenkov radiation, which IceCube will detect (Steve Yunck/NSF)

See:Dual Nature From Microstate Blackhole Creation?

Thursday, July 29, 2010

Lighting up the dark universe


Image ...
The CHASE detector. The end of the magnet (orange) can be seen on the right.

Exploring our dark universe is often the domain of extreme physics. Traces of dark matter particles are searched for by huge neutrino telescopes located underwater or under Antarctic ice, by scientists at powerful particle colliders, and deep underground.  Clues to mysterious dark energy will be investigated using big telescopes on Earth and experiments that will be launched into space.
But an experiment doesn’t have to be exotic to explore the unexplained. At the International Conference on High Energy Physics, which ended today in Paris, scientists unveiled the first results from the GammeV-CHASE experiment, which used 30 hours’ worth of data from a 10-meter-long experiment to place the world’s best limits on the existence of dark energy particles.
CHASE, which stands for Chameleon Afterglow Search, was constructed at Fermilab to search for hypothetical particles called chameleons. Physicists theorize that these particles may be responsible for the dark energy that is causing the accelerating expansion of our universe.

“One of the reasons I felt strongly about doing this experiment is that it was a good example of a laboratory experiment to test dark energy models,” says CHASE scientist Jason Steffen, who presented the results at ICHEP. “Astronomical surveys are important as well, but they’re not going to tell us everything.” CHASE was a successor to Fermilab’s GammeV experiment, which searched for chameleon particles and another hypothetical particle called the axion.

See: Lighting up the dark universe by Katie Yurkewicz Posted in ICHEP 2010

See Also:Backreaction: Detection of Dark Energy on Earth? - Improbable

Friday, February 22, 2008

The Effect of Cosmic Particle Collisions



How many with holding views of Climate Change have ever considered Earth's place in the cosmos and it's affects created from cosmic particle collisions from space?

So this post is to help illuminate the subject a bit with past information so you get the understanding and where they are todays in terms of science's research. Also I wanted to include my own observation I made that were readily evident as we watch a forest get disseminated by beetle infestation.

So that is part of it, that climate may produce pictures on Glacier withdrawals in relation to previous year's pictures. What other contributions should be considered then?


Finding a heavenly key to climate change


Researchers at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (Cern) in Geneva are looking at how radiation from outer space could be affecting our environment.

A new cutting edge experiment aims to discover how exactly cosmic rays and the Sun may influence the formation of low level clouds, and possibly climate change.

More than two centuries ago, the British Astronomer Royal William Herschel noted a correlation between sunspots an indicator of solar activity and the price of wheat in England. He suggested that when there were few sunspots, prices rose.

However, up until recently, there was little to back up this hypothesis. Today, inside an unassuming some would say decrepit:looking building at Cern, the Cloud (Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets) experiment might help explain how the Sun affects the climate
.


See: Finding a heavenly key to climate change

Variation of Cosmic ray flux and Global cloud coverage by Henri Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 26 NOvember 1996

Chaos and Complexity

Robert Betts Laughlin (born November 1, 1950) is a professor of Physics and Applied Physics at Stanford University who, together with Horst L. Störmer and Daniel C. Tsui, was awarded the 1998 Nobel Prize in physics for his explanation of the fractional quantum Hall effect.

Laughlin was born in Visalia, California. He earned a B.A. in Physics from UC Berkeley in 1972, and his Ph.D. in physics in 1979 at MIT, Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA. In the period of 2004-2006 he served as the president of KAIST in Daejeon, South Korea.

Laughlin shares similar views to George Chapline on the existence of black holes.
See: Robert B. Laughlin

The Emergent Age, by Robert Laughlin

The natural world is regulated both by fundamental laws and by powerful principles of organization that flow out of them which are also transcendent, in that they would continue to hold even if the fundamentals were changed slightly. This is, of course, an ancient idea, but one that has now been experimentally demonstrated by the stupendously accurate reproducibility of certain measurements - in extreme cases parts in a trillion. This accuracy, which cannot be deduced from underlying microscopics, proves that matter acting collectively can generate physical law spontaneously.

Physicists have always argued about which kind of law is more important - fundamental or emergent - but they should stop. The evidence is mounting that ALL physical law is emergent, notably and especially behavior associated with the quantum mechanics of the vacuum. This observation has profound implications for those of us concerned about the future of science. We live not at the end of discovery but at the end of Reductionism, a time in which the false ideology of the human mastery of all things through microscopics is being swept away by events and reason. This is not to say that microscopic law is wrong or has no purpose, but only that it is rendered irrelevant in many circumstances by its children and its children's children, the higher organizational laws of the world.


Understanding the occurrence of natural things happening within earth's environments has a resulting affect to one's children's children here within the very make up of reality. How would know what is happening and the resulting affect moving toward societies if you did not dig deeper and understand that a reductionist effect is very evident.

Predictability was moved toward "Mercuries orbit" while the oscillatory nature of events resonant deeper into society. WE had learnt to propel satellites through space using minimum booster propellants by understanding these relations.

The Roots of Chaos Theory

The roots of chaos theory date back to about 1900, in the studies of Henri Poincaré on the problem of the motion of three objects in mutual gravitational attraction, the so-called three-body problem. Poincaré found that there can be orbits which are nonperiodic, and yet not forever increasing nor approaching a fixed point. Later studies, also on the topic of nonlinear differential equations, were carried out by G.D. Birkhoff, A.N. Kolmogorov, M.L. Cartwright, J.E. Littlewood, and Stephen Smale. Except for Smale, who was perhaps the first pure mathematician to study nonlinear dynamics, these studies were all directly inspired by physics: the three-body problem in the case of Birkhoff, turbulence and astronomical problems in the case of Kolmogorov, and radio engineering in the case of Cartwright and Littlewood. Although chaotic planetary motion had not been observed, experimentalists had encountered turbulence in fluid motion and nonperiodic oscillation in radio circuits without the benefit of a theory to explain what they were seeing.

13:30 Lecture
Edward Norton Lorenz
Laureate in Basic Sciences
“How Good Can Weather Forecasting Become ? – The Star of a Theory”


So on the one hand if we are giving new perspective to the events of climate change and we look at what is happening not only with wheat fields in relation to sun spot activities, we need to understand it's effect, by the presence of natural events occurring as well.

Pine Beetle Infestation


Adult mountain pine beetle, Dendroctonus ponderosae


The Suzuki Foundation has published some of the most recent and most exhaustive research on mountain pine beetle epidemics in BC, but it appears the provincial government is only interested in receiving information from an industry perspective, he added.

“We actually were asked by the Premier’s office to attend tomorrow’s symposium, but when we received the agenda early this week we saw we weren’t on it. When I called to inquire, I was told we could observe from the audience but not present our report called Salvaging Solutions.

“I am absolutely flabbergasted and in fact insulted. In 25 years of attending such forums, as a Member of Parliament and for 10 years at the Suzuki Foundation, I have never been invited by a senior government official to travel 400 kilometres so that I can be window dressing. You have to wonder who on Earth is running Premier Campbell’s office and if they are really interested in gathering all of the best information on this issue.”


Photo by Lorraine Maclauchlan, Ministry of Forests, Southern Interior Forest Region
See:Mountain Pine Beetle Photos

Could Climate change play a role in this? If this is so, and is there some evidence that suggests, that our cold winters are not doing what they are supposed to be doing, this spread could go unabated?

The process of an event happening from space in terms of collision processes, and seeing this relation in terms of Cerenkov radiation, one gets a valuable sense of the process not only at the time of collision, but of what is disseminated, after the event itself happens.

Now while one may of focused on Cerenkov radiation, the effect of this process can be taken down not only to mean "cloud formation," but also, the environment suitable for new manifestations that are "conducive too" bug infestation.

Saturday, March 10, 2007

Akeno Giant Air Shower Array (AGASA)

A Quantum Gravity in the Lab a meeting held in regardsEcho: DDR as a Test Model was introduced by Bee of Backreaction.

I thought it important that I give some background on what had transpired here to allow me to make certain comments in face of what they are proposing there in QGL.

An International Facility to Study the Highest Energy Cosmic Rays See:Pierre Auger Observatory

The historical background to this process is very enlightening when we come to investigate what the universe is doing in relation to what experiments on earth. This "correlation" is an important one these two experimental processes in how we see interactions of high energy particles.

One day, some bright, enterprising physicist, perhaps inspired by this article, will complete the theory, open the doorway, and use the power of pure thought to determine if string theory is a theory of everything, anything, or nothing.

Only time will tell if Einstein was correct when he said, "But the creative principle resides in mathematics. In a certain sense, therefore, I hold it true that pure thought can grasp reality, as the ancients dreamed."
Michio Kaku
See: Window On the Universe

Having done this research on my own I was thinking already in context of the high energy particle collisions that were being recorded. In my blogging experience, I was some upset when I could no longer locate the article I did on the Fly's Eye and the oh my God Particle. "Revisited" help to point to this information obtained from wikipedia, but I had it long before.

John Ellis was again instrumental here in pointing to information from the Pierre Auger experiments and is supplied in the labels


shows arrival directions of cosmic rays with energies above 4 x 1019eV. Red squares and green circles represent cosmic rays with energies of > 1020eV , and (4 - 10) x 1019eV , respectively.
We observed muon components in the detected air showers and studied their characteristics. Generally speaking, more muons in a shower cascade favors heavier primary hadrons and measurement of muons is one of the methods used to infer the chemical composition of the energetic cosmic rays. Our recent measurement indicates no systematic change in the mass composition from a predominantly heavy to a light composition above 3 x 1017eV claimed by the Fly's Eye group.


Knowing that such high energy particles did indeed react with what we measure in the Sno or Ice Cube was just one more part of the neutrinos from the new physics that were being developed as well.

MAGIC is an imaging atmospheric Cherenkov telescope or IACT that has started measuring since the commissioning ended in late 2004. The project is funded primarily by the funding agencies BMFB (Germany), MPG (Germany), INFN (Italy), and CICYT (Spain).

Wednesday, November 22, 2006

Tunnelling in Faster then Light

Underneath this speculation of mine is the geometrical inclination of the universe in expression. If it's "dynamical nature is revealed" what allows us to think of why this universe at this time and junction, should be flat(?) according to the time of this universe in expression?

Omega=the actual density to the critical density

If we triangulate Omega, the universe in which we are in, Omegam(mass)+ Omega(a vacuum), what position geometrically, would our universe hold from the coordinates given?


Positive energy density gives spacetime of the universe a positive curvature. A sphere? Negative curvature a region of spacetime that is negative and curved like a saddle? For time travel, and travel into the past, you need a universe that has a negative energy density.

Thus the initial idea here to follow is that the process had to have a physics relation. This is based on the understanding of anti-particle/particle, and what becomes evident in the cosmos as a closed loop process. Any variation within this context, is the idea of "blackhole anti-particle expression" based on what can be seen at the horizon?



A anti-particle can be considered as a particle moving back in time? Only massless particle can travel faster then light. Only faster then light massless particles can travel back in time? So of course, I am again thinking of the elephant process of Susskind and the closed loop process of the virtual particle/anti-particle. What comes out of it?

That's not all. The fact that space-time itself is accelerating - that is, the expansion of the universe is speeding up - also creates a horizon. Just as we could learn that an elephant lurked inside a black hole by decoding the Hawking radiation, perhaps we might learn what's beyond our cosmic horizon by decoding its emissions. How? According to Susskind, the cosmic microwave background that surrounds us might be even more important than we think. Cosmologists study this radiation because its variations tell us about the infant moments of time, but Susskind speculates that it could be a kind of Hawking radiation coming from our universe's edge. If that's the case, it might tell us something about the elephants on the other side of the universe.


So the anti-particle falls into the blackhole? How is it that I resolve this?? You can consider the anti-particle as traveling back in time. The micro perspective of the blackhole allows time travel backwards.


Getty Images
Although a 1916 paper by Ludwig Flamm from the University of Vienna [4] is sometimes cited as giving the first hint of a wormhole, "you definitely need hindsight to detect it," says Matt Visser of Victoria University in Wellington, New Zealand. Einstein and Rosen were the first to take the idea seriously and to try to accomplish some physics with it, he adds. The original goal may have faded, but the Einstein-Rosen bridge still pops up occasionally as a handy solution to the pesky problem of intergalactic travel.


There are two cases in which the thoughts about faster then light particles are created and this is the part where one tries to get it right so as not to confuse themselves and others.

Wormholes?

Plato:
So "open doorways" and ideas of "tunneling" are always interesting in terms of how we might look at an area like GR in cosmology? Look for way in which such instances make them self known.

Are they applicable to the very nature of quantum perceptions that such probabilities could have emerged through them? Held to "time travel scenarios" and grabbed the history of what had already preceded us in past tense, could have been brought again forward for inspection?


Sure I am quoting myself here, just to show one of the options I am showing by example. The second of course is where I was leading too in previous posts.

So I was thinking here in context of one example in terms of the containment of the "graviton in a can" is really letting loose of the information in the collision process, as much as we like this "boundary condition" it really is not so.

Another deep quantum mystery for which physicists have no answer has to do with "tunneling" -- the bizarre ability of particles to sometimes penetrate impenetrable barriers. This effect is not only well demonstrated; it is the basis of tunnel diodes and similar devices vital to modern electronic systems.

Tunneling is based on the fact that quantum theory is statistical in nature and deals with probabilities rather than specific predictions; there is no way to know in advance when a single radioactive atom will decay, for example.

The probabilistic nature of quantum events means that if a stream of particles encounters an obstacle, most of the particles will be stopped in their tracks but a few, conveyed by probability alone, will magically appear on the other side of the barrier. The process is called "tunneling," although the word in itself explains nothing.

Chiao's group at Berkeley, Dr. Aephraim M. Steinberg at the University of Toronto and others are investigating the strange properties of tunneling, which was one of the subjects explored last month by scientists attending the Nobel Symposium on quantum physics in Sweden.

"We find," Chiao said, "that a barrier placed in the path of a tunneling particle does not slow it down. In fact, we detect particles on the other side of the barrier that have made the trip in less time than it would take the particle to traverse an equal distance without a barrier -- in other words, the tunneling speed apparently greatly exceeds the speed of light. Moreover, if you increase the thickness of the barrier the tunneling speed increases, as high as you please.

"This is another great mystery of quantum mechanics."


Of course I am looking for processes in physics that would actually demonstrate this principal of energy calculated at the very beginning of the collision process, now explained in the detector, minus the extra energy that had gone where?



This is the basis for the "Graviton in a can" example of what happens in the one scenario.

Plato:
A Bose-Einstein condensate (such as superfluid liquid helium) forms for reasons that only can be explained by quantum mechanics. Bose condensates form at low temperature


Plasmas and Bose condensates

So in essence the physics process that I am identifying is shown by understanding that the "graviton production" allows that energy to be transmitted outside the process of the LHC?

This is the energy that can be calculated and left over from all the energy assumed in the very beginning of this collision process. Secondly, all energy used in this process would be in association with bulk perspective.

This now takes me to the second process of "time travel" in the LHC process. The more I tried to figure this out the basis of thought here is that Cerenkov radiation in a vacuum still is slower then speed of light, yet within the medium of ice, this is a different story. So yes there are many corrections and insight here to consider again.

The muon will travel faster than light in the ice (but of course still slower than the speed of light in vacuum), thereby producing a shock wave of light, called Cerenkov radiation. This light is detected by the photomultipliers, and the trace of the neutrinos can be reconstructed with an accuracy of a couple of degrees. Thus the direction of the incoming neutrino and hence the location of the neutrino source can be pinpointed. A simulation of a muon travelling through AMANDA is shown here (1.5 MB).


So while sleeping last night the question arose in my mind as to the location of where the "higgs field" will be produced in the LHC experiment? Here also the the thoughts about the "cross over point" that would speak to the idea here of what reveals faster then light capabilities arising from the collision process?

What are the main goals of the LHC?-
The LHC will also help us to solve the mystery of antimatter. Matter and antimatter must have been produced in the same amounts at the time of the Big Bang. From what we have observed so far, our Universe is made of only matter. Why? The LHC could provide an answer.

It was once thought that antimatter was a perfect 'reflection' of matter - that if you replaced matter with antimatter and looked at the result in a mirror, you would not be able to tell the difference. We now know that the reflection is imperfect, and this could have led to the matter-antimatter imbalance in our Universe.

The strongest limits on the amount of antimatter in our Universe come from the analysis of the diffuse cosmic gamma-rays arriving on Earth and the density fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation. If one asumes that after the Big Bang, the Universe separated somehow into different domains where either matter or antimatter was dominant, then at the boundaries there should be annihilations, producing cosmic gamma rays. In both cases the limit proposed by current theories is practically equivalent to saying that there is no antimatter in our Universe.


So we get the idea here in the collision process and from it the crossover point leaves a energy dissertation on what transpired from this condition and left the idea in my mind about the circumstances of what may have changed the the speed of the cosmos at varying times in the expansion process within our universe. So, this is where I was headed as I laid out the statement below.

Of course this information is based on 2003 data but the jest of the idea here is that in order to go to a "fast forward" the conditions had to exist previously that did not included "sterile neutrinos" and were a result of this "cross over."


So what is the jest of my thought here that I would go to great lengths here to speak about the ideas of what happens within the cosmos to change those varying times of expansion? It has to do with the Suns and the process within those suns that give the dark energy some value, in it's anti- gravity nature to align our selves and our thinking to the cosmological constant of Einstein. If we juggle the three ring circus we find that the curvature parameters can and do hold thoughts govern by the cosmological constant?

It is thus equally important to identify this "physics process" that would allow such changes in the cosmos. So that we can understand the dynamical nature that the cosmos reveals to us can and does allow aspect of its galaxies within context of the universe to increase this expansive process while we question what drives such conditions.

Saturday, October 28, 2006

Bursting Bubbles of New Universes?



Aero chocolate bars are nicer then the "singularity bubble popping bubble blowing?" Say that fast three times.

The "boundary condition" is the very chocolate bar itself? The "bubbles explain the nature of the chocolate bar," or is it designed that way naturally?



Okay, so the idea of the bubble blown is constrained by the shape of your mouth and the air you push through these constraints (you suck in air through your nose)? "It's memory" is the constraint that you put on the bubble blowing, or will you be a bit more lofty about it, then just stretching your gums?:)



Imagine the metaphors we can use to explain the origins of the universe, in examples we have when we look at the Aurora's, rainbows, or something that we could derive from "quantum dynamic views," as if "Extracting Beauty from Chaos" might have been implied? Qui Non?



Such complexity in the results and it's uncertainty of each and very point in space becomes part of "a larger picture" that looks quite beautiful, and really not so chaotic at all??

While I had been showing some of the effects of the depth's of perception, imagine that the "final picture" is really quite illuminating when just talking about the sun.



So now should I get so abstract that I agree and take you to the bubble gum incident and show the the idea behind the transformation process? Why I would have thought the "Navier-stokes equation implication solved" from the Clay Institute would have thought this would have been worth a million? Maybe I was being to simplistic in my thinking?:)

Remembering is the "continuity and topologically thinking" and not the "discrete values" we assign each point in space? How would you explain what we are seeing naturally? A super computer? Or a Vast array detection system used in IceCube or searching for the effect asymmetrically valued from the sun/collider?