Showing posts with label Agasa. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Agasa. Show all posts

Saturday, September 08, 2007

Cascading Showers from the Cosmos

3) It is claimed that cosmic rays can energy exceeding that of colliders, and they have not caused trouble, suggesting that colliders will not cause trouble either. However, the analogy is not precise. It assumes two things that may not be true. First, cosmic ray center of mass energy exceeding that of colliders has never been measured directly. Measurements that seem to show this are based on showers of secondary particles. Second, the product of a collision between a cosmic ray and an earth particle will always be moving at an appreciable fraction of the speed of light. If it has a small capture radius, it will always pass right through earth like a neutrino. The product of a collider collision can (sometimes) be moving at less than escape velocity from earth. If so, it will fall into earth where it will have forever to accrete other matter. Some calculations show rapid accretion.
See: Risk Evaluation Forum

Using this above as one basis of the argument, it was by these assumptions that I too was convinced things would be okay. There are a lot of things that go with this statement that currently is not expressed given current information in regards to Pierre Auger experiments. That when clearly seen in the light of current research into LHC, does not allow one to take in all that they should be.


Go back to John Ellis and current research if you must, and thinking in terms of the cosmos. It's infancy, and one does not disregard the "origins and beginnings" of this universe. Are there reasons that are less then desired that would govern any legal defence team based on some "religious affiliation" and driven from this religious context? I hope not.

We would not want some Woitian backlash, as done with string theory, from a intelligent design standpoint, as a recognized motived factor in that legal defense. It is far beyond me that I ask these associative questions, yet, these images come to mind when ever the establishment hosting the world's collective scientists, is confronted by the very issues that seem evasive in regards to safety?

Energies Used in Particle Creation

It would behove any person to take the time to travel to the links I am supplying, to help you absorb as much information as possible.With the full intention that what I am describing does have a distillation process that will become very simple in qualitative design.

Finding the energy range with which we are dealing within our colliders, has awakened the realization of the complexity dimensional attributes would have considering E8.

"I’m a Platonist — a follower of Plato — who believes that one didn’t invent these sorts of things, that one discovers them. In a sense, all these mathematical facts are right there waiting to be discovered."Donald (H. S. M.) Coxeter

The complexity of the blackhole would have allowed the possibilities of describing the source of "all dimensional attributes" knowing that the collapse of the blackhole would bring temperatures to the point of the quark Gluon plasma. What would be happening to allow such complexity?

This basis of thought on my part is, "the equivalence determined" and thought about in terms of Lagrangian considerations. This another topic. But does deal with the understanding of the potential microscopic blackholes that could be produced, determined by the energy levels

Thus RHIC is in a certain sense a string theory testing machine, analyzing the formation and decay of dual black holes, and giving information about the black hole interior.

See:Are Strangelets Natural?

LHC Safety?

I am writing this blog entry because of Walter's comments on the side.

It is very hard for me knowing that there is a train of thought developed through my research. This question of cascading showers, were with the understanding of "energy events" that allowed us to see a "greater plethora of mapping" that would direct us to the very essence of symmetry breaking, based on experimental processes herein this blog described.

"String theory and other possibilities can distort the relative numbers of 'down' and 'up' neutrinos," said Jonathan Feng, associate professor in the Department of Physics and Astronomy at UC Irvine. "For example, extra dimensions may cause neutrinos to create microscopic black holes, which instantly evaporate and create spectacular showers of particles in the Earth's atmosphere and in the Antarctic ice cap. This increases the number of 'down' neutrinos detected. At the same time, the creation of black holes causes 'up' neutrinos to be caught in the Earth's crust, reducing the number of 'up' neutrinos. The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

See: How Particles Came to Be

In doing my own research, I tried to follow the thinking of the literature presented on the topic of microscopic blackholes. Now there was to my understanding a theoretical position assumed, from what we understood when dealing with the topic, and the understanding of what Cern was to produce.

Fig. 2. Image showing how an 8 TeV black hole might look in the ATLAS detector (with the caveat that there are still uncertainties in the theoretical calculations).

Now to me the basis of settling the questions of safety, were answered by association of "what was natural" within the domains of these cascading particle showers in terms of these cosmic rays.

If we were after the origins and beginnings to our universe, we were in essence, describing and mapping the beginning times of these particle showers. Also, the dimensional attributes of the interior of the blackhole.

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, August 17, 2005

Unexpected High energies of Cosmic Rays

Plato said:
I am thinking about Lee Smolin’s history here in terms of discrete measures ( I am developing a perspective here in relation that will be complied later) How this effected the the way Lee may have viewed the background. I don’t want to speak for Lee Smolin, but I would like to make it simple.:)

Can this difference be as simple as, “a determination between “being discrete, and implying continuity“?

Where strings implying only tree features, while the approach to glast, as a “new view” supported by "Doubly Special Relativity", that Rovelli and Lee produced? This basis and history is what I am compiling.

One can ask any question and have it loaded, with lots of information. But just trying to bring something to simple clarity, even in conceptual framesworks is not always easy, if you don' ask the question?

Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit

The Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit (GZK limit) is a theoretical upper limit on the energy of cosmic rays from distant sources.

This limit was computed in 1966 by Kenneth Greisen, Vadem Kuzmin and Georgi Zatsepin, based on interactions predicted between the cosmic ray and the photons of the cosmic microwave background radiation. They predicted that cosmic rays with energies over the threshold energy of 5×1019 eV would interact with CMB photons to produce pions. This would continue until their energy fell below the pion production threshold. Therefore, extragalactic cosmic rays with energies greater than this threshold energy should never be observed on Earth.

Unsolved problems in physics: Why is it that some cosmic rays appear to possess energies that are theoretically too high, given that there are no possible near Earth sources, and that rays from distant sources should have been absorbed by the cosmic microwave background radiation?A number of observations have been made by the AGASA experiment that appear to show cosmic rays from distant sources with energies above this limit (whimsically dubbed Oh-My-God particles). The observed existence of these particles is the so-called GZK paradox or cosmic ray paradox.

Anyway, this was brought up and the questioned asked, because I did understand something that even if it was based on theoretical definitions might have been ones that were different from another, and brought the scorn of high energy physicists to wonder, where such principles had been raised in terms of quantum gravity?

So lookng at Lee's position and it becomes clear when one does the research on cosmological scenarios, that no wonder you want the string theorist on side, in this debate.

John Ellis is a fine educator when it come to laying the simple view to avenues related to both High energy physics and the relation in Pierre Auger determination.

Imagine microstate blackholes, and I wonder what "this trigger is" that would make life so much easier if we could determine the background,versus non background debate in terms of these experimental positions?

So strings and Loop quantum are face to face here in our informational predictions, about outcomes of the background versus the non-background, and getting to the source of this debate, from a physics interpretation and a expeirmental one, has always been the quest I think, and one supported by Lee Smolin.

So what rationality might have issue from the basis of that theoretcial position, and like I said before, it seems what pubic relations the top scientists have with the public, is to lay the foundation at the front door in a simple a way as possible from the blogosphere. What other way is so simple and direct tot he public that such distance could now been narrow to someone like Clifford in Cosmic INvariance, speaking to this very subject. Any the link below this sets the tune, and here th econtinuation of th equestion I had there that has not been repsonded too, becuase of the layman underdevleoped view of where top theoretorcians reside.

I'll give it a stab anyway. There seems to be a certain romance I have with the subject, that does not require money from any avenue, and such grants, far from the layman's view that doing this for fun, has been most rewarding becuase it brought me to see in different ways in the bulk, that others in simple life care not, and walk their way.

Plato said:
Seeking clarity in relation to experimental propositions of Glast 2006 and how it shall support one’s position over another? Will it?

High energy relevance had to meet each other in a way that cosmologically had something to do with high energy perceptions in relation to the trigger? Link on name.

The “beginning”, as first principles? Robert Laughlin saids no to “first principles”?:)

Since it is hard to put a link within a link, I thought I better put link on name here as well.

I really hate quoting myself, but alas the move is to continue regardless, so onto, "Gubser and structure information."

Lubos Motl said:
Steve Gubser (from Princeton) has just gave an interesting talk at the joint seminar in which he tried to convince us that structure formation (the process in which the early clumps of matter and the first galaxies were born) is a very interesting topic in cosmology, even for string theorists, in which some signs of new physics may be found if one tries to reproduce the observations.

How indeed would one see gluonic perception at this level bringing us ever closer to views on the window of the universe, and such leaidng indicators has to bring some noton to what started in the beginning? Non?