The Amaterasu Particle

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

So what's this? 

 

Meet “Amaterasu”: Astronomers detect highest energy cosmic ray since 1991 | Ars Technica

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, moxieflux66 said:

So what's this? 

 

Meet “Amaterasu”: Astronomers detect highest energy cosmic ray since 1991 | Ars Technica

 

 

@walterpthefirst can explain it, I'm sure.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

1 minute ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@walterpthefirst can explain it, I'm sure.

And I anxiously await his take! Pantheory? Anyone? Anyone?

[walterpthefirst]

Hello Moxie.

 

 

The article gives a pretty good explanation of where we are with regards to our understanding of cosmic rays.

I'm sorry, but I can't improve on that.

 

Pantheory might be able to give you his alternative take on it, but please note the following.

He rejects almost all of modern physics, astronomy and cosmology and a lot of other orthodox science besides.

What he would give would be his own personal interpretation of these things.

How you take that is up to you.

 

But if you have other related questions I might be able to give them a shot.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello Moxie.

 

 

The article gives a pretty good explanation of where we are with regards to our understanding of cosmic rays.

I'm sorry, but I can't improve on that.

 

Pantheory might be able to give you his alternative take on it, but please note the following.

He rejects almost all of modern physics, astronomy and cosmology and a lot of other orthodox science besides.

What he would give would be his own personal interpretation of these things.

How you take that is up to you.

 

But if you have other related questions I might be able to give them a shot.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Thank you Walter. Good information there all around. I will have plenty of time to ponder more questions as I'm off to the laundromat today! Goody! 

[pantheory]

19 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

So what's this? 

 

Meet “Amaterasu”: Astronomers detect highest energy cosmic ray since 1991 | Ars Technica

 

 

 

Cosmic rays as strong as this one appear about every 30 years.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

13 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello Moxie.

 

 

The article gives a pretty good explanation of where we are with regards to our understanding of cosmic rays.

I'm sorry, but I can't improve on that.

 

Pantheory might be able to give you his alternative take on it, but please note the following.

He rejects almost all of modern physics, astronomy and cosmology and a lot of other orthodox science besides.

What he would give would be his own personal interpretation of these things.

How you take that is up to you.

 

But if you have other related questions I might be able to give them a shot.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

Um, yeah. Looked over the article again and.....can't think of one damn question to ask! We don't know what we don't know! Hey, the christians would LOVE this! 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

3 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

Cosmic rays as strong as this one appear about every 30 years.

Prior to 1991? 

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, moxieflux66 said:

Prior to 1991? 

 

Cosmic ray - Wikipedia

 

Energy distribution

 

Measurements of the energy and arrival directions of the ultra-high-energy primary cosmic rays by the techniques of density sampling and fast timing of extensive air showers were first carried out in 1954 by members of the Rossi Cosmic Ray Group at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology.

[pantheory]

5 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Prior to 1991? 

 

Prior to the 1980's they didn't have powerful enough telescopic detectors to detect such distant cosmic rays. They were primarily looking for supernovae, which produced the most powerful cosmic rays known at that time. Since about the 1980's they started noting powerful occasional cosmic rays coming from Active Galactic Nuclei. Such galactic nuclei were then being realized as the source of quasars and other galactic jets. No individual single cosmic rays were discovered to be as powerful as the present one or the one in 91, however.

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

Good to know! The array is being expanded in Utah, so we may find out much more soon! \

Thank you! 

[pantheory]

17 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello Moxie.

 

 

The article gives a pretty good explanation of where we are with regards to our understanding of cosmic rays.

I'm sorry, but I can't improve on that.

 

Pantheory might be able to give you his alternative take on it, but please note the following.

He rejects almost all of modern physics, astronomy and cosmology and a lot of other orthodox science besides.

What he would give would be his own personal interpretation of these things.

How you take that is up to you.

 

But if you have other related questions I might be able to give them a shot.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

Walter, you know better than that. I always tell the source of my statements or info, especially my own theories and my many scientific publications where I sometimes post links.

 

To set the story straight, I almost always give the mainstream theory and perspective first in my explanations before any other theory or point of view, and as all well know, when a subject is debatable I almost always add IMO after my opinion.

 

You seem to always invite the links to my credentials by your statements.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

Well I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, Pantheory.

 

 

But I recall you writing that you didn't accept modern physics, meaning all of quantum mechanics, all of Einstein's relativity theories and all of particle physics.

 

That you had your own interpretation of these things.

 

Is that not your stated position?

 

 

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Hello again, Moxie.  

 

 

This might interest you.  https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/amaterasu-and-grb221009a.1057667/

 

I'm a member of Physicforums and check in there most days to see what's new and to look in on various discussions.  The membership ranges from laypeople like myself with an interest science to scientists who are doing front-line research.  The forum's Moderators are all scientists too.

 

Paulalex7000 posed the question, asking if the Amaterasu cosmic ray event could be compared to a Gamma Ray Burst.  As you will read, the two things can't really be compared side-to-side, so to speak.

 

The former was a single particle packing a tremendous energy and coming from a poorly-localised point of origin.  Whereas the latter is a burst of gamma rays emitted in the death throes of an extremely massive star.  If you want to visualise this in non-technical terms, compare a single, high-velocity rifle shot to the short burst of fire you get from the cannon in the nose of a Warthog.  Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia  The two are not really the same.

 

I draw your attention to the post made by Vanadium50.  He's a bit of a prickly curmudgeon but he knows his stuff.  Of the points he makes the first is of interest because it relates to why there are so many unknowns involved here. 

 

I'll explain a little more.

 

It's difficult to get precise values for the energies of very rare events like the Amaterasu cosmic ray.  Getting a precise handle on particle energies is exactly why particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva perform science runs lasting weeks and months.   A very different scenario from the it's-all-over-in-a-flash of the Amaterasu event.

 

The LHC scientists collide many (thousands?) particles in each 'shot' with hundreds of shots taking place over a day.  These add up to millions and millions of collisions, from which they extract HUGE amounts of data.  They then average out the energy values of the different types of particle created during these collisions.  Doing this gives them a much better understanding of what the particles are, how they interact with other particles and what their energies are.

 

None of the above can be done for one-off events like the Amaterasu cosmic ray.  The data that was recorded at the time is all they will ever have to go on.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

31 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Hello again, Moxie.  

 

 

This might interest you.  https://www.physicsforums.com/threads/amaterasu-and-grb221009a.1057667/

 

I'm a member of Physicforums and check in there most days to see what's new and to look in on various discussions.  The membership ranges from laypeople like myself with an interest science to scientists who are doing front-line research.  The forum's Moderators are all scientists too.

 

Paulalex7000 posed the question, asking if the Amaterasu cosmic ray event could be compared to a Gamma Ray Burst.  As you will read, the two things can't really be compared side-to-side, so to speak.

 

The former was a single particle packing a tremendous energy and coming from a poorly-localised point of origin.  Whereas the latter is a burst of gamma rays emitted in the death throes of an extremely massive star.  If you want to visualise this in non-technical terms, compare a single, high-velocity rifle shot to the short burst of fire you get from the cannon in the nose of a Warthog.  Fairchild Republic A-10 Thunderbolt II - Wikipedia  The two are not really the same.

 

I draw your attention to the post made by Vanadium50.  He's a bit of a prickly curmudgeon but he knows his stuff.  Of the points he makes the first is of interest because it relates to why there are so many unknowns involved here. 

 

I'll explain a little more.

 

It's difficult to get precise values for the energies of very rare events like the Amaterasu cosmic ray.  Getting a precise handle on particle energies is exactly why particle accelerators like the Large Hadron Collider near Geneva perform science runs lasting weeks and months.   A very different scenario from the it's-all-over-in-a-flash of the Amaterasu event.

 

The LHC scientists collide many (thousands?) particles in each 'shot' with hundreds of shots taking place over a day.  These add up to millions and millions of collisions, from which they extract HUGE amounts of data.  They then average out the energy values of the different types of particle created during these collisions.  Doing this gives them a much better understanding of what the particles are, how they interact with other particles and what their energies are.

 

None of the above can be done for one-off events like the Amaterasu cosmic ray.  The data that was recorded at the time is all they will ever have to go on.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

Thank you Walter. I tried reading the Wiki page but it immediately went right over my head. You did a great job of explaining things in terms I understand. 

Curiously, and speaking of 'one off' events, I just read an excerpt from a book that talks about the Oumuamua object that passed by us in 2017. Is this our new norm? 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, moxieflux66 said:

Thank you Walter. I tried reading the Wiki page but it immediately went right over my head. You did a great job of explaining things in terms I understand. 

Curiously, and speaking of 'one off' events, I just read an excerpt from a book that talks about the Oumuamua object that passed by us in 2017. Is this our new norm? 

 

If you mean, are one-off events like Oumuamua the new norm, the answer (irritatingly) is Yes and No.

 

 

Yes, there will always be one-off events that we can't prepare for, that will catch us out.  In those cases all we can do is learn from them and prepare for any others of the same type that come along later.  More about that below.

 

 

No, when it comes to interstellar objects like Oumuamua barrelling through our solar system, we are now better prepared.  For example, this comet was detected recently.

Interstellar Comet Borisov "Indistinguishable" from Solar System Comets - Sky & Telescope - Sky & Telescope (skyandtelescope.org)

Because it came from the depths of interstellar space Oumuamua was given the designation 1I.  Which means that it was the first Interstellar object that we have detected.

 

Since then Comet 2I/ Borisov has swept through the inner solar system and is making its way back out into interstellar space.  

Orbital Path of Comet 2I/Borisov | ESA/Hubble (esahubble.org)

Both Oumuamua and Borisov were travelling too fast relative to the Sun to be captured by its gravity.  All the Sun did was to change the direction of their travels.

 

 

And speaking of being better prepared...

 

Home - Comet Interceptor - Cosmos (esa.int)

The European Space Agency is considering building this probe, which could be used to catch up with and hold station with a fast-moving comet.  At least for some days or weeks.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

[☆ moxieflux66 ☆]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The European Space Agency is considering building this probe, which could be used to catch up with and hold station with a fast-moving comet.  At least for some days or weeks.

 

Wow! That is way too cool. Can't wait to see what that might bring! 

[pantheory]

On 11/28/2023 at 1:03 AM, walterpthefirst said:

Well I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, Pantheory.

 

 

But I recall you writing that you didn't accept modern physics, meaning all of quantum mechanics, all of Einstein's relativity theories and all of particle physics.

 

That you had your own interpretation of these things.

 

Is that not your stated position?

 

 

 

Walter.

 

Quantum Mechanics (QM) is primarily a statistical system of probabilities between this or that event. There is no mainstream Quantum Theory other than the original epistemic Coppenhagan interpretation of it, that is widely known. There is at least 8 well-known quantum theories. And my own interpretation does not discredit QM as primarily a statistical system.

 

As to Special Relativity, it is very interesting, but I also believe there are many errors within it.  The math of it can be converted into Lorentz Transforms that was published first.

 

As to General Relativity, it is good to only about 5 kilo-parsecs distance. Beyond that accurate predictions cannot be made. They claim this is because of dark matter hypothesis, the elements of  which cannot be observed, so Einstein's cosmology equations have little or no merit for that reason.

 

And you know that I believe that almost the whole of cosmology theory is wrong. This or course is totally unrelated to astronomy which is a science of the measurements of astrophysics -- which is a "good" science.

 

My own ideas are not just interpretations, they are completely different theory. also with different unique mathematics -- 5 to 6 hundred pages of them as  you have already seen by my many links as published by Google Scholar.

 

https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=7ONCj-kAAAAJ&hl=en