A hotspot for powerful cosmic rays: Physicists a step closer to finding mysterious sources

Jul 08, 2014
This map of the northern sky shows cosmic ray concentrations, with a "hotspot" with a disproportionate number of cosmic rays shown as the bright red and yellow spot, upper right. An international team of physicists using the University of Utah-operated Telescope Array near Delta, Utah, say their discovery of the hotspot should narrow the search for the mysterious source or sources of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, which carry more energy than any other known particle in the universe. Credit: Kazumasa Kawata, University of Tokyo Institute for Cosmic Ray Research.

An observatory run by the University of Utah found a "hotspot" beneath the Big Dipper emitting a disproportionate number of the highest-energy cosmic rays. The discovery moves physics another step toward identifying the mysterious sources of the most energetic particles in the universe.

"This puts us closer to finding out the sources – but no cigar yet," says University of Utah physicist Gordon Thomson, spokesman and co-principal investigator for the $25 million Telescope Array cosmic ray observatory west of Delta, Utah. It is the Northern Hemisphere's largest cosmic ray detector.

"All we see is a blob in the sky, and inside this blob there is all sorts of stuff – various types of objects – that could be the source" of the powerful , he adds. "Now we know where to look."

A new study identifying a hotspot in the northern sky for ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been accepted for publication by Astrophysical Journal Letters.

Thomson says many astrophysicists suspect ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays are generated by active galactic nuclei, or AGNs, in which material is sucked into a supermassive black hole at the center of galaxy, while other material is spewed away in a beam-like jet known as a blazar. Another popular possibility is that the highest-energy cosmic rays come from some supernovas (exploding stars) that emit gamma rays bursts.

Lower-energy cosmic rays come from the sun, other stars and exploding stars, but the source or sources of the most energetic cosmic rays has been a decades-long mystery.

The study was conducted by 125 researchers in the Telescope Array project, including Thomson and 31 other University of Utah physicists, plus 94 other scientists from the University of Tokyo and 28 other research institutions in Japan, the United States, South Korea, Russia and Belgium.

Particles from Beyond Our Galaxy

Cosmic rays, discovered in 1912, really are particles, not rays: either bare protons (hydrogen nuclei) or the centers or nuclei of heavier elements such as carbon, oxygen, nitrogen or iron. Thomson and many physicists believe ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays are just protons, though some suspect they include helium and nitrogen nuclei.

Besides active galactic nuclei and gamma ray emitters, possible sources include noisy radio galaxies, shock waves from colliding galaxies and even some exotic hypothetical sources such as the decay of so-called "cosmic strings" or of massive particles left over from the big bang that formed the universe 13.8 billion years ago.

Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays are considered those above about 1 billion billion (1 times 10 to the 18th power) electron volts. If an ultrahigh-energy cosmic ray could penetrate the atmosphere and hit someone in the head, that single subatomic particle would feel like a fast-pitch baseball to the skull.

Ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays come from beyond our galaxy, the Milky Way, which is about 100,000 light years wide (588 million billion miles). But 90 percent of them come from within 300 million light years (1,764 billion billion miles) because powerful cosmic rays from greater distances are greatly weakened by interaction with radiation – the faint afterglow of the big bang, says Charlie Jui, a University of Utah professor of physics and astronomy.

In this time-lapse photo, stars appear to rotate above the Middle Drum facility of the Telescope Array, a $25 million cosmic ray observatory that sprawls across the desert west of Delta, Utah. Physicists from the University of Utah, University of Tokyo and elsewhere report the observatory has detected a "hotspot" in the northern sky emitting a disproportionate number of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, which are the most energetic particles in the universe. The discovery of a hotspot is a step in the long quest to discover the source or sources of the most powerful cosmic rays. Credit: Ben Stokes, University of Utah.

The most powerful or highest-energy cosmic ray ever measured was detected over Utah in 1991 by the University of Utah's Fly's Eye observatory at the U.S. Army's Dugway Proving Ground – a predecessor to the Telescope Array. That cosmic ray particle carried energy of 300 billion billion electron volts (3 times 10 to the 20th power).

The Telescope Array uses two methods to detect and measure cosmic rays. At three locations spread across the desert, sets of mirrors called fluorescence detectors watch the skies for faint blue flashes created when incoming cosmic rays hit nitrogen gas molecules in the atmosphere.

Those collisions create a cascade of other collisions with atmospheric gases, resulting in "air showers" of particles detected by 523 table-like scintillation detectors spaced over 300 square miles of desert. In the new study, 507 of the scintillation detectors were used to study the ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, says John Matthews, a University of Utah research professor of physics and astronomy. The fluorescence detectors helped determine the energy and chemical makeup of the .

A Cosmic Ray Hotspot

The new study by the Telescope Array research team looked at ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays above 57 billion billion electron volts (5.7 times 10 to the 19th power). Thomson says that high cutoff was picked because the highest-energy cosmic rays are bent the least by magnetic fields in space – bending that obscures the directions from which they came and thus the directions of their sources.

These very powerful cosmic rays were recorded by the Telescope Array between May 11, 2008, and May 4, 2013. During the five years, only 72 such cosmic rays were detected, confirmed and analyzed for their energy and source direction.

But 19 of those cosmic rays were detected coming from the direction of the hotspot, compared with only 4.5 that would have been expected if the cosmic rays came randomly from all parts of the sky, Jui says.

The hotspot is a 40-degree-diameter circle representing 6 percent of the northern sky. "We have a quarter of our events in that circle instead of 6 percent," Jui says.

Thomson says the hotspot is centered in the southwest corner of the constellation Ursa Major, which includes the arrangement of stars known as the Big Dipper.

"The hotspot is a couple of hand widths below the Big Dipper's handle," he says.

More precisely – although it is not visible through regular telescopes – the hotspot is centered at right ascension 146.6 degrees and declination 43.2 degrees.

The hotspot is near the "supergalactic plane" – the rather flattened Virgo supercluster of galaxies. Our Milky Way galaxy is on the outskirts of the supercluster.

The odds that the hotspot is a statistical fluke rather than real are only 1.4 in 10,000, the researchers calculated.

Observations by the Pierre Auger cosmic ray observatory in Argentina provide evidence for a weaker Southern Hemisphere hotspot. If that proves real, Thomson says cosmic rays in the northern and southern hotspots must come from different sources.

Expanding the Search

Jui says a separate study now in progress suggests the distribution of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays in the northern sky is consistent with the "large-scale structure" of the universe, which means the cosmic rays tend to come from areas of the universe where matter is concentrated in clusters and superclusters of galaxies.

"It tells us there is at least a good chance these are coming from matter we can see as opposed to a different class of mechanisms where you are producing these particles with exotic processes" such cosmic strings, he says. "It points us to the next logical step in the search: building a larger detector that collects four times as many [ultrahigh-energy cosmic ray] events per year. With more events, we are more likely to see structure in that hotspot blob and that may point us toward the real sources."

Physicists want to expand the size and thus sensitivity of the Telescope Array, doubling the number of table-shaped scintillation detectors to about 1,100 but spacing them farther from each other and thus quadrupling the area across which they are scattered. All the land for the expansion is located north and south of the present observatory and is owned by the federal Bureau of Land Management and the Utah School and Institutional Trust Lands Administration, Thomson says.

He adds that researchers hope to obtain $6.4 million needed for the expansion from U.S. and Japanese governments later this year, then finish the expansion in 2016.

The Telescope Array, built for $17 million, started operations in 2008 and later was upgraded, bringing the cost to about $25 million, of which Japan financed about two-thirds and the United States about one-third, mainly through the University of Utah, Matthews says.

Explore further: Cosmic rays tune ATLAS for a particle symphony

add to favorites email to friend print save as pdf

Related Stories

Scientists Prove Cosmic Rays Are Made of Protons

Jul 01, 2010

Cosmic rays are made of protons, scientists found as they used a vast array of telescopes arranged across the Utah desert. Each telescope in the 67-unit arrangement sees the sky with a multifaceted eye. It’s ...

Neutrinos put cosmic ray theory on ice

Apr 20, 2012

(Phys.org) -- A telescope buried beneath the South Pole has failed to find any neutrinos accompanying exploding fireballs in space, undermining a leading theory of how cosmic rays are born.

Characterizing the Moon's radiation environment

Apr 09, 2013

The radiation environment near the Moon could be damaging to humans and electronics on future missions. To characterize this potentially hazardous environment, the Cosmic Ray Telescope for the Effects of Radiation (CRaTER) ...

Recommended for you

Kepler proves it can still find planets

Dec 18, 2014

To paraphrase Mark Twain, the report of the Kepler spacecraft's death was greatly exaggerated. Despite a malfunction that ended its primary mission in May 2013, Kepler is still alive and working. The evidence ...

User comments : 43

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

kelman66
1 / 5 (8) Jul 08, 2014
Is it somewhat curious that the two hotspots are generally in the location of the earth's magnetic poles?
Steve 200mph Cruiz
2 / 5 (4) Jul 08, 2014
Sort of, I don't know my southern constellations, but if the north magnetic pole is 6 o'clock, ursa major would be about 7 o'clock. It's close but not close enough to be the source other wise this article would be different. That would be huge news.
Whydening Gyre
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
They are NOT in the location of the Earth's poles. They are ALIGNED (generally) with Earth's poles. Or, actually - Earth is aligned with THEM...
But, yes, it is curious...
nathanlm
1 / 5 (19) Jul 08, 2014
Excellent research! Want to know what this mysterious hot spot is? Can you guess? (Let me give you a clue.... it's in Europe). More specifically, it was built in Switzerland. CERN is the largest atom smasher mankind has ever built. (And the amount of energy this thing uses must be astronomical!) From an environmental standpoint, this is a no no; red flag. For more information, click here: http://componentg...ears-ago
or here: http://press.web....y-lhc
Graeme
not rated yet Jul 08, 2014
It is possible that there are also some neutral hydrogen atoms also emitted at high energy from the same sources. Their directions would be a lot less scattered by magnetic fields, and so may also be detectable by the same cosmic ray detectors, but show as point sources.
ThomasQuinn
4.5 / 5 (17) Jul 08, 2014
Excellent research! Want to know what this mysterious hot spot is? Can you guess? (Let me give you a clue.... it's in Europe). More specifically, it was built in Switzerland. CERN is the largest atom smasher mankind has ever built. (And the amount of energy this thing uses must be astronomical!) From an environmental standpoint, this is a no no; red flag. For more information, click here: http://componentg...ears-ago


It's really sad that I have to even say this, but - that's a map of the sky, not of the earth. And the source of the cosmic radiation is in the sky, not on the earth. So the hot spot has nothing to do with CERN.
alfie_null
4.7 / 5 (18) Jul 08, 2014
Want to know what this mysterious hot spot is? Can you guess? . . .

Should we presume you left academia before being exposed to geometry?

CERN is another spot on a rotating globe, thus would never manifest as a fixed spot in the sky.

Not clear what your issue is with CERN. The power it consumes, relative to other use of electric power, is insignificant.
EWH
4.2 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
10^18eV is equivalent to the kinetic energy of a baseball going 3.3mph, not a fast-pitch.
3E20eV, the record energy, is equivalent to the kinetic energy of a baseball going 58mph, which is respectable, but not a fastball .
NIS_0
1 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
This might explain all the "UFO" activity around the Big Dipper. Mysterious indeed.
nathanlm
1 / 5 (15) Jul 08, 2014
It's really sad that I have to even say this, but - that's a map of the sky, not of the earth. And the source of the cosmic radiation is in the sky, not on the earth. So the hot spot has nothing to do with CERN.


Sorry, but CERN is a magnet for cosmic rays of any wavelength. Now, what do you know about Antimatter?
Whydening Gyre
4.4 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
Now, what do you know about Antimatter?

That she don't matter so much in this particular incarnation of the Universe...?
SoylentGrin
4.6 / 5 (11) Jul 08, 2014
Sorry, but CERN is a magnet for cosmic rays of any wavelength. Now, what do you know about Antimatter?


Look, it's natural to want to defend confusing a sky map with a terrestrial map. But even if CERN were reaching out to the universe and pulling in cosmic rays, you would still be left with a map showing most of those rays coming from a localized spot in the sky.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (5) Jul 08, 2014
It seems to be in the same direction as the force of gravity is pulling us around the Galaxy.
Whydening Gyre
3 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
It seems to be in the same direction as the force of gravity is pulling us around the Galaxy.

Inasmuch as the solar pole and earth pole and a majority of the other planetary poles in our system are (Generally) pointed in the same direction - yeah, it does.
However, if you've thought about it, it's not directly perpendicular. Personally I think it generates an angular momentum that translates into a "forward" motion.
But - I'm just an artist, so don't quote me on that...:-)
nathanlm
1.3 / 5 (13) Jul 08, 2014
Then it's probably the blazar at the center of the Milky Way, or from another galaxy perhaps intersecting ours. What is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way?
Whydening Gyre
3.9 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
Then it's probably the blazar at the center of the Milky Way, or from another galaxy perhaps intersecting ours. What is the closest galaxy to the Milky Way?

Andromeda. Correspondlingly, I'd be interested in finding out Andromeda's angular relation and spin direction in relation to Milky way..
Blazar at center of Galaxy? Where'd ya pull that one from?
Elmo_McGillicutty
2 / 5 (7) Jul 08, 2014
Being that a cosmic ray is a proton, maybe it is being pushed or pulled by some electric or magnetic field.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1.7 / 5 (10) Jul 08, 2014
Our solar system is spiraling towards that direction. Maybe the cosmic ray is spiraling towards us. Maybe that's why it's source looks fuzzy.
nathanlm
1 / 5 (2) Jul 08, 2014
W.Gyre - from the article:

Thomson says many astrophysicists suspect ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays are generated by active galactic nuclei, or AGNs, in which material is sucked into a supermassive black hole at the center of galaxy, while other material is spewed away in a beam-like jet known as a blazar. Another popular possibility is that the highest-energy cosmic rays come from some supernovas (exploding stars) that emit gamma rays bursts.
Whydening Gyre
5 / 5 (2) Jul 09, 2014
Thanks, Nathan. I should not allow my brain to run ahead of my eyes. (or is it the other way 'round...?)
It's a curse of either coffee - or crown royal...
George_Rajna
Jul 10, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (8) Jul 10, 2014
The universe is expanding at a much slower rate than what scientist say. It is not due to acceleration from dark matter. It is due to the decay of gravity. The high red shifts from the oldest objects are Not from acceleration, it is due to the high gravity at time of emission.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (9) Jul 10, 2014
Astrophysical double layers (DL) are the most likely source of high energy cosmic rays. Being there is both a "northern" and "southern" hot spot, the most likely answer is they have found Alfven's predicted polar DL's. What this portends, along with Voyager data, is that we have a new layout of the Sun's magnetic field. Probably looks something like this;

http://electric-c...xies.pdf

Figure 7 shows both the hourglass shape the Voyager space craft have found, oh and the polar DL's.

Looks like we need a paradigm shift.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (6) Jul 12, 2014
Probably looks something like this;
http://electric-c...xies.pdf
@CD
yet another known pseudoscience link?
really?
IF it is legitimate science, why can't you find a link to a legitimate source that will show what you want to show while also support your argument with real science?
THIS is NOT a shard as you think! You've done it before, why not now?
Looks like we need a paradigm shift.
you're assumption is based upon your link?
you think, because the world does not accept your pseudoscience, that we should alter the known paradigm and attempt to accept.... what?
perhaps DAW is more accurate?
what about the rantings of Kalopin? should those take precedence over your EU and modern geology?

because THAT is the paradigm that will occur if it changes under the management of people who accept known pseudoscience
cantdrive85
1.3 / 5 (10) Jul 13, 2014
@CD
yet another known pseudoscience link?
really?
IF it is legitimate science, why can't you find a link to a legitimate source that will show what you want to show while also support your argument with real science?

It's readily apparent you are too plain dumb to actually analyze the claims and refute them, all you have left is to scream "PSEUDOSCIENCE LINK". Why don't you read the paper and show where he is wrong? If it is pseudoscience this should be an easy enough task. Oh right, you are a dunce and incapable.

yyz
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2014
"Why don't you read the paper and show where he is wrong? If it is pseudoscience this should be an easy enough task."

Let's examine the claim in the paper by Don Scott that certain planetary nebula display characteristics of Birkeland currents and z-pinches. Specifically, examples mentioned in his paper include M2-9(fig 7), MyCn 18(fig 8) and He2-104(fig 9). The claim is made that z-pinches and Birkeland currents exist in these planetary nebulae based on morphology alone. Scott gives no references to published papers that confirm this EU interpretation in each of these examples. Searching the SIMBAD database, I can find no published papers that describe these planetary nebula from an EU POV or make any claims of z-pinches/Birkeland currents in these three objects: http://simbad.u-s.../simbad/

Since Scott omitted references that provide empirical evidence for z-pinches and Birkeland currents in these three objects specifically, perhaps you could supply said references?

yyz
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2014
In addition, when Don Scott invokes z-pinches and Birkeland currents in these three planetary nebulae, this implies a power source external to these objects. Scott neither explains where this external energy comes from nor does he supply references that explain the source of this energy. Could you supply a reference that explains what external energy source(s) have been empirically shown to supply the energy to these three planetary nebulae?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2014
you are too plain dumb to actually analyze the claims and refute them
@CD
IF YOU HAVE A VALID SCIENTIFIC CLAIM, THERE WOULD BE VALID PEER REVIEWED RELEVANT ASTROPHYSICAL SCIENCE SUPPORTING YOUR CONCLUSIONS
Why don't you read the paper and show where he is wrong? If it is pseudoscience this should be an easy enough task
so... your answer is to say that because YOU post pseudoscience, and YOU cannot comprehend real physics, and YOU cannot comprehend WHY your faith is known pseudoscience, even AFTER it has been pointed out to you, and YOU can't find legit supporting papers, then it is MY fault for not understanding? really?
Since Scott omitted references that provide empirical evidence for z-pinches and Birkeland currents in these three objects specifically, perhaps you could supply said references?
@yyz
you do realise he is only going to reference pseudoscience posts for this, right?
He cannot give you real science to something that is not legitimate.
yyz
5 / 5 (7) Jul 13, 2014
@ Captain Stumpy
"you do realise he is only going to reference pseudoscience posts for this...
He cannot give you real science to something that is not legitimate."

Well yeah, that was sorta my point. I'm interested in planetary nebulae both from the point of an amateur astronomer(I love to look at PNe with my telescopes) and from studying the professional literature(I've read published PNe papers from the 1880s to the present). AFAIK there are no published peer-reviewed papers that describe the PNe M2-9, MyCn 18 or He2-104 as powered by z-pinches or Birkeland currents and are supported with empirical evidence(and this bears emphasis as these PNe are frequently cited as proof of these phenomena at EU/PC websites).

In reality , NO known planetary nebula has been shown in the published literature(not even in IEEE publications) to be powered by z-pinches or Birkeland currents and no amount of protests by cantdrive or others can alter this simple fact.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (6) Jul 14, 2014
In reality , NO known planetary nebula has been shown in the published literature(not even in IEEE publications) to be powered by z-pinches or Birkeland currents and no amount of protests by cantdrive or others can alter this simple fact.


Well you're wrong about that, so not a simple fact at all...

IEEE paper on just that;
http://ieeexplore...hornhill

Peratt discusses Z-pinches in the paper, and the method the "powerlines" create the power;
http://www.plasma...smic.pdf

Here is a paper that discusses galactic sized Birkeland currents;
http://arxiv.org/...97v3.pdf

Actually, it is a very disingenuous claim. Alfven and his colleagues have been discussing pinched plasmas for decades, the birkeland currents feeding the poles are z-pinched. Not to the same degree as stellar pinches, but pinched none the less.

George_Rajna
Jul 14, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
So I conclude that cantdrive cannot find any papers that describe a known planetary nebula (not a supernova remnant or "electric stars") from an EU POV. You know, a paper that discusses in detail observation and analysis of a known PN, say one of your favorites like Minkowski 2-9, studied here: http://www.aanda....1-10.pdf

You know, cantdrive frequently likes to refer to the work of Halton Arp in his posts. Arp, in his study of galaxies with discordant redshifts, would carefully examine individual cases where he proposed this phenomena occurred. He would carefully study spectra, derive physical parameters of the object in question and study available x-ray and radio data related to this object. Arp studied dozens of systems and produced a paper (oftentimes several) for each one, carefully laying the groundwork for his hypothesis. We see no such effort from the EU crowd wrt PN. -cont.
yyz
5 / 5 (8) Jul 14, 2014
-cont.

I like to use Minkowski 2-9 as an example as it feature prominently at EU sites around the web: http://en.wikiped...wski_2-9

The SIMBAD database lists 451 papers in reference to this planetary nebula. You would think with this treasure trove of data (something Arp would have loved to have a go at, if he favored EU/PC at all), someone, somewhere would have taken the time to study the known physical charcteristics of this object and attempt to explain how this or that data supported the existence of z-pinches or Birkeland currents in M 2-9. But of course, no such study exists concerning M 2-9 or any other PN.

There are hundreds of known planetary nebulae with thousands of papers devoted to their study, and not a single paper explores a known PN in detail from an EU POV. That's actually pretty amazing if you think about it.
cantdrive85
1 / 5 (5) Jul 14, 2014
So I conclude that cantdrive cannot find any papers that describe a known planetary nebula (not a supernova remnant or "electric stars") from an EU POV.


From an EU POV, the only difference between a "planetary nebula" and the "supernova remnant" in the paper is the current density flowing in the circuit. As such, the attached paper is valid.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (6) Jul 16, 2014
cantdrive85.......your getting close with the pinch effect. In 1990 David Bergman determined the structure of the electron(and the other 3 fundamental particles). From this all particle properties have been explained. After studying this structure, the proper atomic model was determined by Bill Lucas. Shortly after that, the universal force law was determined. Now, all we see is explainable. We exist in a Galilean frame. Mass is only apparent and is variable. Gravity is attractive and chiral AND it is decaying. Now we know exactly what a electron and a proton is and how they interact. Oh....the speed of lite.....it only limits charged particles.......a neutral object can travel at any speed. Common Sense Science dot org. Enjoy.
Dr_toad
Jul 16, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
It truly is. The greatest scientific discovery of all time and nobody has heard of it. And it's about 20 yrs. old. It proves how political and corrupt main stream science is. All particles are a confined charge. The charge is confined in a very skinny hula hoop like structure. The charge is evenly distributed and circulates at the speed of light. This steady current causes a magnetic moment in the center of the hoop. This magnetic field envelopes the ring and holds the charge in place. The charge will not radiate in this state because this is no changing potential on the charge ring and the current is steady. Want to know more?
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 16, 2014
The greatest scientific discovery of all time and nobody has heard of it. And it's about 20 yrs. old
@Elmo_McGillicutty
and, of course, you can provide empirical evidence of this as well as peer reviewed studies?
links to reputable sites with publications/papers?
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
Peer review......wow...I don't know where to begin. Since Maxwell's equations do not properly describe the relationship between electric, magnetic fields and angular momentum......who is going to review it? Well of course I am. I am the only peer that satisfies me. If your willing to learn a little calculus, you can be your best peer too. This CCS site starts out with Coulombs experiments...then Ampere, Maxwell, Faraday, Weber and others and shows where the mistakes were made. It then shows the corrected Maxwell equations. This new atomic model predicted all of the known isotopes and many more. It also predicted many more fine structure spectrum. This was all confirmed with lab experiment. QM has never even come close to that. This is a small example. If you want to know your universe.....start reading this site. It's very elegant.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
Since Maxwell's equations do not properly describe
@Elmo
personal conjecture not supported by evidence
who is going to review it?
physicists
Well of course I am
proof of competency?
I am the only peer that satisfies me
conspiratorial thinking will get you nowhere when it requires empirical data
the corrected Maxwell equations
if there is no legit site giving peer reviewed scientific empirical data of this, then it is PSEUDOSCIENCE, especially given the 20 year history claimed above. see: http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/ for more information
This was all confirmed with lab experiment
a reputable lab? associated with WHAT institution? LINKS? proof?

IF there is ANY reputable science in your claims, you should be able to find PROOF from reputable sites like MIT, Stanford, AAAS, etc. with PEER REVIEW

otherwise, like CD and EU, it is PSEUDOSCIENCE
sorry Elmo
I'm just not tickled today... especially with NO links/proof
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
Common Sense Science dot org
@Tickle-me-Elmo
that site is political according to them
The term common sense was chosen because the Society wishes to promote sensible and eloquent dialogue in the political sphere, as opposed to reactionary and ideologically charged public discourse
there were NO links to any mathematical discourse such as what you suggest above.

I think you got your sites mixed up... unless there are clandestine pages within the site that only members can access, and to that I say: no thank you

This appears, at first glance, to be a modern adaptation of the Rosicrucian model of brainwashing. I might be wrong, but I don't trust it, and i didnt see ANY physics on those pages anywhere...
Do I have to go to the home of the Magyars to get it?
I've always liked Magyars... i have bold Magyar blood
Elmo_McGillicutty
1 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2014
Well Mr. Stumpy, calm down now. No need to get angry. I'm not trying to bullshit anybody. In the early 70's I was in the navy nuc program. I worked with GRT and QM very intimately. Neutrino detection was the priority then. After the navy, I lived life. I became disabled recently with time on my hands. I brushed up on my calculus and decided to see what was new. I found jealously guarded kindergarten science.
Do you really believe (GRT) that every time a piece of matter moves anywhere in the universe....it changes the length of a meter and the rate of time everywhere else in the universe?
And do you really believe (QM) that a point in space that does not even have one dimension, inherently has mass, spin, charge and magnetic moment?
I don't. Why would I want anyone who believes these things reviewing real science?
I don't need to prove anything. I know what matter is. I was trying to share the knowledge.
The math proved this over 100 yrs. ago. No modern peer needed. Weber is the key.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
The greatest scientific discovery of all time and nobody has heard of it. And it's about 20 yrs. old. It proves how political and corrupt main stream science is.
@elmo
this statement, above all the others, stands out as proof that your postings here are pseudoscience.
You have given ZERO evidence supporting the claim of corrupt mainstream science.

This assertion, with NO evidence, only supports conspiratorial leanings and makes any logical thinker as well as scientifically literate thinker turn away from your posts and downvote your pondering. It completely undermines ANY integrity you might have had.

Like SCIENCE, WITHOUT EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE, claims are nothing more than word against word, and so far your word is without integrity
I became disabled recently with time on my hands. I brushed up on my calculus and decided to see what was new. I found jealously guarded kindergarten science.
PROOF?
I can understand your dilemma as a disabled vet, but we still need PROOF
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
I don't need to prove anything. I know what matter is. I was trying to share the knowledge.
The math proved this over 100 yrs. ago. No modern peer needed. Weber is the key
@Elmo
first off, I am not upset
I can relate to your being a disabled vet with plenty of time.
HOWEVER, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. QM just happens to be THE MOST SUCCESSFUL THEORY we've ever had, and is still working today.
But that is irrelevant: your claims, like quoted, are relevant to what I was saying about pseudoscience. Don't let them sucker you with logical SOUNDING arguments. http://sci-ence.o...-flags2/
I've investigated many a crook that made PERFECT sense... all the best Con men do.

The science is OUT THERE... all you have to do is find it. and that is MUCH easier today than 20-30 years ago. INTERNET

the studies are there. IF the science is legit...

IF the math is legit, as you claim in the quote I used... then there will be info on it from LEGIT sites.
Captain Stumpy
5 / 5 (5) Jul 17, 2014
Well Mr. Stumpy, calm down now. No need to get angry. I'm not trying to bullshit anybody
@Elmo
lastly, I am actually trying to help you.
really!
Reality can seem very different to a disabled vet who is not able to move/get out much. It can distort in ways that you don't understand, and would not notice until after you learn how to comprehend your own disabilities. I don't know HOW disabled you are, and I will not speculate or ask if it is sensitive
I will, however, say that, for SCIENCE to work, there MUST be empirical data, much like the system investigators use.
illegitimate source=flawed data
Peer review is the BEST source we have right now

Stick to logic and empirical data and you will go much further than posting unsubstantiated claims.
Which would YOU rather follow: a Captain who can't figure out which side is the port and which side is starboard, or an experienced Captain that has plotted his own courses in the days of the sextant and owns his own boat?
Elmo_McGillicutty
1.7 / 5 (6) Jul 17, 2014
Ok Mr. Stumpy, Have it your way......remember elmo was the first to tell you. May the force be with you. 73's.
Dr_toad
Jul 17, 2014
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.