Astrophysicists explain the mysterious behavior of cosmic rays

Unlike electrons, protons have a significantly greater lifetime

why

Unlike electrons, protons have a significantly greater lifetime

why

It's just the reverse, electrons have a greater lifetime because the electron is an elementary particle and therefore there is nothing it can decay to. It's lifetime is infinity.

A proton is believed to be composed of three quarks & therefore has something to decay to meaning that a proton is not an elementary particle.

Well done. This has long been a mystery; one can show confinement in the galactic magnetic field by the direction the anomalous CRs come from, but where does the acceleration come from, given the supernova spectrum? That's been the question. This is a pretty good explanation. If a second line of evidence can be developed to confirm it this will be a fairly firm theory.

@richk, free electrons have a shorter lifetime because they do not remain free electrons for long in the presence of slow protons (hydrogen nuclei). The electrons are light, and easily decelerated and captured; high energy protons, however, with significantly greater mass, are not nearly so easily captured and thus have a much longer free lifetime.

You don't have any problem capturing a baseball; you'd never be able to capture an asteroid.

Interesting article. Never ceases to amaze me just how much we can learn just from Earth (yes, okay we have robotics out there helping us). As a layman it just seems to me that 'nature' has a way of trying to 'balance' things, a kind of symmetry; mass structures in the plane and quantum structures in the perpendicular. Yes, a gross oversimplification, I know. One wonders if FB are associated with galaxy evolution, that is spherical and elliptical might not have FB's, or perhaps a precursor, while spiral galaxies might have complete symmetrical FB's. Just a thought.

@richk, free electrons have a shorter lifetime because they do not remain free electrons for long in the presence of slow protons (hydrogen nuclei). The electrons are light, and easily decelerated and captured; high energy protons, however, with significantly greater mass, are not nearly so easily captured and thus have a much longer free lifetime.

You're trying to psycho-babble nuclear physics.

@Lenni doesn't know that protons are about 2000 times more massive than electrons, and if it did wouldn't understand what "2000 times" means because it doesn't understand basic mathematics.

For pedants, a proton is about 1836 times as massive as an electron. "Psycho babble" that, @Lenni. Now go away before I post the simultaneous differential and algebraic relativistic equations you can't solve again and prove again what a fool you are for posting here.

For more pedants, a baseball weighs about 145g, or 0.145kg. 2000 times that is 290 kg, or about 500 pounds. Baseball catchers routinely receive and control pitched baseballs at 180 km/hr or 100 mph; imagine them trying to receive and control four people coming at them together at the same speed. Or for that matter a Volkswagen coming at 100 mph, with their catcher's mitt.

This is why people who talk about science need to understand mathematics. Those who don't and won't learn are idiots.

You're trying to psycho-babble nuclear physics.

Nope. Just you misunderstanding the term 'lifetime' in this context. It means its lifetime as a free electron, as explained by DS. Not how long before it decays to nothingness!

To convolute and add confusion to the situation (sorry Schneib), when it comes to particle decay the proton is listed as having a lifetime in excess of 10^29 years while the electron is listed as having a lifetime in excess of 10^26 years. To all those that at this point are thinking that electrons are elementary particles and therefore have nothing to decay into I'd point you to the Muon, an elementary particle which readily decays. The decay of the electron would likely lead us into physics beyond the standard model because the decay products would likely be photons and neutrinos, and we would have charge conservation violation at hand. This has nothing to do with the above study, however, and only serves to make life difficult for those trying to abolish foolishness in this thread.

@Lenni doesn't know that protons are about 2000 times more massive than electrons, and if it did wouldn't understand what "2000 times" means because it doesn't understand basic mathematics.

For pedants, a proton is about 1836 times as massive as an electron. "Psycho babble" that, @Lenni. Now go away before I post the simultaneous differential and algebraic relativistic equations you can't solve again and prove again what a fool you are for posting here.

Hey Schneibo.........you were answering questions that weren't being asked by richk, but good Copy & Paste from WikiPedia anyway, but that's all it was, just a Copy & Paste.

You're trying to psycho-babble nuclear physics.

Nope. Just you misunderstanding the term 'lifetime' in this context. It means its lifetime as a free electron, as explained by DS. Not how long before it decays to nothingness!

Nope, that wasn't what rihk's question was about, go back & reread his question & you'll better understand why schneibo was answering a question that wasn't being asked. Maybe schneibo could better spend his time learning about what a Differential Equation looks like, much less being able to solve one.

Once again the plasma ignoramuses want to omit consideration of the double layer as a possible acceleration mechanism. Too simple for there fanciful faerie tales I guess...

Once again the plasma ignoramuses want to omit consideration of the double layer as a possible acceleration mechanism. Too simple for there fanciful faerie tales I guess...

gravitationally derived "concentric" layers...

@nazi sympathizing pseudoscience eu cult idiot

Once again the plasma ignoramuses

sorry, no electric universe idiots mentioned in that study, so no plasma ignoramasus or idiots

omit consideration of the double layer as a possible acceleration mechanism

lets see
the study mentions as it's evidence:
-31 different references
-observed CR spectrum
-plus a model that "provides a natural explanation of the observed CR flux, spectral indices, and matching of spectra at the knee"

so it's historical data that is based upon experimentation that builds a picture that can be modeled, then explains the observations

so now lets look at the idiot eu evidence from cantdrive which is:
https://www.youtu...2di5phM0

so, the idiot eu can't provide a working model
they make claims based upon their belief
then they state it must be [insert pseudoscience jargon claim] because modern physicists ignore them

and they wonder why they're laughed at?

Interesting article. Never ceases to amaze me just how much we can learn just from Earth (yes, okay we have robotics out there helping us). As a layman it just seems to me that 'nature' has a way of trying to 'balance' things, a kind of symmetry;

Symmetry/balance is EXACTLY what it does.

mass structures in the plane and quantum structures in the perpendicular. Yes, a gross oversimplification, I know.

But hardly inappropriate. Mass interaction produces force reactions.

One wonders if FB are associated with galaxy evolution, that is spherical and elliptical might not have FB's, or perhaps a precursor, while spiral galaxies might have complete symmetrical FB's. Just a thought.

Okay, ya got me... what is an FB?

It's just the reverse, electrons have a greater lifetime because the electron is an elementary particle and therefore there is nothing it can decay to. It's lifetime is infinity.

Wrong Photonic interaction is the decay methodology for electrons.

A proton is believed to be composed of three quarks & therefore has something to decay to meaning that a proton is not an elementary particle.

HUNH?!?!? A Nuclear Tech says this?!?!?

Okay, ya got me... what is an FB?

@Whyde
he is probably referring to Fermi Bubbles

from the abstract and title

Dmitry Chernyshov et al, Fermi bubbles as sources of cosmic rays above 1 PeV

Fermi bubbles are giant gamma-ray structures extended north and south of the Galactic center with characteristic sizes of the order of 10 kpc discovered by the Fermi Large Area Telescope.

https://www.epj-c...4004.pdf

@Captain Stumpy Correct, FB=Fermi Bubbles. Ha, perhaps a bit of my 'innocence' showing there. It wasn't until after the 'edit' option had expired that I realized there were one or two other things 'FB' might refer to.
@ Whydening Gyre The Standard Model does not list the Proton as an Elementary particle. I understand that although Proton decay has not been observed some GUT's suggest that it would decay into a Π + e where Π further decays into γ

Generally it is only neutral pions that decay into gamma rays; charged pions generally decay into muons or antimuons. There are other modes but they are rare.

Proton decay has long been searched for and never detected. It is currently known to be greater than a bit more than 1 x 10³⁴ years. Hyperkamiokande will look for evidence beyond this value, provided it is built; it's currently projected to begin construction in 2018, but has already been delayed once.

Electrons are believed to be stable. I am not aware that anyone has seriously proposed electron decay even theoretically.

Okay, ya got me... what is an FB?

@Whyde
he is probably referring to Fermi Bubbles

from the abstract and title

Dmitry Chernyshov et al, Fermi bubbles as sources of cosmic rays above 1 PeV

Fermi bubbles are giant gamma-ray structures extended north and south of the Galactic center with characteristic sizes of the order of 10 kpc discovered by the Fermi Large Area Telescope.

https://www.epj-c...4004.pdf

As I smack my forehead and say "doh!'...
Thanks, Cap'n and MiMath -
I guess I'll blame the Tequila...:-)

"To put this into perspective, the energy of accelerated particles in the Large Hadron Collider is also ~1015 eV."
Dmitry Chernyshov et al, & the rest of the Russinas need to get up to speed on this topic that has been more fully researched long before they wrote this.
Jasper Kirkby photographed inside the CLOUD chamber.
http://cds.cern.c...77?ln=de

Henrik Svensmark, being a scientist, devised experiments of his own to test his theory and that demonstrates how science works. It is not about a group of self-serving charlatans proclaiming that "the debate is over" when they have no experiment that shows that CO₂ drives the earth's climate or even provide the mathematical derivation of CO₂ forcing.
"Svensmark: Evidence continues to build that the Sun drives climate, not CO2″.
https://www.youtu...embedded

This New York Times site is interesting to show just how much of the earth is cloud covered & maybe, by some miracle, show the alarmist how the Sun's activity & cosmic rays could affect the earth's climate. Because Henrik Svensmark's experiment showed that it is cosmic rays and not CO₂ that drives the earth's climate, he has been called every bad name that the fools on here now can come up with because they never have any real scientific evidence to back up their contentions with, only ignorant name calling.
"One Year of Clouds Covering the Earth
At any moment, about 60 percent of the earth is covered by clouds,(Acording to a NASA web page 70% of the earth is covered by clouds) which have a huge influence on the climate. An animated map showing a year of cloud cover suggests the outlines of continents because land and ocean features influence cloud patterns."
http://www.nytime...uds.html

This whole concept of a greenhouse like effect surrounding the earth like a pane of glass in alarmist "Scientific" drawings is a ludicrous attempt to present a vision in children's heads and I well imagine many adults also believe this nonsense also. The question is, when was the last time anyone could "capture" anything with a gas? That this ubiquitous, odorless, colorless, and benign trace gas essential for life on earth, CO₂, that is one and one-half times heavier than the rest of the atmosphere (maybe there is intelligent design after all because everything that utilizes CO₂ is on the surface of the earth) and be reminded that it constitutes only .037-9% of the total atmosphere of our planet can have basically anything to do with the earth's climate cannot and never will be shown by ANY experiment to do so.

That H₂O is what causes the green house effect should be realized by anyone that has ever noticed that the coldest nights of the winter occur when there is no cloud cover to hold radiating heat in to warm the surface. This is why the deserts can get to 130⁰F during the day and freezing at night, no cloud cover.

@jd/swallows the denier political rhetoric acolyte TROLL liar

.037-9% of the total atmosphere

1- then put your head in a plastic bag

2- i see you're still avoiding the studies that prove you wrong: still not providing a single study to refute the posted evidence that says you're an idiot

thanks for proving you're a lair too

.

.

@hannes/reeve the idiot eu multi-sock pseudoscience TROLL

What cantdrive is referring to are laboratory observations

1- i've already posted the evidence showing Astro's know about double layers - quit proving you're stupid

2- in no way, shape or form has cd, the eu cult or you ever provided any evidence whatsoever to prove any of the miraculous unobserved evidence you claim causes [insert observation here]

just saying "it's lab observation" means absolutely dick
provide the lab evidence that shows [x] proves yoru eu cult theory or STFU already

it's not like plasma physics aint scalable

idiot troll

@hannes/reeve the idiot eu multi-sock pseudoscience TROLL

realize that there comes a very heavy price for waging your nonsensical campaign against the observation of plasma double layers

by all means: show me where i've ever once campaigned against the existence of double layers

in point of fact, i linked evidence, you idiot

my campaign is against your claims that double layers create every f*cking known plasma astrophysics phenomenon observed in about every astrophysics article that cd and you post in

especially since you have never once provided a link to a reputable peer reviewed journal study that provides any evidence showing that [x] observation is linked to [y] claim

no one gives a sh*t about your beliefs - they care about the evidence

stop posting pseudoscience cult dogma and start linking evidence and people will take you more seriously

until then - you're posting religion, not science

@J Doug.

That H₂O is what causes the green house effect should be realized by anyone that has ever noticed that the coldest nights of the winter occur when there is no cloud cover to hold radiating heat in to warm the surface. This is why the deserts can get to 130⁰F during the day and freezing at night, no cloud cover.

What you point out re Water Vapor is correct, mate; I have long pointed overnight clear-sky cold and freezing-desert examples.

HOWEVER, whatever effect from water vapor, an INCREASED CO2 effect makes it worse!

That is why the RUNAWAY GREENHOUSE 'tipping point' is so dangerous!

The FEEDBACK which will ensue between more-CO2 warming AND more-water-vapor in atmosphere due to warming....and so on....will AMPLIFY the effects of BOTH additional CO2 AND additional Water Vapor in the atmosphere!

So, J Doug, isn't it obvious that in order to prevent more water vapor 'load' in atmosphere we should reduce 'additional' CO2 related warming effect? :)

@Da Schneib and @jonesdave.

@Da Schneib.

This has long been a mystery; one can show confinement in the galactic magnetic field by the direction the anomalous CRs come from, but where does the acceleration come from, given the supernova spectrum

It's heartening to see that you/others now agree that the galaxy does have an overall magnetic-field pattern which accelerates/confines AND SORTS charged particles into various streaming features/flows in various directions without necessarily re-combining until they are well into deep space away from such 'sorting' and 'separation/acceleration' mag-fields. This is only relatively recently 'discovered' by astrophysicists, as previous discussions have highlighted in the past. :)

@jonesdave.

..the term 'lifetime' in this context. It means its lifetime as a free electron..

Beware simplistic views/conclusions. For every 'free' electron there is a 'free' proton, yes? So claims of 'free lifetime' are AVERAGE, NOT SPECIFIC. :)

PS @jonesdave: To clarify more specifically and so forestall 'pedantic' trolling from anyone so inclined...

The fuller passage should have read: "For every 'free' electron there is a 'free' proton OR 'ionized' nucleus of an atom heavier than hydrogen."

Cheers. :)

What you point out re Water Vapor is correct, mate; I have long pointed overnight clear-sky cold and freezing-desert examples.

RealityCheck; Please note the following current info from Summit Camp, Greenland.

Summit Camp, Greenland
7:15 PM -02 on August 20, 2017 (GMT -0200)
Temperature= 3 °F Feels Like 3 °F
Pressure 29.98 in
Visibility 5 miles
Clouds
Dew Point 2 °F
Humidity 95%
Rainfall 0.00 in
Snow Depth Not available.
Elev ft 72.58 °N, 38.45 °W | Updated 3 hr ago
https://www.wunde...45000076
This report is somewhat amazing because I know from having spent many years in the arctic that the humidity is generally very low.

RealityCheck; Please explain to me the connection between CO₂ & H₂O in such a cold climate as what the summit of Greenland presents.

In 1942, eight U.S. WWII aircraft (2 bombers, 6 fighter planes) emergency-landed on the Southwestern coast of Greenland after encountering severe weather. The crews were rescued and the planes ultimately had to be abandoned at the landing site. So there the planes sat on the Greenland ice sheet, undetected, for more than 4 decades. When the planes were finally found in 1988, 46 years after crash-landing on the Greenland ice sheet, they were buried under 260 feet (79 meters) of ice. In other words, between 1942 and 1988, the Greenland ice sheet gained mass at a rate of 57 feet (17 meters) per decade at that location.

gravitationally derived "concentric" layers...

WG, take a look at CR's link. There is an image of a charge-loaded iron sphere shown through an "evolution" of the sphere developing a series of layers. Gravity has little to no effect on the process, it is electrodynamic. Those electromagnetic forces at work are nearly 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational effects.

In 1992, the planes were impressively pulled out of the ice part-by -part. In that 4-year span between 1988 (discovery) and 1992 (recovery), the Greenland ice sheet had advanced with another 8 feet of ice, as the planes were 268 feet beneath the ice sheet surface when they were rescued.http://notrickszo...ose-600/

This valid information regarding what the Greenland ice sheet & Antarctic Peninsula ice are doing is not what the alarmist wants us to hear.
Greenland ice sheet mass balance reconstruction. Part I: net snow accumulation (1600-2009)
Journal of Climate 2012 ''We find a 12% or 86 Gt y-1 increase in ice sheet accumulation rate from the end of the Little Ice Age in ~1840 to the last decade of the reconstruction. This 1840-1996 trend is 30% higher than that of 1600-2009, suggesting an accelerating accumulation rate. The correlation of Ât(G) with the average surface air temperature in the Northern.''
http://journals.a...-00373.1
''Increased ice loading in the Antarctic Peninsula since the 1850s and its effect on Glacial Isostatic Adjustment Accumulation increase results in up to 45 m extra ice thickness over 155 years
http://onlinelibr...2559/pdf

Weather in South Pole, Antarctica Now -73 °F
Snow flurries. Passing clouds.
Feels Like: -110 °F
Forecast: -66 / -60 °F
Wind: 13 mph ↑ from Southeast
Location: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station
Current Time: Aug 21, 2017 at 10:14:20 am
Latest Report: Aug 21, 2017 at 6:00 am
Visibility: 6 mi
Pressure: N/A
Humidity: 55%
Dew Point:-69 °F
https://www.timea...uth-pole

Remember in 2013 when the Chopper rescue for Russian ship MV Akademik Shokalskiy as Aurora Australis is forced to abandon rescue bid.
A Chinese helicopter flew over a Russian ship, trapped in Antarctic sea-ice since Christmas Day, as icebreakers make their way to help the stranded vessel.
http://www.news.c...91671102

My knowledge of the details being limited at this point, it seems to me that the authors are saying that --specifically- the (relativistic)protons/nuclei can be said to fill the ENTIRE volume of the galaxy.

If my understanding is correct to this point, then do I also understand correctly that they are saying that ANY SN can re-accelerate any of these protons/nuclei that encounter the SN's shockwave?

And, if that is the case, it would seem then, that as far as experiment goes, we only need look for a stream of these hyper-accelerated protons coming from a confirmed SN

@stumpy consensus stooge pos rarely contributing anything of worth asshole.
https://physics.a...cs.6.131

@stumpy consensus stooge pos rarely contributing anything of worth asshole.
https://physics.a...cs.6.131

Your study only suggests the possibility for double layers to cause such re-acceleration outside of the solar system.

While it doesn't seem like too much of a stretch, it also isn't confirmed, especially as the energy levels confirmed in the study are much lower than those discussed in this PO article, and entirely fail to consider heavier particles than electrons.

It's important not to assume what hasn't been proven, and also, not to compare apples to oranges when promoting a pet theory, especially one as controversial as the EU people support.

The acceleration of heavier particles can be explain simply by increasing the strength of the electric field. The electric fields responsible for the electron acceleration in the linked paper are relatively weak. Given there are gamma and X-rays associated with the Fermi bubbles it should be a well founded asumption there are much stronger electric fields associated with them. First principles of plasma physics should be employed rather than the highly speculative guesses put forth by the plasma ignoramuses.

Weather in South Pole, Antarctica Now -73 °F
Snow flurries. Passing clouds.
Feels Like: -110 °F
Forecast: -66 / -60 °F
Wind: 13 mph ↑ from Southeast
Location: Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station
Current Time: Aug 21, 2017 at 10:14:20 am
Latest Report: Aug 21, 2017 at 6:00 am
Visibility: 6 mi
Pressure: N/A
Humidity: 55%
Dew Point:-69 °F
https://www.timea...uth-pole

Ummm.. It's winter down there...?
And.... Aren't you a little off topic for this article?

It's important not to assume what hasn't been proven, and also, not to compare apples to oranges when promoting a pet theory.

Yet, we "know" the Sun is powered from within. And we "know" we can treat astrophysical plasma as an ideal gas with MHD with the fields frozen-in contrary to all empirical evidence. And we compare galactic and extra-galactic gravitational dynamics (apples) to solar system dynamics (oranges). And we "know" dark matter exists. But to suggest that the astrophysical plasma should behave similarly to laboratory plasmas is "controversial". The logic evades me.

What you point out re Water Vapor is correct, mate; I have long pointed overnight clear-sky cold and freezing-desert examples.

RealityCheck; Please note the following current info from Summit Camp, Greenland.

Summit Camp, Greenland
7:15 PM -02 on August 20, 2017 (GMT -0200)
Temperature= 3 °F Feels Like 3 °F
Pressure 29.98 in
Visibility 5 miles
Clouds
Dew Point 2 °F
Humidity 95%
Rainfall 0.00 in
Snow Depth Not available.
Elev ft 72.58 °N, 38.45 °W | Updated 3 hr ago
https://www.wunde...45000076
This report is somewhat amazing because I know from having spent many years in the arctic that the humidity is generally very low.

Errr.... it's summer in the North Hemisphere...?

It's important not to assume what hasn't been proven, and also, not to compare apples to oranges when promoting a pet theory.

Yet, we "know" the Sun is powered from within. And we "know" we can treat astrophysical plasma as an ideal gas with MHD with the fields frozen-in contrary to all empirical evidence. And we compare galactic and extra-galactic gravitational dynamics (apples) to solar system dynamics (oranges). And we "know" dark matter exists. But to suggest that the astrophysical plasma should behave similarly to laboratory plasmas is "controversial". The logic evades me.

Controversial - may be a little over the top.
Plain "silly" works.
let me try and explain simply -
Completely different gravitational dynamic.

gravitationally derived "concentric" layers...

WG, take a look at CR's link. There is an image of a charge-loaded iron sphere shown through an "evolution" of the sphere developing a series of layers. Gravity has little to no effect on the process, it is electrodynamic. Those electromagnetic forces at work are nearly 40 orders of magnitude stronger than gravitational effects.

They HAVE to be in order to counter the STRONG local gravitational (as well as her magnetic) field of Earth.

My knowledge of the details being limited at this point, it seems to me that the authors are saying that --specifically- the (relativistic)protons/nuclei can be said to fill the ENTIRE volume of the galaxy.

If my understanding is correct to this point, then do I also understand correctly that they are saying that ANY SN can re-accelerate any of these protons/nuclei that encounter the SN's shockwave?

And, if that is the case, it would seem then, that as far as experiment goes, we only need look for a stream of these hyper-accelerated protons coming from a confirmed SN

No, you misunderstand. From paper:
" Thus our model can be described in the following way: SNRs in the disk accelerate particles with power-law distribution up to energies of 3×10^15 eV and Fermi bubbles further reaccelerate these particles up to 10^18 eV"