What is Cerenkov Radiation?

...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.Albert Einstein

Many do not recognize the process that unfolds in the developing perspectives about theoretics? Does one think it is divorced from reality that you could say, "hey this idea of course has no attachment to what exists and what we know exists and asks that you move forward with it."

Often you hear the "dreaded reference" to the AEther, and who can help but see where such revisions in thinking changed the society of scientists to put them on a new course?

Do you think the title was changed from the aether to the valuation of strings and the boson production evident in the bulk just to replay itself in the developing scenarios of our historical past? The past included a revision to the way we view that concept? That is it's effect in today's world. "The correction?"

As we know from Einstein’s theory of special relativity, nothing can travel faster than c, the velocity of light in a vacuum. The speed of the light that we see generally travels with a slower velocity c/n where n is the refractive index of the medium through which we view the light (in air at sea level, n is approximately 1.00029 whereas in water n is 1.33). Highly energetic, charged particles (which are only constrained to travel slower than c) tend to radiate photons when they pass through a medium and, consequently, can suddenly find themselves in the embarrassing position of actually travelling faster than the light they produce!

The result of this can be illustrated by considering a moving particle which emits pulses of light that expand like ripples on a pond, as shown in the Figure (right). By the time the particle is at the position indicated by the purple spot, the spherical shell of light emitted when the particle was in the blue position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open blue circle. Likewise, the light emitted when the particle was in the green position will have expanded to the radius indicated by the open green circle, and so on. Notice that these ripples overlap with each other to form an enhanced cone of light indicated by the dotted lines. This is analogous to the idea that leads to a sonic boom when planes such as Concorde travel faster than the speed of sound in air

But we have to go back in history here to see where such influences have taken hold of the mind, from what was instituted in the neutrino search, to have the ideas swirl around and form new prospect researches, based on the ideas of women/men?



The story will follow here shortly. I would like to thank Paul on his early recognition of the bubble chamber events as they encourage research in 1998 to ponder the experiments in Cern to say?

Add your story so that this can be completed. I will add mine for a wonderful view of what research and developement does in regards to the way of "modelling to experiment."

Well since starting this blog entry there has only been two other examples that may be added to this entry as of today, yet, one by Commentor NC at Cosmic Variance while the other materialized over at Backreaction on the post done by Bee and Stefan.

A Look Back

Have a look at this image below first.



Variation of Cosmic ray flux and Global cloud coverage-a missing link in Solar-climate relationshipsby Henri Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, 26 NOvember 1996

So this is wonderful that in one way, where my mind rebukes the lashing out of Peter Woit by evidence of ICECUBe and my ir/relevant comments, could have found sustenance in how things are to be explained further? More physics ...wonderful.

But I want to go back historically to view, so that one sees what was a picture "written by Paul" and his trip to Canada, held an observation that sends us back in time experimentally to look at, to find out, what Cern was doing in 1998. Thanks Paul

You ready?

CERN plans global-warming experiment(1998)

A controversial theory proposing that cosmic rays are responsible for global warming is to be put to the test at CERN, the European laboratory for particle physics. Put forward two years ago by two Danish scientists, Henrik Svensmark and Eigil Friis-Christensen, the theory suggests that it is changes in the Sun's magnetic field, and not the emission of greenhouse gases, that has led to recent rises in global temperatures.

Experimentalists at CERN will use a cloud chamber to mimic the Earth's atmosphere in order to try and determine whether cloud formation is influenced by solar activity. According to the Danish theory, charged particles from the Sun deflect galactic cosmic rays (streams of high-energy particles from outer space) that would otherwise have ionized the Earth's lower atmosphere and formed clouds.

So what is this science based on?

The production of a high-intensity neutrino beam at CERN requires a complex facility. A proton beam produced and accelerated by the CERN accelerators is directed onto a graphite target to give birth to other particles called pions and kaons. These particles are then fed into a system comprising two magnetic horns which focus them into a parallel beam that is directed towards Gran Sasso. Next, in a 1000 metre-long tunnel, the pions and kaons decay into muons and muon neutrinos. At the end of this decay tunnel, an 18 metre thick block of graphite and metal absorbs the protons, pions and kaons that did not decay. The muons are stopped by the rock. Impervious to all such obstacles, the muon neutrinos will leave the CERN tunnels and streak through the rock on their 732 kilometre journey to Italy.

Now what does this have to do with Cerenkov radiation? Okay. I'm scratching my head now.

“CERN has a tradition of neutrino physics stretching back to the early 1960s,” said Dr Aymar, “this new project builds on that tradition, and is set to open a new and exciting phase in our understanding of these elusive particles.”

From the 1960's. Wow!

Imagine that someone might say to you that this is a "Rube Goldberg Machine" analogy as to what was the road leading to the understanding and the inclusiveness of microstate blackhole creation from particle collisions, as part of the continued story of the neutrino in action?

See:

So What Did I mean By Olympics?

Pulsars and Cerenkov Radiation

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCube

At What "Point" does the Universe Make itself Known?

According to the basic laws of physics, every wavelength of electromagnetic radiation corresponds to a specific amount of energy. The NIST/ILL team determined the value for energy in the Einstein equation, E = mc2, by carefully measuring the wavelength of gamma rays emitted by silicon and sulfur atoms.

This, was encapsulated in a "point before time and space(?), that explodes again into your mind, as if some universe coming into being? How could that "be?"

Like a bubble perhaps, or like a universe that has reached it furthest reaches, collapses again, and where does the universe lead us, but back to "this point"?? Some event that has unleashed it's potential and spoke about the geometrics of, and we found that it lead back to "the time" where the universe again began?

When primary cosmic rays collide, what allowed the secondary particles to emerge? What is cerenkov light emitted? ICECUBE.



They can trace back the gamma rays to the original source? The gamma rays are not affected by the magnetic field? This allows them to trace back the history of the particles back to the original source? How do "they know" where it came from?

There was a time when the realization existed that particle creation had no relation to what the universe did in it's first three minutes of Weinberg? Now, it has become Microseconds? Are you convinced now?

Let's assume that you are, so what allowed us to go back to what any moment could be produced given the right set of circumstances? That what is out there is is also inside?

We had to be able to go back to the beginning of the universe did we not?

So what use models serve if they can not be applied at many levels and now we see the trail of young theorists move to other realms, sociologically driven, where their abilities are better used on wall street or the likes, because it just didn't make sense anymore to try and delve into it.

Everyone knows that human societies organize themselves. But it is also true that nature organizes itself, and that the principles by which it does this is what modern science, and especially modern physics, is all about. The purpose of my talk today is to explain this idea.

Or to see the science used in a destruction of a kind, that it's reverberation magnified tens of times, could be used from one plane load? Laughlins "exemplified page" is forever haunting in what these magnifications can become from a condensed matter theorist point of view?

So how do ideas enter the mind? You create the Blank slate and endeavour to write the formula for aspects of creation? What "energy values" are these?

Many physical quantities span vast ranges of magnitude. Figures 0.1 and 0.2 use images to indicate the range of lengths and times that are of importance in physics.

But it's more then that, to think that the energy chaotic, is in it's extremes, would have no "organizational skills" to begin to manifest itself in it's very guises, that one might ask, "what use any energy put too?"

So this becomes the pattern? A Pattern of destruction?

No, not always. It can become a pattern for peace.:) A balance found(?) of the exchange, that "things" could be in a state of "becoming?" Allows yo to move inthe world in a different way. You can grow, as you extend the antenna out there, and allow what is out there to come inside?

Pulsars and Cerenkov Radiation

Of course, I could be mistaken making such assumptions.

Scientists May Soon Have Evidence for Exotic Predictions of String Theoryissued by Northeaster University

"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."

So what is it we can learn about high energy photons. Kip Thorne was instrumental here in helping draw us a sequence of events in our cosmos and on the cosmic particle considerations? I couldn't help identify with this process.



Of course in order to capture the effects of high energy photons we need a vast array of area in terms of detector status, that we might indeed capture them. So ICECUBE is a interesting perspective here?



Now why would I combine these two things, and it is of course through a previous conversation that the ideas of high energy particles using our atmosphere for secondary particle realizations, could have capture the human eye so that one had to turn from the brightness? Look to the image below o pulsar sources for cosnideration.




Now of course it is just being put here for a minute, while I try and get my thoughts together on this.

But in the mean time, for those who understand what I am refering too, you might leave your comment and share what you think about this similarity? What may have been happening with "the light" as the snow boarders were doing their olympics?

We see a pulsar, then, when one of its beams of radiation crosses our line-of-sight. In this way, a pulsar is like a lighthouse. The light from a lighthouse appears to be "pulsing" because it only crosses our line-of-sight once each time it spins. Similarly, a pulsar "pulses" because we see bright flashes every time the star spins.

Linked qote and picture to tutorial site has been taken down, and belongs to Barb of http://www.airynothing.com

Why Higher Energies?

I guess I don't have to tell anyone how confusing all this stuff is and the need for a consistent picture to arise out of it.

New physics beyond the standard model of particle physics and parallel universes by Rainer Plaga

top-quark masses - for which the standard model predicts such a decay - cannot be interpreted as evidence for new physics at low energy scales.

The history of Risk Assessment, was a exercise into understanding the developing role as to what new physics should be? Strangelets and strange quarks arose from this?

The search for the very small requires very high energies. The discoveries necessary for the electroweak unification were near the upper end of available energies in the current generation of particle accelerators. Establishing Grand Unification is beyond the practical limits of earthbound laboratories. This forces particle physicists to look outward to astrophysical phenomena which may have enough energy to shed some light on further attempts at unifying the four fundamental forces.

This map defines the whole standard model and the phase transitions. We are talking about a "certain time" in the planck epoch. So what is happening "in" the Planck epoch?

If such energies had recognized the current state of the superfluid created, then anomalies in "this scenario" would have allowed such "geometrical presence to be channelled" as part of the cyclical features contained in the expression of the universe?

So you take this universe and apply the backhole on a cosmlogical scale eqaul to it's inflation, as a distance in the blackhole's radius? Such a crunch would have recognized the boundary conditions as a the furthest point this universe could have grown, from the original blackhole that created this universe?

So what evidence is left? That the universe and it's "dark matter" as the false vacuum is creating the scenarios for the universe to have found it's temeperature today, started from some "other condition" seen in the planck epoch? Okay how did you get there?

The bubble conditions would then have to existed in the superfluids? How would have geoemtrically arrived at such a "topology expressed" in this one universe?

Professor Satyendra Nath Bose, the founder of Bose-Einstein statistics and the discoverer of the “Boson,” is well known as a giant in the world of physics and science as the man who, along with Albert Einstein, revolutionized the world of theoretical physics and showed the world a new way to imagine how the world works.

The topological genus figure of the sphere, to a torus and it's rotation seen in characteristic, housed the equallibrium state arrived at, as to the channelling of that extra energy and the resulting "new physics" in the strange quarks created?

So what is "that cylinder" created as the jet is expressed, in the gravitational collapse

See: John Bahcall and the Neutrinos

Thus, this cycle is completed in the bulk perspective? Would have created the situation again in strong concentrations? Why cosmologically the conditons are "many" and such evidence pointing to ICECUBE, as to the conditons beyond the standard model, leads to questions about "cerenkov radiation?"

Is there no backreaction created, if we were to lets say look at the Laval nozzles, and understand that what is expressed in the standard model energy once ejected in the jet, would have had counter proposals manifest in the geomerical presence held to a whole universe. The Anti-matter? Non Qui

A New Search Paradigm?

The collapsing star scenario that is one of the leading contenders as the cause of gamma-ray bursts. Dr. Stan Woosley of the University of California at Santa Cruz proposed the collapsar theory in 1993. This artist's concept of the collapsar model shows the center of a dying star collapsing minutes before the star implodes and emits a gamma-ray burst that is seen across the universe. Credit: NASA/Dana Berry

If one knew the process of such developements, it is equally important that such information would have been "beamed in a way" that some of us might have wondered, why such a sparkle had caught the eye? ON a snowy day at the olympics perhaps? Hey Paul?

Nima and Lubos speak of one Olympics while we had referred to it in another way. Are you not interested to see what years gone by, might have raised, from all those perspectives on the Bose Nova?



Advancement of internet capabilities are very important, that if one linked the picture to a source, the truth of "the source" becomes known. Much as trackbacks, of certain papers are held relevant. While the blogs linked, non creditialed or not because someone said, you are not a "active researcher", hey Peter?. You know why Christine's site is important in regards to "this topic" linked with the paper present?

That you are not included, does not reduce the importance that the paper plays in itself. Linked or not linked, how relevant I might be, had a perspective, or you had a perspective long before the ideas of the new Paradigm existed. It was in the ideas of measure that the universe culd have ever been held in the eye of microscopic processes. That we have realized that the same "collidial events" would enlist particle shower information in beta decay, from that geometrical collapse?

This view had to be part and parcel of the understanding of the way in which gravitational collapse would have released it's information? What geometry revealled by the nature of the collapse before the dyng star "boundry" closed to a very small point of consideration, held in regards to the superfluid created?

Ah, that's new isn't it?

A New Search Paradigm for Correlated Neutrino Emission from Discrete GRBs using Antarctic Cherenkov Telescopes in the Swift EraMichael Stamatikos for the IceCube Collaboration and David L. Band

Abstract. We describe the theoretical modeling and analysis techniques associated with a preliminary search for correlated neutrino emission from GRB980703a, which triggered the Burst and Transient Source Experiment (BATSE GRB trigger 6891), using archived data from the Antarctic Muon and Neutrino Detector Array (AMANDA-B10). Under the assumption of associated hadronic acceleration, the expected observed neutrino energy flux is directly derived, based upon confronting the fireball phenomenology with the discrete set of observed electromagnetic parameters of GRB980703a, gleaned from ground-based and satellite observations, for four models, corrected for oscillations. Models 1 and 2, based upon spectral analysis featuring a prompt photon energy fit to the Band function, utilize an observed spectroscopic redshift, for isotropic and anisotropic emission geometry, respectively. Model 3 is based upon averaged burst parameters, assuming isotropic emission. Model 4, based upon a Band fit, features an estimated redshift from the lag-luminosity relation with isotropic emission. Consistent with our AMANDA-II analysis of GRB030329, which resulted in a flux upper limit of ∼0.150GeV/cm2/s for model 1, we find differences in excess of an order of magnitude in the response of AMANDA-B10, among the variousmodels for GRB980703a. Implications for future searches in the era of Swift and IceCube are discussed

Very interesting picture below, and site linked on Picture.

It reminded me of Andrey Kravstov's computer images, and other information seen from early universe. Without some comprehension on the subject displayed in our universe from a earlier time, what purpose the view held of "a time" when everything was supersymmetrical? That what is held in the distance of microperspecive images of those created in the microstate blackhole creations, would not have enjoined cosmological happenings, by some analog nature, with that microperspective understanding?



Oh, I cry with you Peter, to be considered "Spambot," an IP, as some "register to comment statistic" only to have been thought less of, by some measure of what you might have been thought of? Don't let Jacque control who you are, by such structuralism, that you might not have "some creative realization" in all the work you have done, and knowledge gained.

Thus in that statement it is realized, that the developement of the internet will not stop good people from, venturing and learning what might raise them to better insight. That the progression, although wrong sometimes, might of bore fruit in knowledge gained along the way.

THis will not stop no matter how much structuralism by control of the internet would have been some idealized version of Jacque's view of the internet universe. He competes with the Stallman's view of growth and productivity, as we become students of the nature, of all that is being explained on this internet.

See:

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCUBE

History of the SuperFluids:New Physics

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Poincare Conjecture

Holographical Mapping onto the Blackhole Horizon

Blackhole Production and Sonoluminence

Have we seen (strange) quark matter?

Well the very idea that such a thing could exist, has been part of the evolving information I had been going through. To be lead to the understanding, of what new Physics would emerge fromm cosmological and collidial events. That there are indeed showers of particles with which such events will let us know cannot be ignored.

First Principle needed to recognize "the very state" that things would arise from. For Robert Laughlin, a condense matter theorist, it didn't mater what you called these building blocks, but any discrete measure had to be recognized it's energy value and tragectories would it not? Hence, the particle shower from a known state of existance, where "first principle" would emerged.

So, any attempt to ignore the possibility of what emerges, and the foundational perspective, put forth in theory, has to help the understandng of what happens when such events do happen, either, micro perspectively or cosmologically.

Any attempts to say that the standard model is not inclusive in this design, would be detrimental to the very statement any mathematican would say against, that simply erasing any connection, would have been futile to their creditbility?

Strange Quark Matter TheoryTamas S. Biro

Ladies and gentlemen, this is going to be the theoretical summary talk of the Strange Quark Matter 2003 conference. When I was alerted by the e-mail we all got, “prepare your transparencies”, I took this home-work exercise seriously. I have prepared quite a few pages before this conference. What can one know in advance, before listening to the talks?.

First of all there is a general outline which a summary talk should follow. On the level of the basic theory one is supposed to conclude about the present status of the underlying theoretical concepts, one ought to emphasize important news, the novel aspects we are encountering, and finally it is useful to formulate in a possibly definite way, what our perspectives for further development are.

So given the research that I had been going through, what is this strangelet subject that was developed, and I will post links that support the development of the fear with which such a thing arose. Was answered, by cosmological and collidial production of microstate blackhole events. Might the story and television series of blackholes been interrupted by such a dialogue, or had I furthered the plot for public consumption? To continue the fear?

Would your scientist/mathematican friend tell you about such things and ways in which to expect information from experimental designs, as not leading into the desire of the essence of new physics?

What began this assumption, was the idea that microstate blackholes were something of a danger, if we were to created them. That was the nightmare. The reality is, that this theoretically written state, is quite useful in terms of what can emerge from the idea of new physics, and had to include the standard model.

To get to new physics you had to have the standard model as a basis, and to move from that point, any resulting shower and new information, like in ICECUBE, along with the historiy and research of neutrinos, points to what? Strangelets to what?

Peter Woit dissassociated himself from that possibility, and if strings was to underly this view, what says, such advancements had not adhered to the demands of theoretcial proposition, that it now sees itself, as part and parcel of the planning for what else will emerge? Sees itself immersed in tachyon demonstration as a sign of cerenkov radiation as that blue light?

So indeed I struggle with how such theorectical position might have told me what is going on, and this issue, is not to be ignored as long as it is remianing consistant with the developement from standard model presumptions.

Paul first, and then I had been wondering about this issue right back in the beginning as it came to our attention. Steinberg and clarifications on what the microstate balckhole is was important, as it demonstrates the basis of work being done taking the energies and collidial events, to a new level of reductionistic perception. The microstate blackhole is the basis as far as I can tell.

Now given the state of Quark Gluon Plasma, what happens when you see such things hhappeniing that you have to aassume a new theoretcial position like M theory that such D Brane assumptions talk abut the viscosity nature? What are the poperties that have emerged from the idea of the blackhole, as this new state of matter tells us something about superfluids and such?

Does Peter understand these new developments? Does his own theoretical position from model assumption he also used, have correlates to current day information and research? It had been my hope, that his position would have created the dialogue necessary. I have enjoyed the mathematical adventures he has shown has developed further my perspective as shown, in the very last link below.

In order to have the perspective and vision of the abstract world of the mathematics shown, you needed to know some things. They had to be couched in the history of all that we have learnt, and any modification in mathematical language, alters that perspective, if it relates to the very work you are doing on extending the standard model?

See:

Quark Gluon Plasma II

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

Strangelets in Cosmic Consideration

Cosmic Rays Collsions ad Strangelets Produced

Quark Stars

Accretion Disks

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and ICECUBE

All Particle of te Standard Model and Beyond

All Particles of the Standard Model and Beyond

Polchinski Elected Member Of National Academy of Sciences

Polchinski's discovery of D-branes and their properties is, according to the Academy citation, "one of the most important insights in 30 years of work on string theory."

Can I tell a little story before I head into the essence of this posted thread below?

From one mechanic to another

I am not a mechanic by trade. Yet I had taken apart, and put back together motors which ran and ran well. Through a transition period, and without a place in which to do this work myself, I decided to give it to "a mechanic" to work on. Pay the price, which was well beyond my means at that time. With three children a wife, and barely making it, I asked for help financially. It was cold, and snow blowing.

After picking up my motor and installing it. Making sure everything was right, I went for a slow drive to seat my rings in newly honed out cylinders. Well, much to my dismay and lots of dollars, blue smoke clouded the world behind me.

Taking it back home, I called the mechanic, and told him what was happening. "It was something you must of done," he siad.

So, I called another mechanic. He compression tested the cylinders for me, and to my dismay and his, one of the cylinders was not up to par.

So what things did I learn?

That I could have "one mechanic go against another," for the shoddy work that was done? No, it doesn't work that way.

After tearing off the head, I had found they had broken the oil and compression rings, as they pushed the compressed rings and piston, back into the cylinder. They had cracked them while doing this. The cracked ring gouged the cylinder wall, as it went up and down on the crankshaft.

Were there things I might have done different now? Maybe pressure tested the cylinders before hand?

Anyway, on to the subject of this post.

After doing my research and investigations into how the standard model itself might have been displayed, I selected two events, that were very discriptive of what might have happened, when taken as a whole story of the science in progress.



These were censored by Peter Woit on his site and removed. These lead to questions that might have implicated "string theory" as part of the process of inquiry beyond the standard? See Icecube.

If one holds to the idea that they had assumed a counter position to currents trends, then would it not include the theoretical approach well understood, that it also attached, not just a geometrical association, but one described in the physics process as well?

As a layman, this was proving itself, as I looked at the diversity of the geometrical models choosen to represent that abstract world. See B Field and Hitchins. Genus Figures, and topology, on this site.

More and more, it had weighted heavily on my mind, that the consistancy through which selected comments were shown, were to hold validation processes as to anti-string theory. As tones of select comments, as very disconcerting to me, but through his awareness Peter did strived to referee.

The overall message, was not one with the care which Cosmic Variance had ascertained it's caution of String evangelistism, or Lubos Motl's declaration as well, that the underlying motivation, was more to provide a "general widesweping statement" that applied to the string model development as a whole.

IMpressional Minds
If as a student, having now moved toward my senior years, how could I have turned back the clock of time, that I might have stood beside any of these leaders of science?

That I had to accustom myself to the very level on which my opinion would not have mattered coming from layman status. So being on the bottom of the totem pole, I accept the resolve to which such treatment was dealt. It was a small price to pay.

So imagine then, what the overall message by Peter has done to those prospective entries into the world of, might now have said, why should we now enter, being the brunt of what good science men hate, would have us believe?

The Reductionistic Process
Is it incorrect to say that the events of the collision process are incapable of decribing all fawcetts of the standard model?



So by concentrating on the collision process itself, what factors would have said that no, the standard model does not fit the current processes in LHC? Does not fit the process in high energy collision process to earths atmospheric conditions, for evdience of? See Pierre Auger expeirments here. See John Bachall and the Ghost particle.



So by closely looking at the poor man's version, what process would lead one to believe that the standard model was inclusive in this interactive process as well?

Here's the post in full. It was in response to Jack Safartti's comments and the document in which he had wrote was in contradiction of what I had learnt of the "possible new physics?" THis is of course held within context of collider results and the micro perspective results, created the form of quark Gluon Plasma. A superfluid?

So both events involved, "microstate blackhole" recognitions.

Post removed from Peter Woits comment section

In regards to facing nightmares

In recent years the main focus of fear has been the giant machines used by particle physicists. Could the violent collisions inside such a machine create something nasty? "Every time a new machine has been built at CERN," says physicist Alvaro de Rujula, "the question has been posed and faced."

The link was added here now.

If one follows the logic development, Jack's position becomes a interesting one to question. As well, such thoughts about cosmic collisions, and the high energy particles cosmological events. Microstate blackhole processes are the poor man's experimental pallete. Just as valid the dissipative state created in the collider.

The resulting end product is what is being explore with ICECUBE. It is all consistent with the standard model. Right from, the start of the collision process, to the resulting shower created.

Jack has some explaining to do?

Update

(To help anonymous understand better I hope the student does not feel s/he has to learn string theory in order to be valid in existance. Also, the interactive shower from the collison process with high energy article is well understood and what comes from it.

He deletes yours too.! Oh look, what we have in common?:) What drivel have you drummmed up?)

Anyway. As I was saying.

This is not to slight Peter Woit in the slighest, but to move him to consider the enormity with which the process of string/M theory is involved in the standard model expression. As fundamental particles and the interactions thereof.

To reject the model on the basis of preference, is of course for any who choose to follow which road. But to say that such a process should not be followed would have been a erroneous statement, as well as influencing the general population by such ascertions of preference aghast and in reaction.

Of course I recognized it is his blog and his comment section. On the basis of his dislike for anyone, can do anything they like, within reason right?

See:

History of the Universe and the Standard model

History of the Universe and the Standard Model

Who would of thought the history of the universe could have ever been contained in this one moment? While it had been translated to 13.7 billions years, what is the value of recognizing this vast history, to what is contained in that one specific moment held in context of the collisions, we have in the colliders? What takes place between high energy particles, and what this process helps us to understand, as we see neutrino effects, talked about in ICECUBE.



So while we ponder this momenet in time, some things became apparnet as one reads words retro spect, that help to clarify what had been going on in my mind, while never really undertanding that what had been transpiring in my thinking, had been more or less, described from another perspectve as well.

I talked about "correlation of cognition," becuase it is important that we understnd intuitive development. That we build confidence in ourselves, as we move through the informtaion and see that what we had been learning, had taken us to another level of comprehension, as if, having digested the model in question, whatever that may be.

Fig. 1. In quantum chromodynamics, a confining flux tube forms between distant static charges. This leads to quark confinement - the potential energy between (in this case) a quark and an antiquark increases linearly with the distance between them.

The Four Fundamental Forces

Electromagnetism causes like-charged objects to repel each other and oppositely charged objects to attract each other. The electromagnetic force binds negative electrons to the positive nuclei in atoms and underlies the interactions between atoms. Its force carrier particle is a photon.

The strong force binds quarks together. While the electromagnetic force works to repel the positively charged protons in the nucleus of an atom, the strong force is stronger and overrides these effects. The particle that carries the strong force is called a gluon, so-named because it so tightly "glues" quarks together into larger particles like protons and neutrons. The strong force is also responsible for binding protons and neutrons together in the nucleus.

Gravity is the phenomenon by which massive bodies, such as planets and stars, are attracted to one another. The warps and curves in the fabric of space and time are a result of how these massive objects influence one another through gravity. Any object with mass exerts a gravitational pull on any other object with mass. You don't fly off Earth's surface because Earth has a gravitational pull on you. Gravity is thought to be carried by the graviton, though so far no one has found evidence for its existence.

The weak force is responsible for different types of particle decays, including a process called beta decay. This can occur when an atom's nucleus contains too many protons or too many neutrons -- a neutron that turns into a proton undergoes beta minus decay; a proton that changes into a neutron experiences beta plus decay. This weak force is mediated by the electri- cally charged W- and W+ force carrier particles and the neutral Z0 force carrier particle.

Reductionistic Views

Part of this discription is important from the understanding, that how we see, and talk about things that we do in let's say Q<-->Q measure and distance, have some relation to what we are talking about and discribing in collision states. So this entry here helps to this degree, to maintain some cohesion and understanding, while differences in model and experimental conceptions are explored.


Cosmic Rays

Conservatively the idealization, is the progression from the understanding of Unifying forces, and progression to conceptual understanding found and revealled in the world of natural processes. Who would have ever thought that platonic forms could have been capture in the mind of a Gellman, while a Feynman help to introduce us to the interactions?

Fig. 1. The four forces (or interactions) of Nature, their force carrying particles and the phenomena or particles affected by them. The three interactions that govern the microcosmos are all much stronger than gravity and have been unified through the Standard Model

.

This is what I like to do. Summations while they be ill time to a better comprehension demanded, I found this a wonderfiul idealization in moving intuitively perception to a clearer understanding, as I looked at ICECUBE. All that I am encountering through exploration of principles embued in experimental observations, according to what "new" physics might be revealled.

While the experimental situation has been set up( who determine what experiments would be challenged?) All the worker bees ready to do their parts. How well had they understood this process, to potentially reveal a better insight into what will come next?

There had to be evidence of your theoretical positions in nature.

Would you be so hesitant to just sit and wait, while the opportunity exists for you to unite these experimental procedures? Into a pciture of a complete scenario, as you understood it in nature. How energy of the particle collisons within our environ and the resulting particle dissipation, revealled as the neutrino base experiment given to signs as what?

So what is this unifying concept, that we could see the strong force, to the weak being explained, while we had paid attention and witness to many things going on with earth, as an observatory, in it's completeness?

At this moment then the division and valuation of experimental cross sectioning of fundamental forces( experiments respectively), would have been placement of "all aspects of the unifying forces" as it's measure. That we could have correlated across the map, all aspects united in some unique translation, as LIGO, or Pierre Auger, or Collider experiments, along with Ice CUbe, paints a extremely interesting picture for us.

What "new math" will be borne in the minds with "new concepts and models" to bring analogy into context as natures way?

See:

Mathematical Enlightenment

Dual Nature From Microstate Blackhole Creation?

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)

Plato:

So, only from a high energy consideration "viscosity" (D brane examples), can hold microstate perspective, on blackholes superfluid state? To "provide evidence for" distortions in neutrino creations?

Credit: NSF
“

The neutrinos accelerated in the cosmos to energies unattainable on Earth can detect the ‘footprint’ of new physics,” said Goldberg. “The ‘body’ responsible for the footprint can then emerge through complementary experiments at the new generation of human-made colliders. On all fronts, it is an exciting era in high-energy physics.

”

Big Bang:One Man's Change of Heart

Thanks Paul

One definitely needs some perspective around this and how such information is given. I refer here for consideration, about perspective, and how it can be exploited for further consideration on what is emitted, and what manifests in weak gravitational field measure, as neutrino effects(quantum gravity).

Microperspective and methods of examination, raise the issue fo cerenkov radiation and what it tells us about such interactive phases?

Here in refractive consideration, ICECUBE, paints a different picture of what began somewhere else in cosmological high energy collisions. "Neutrinos and strangelets" are part of the developing scenario with which the universe has consequences, if held to the initial conditons of our universe. You had to know where to look for these.

Plato:

"Nothing" in stated form was and always is "nothing" which would have not allowed any further discussion. "Zero" in our conversation is a much different kind of thinking. I understood that as well. "Zero" would have been the equivalent to "i" in the Dirac's matrices?

Physics at this high energy scale describes the universe as it existed during the first moments of the Big Bang. These high energy scales are completely beyond the range which can be created in the particle accelerators we currently have (or will have in the foreseeable future.) Most of the physical theories that we use to understand the universe that we live in also break down at the Planck scale. However, string theory shows unique promise in being able to describe the physics of the Planck scale and the Big Bang.

I wanted to add this post, and to centralize some references that were found that helped form my perspective on "nothing." What! I guess I'm done?:)

Seriously, this had to be confronted, and who better then from our layman perspectve, then the admission of a leaders in science, who can change theirs mind after some thinking?

Cosmological Constant SeeSaw in Quantum CosmologyMichael McGuigan

Lubos shares his perspective on linked section of titled paper above.

One interpretation of the coupling of Wheeler-DeWitt functions is that it originates from topology changing effects. Topology change seems to be inevitable in quantum gravity. To treat topology change properly is a very complicated calculation using today’s mathematical tools.

I wanted to add these links here for consideration, as well what link given by Paul for consideration in regards to Penrose, the figure of the man's change of heart that ighlight's this post. In Phase transitions the comments have been quite enlightening.

Before the Big Bang BBC News, with Stephen Sackur
Sir Roger Penrose has developed a new theory on what happened before the Big Bang.

These pages were created by Jack "Turtle" Wong, Spring 1999

First of all, how do we think the universe began?

The Big Bang theory.

Resolving the inadequacies of the big bang theory.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Stephen Hawking's
ideas.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: Neil Turok's ideas.

The Hawking-Turok Instanton theory: the result of merging
two interesting theories.

Is the search over?

Bibliography / Further Reading

See Also:

Cycle of Birth, Life, and Death-Origin, Indentity, and Destiny by Gabriele Veneziano

Ekpyroptic and cyclical models

Cosmic Variance's Very Own: Strangelets in 10 or 11

Cosmic Variance's very own.

Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo found that if so called micro-black holes, which are smaller than the nucleus of an atom, exist, they can be used to determine the number of extra dimensions. If scientists were to smash two high energy protons together they could theoretically make such a micro-black hole. Such a collision could happen at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC), which will become operational next year. Once created, the micro-black hole decays quickly and emits over a dozen different kinds of particles such as electrons, neutrinos and photons, which are easy to detect. Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos, Hewett, Lillie and Rizzo solved complex equations to determine if our universe has 10, 11, or more dimensions — perhaps too many dimensions to be explained by critical string theory.

So what is the experiment that is being produced?

Using the predicted decay properties of the black hole into neutrinos,

While I consider the state itself, the thoughts of ICECUBE come to mind. This previous ICECUBE post on this is extremely helpful.

What is also helpful is to remember what the collision process produces and how we can see this process in relation to cosmic collisions. Not just in the colliders themself. While we might of debated the strange matter below, I enlist the idea of the gravitonc considerations and maybe it is not altogether clear, it is with some satisfaction that such thinking of dimensional attributes are actually given parameters with which to work?

Strange Matter (12 Feb 2006)

Some theories suggest that strange matter, unlike neutronium, may be stable outside of the intense pressure that produced it; if this is so, then small substellar pieces of strange stars (sometimes called strangelets) may exist in space in a wide range of sizes all the way down to atomic scales. There is some concern that ordinary matter, upon contacting a strangelet, would be compressed into additional strange matter by its gravity; strangelets would therefore be able to "eat" any ordinary matter they came into contact with, such as planets or stars. This possibility is not considered likely, however.

Strangelets are thought to have a net positive charge, which is neutralized by the presence of degenerate electrons extending slightly beyond the edge of the strangelet, a kind of electron "atmosphere." If a normal matter atomic nucleus encounters a strangelet, it will approach until it begins penetrating this negatively charged atmosphere. At that point it will start to see the positive electrical potential and be repelled from the strangelet. Sufficiently energetic nuclei, or neutrons (which are unaffected by electrical charges), can reach the strangelet and be absorbed; the up/down/strange quark ratio would then readjust by beta decay.

See:
Phases of Matter for Reference

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions -- or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions -- behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

It is easy to see the difference in viscosity between a jar of honey or molasses at room temperature and a glass of water. The honey is much thicker and more viscous, and it pours very slowly compared with the water.

Using string theory as a measuring tool, Son and colleagues Pavlo Kovtun of the University of California, Santa Barbara, and Andrei Starinets of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Ontario, have found that water is 400 times more viscous than black hole fluid having the same number of particles per cubic inch.

See:

Blackhole Creations

Strangelets in Cosmic Considerations

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Microstate Blackhole Production

Quark Gluon PLasma II: Strangelets Produced

Accretion Disks

Strangelets Form Gravitonic Concentrations

IN a Viscosity State Production is ?

What Are those Quantum Microstates

The Lowest Octave State

Sometimes simple concepts, like something representing the lowest vibration mode of the string, the lowest octave helps in a sense helps to orientate what the particles mean, such as protons,neutrons and electrons. Where they exist now as they cosmic collsions meet and dissapte it's influence in our atmospheres, our planet.

Yet Moshe speaking about sparticles has interesting relations in context of symmetry breaking, yet, without thinking about what experiments are now being listed, what value this lowest vibration mode? What value that leads us to think about this lower scale as evidence now held within our views.

Clifford:

We’ve got to remember what we assumed in order to get to the cirtical dimensions, and then revisit those assumptions every time we learn something new about the whole story

Would be a consistent pattern, when new options and experimental consideration are introduced. In the case I listed above in ICECUBE.

The relative 'up' and 'down' rates provide evidence for distortions in neutrino properties that are predicted by new theories."

I think this would be consistent on the level of what you are saying Clifford? Lay people like myself would understand this I think. While very aware of the higher energy considerations in context of reductionism, had taken us too dual blackhole considerations within the collisions taking place not just in the colliders.

It presented opportunites in how we see what strings might have emplied in Cerenkov radiation? What is it that we should see in this relation, that strings would have said here is another opportunity?

Cerenkov Radiation and the Blue Glow

At full power (200 kilowatts), the UMR Reactor core produces approximately 6.4 trillion fissions per second. Each fission event liberates a tremendous amount of energy, a portion of which is carried away by fission products which then decay and produce high-energy beta particles. Often, these beta particles are emitted with such high kinetic energies that their velocities exceed the speed of light (3.0x108 meters per second) in water. When this occurs, photons, seen to the eye as blue light, are emitted and the reactor core "glows" blue.

While no particle can exceed the speed of light in a vacuum, it is possible for particles to travel faster than light in certain mediums, such as water. The speed of light in a particular medium, v, is related to the speed of light in a vacuum, c, by the index of refraction, n, by v = c/n. Water has an index of refraction of 1.3, thus the speed of light in water is 2.3x108 meters per second. Therefore, beta particles with kinetic energies of 0.26 MeV travel at speeds in excess of 230 million m/s!

It is important to remember somethings here. I am trying to hone in on the exact reasons for this idealization, to see in the ways that we do. Why the sky is blue in relation to the sun that shines and the Earth as it is ?:) How often has the child asked, while we had been witness to the very thing in our everyday waking lives.

Thus we are quickly transported into the strange world of refractve indexes and such, as examples of what angle and departures these particle might take in their collisions courses. Yet we know as we look up that beyond the blue, it gets dark again Redshifting on the horizons as our sun sets.

Cosmological particles exsit that are free of our atmosphere. What say these things in that environ, while it is dark? What shall we say of these things when the sun influences dances on our outer atmosphere?

Wikipedia and the Uses of Cerenkov Radiation(8 Feb 2006)

When a high-energy cosmic ray interacts with the Earth's atmosphere, it may produce an electron-positron pair with enormous velocities. The Cherenkov radiation from these charged particles is used to determine the source and intensity of the cosmic ray, which is used for example in the Imaging Atmospheric Cherenkov Technique (IACT), by experiments such as H.E.S.S. and MAGIC. Similar methods are used in very large neutrino detectors, such as the Super-Kamiokande.

So I am again drawn back to the state of the earth's gravitational field, with which this planet being weak, lets us see particle states that it does? How shall I keep in mind, that such circumstance free of refractive indexes( a vacuum)speed of light wil mett the chance to have faster then light capabilties, in a blue glow? Have I then nailed the reasons why such concepetualization take to the two extrmes of what vison had garnered for us, and the circles meaningwhile it signfied this interchangeability?

Ah, my more layman head. :)Like a Koan supplied to tax the mind, a simple statement is drawn out, over and over again, while in time, the mind becomes flooded with so many possibilities with a flash of light. What is this Koan, that I speak of?

Brian Greene:

How can a six-foot tall human being 'fit' inside such an unbelievably microscopic universe? How can a speck of a universe be physically identical to the great expanse we view in the heavens above

Don't worry Clifford, while Brian Greene might have been the spokesperson for all scientist actors, it is still with some benefit that we undertand how the abstract mind releases itself, but for a short time. While the influence of nature has its way with us. Whilst we had been so intensely looking, the break from the work, allowed the culmination to seep through in a simple jesture of understanding. That seems to be the way of it.

Evidence for Extra Dimensions and IceCube

...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.

Albert Einstein

Sometimes if we paid attention enough, the neurons seem to fire appropriately and the detachment of the ideas seemingly distant from one another, become illuminated and connected? Imagine it taking place in Clifford's other office.

Foundations Study Guide: Philosophy of Mathematics by David S. Ross, Ph.D.

The philosophy of mathematics is the philosophical study of the concepts and methods of mathematics. It is concerned with the nature of numbers, geometric objects, and other mathematical concepts; it is concerned with their cognitive origins and with their application to reality. It addresses the validation of methods of mathematical inference. In particular, it deals with the logical problems associated with mathematical infinitude.

Among the sciences, mathematics has a unique relation to philosophy. Since antiquity, philosophers have envied it as the model of logical perfection, because of the clarity of its concepts and the certainty of its conclusions, and have therefore devoted much effort to explaining the nature of mathematics.

Such a cognitive fucntion then would be important as these math symbols arose in our minds. Possible new mathematical models in which to describe the nature we see around us. So one makes sure they have a pad and pencil, while they ventured away from the regime, with which the mind has been so intensely engaged?

Now being so far from the understanding of these mathematics, I can only hope to understand the concepts as they unfold in a geometrical insight, while I try to make sure I understand them in relation to abstract thinking.

SNO on the go – at last!

Over the past 30 years, five different experiments have sought to measure the flux of these elusive particles from the Sun (produced by the same nuclear processes that make it shine) and have consistently come up short of theoretical predictions. One explanation is that the neutrinos emitted ‘oscillate’ into another variety of neutrino which past experiments could not detect.

Within the IceCube collaboration the Univ. of Uppsala and the Univ. of Berkeley have joined the DESY initiative. The DESY team is also in close contact to the groups in Europe, the USA and Asia which are working on acoustic detectors for Neutrino-Telescopes installed in water. Details on the different projects have been presented on the First Workshop on Acoustic Cosmic Ray and Neutrino Detection held at Stanford in September 2003.

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).

Some understanding of the dual nature of blackholes is needed here in order to understand what is "produced" and how this is "spread out."

"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."

Before engaging article below it is important that the differences be noted between strangelets(strange quarks), and the distortions in neutrino properties. If it is understood the microstate blackholes are created, then the dispersion of other particle in the atmosphere give us indications and consequences gained from dual nature of the blackhole.

I am confused here, and this point of interactive consideration is holding my mind as to why both these situations together are important. The difficulty may come from from the immediate association, while reocgnition of these two have been raised from the event and collision.

Earth punctured by tiny cosmic missilesBy Robert Matthews, Science Correspondent
(Filed: 12/05/2002)

Strangelets - sometimes also called strange-quark nuggets - are predicted to have many unusual properties, including a density about ten million million times greater than lead. Just a single pollen-size fragment is believed to weigh several tons.

They are thought to be extremely stable, travelling through the galaxy at speeds of about a million miles per hour. Until now, all attempts to detect them have failed. A team of American scientists believes, however, that it may have found the first hard evidence for the existence of strangelets, after scouring earthquake records for signs of their impact with Earth.

See:

Cosmic Ray Collisions and Strangelets Produced

Cosmic Rays Collisions and Strangelets Produced?

I like to think of Enlightenment in another way Jaffe:)

While we had focused our attention on the airs about the earth, how would it been possible for us earthlings to push back the limitations on on our views that we could have seen cosmological data in context of all that we do in the environment?

See QuarkStars on this.

The collisions are strange: PHENIX can identify particles that contain strange quarks, which are interesting since strange quarks are not present in the original nuclei so they all must be produced. It is expected that a Quark-Gluon Plasma will produce a large amount of strange quarks. In particular, PHENIX has measured lambda particles. There are more lambda particles seen than expected.

I thought I would go over existing post I made in April of 2005 (se revised version below)and correct some of the links that would be more appropriate to information released in the Blogs of Reference Frame, Cosmic Variance and Not Even Wrong's site about "Amanda and ICECUBE."

Exotic physics finds black holes could be most 'perfect,' low-viscosity fluid

Son and two colleagues used a string theory method called the gauge/gravity duality to determine that a black hole in 10 dimensions - or the holographic image of a black hole, a quark-gluon plasma, in three spatial dimensions - behaves as if it has a viscosity near zero, the lowest yet measured.

These characteristics of superfluids are very interesting things to consider, as well as what is prodcuerd in "this action" as we are taken to the supefluid created. Think indeed, that this blackhole "is" the superfluid, and the strangelets, what are these? These never existed, until the superfluid was created?

But in the 10 dimensions of string theory, the fluid of a black hole isn't like other fluids. Space-time is considered to be flat in our perception, Son said, and five of the extra dimensions are compacted into a small, finite sphere. In the remaining dimension, however, space is curved. Evaporation doesn't occur in this dimension, he said, because as particles radiate from the fluid they strike the curved edge of the dimension and are sent bouncing back into the black hole.

These links help set up the thinking for information outside of LHC, that was given for perspective back earlier by John Ellis. The leading perspective on Microstate blackhole production was given then as well in the post with Quark Gluon perspectives, about strangelets produced.

While I had thought these relevant to Dark energy creation in our Cosmo, I did not point directly to the nature of these strangelets gathering at the center of our planet. You had to follow all these posts in order to understand the effect of microstate production, not only in RHIC or LHC, but in the cosmic perspective gained from Pierre Auger experiments as well.

I gave early history consideration so that you might understand a early concern of what mankind might have garnered in thinking, when in actuallity, this was happening naturally every time the cosmic rays penetrated the airs around the earth.

You might well see now that these considerations have been logically followed and there has not been much help as I had been laying the ground work for how perspective is garnered about gravitational considerations. These though are quickly dissipating blackholes created in the airs, around this planet.

Cosmic rays are nuclei and elementary particles always falling very fast on the earth from the universe. Enormous number of cosmic rays are always passing through our bodies. Cosmic rays was discovered by Victor Hess, who is an Austrian physicist, on 1912. He went up to the high altitude of 4000 meters by a balloon and found the ionization rate of the atmosphere is raised at the higher altitude by cosmic rays. After that, cosmic rays have been studied extensively and progressively, and mysteries in the Universe and the Nature are being revealed.

Cosmic rays come from the neighborhood of the Earth and also far galaxies. Galactic and extra galactic cosmic rays are considered to be accelerated at dynamical astronomical objects, such as supernova remnants, neutron stars,and active galactic nuclei. After far-reaching long traveling, they plunge into the atmosphere and bring about nuclear interactions with nuclei of oxygen and nitrogen in the air. The extraterrestrial cosmic rays which come from outside the earth are conventionally called primary cosmic rays, and newly produced particles via the nuclear interactions are called secondary cosmic rays. The main components of the secondary cosmic rays are muon, neutrino, electron, gamma ray, and neutron. While electrons and gamma rays are absorbed into the air, muons and neutrinos can be observed even under the ground.

Of course, this could all be speculation and misconceptions garnered in wrong thinking. So I'll leave it to the experts to correct the disemmination that would affront theoretical positions and hopefully I'll see such corrections. :)

Update: Bloggery updating does not seem to be working, so I will recreate the post here for examination.

4/16/2005

Cosmic ray experiments must overcome tremendous obstacles. The flux of particles above 10¹⁹ eV is extremely low (about 0.5 km-2yr-1sr-1), so detectors need to probe a large effective area to detect sufficient flux. This requires earthbound observatories. Consequently, the high energy particle is detected indirectly, as cosmic ray primaries entering the Earth's atmosphere interact with atmospheric nuclei to produce large cascades of relativistic secondary particles known as extensive air showers.

It somehow seems appropriate, that having been given some hint fom John Ellis of his research and interests, that the historical record could some how be brought into view. The appearnce of these references enhance later log entries on this site. A sort of moving backwards to get to the esence of what has happened in astrophysics and the journey tounderstand the nergies involved that speak to the idea of particle shower creation that had been consistent with reductionistics view we have gone through in the research of string theory.

The highest energy particle ever observed was detected by the Fly's Eye in 1991. With an energy of 3.5 x 10²⁰eV (or 56J), the particle, probably a proton or a light nucleus, had 108 times more energy than particles produced in the largest earth-bound accelerators. The origin of the particle is unknown. At such a high energy, and with its assumed charge, the path of this particle through the cosmos would have been relatively unaffected by galactic and intergalactic magnetic fields. Yet no plausible astrophysical source is known along the arrival direction, within the maximum possible source distance imposed by collisions with photons of the cosmic microwave background. This event remains a mystery! It is clear that it existed, but there is no obvious explanation for its source.

These are some of the links that follow the early hisotry of our observations, so that we underrstand well that such cosmic rays are still viable arena for the understanding of these interactions. Sean Carroll may create the April's fool joke on mass migration from particle reductionistionism to astrophycics, but the truth is what is learnt is very applicable to both arenas and what had been learnt, can never be forgotten as we move our observations to the FLY'EYE

Collision Course Creates Microscopic "Blackholes"

Pierre Auger Observatory

Cosmological and Microstate Blackholes

Early history developement is sometimes important to understand the trends that intermingle began in branches of High Energy Particle Research and Cosmic particle research. We understood well the limitation that we would run into for the size of the coliders necessary for such observations that having understod the limits reached in this regard we see where one branch will push us to consider the world around us and the inertactions developing towards the understanding of thes ecosmic showers that we are experiencing.


Extremely energetic cosmic rays interact with the cosmic background photons via pair creation and photopion production and lose their energies during their trip. Therefore there is upper limit of distances which they can propagete in the space with a given energy. The above figure shows this limit (so called attenuation length) in case of cosmic ray protons. You see the 2x10^20 eV particles cannot propagate longer than 30 Mpc (100 million light years), which sets the limit concerning the location of possible sources.


Other Information Shamelessly Boorrowed:

Search for Diffuse Cosmic Gamma Rays above 200 TeV
Cassiday, G.L. et al.1991, Ap.J., 375,202.

A Search for Evidence of Point Sources in the Cherenkov Flash Data From Fly's Eye II
Elbert, J.W. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,265.

Search for Point Sources of U.H.E. Gamma Rays Using the Utah Cherenkov Array
Corbato, S.C. et al.1991, ICRC, 1,281.

The High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires): Parameters and Motivation
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,688.

Description and Status of the High Resolution (Hires) Fly's Eye Experiment
Au, W. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,692.

Observations of Real and Simulated Showers Using the First Two High Resolution Fly's Eye (Hires) Mirrors
Borodovsky, J. et al.1991, ICRC, 2,696.

Study of Extensive Air Showers (EAS) Detected with the Fly's Eye and the UMC Air Shower Array
Green, K.D. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,347.

Shower Simulations for the Fly's Eye
Gaisser, T.K. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,413.

Limits on Deeply Penetrating Particles from the Fly's Eye Detector
Cooper, R. et al.1991, ICRC, 4,623.