Talk:Cosmic ray/Archive 1

Fantastic Four

there should be a part in here about the Fantastic Four since they got their power from COSMIC RAYS which is what the article is describing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.79.168.163 (talk) 04:09, 19 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Headline text

I'm pretty sure all or nearly all NASA articles are public domain, so it's fine to upload it, but please, give credit where it's due. --Larry Sanger

Cosmic rays were initially considered to come from some source other than the Sun. This was because the Sun was thought to emit little but visible light, and, of course, cosmic rays are isotropic and would arrive at Earth from all directions.

So what? Does all cosmic radiation originate from the sun? Why does it come from different directions, then?

That is not at all clear. -- malbi

This appears to have been changed to "Cosmic rays originate from energetic processes on the Sun all the way to the farthest reaches of the visible universe" but this still isn't entirely clear. The processes are on the sun all the way to the farthest reaches of the universe, or the particles originate from the sun all the way to the farthest reaches of the universe? Both? Is all of this type of radiation called cosmic rays? Roggg 14:03, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If in the future, if cosmic rays were being used as Compact Disks(CD's), they will store over 10 gigabytes of information.

Apart from the grammar ("if in the future, if") this doesn't really tell me anything—how would one use cosmic rays as a storage medium? I assume the choice of CDs is arbitrary, as I don't see any immediate similarities between CDs and cosmic rays—if it is, the sentence could be rewritten to something like "If one were to use cosmic rays as a storage medium by (insert explanation here), one would be able to store approximately 10 gigabytes of information (per some unit).

This being the only content in the paragraph "Cosmic rays in tehnology" also seems to imply that use of cosmic rays as a storage medium is being seriously considered, if it isn't, perhaps it could be moved to something like "fun facts". -- 83.109.4.202

I must say, I agree with "malbi": the sentence "This was because the Sun was thought to emit little but visible light, and, of course, cosmic rays are isotropic and would arrive at Earth from all directions." is not clear.

Just today (November 3, 2004) there has been much learned about cosmic rays (see Reuters - "An international team of astronomers believe they have solved a mystery that has been perplexing scientists for 100 years -- the origin of cosmic rays.") I hope a knowledgable person in this area will incorporate information from this research soon. Thanks, Don Bailey, Colorado, USA

Why aren't these types of cosmic rays merged? lysdexia 19:40, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

cosmic rays are from the cosmos (not the sun)

How can a particle from the sun be called cosmic? These four sources appear to be fictious.

The term "cosmic radiation" does get used for solar radiation. When it was named, people didn't know where it was from, just that it was somewhere other than earth. dsws 15:40, 1 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, see the Wiki on solar cosmic rays for more on this. Extra solar system cosmic rays (ie, rays from the cosmos) are called galactic cosmic rays, go figure. Even though some of them are probably from not from our galaxy.

All of this is important for interplanetary flight, BTW. If they all came from the sun, you could just make a long skinny ship, put the astronauts in the nose, and keep it pointed with the rear at the sun all the time to greatly increase your effective shielding. But that doesn't work as well as you'd think, because at least half of the cosmic radiation comes from all directions (except during solar storms, when it really does mostly from from the direction of the sun). So interplanetary astronauts will do the long skinny ship trick, but they have a BIG shielding problem. It takes 5 to 10 meters of water equivalent in hydrogen (which needs to BE water or polyethylene, etc) to shield from this stuff. If you have to have that ALL around you most of the time, that makes for very cramped quarters in your wake cycles. S B H arris 03:57, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very good: "Extra solar system cosmic rays (ie, rays from the cosmos) are called galactic cosmic rays, go figure."

Thank you, Sbharris, this appears most convincing to me, however, without any reference, we will not be able to correct this exstreme and misleading confused article - perhaps due to confusion in the scientific literature itself! In particular, "galactic cosmic" appears in the article as a tautology: primitiv! HJHolm (talk) 14:42, 4 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lightning

I wouldn't say "it is now considered likely" in this passage because it doesn't say who considers it likely... since it isn't physicists. It is a cool idea, but none of the experiments I have heard of that test this theory have been conclusive enough to say "likely". This section should be made to sound more like a cool new idea than basic particle physics. Also, a "relativistic process" should be re-written to include the exact physical process since... well, what does a "relativistic process" mean? The only thing relativistic are the particles due to their energies.

219.95.231.166 05:40, 17 March 2007 (UTC)amirul firdaus haslina== source for Cosmic Rays in Fiction addition? ==[reply]

Is there a source for the assertion about them appearing commonly in fiction because of metaphysical connotations of the word "cosmic"...? -- SCZenz 13:34, 27 January 2006 (UTC) i think source are not appearly friction that cause metaphysical but it cause by physical.. in my opinion.. cosmic can cause biologest efect[reply]

Cosmic Ray History

The story behind the naming of cosmic radiation goes something like this. Back in the 1900s scientists were just starting to explore radiation but had a problem. There seemed to be more radiation in the environment than they could account for given their knowledge of the natural sources of radiation.

A scientist by the name of Victor Hess took a electroscope up to ~17000 feet (without oxygen!) and noted that the amount of radiation increased as he climbed. This suggested the radiation was from outer space and was eventually dubbed cosmic radiation.

Balloons are actually used today to continue to study cosmic radiation too - though they are alot bigger and reach much greater heights than Victor Hess did. Some more information is avaliable on them here:

    http://www.nsbf.nasa.gov/

That information is already in the article:

Cosmic rays, also known as cosmic particles, were initially believed to originate in radioactive isotopes in the ground. This theory was disproven in 1912 by Victor Hess, who in 1936 received the Nobel Prize in Physics for his work. Hess used electroscope measurements taken at different altitudes from a hot air balloon to conclude that the radiation was cosmic in origin. Hess further showed that the Sun could not be the primary source of cosmic rays by taking balloon measurements during a 1912 solar eclipse.

-- Xerxes 16:19, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Italian scientist Domenico Pacini at the Italian Agency of Meteorology and Geodynamics made the same discovery at the same time with a slightly different method. Instead of flying his measuring apparatus at altitude, Pacini placed it in a copper box and submerged it in the salty waters of the Bay of Livorno.

He found that the intensity of radiation underwater was significantly less than at the surface and concluded, like Hess, that it could not be coming from the Earth.

Penetrating Radiation at the Surface of and in Water Authors: Domenico Pacini; translated, commented by Alessandro De Angelis [1] 91.92.179.172 (talk) 22:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

List of doomsday scenarios

Could use votes to save this article, thanks MapleTree 22:19, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Biological Effects

Can someone add any relevant research regarding biological effects of cosmic rays? Perhaps rays within some energy ranges can cause biological mutations. ♥ Yobani n Dulce ♥

Cosmic rays are a good fraction of the ambient radiation that human beings are exposed to in their daily lives. I should hopefully be able to find a source on this somewhere. -- SCZenz 01:12, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic rays and cloud formation is not clear yet. Article should reflect that.

No meaningful relationship is found between cosmic ray intensity and cloud cover over tropical and extratropical land areas back to the 1950s. The high cosmic ray-cloud cover correlation in the period 1983–1991 over the Atlantic Ocean, the only large ocean area over which the correlation is statistically significant, is greatly weakened when the extended satellite data set (1983–1993) is used. Cloud cover data from ship observations over the North Atlantic, where measurements are denser, did not show any relationship with solar activity over the period 1953–1995, though a large discrepancy exists between ISCCP D2 data and surface marine observations. Our analysis also suggests that there is not a solid relationship between cosmic ray flux and low cloudiness as proposed by Marsh and Svensmark [2000 ].
"JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 107, NO. D14, 4211, doi:10.1029/2001JD000560, 2002 "

Cosmic Rays & RAM Soft Errors

Should include that cosmic rays cause soft errors in RAM. - MSTCrow 05:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic Rays & Cloud formation NPOV

The following from a comment on MeFi:

heh.

so, the wikipedia article on cosmic rays has a section on cloud formation and cosmic rays, which plugs a svensmark article.

the section was added by 134.117.141.44 in a big glut of entries about global warming, on october 24 2006. that is eight days after the realclimate article that rycee linked to was published. that IP's location can be traced to ottawa, ON.

ottawa is the home of jan veizer, one of a list of scientists who oppose the global warming consensus.

much of the evidence in the svensmark article i linked to above comes from an article by vezier.

it's all so sordid and tacky. nor is it the behavior of an honest, objective mind. i don't know if it throws the conclusions into question or not; but it certainly makes me wonder. i have a really hard time accepting this as completely unbiased.

posted by sergeant sandwich at 4:27 AM PST on February 22

Taken together with "Cosmic rays and cloud formation is not clear yet. Article should reflect that.", above, it looks as likely that someone is trying to push a (probably global worming) point of view.

--Tagishsimon (talk) 13:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

galactic cosmic ray article plagiarized

The galactic cosmic ray article was plagiarized from a nasa page, as discussed on its talk page. It doesn't matter if the nasa page was public domain; it's still plagiarism if proper credit isn't given. I've deleted the plagiarized part, and started a fresh rewrite. The article is currently unbalanced, since the bulk of it is the section that I wrote on radiation hazards for crewed interplanetary travel. Also, although I'm a physicist, I'm not an expert on cosmic rays, so I may have some of my facts wrong. I would like to encourage any experts on cosmic rays to see if they can pitch in and improve the new, non-plagiarized version of the galactic cosmic ray article.--207.233.86.101 23:58, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Would it not have been simpler to give it proper credit than to put out a call to rewrite it? --Tagishsimon (talk)

Real Climate as a source

Real Climate is a blog, I do not think it should be used as a source. If there is a journal, newspaper, or magazine article cited in the blog, then go ahead and use the journal newspaper or magazine article that makes the statement, but I think blogs generally fall short as sources. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by --Theblog 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Theblog (talk • contribs) 19:09, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Since no one has argued Real Climate is an appropriate source, I will remove referenced sections. --Theblog 16:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorrry, I missed your comment. RC is used as WP:RS elsewhere, I don't see why it shouldn't be here William M. Connolley 16:20, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe blogs meet the source standards, Real Climate is a blog, I checked the articles referenced and they don't reference journal articles or such, which would be appropriate to reference to. There is obviously some criticism of the theory out there, but Real Climate does not reference them and is not an appropriate source.--Theblog 16:25, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think Real Climate would not qualify as a source due to WP:SPS:

Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources.

Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by a well-known, professional researcher (scholarly or non-scholarly) in a relevant field. These may be acceptable so long as their work has been previously published by reliable third-party publications. However, exercise caution: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so.

The quotations in question as far as I can find out have not been previously published by a reliable third-party publication. --Theblog 16:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This has been discussed elsewhere a lot. Certainly there is no blanket ban on blog entries. See Talk:The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle#Be_aware_of_WP:SPS for example William M. Connolley 16:43, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Umm okay, run with it, I think you're opening a can of worms though and their are published sources that discuss the subject in context that could be quoted. --Theblog 22:19, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LOL I just realize William M. Connolley is contributor at real climate, self promote much? --Theblog 22:21, 26 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clouds and cosmic rays

Peterlewis reverted me over this [2]. The 2006 expt was a thing in a basement; it didn't make clouds at all, nor even water droplets. There are many many missing steps between this and real cloud effects William M. Connolley 22:11, 29 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing experiment at CERN

Regarding the role of cosmic rays in cloud formation (thus, climate change) there are a series of experiments going on at CERN. Preliminary results will be available shortly.

http://public.web.cern.ch/public/Content/Chapters/Spotlight/SpotlightCloud-en.html

--Jurgenborg 09:16, 15 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The assertion in tthe article: Whether cosmic rays are correlated with climate or not, they have been regularly measured by the neutron monitor at Climax Station (Colorado) since 1953 and show no long term trend. No trend = no explanation for current changes makes your "thus, climate change" unlikely. --Tagishsimon (talk)

I certainly wasn't suggesting a direct connection between cosmic rays and climate change. However one cannot exclude cosmic rays being one of the countless variables that have some bearing on climate. The 'unlikely' still merits attention. Or at least that's what they think at cern: 'CERN experiment looks at cosmic rays, clouds and climate'.

Kindly, can you post a link to the data quoted. Thanks.

--Jurgenborg 09:09, 30 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic rays cause global warming?

Hasn't that been totally debunked?72.78.154.17 (talk) 21:04, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sure shaviv has argued that cosmic rays cause global warming, and aside from the fact that he seems to have missed the general rule that correlation does not imply causality, and aside also from the more recent lancaster university findings, his arguement still does not bring the effect of cosmic rays on climate into dispute in a similar way to how the existance of flatearthers doesn't bring the earth's roundness into dispute. change the wording or leave his work as just put forward, not disputing. Sato au (talk) 12:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually the statement is there to ensure that the mention of the hypothetical cosmic ray/climate link isn't misinterpreted as mainstream, which it certainly isn't. Without the introduction, the paragraph is weighted unduely. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:25, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

i agree with you completely in that this opinion is not at all mainstream, so to put as the first sentence in this section that there is dispute runs counter to that. it should be moved further down or reworded to reflect this.Sato au (talk) 22:46, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the topic was discussed controversically, Stefan Rahmstorf being the main contender trying to 'debunk the whole issue as scrap'. Its however highly POV to assume CERN would go for a looners thesis with a major research project, compare Kirkby, J. 2008. Cosmic rays and climate. Surveys in Geophysics 28: 333-375. Insofar Rahmstorf might be a little bit to early. To announce the Scherer paper as 'intelligent design' is even more biased, the evidence of a connection seems strong enough for a variety international research institutes including official financing by DFG and other major (state owned) research funds.

Some points about the Kirkby paper:

Kirkby reports that "diverse reconstructions of past climate change have revealed clear associations with cosmic ray variations recorded in cosmogenic isotope archives, providing persuasive evidence for solar or cosmic ray forcing of the climate." Despite the increasing evidence of its importance, however, he says that "solar-climate variability is likely to remain controversial until a physical mechanism is established." In this regard he discusses two different classes of microphysical mechanisms that have been proposed to connect cosmic rays with clouds, which interact significantly with fluxes of both solar and thermal radiation and, therefore, climate: "firstly, an influence of cosmic rays on the production of cloud condensation nuclei and, secondly, an influence of cosmic rays on the global electrical circuit in the atmosphere and, in turn, on ice nucleation and other cloud microphysical processes." Kirkby reports, in this regard, that "considerable progress on understanding ion-aerosol-cloud processes has been made in recent years, and the results are suggestive of a physically-plausible link between cosmic rays, clouds and climate."
Although the evidence for a cosmic ray-climate connection grows greater by the day, concrete proof remains elusive; but "with new experiments planned or underway, such as the CLOUD facility at CERN," in the words of Kirkby, "there are good prospects that we will have some firm answers to this question within the next few years." This effort is extremely important, for as Kirkby rightly notes, "the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influenced by solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change." BR --Polentario (talk) 03:36, 22 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The actual IPCC reports (2007) confirms widespread empirical evidence provided by a variety of studies, but a hard physical mechanism lacking so far. The hypothesis is mentioned several times - as being controversial and major doubts being raised. Thats the case, there is a controversy. Thats not even close to a completely debunked flatearth theory not worth while being mentioned. If some users provide such claims here they are out of sync with the scientific evidence and the stated consensus. Note that a CRF influence would express itself in a climate sensitivity factor that now is completely attributed by climate models - with a significant range on uncertainity - to Carbon dioxide. Note as well that the IPCC doesnt claim any strong responsibility of Carbon dioxide for the geological past, "different reasons for different times" only nowadays (since the industrial age) climate change is attributed to Co2 (further reference in chapter 6). Uniformitarianism (science) is not applied in that case. --Polentario (talk) 19:15, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

not even close to a completely debunked flatearth theory not worth while being mentioned - errm yes, thats why there is a section on it. However, that section has to make it clear that the hypothesis is controversial, untested, and certainly not the leading contender to explain recent change (see the IPCC reports; its not even the leading contender to explain deep past change, but thats another matter). Starting the section with a (controversial) pic purporting to show excellent cosmic-ray climate correlation is not an acceptable balanced view of the state of the science. You also seem to have chppoed More recently a Lancaster University study produced "further compelling evidence showing that modern-day climate change is not caused by changes in the Sun's activity". 'No Sun link' to climate change which is similarly unacceptable. You can ref Scherer, if you summarise it neutrally William M. Connolley (talk) 21:54, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dont agree with 'Untested', since the IPCC confirms and acknowledges the various and increasing empirical evidence but rightly denies an accepted phsical mechanism so far. There should be a diagram as well. Maybe it would be better to include the comparision between phanerozoic carbon dioxide and climate change. it either shows the challenges and thesis and its been as well part of the IPCC 2001 reports. Surely it has to be commented.

Side remark: Controversies of this kind are not unique, both geo scientists Alfred Wegener and Charles Lyell were completly out of sync with the then state of physics when they suggested continental drift or an age of the earth beyond 80 Million years.

The BBC statement (nice sourcing btw) should be read with caution, similar to the IPCC report. The BBC and the Lancaster paper refers to nowadays climate change - the IPCC clearly states that before the industrial age, other reasons have been instrumental for climate change and carbon dioxide effects aint able to explain e.g. the ice ages, not to speak of previous eons. Explicitely mentioned are sun and volcanic influence, tectonics and of cause Milancovich. The IPCC might be king of consensus in climate model land but isnt the ruling party in the total realm of earth science. The Beryllium, Oxygen and Carbon isotopies - e.g. along Solanki - confirm a major influence of the sun respectively cosmic rays in the last 9000 years, only the last 150 an athropogenic T/carbon curve is confirmed. The Scherer paper however covers the complete history of the earth till present on different time scales. --Polentario (talk) 23:26, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Global warming from cosmic rays? What a bunch of junk science! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.215.48.194 (talk) 21:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of this material at all constitutes undue weighting. No amount of hemming and hawwing or warning labels is adequate, only exclusion is adequate to the case. 98.109.151.195 (talk) 18:13, 8 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Interaction with the Earth's atmosphere

Isn't the example given for the interaction of the proton with oxygen-16 unbalanced? Surely the neutron and the pion (?) are not the only products? What is the major nucleide fragment / product? The next example shows nitrogen-14 being struck to produce carbon-14 plus other particles. Clive long (talk) 07:25, 9 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Since nobody touched this for half year I commented out that part. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.5.84.64 (talk) 13:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The example shows C-14 being produced by a collision of a proton with N-14, but the equations don't balance and directly conflict with the equation in Carbon-14 article that shows C-14 produced by the collision of N-14 and a neutron (which does balance). Where did this example come from? Moucher (talk) 18:54, 29 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Dead Link

[3] is a dead link (timeout). Can I find this dodcument on any other website? --91.54.58.86 (talk) 10:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CosmoClimatology

When I search wikipedia for CosmoClimatology I get re-directed to this page on Cosmic Rays ! These are two different subjects and should be treated as such ! Why would anyone hi-jack the subject of CosmoClimatology with a web re-direct ?? Did Henrik Svensmark invent the theory of CosmoClimatology ? Should not a wiki web re-direct on this subject go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Svensmark ??

Micheal Kenny —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.35.137.68 (talk) 17:38, 9 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Detectors

This article has has a section on cosmic ray detection, but I really think that Wikipedia should have an entire article on cosmic ray detectors. It's an important subject with a huge amount of variety (balloon borne detectors, ground based shower detectors, shuttle carried detectors) and also lot's a rich history.

The article could also discuss the various methods used to make detections (specific ionization, Cerenkov counting, etc).

Wikipedia seems to lack a good bit of information that it should have about cosmic rays. We could begin to improve the situation by creating such an article.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Sjweinberg (talk • contribs) 06:23, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment in article

I just removed the following comment from the article:

“

comment to be amended: This description must be outdated. According to NASA cosmic rays constitute plasmas or groups of charged particles. It is well known that a moving charge creates a magnetic field and in plasmas this causes the phenomenon of magnetostriction in Magnetohydrodynamics. These particles should then arrive at the electromagnetic surface of the earth as rays or filaments. (by electromagnetic surface: magnetosphere and ionosphere).

”

Can someone explain more clearly what this is meant to convey? If NASA has a better definition of cosmic rays, let us just cite that. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:08, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Climate and Cosmic rays

[4] doi:10.1016/j.crte.2008.06.001, Evidence for a solar signature in 20th-century temperature data from the USA and Europe, Jean-Louis Le Mouëla, Vincent Courtillot, Elena Blantera and Mikhail Shnirmana, July 14th 2008.
Ken Carslaw Atmospheric physics: Cosmic rays, clouds and climate Nature 460, 332-333 (16 July 2009) | doi:10.1038/460332a; Published online 15 July 2009
Vieira, L. E. A., and L. A. da Silva (2006), Geomagnetic modulation of clouds effects in the Southern Hemisphere Magnetic Anomaly through lower atmosphere cosmic ray effects, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L14802, doi:10.1029/2006GL026389. Zhang, M., and * H. Song (2006), Evidence of deceleration of atmospheric vertical overturning circulation over the tropical Pacific, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33, L12701, 18

Seems the topic is under further scrutiny. --Polentario (talk) 20:05, 9 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The current section on the webpage is atrocious. Does anyone seriously believe that science is a popularity contest of ideas rather than based on how well a hypothesis accounts for observations and can predict now ones? If they are that ignorant they should quit editing these pages. An honest and unbiased - you do do unbiased, don't you? - description would say something like "A, B and C postulate that cosmic rays influence climate via ... . This is disputed by the IPCC (and others?) who argue ...".

Origin of Cosmic Rays:

Cosmic rays (cosmic particles) result from the large nuclear explosions that occur throughout the universe. Supernovae are an obvious source but the nuclear-explosive forces within the centers of galaxies are another source (that is, star condensation and explosion). Quasars (and their Milky Way equivalent, active galactic nuclei) are also a source, but obviously not as great a source as where there is catastrophic destruction of stellar structure. Anytime there is ejection of stellar matter with its nuclear degradative properties (proton emission, beta emission, and alpha particle emisssion are all ordinary processes of nuclear degradation), release of cosmic particles will occur. However it most likely is the massively explosive forces that produce cosmic particles in greater abundence. Cosmic particles tend to be a stable entity in the interstellar space. Protons are mutually repulsive, as are electrons. Protons and electrons attract, forming hydrogen. But upon forming neutrons, degrade again. Alpha particles are so extremely stable they would only react with electrons to form helium. While there is a great deal of interstellar helium and hydrogen, both are easily ionized by gamma ray absorption. My Flatley (talk) 16:32, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Query

In the lead it says "...and slightly under 1% are heavier elements". Should this read "... are nuclei of heavier elements"??

Origin of Most Energetic Cosmic Rays. I think that we should include an explanation of how the most energetic cosmic rays can come into being. A reasonable explanation should be preferable to no explanation at all. On 1 Oct 2011 I think that I provided such a reasonable explanation but it appears that it was simply removed that day without the explanation even showing up in the edit history. Apparently not just anyone can make edits and expect them to remain for a reasonable amount of time. This seems to go against one of the basic notions of Wikipedia. I thought that Wikipedia is supposed to be a pooling of information where everyone can contribute. I can understand someone removing what I wrote but shouldn't what I wrote be left at least in the edit history? If it is just purely removed (since it obviously needed to be removed), shouldn't a reason be given for its removal? If I am prohibited from changing the article (so that I may not include a reasonable explanation of the origin of cosmic rays), maybe I should at least be allowed to have my comments left in the discussion without them being removed. Are some so afraid of the truth that when any portion of it pops up, it must be eradicated? I would like to know when I will be allowed to make changes in the article so that my changes at least show up in the edit history. Having the history of my edit completely removed without even any comment doesn't seem fair. If someone is so concerned about only having their own explanation appear, then the person should state their own explanation. I think my explanation is better than no explanation at all. If there are multiple explanations, shouldn't we state them all?

I will attempt again (but now only in the discussion portion) using different language to convey an explanation of the origin of the most energetic cosmic rays. To more fully understand the concepts, one should study my references.

Origin of Most Energetic Cosmic Rays. Based on the fluxes and energies shown in the article, it would be most reasonable to assume that there is a natural means of gently or gradually accelerating these particles so that energetic particles would be given greater kinetic energy. If we look around for such a mechanism, there is one obvious possibility that seems to meet all the requirements. Gravity is well known to gradually produce greater kinetic energy matter from lower kinetic energy matter (if the matter is traveling down toward the source of the gravity). A question arises, "Is gravity a radiation that is attractively absorbed?" It is well known to be attractive. Is it absorbed? If it is absorbed, the associated circumstances provide strong evidence that it is an attractive radiation. Gravity absorption evidence has been observed during total solar eclipses. One can come up with multiple references for this but one could just start with the Allais_effect on Wikipedia. The Bessler principle provides much additional evidence for the absorption of gravity or rather gravitons by matter. One can separately study the Bessler principle in my references as further examples and evidence for the absorption of gravitational radiation. The absorption of gravity in matter is typically overlooked as the force of gravity is usually extremely close to being proportional to the mass that produces the gravitons. Another way of saying this is that a particular graviton is unlikely to be absorbed by some small amount of mass in its path. That is why gravity falls off as nearly 1/(r*r). The surviving gravitons are conserved (according to space expanding outward as r*r) and the number of surviving gravitons would then be (based on the well-known gravity force evidence) very close to the number (in the same solid angle) prior to potentially being absorbed by a small mass. Thus gravity falls off very close to 1/(r*r) but not exactly that, because of the absorption evidence for gravity during total solar eclipses.

Gravity Between Galaxies. Next it would be valuable to consider the behavior of gravity far out in space, away from particular galaxies (or not dominated by being close to any particular galaxy). The observed evidence for galaxy distribution is that they are nearly isotropic, being well spread out from each other. It would be quite reasonably based on the observed galaxy distribution evidence that the graviton direction distributions are nearly isotropic far out between galaxies. The gravitons could even include any gravitons from galaxies coming from beyond the range of the visible, since gravity would reasonably have much greater range or rather much greater penetration properties than visible photons.

Kinetic Energy Increase from Gravitons. Then, can cosmic rays have their kinetic energies preferentially increased by attractive intergalactic gravitons? The answer would be yes, if the speed of the gravitons is not the same with respect to the cosmic ray particles. This would be the case if the speed of light (or gravity) is nearly constant with respect to the frame containing the preponderance of particular-interacting-matter. Such an assumption would account for the Michelson-Morley and Fizeau types of experimental results so such an assumption should not be discarded as a mere whim.

A cosmic ray particle traveling by itself would not constitute the preponderance of interacting-matter and so would not govern the motion of gravitons that approach it. There is no evidence that the speed of light would be changed even momentarily for an entire Michelson-Morley or Fizeau type of experiment because of the presence of a solitary cosmic ray particle passing through the experiment at nearly the speed of light. Fast moving cosmic ray particles would preferentially absorb attractive gravitons head-on rather than from the rear because of their relative velocities. The rapidly moving particles would then be provided with greater kinetic energy. Such cosmic acceleration of large speed particles would provide the observed nearly uniform direction cosmic ray distribution coming from beyond this galaxy. In the frame of the cosmic ray particle, the incoming fore and aft gravitons do not have the same speed since their speed is constant with respect to the frame containing the preponderance of interacting-matter. This then provides a reasonable yet simple explanation for the origin of the most energetic cosmic rays.

I wrote my references CosmicRays.txt, PhysicsSummaryNews.txt, and GravitySummaryNews.txt (and I drew its associated figures) on www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/ so I give permission for anyone to send, copy, publish, etc. them without regard to my copyright. They may be considered as public domain. Alden E. Park Alden E. Park (talk) 08:13, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

some clarification

Hmm, first time I've looked at this page.

Beginning paragraphs could do with some clarification about wether the relative abundances are stated at the same total particle energy or energy/nucleon (here they are stated at energy/nucleon - which is kinda meaningless for electrons). So for example, at the same energy per particle H and He abundances are about the same in cosmic rays because of the steeply falling energy spectrum....

best, Simon Swordy, U. Chicago

Spswordy (talk) 23:53, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sources of cosmic rays?

The article currently has some information on where cosmic rays come from, but a lot of it is kind of vague, and it's distributed through the article rather than summarized in one section. I would ask

is this really all that's known about it? and
how about having a unified section on the question?

My thought is that such a section would break up cosmic rays by energy and type (proton, alpha, electron, heavy nucleus, gamma, primary v secondary) and say where each group comes from. When that isn't known, perhaps present the theories currently in contention. --Trovatore (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These galactic cosmic rays come from the middle of supernova's, black holes and the big bang itself, all we know is the amount of energy the galactic cosmic rays that get through the termination shock and the ionosphere that they likely came from supernova's or black holes or the big bang (those are the only things we know of that can generate that much energy). Other then that we don't know exactly how they are created or what the physical process is (its not like we have our own miniature black hole to test with) and its almost impossible to tell where any specific cosmic ray is from because they are so deflected by the termination shock. We have models that show particles can be accelerated to that speed, but that's about it. Obsidi (talk) 05:25, 14 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Did a cosmic ray zap the Airbus?

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau is now considering the remote possibility that a rogue cosmic ray or solar particle caused a Qantas A330-300 to twice dive out of control over Western Australia on October 7 last year. link

Could we ad this somewhere under the "Effects" topic? Michel_sharp (talk) 19:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wavelength of cosmic rays

what is the wavelength of the cosmic rays? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.108.120.81 (talk) 15:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Article needs work

There is way too much speculative stuff in this article, both about the origins and effects of cosmic rays. Best to stick with the simple and basic facts, including a clear specification of what constitutes a cosmic ray. I would give it much less than a B-grade. --71.245.164.83 (talk) 01:46, 25 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages do not add to 100%

About 89% of incoming cosmic ray particles are simple protons (hydrogen nuclei), nearly 10% are helium nuclei (alpha particles), and slightly under 1% of cosmic ray nuclei are those of the heavier elements. Solitary electrons (much like beta particles, although their ultimate source is unknown) constitute about 1% of the particles that make up galactic cosmic rays.[1]

Note that this doesn't add to 100%. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 169.237.42.129 (talk) 21:54, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. The % figures are for nuclei, and the electrons are separate. So multiply all the nuclei figures by 0.99 which affects only the protons, which come out at 88% of total. I'll fix it. S B H arris 03:55, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming 1% uncertainty on these values, this means 89±1% + 10±1% + up to 1% + 1±1% = 100+3
−2 %. I don't see the problem. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 04:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why hasn't the value been changed to 88 instead of 89? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.79.129.132 (talk) 07:53, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Article on 1932 research by Prof Compton on cosmic rays

Folks, I came across this article "Strange Instrument Built To Solve Mystery Of Cosmic Rays", April 1932, Popular Science, but I am not really educated in this field. If someone finds it of use as a reference or ex link I hope you will use it. Jack 19:36, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

no discussion of production

The article seems to have no discussion of the mechanisms that produce cosmic rays.--75.83.69.196 (talk) 17:54, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is a deficiency, but it would have to a section on various theories (at least for galactic cosmics) because it's all still somewhat mysterious. Sometimes (as Wittgenstein says) whereof one cannot speak, thereof one should be silent. S B H arris 20:49, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Birth cries of atoms

I was wondering if the stub "Birth cries of atoms" should be merged here. I do not see how it could be fleshed into an article of its own, and this page could cover it in a few sentences by adding to the two about Millikan under History. Wcraig3927 (talk) 04:34, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Birth cries of atoms. No actual opinion, per Sbharris in previous section. - 2/0 (cont.) 08:35, 14 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Millikan labored under a wrong conception of what cosmic rays are (they are not photons) and also had their energies wrong. It's just a bad hypothesis and should go in his bio, not in a cosmic ray history. There's little enough room for the good theories based on good data. S B H arris 23:37, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Cosmic rays - "stable" ? - 2011

BTW, cosmic rays are definitely NOT "stable particles" as mentioned in the article. In fact the former text was gross and simple minded, stomping all over the wave particle duality and stating that cosmic rays are particles which ere stable in the earth like electrons and protons which is just plain false, cosmic rays aren't stable, trapped in ordinary matter, like the subatomic entities that are justifiably viewed as particles, anywhere. 72.228.177.92 (talk) 12:13, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have major misconceptions. "Stable" means not subject to spontaneous decay, like pions, muons, or neutrons are. Those things are found in secondary cosmic rays, but they don't last long enough to travel between stars, or even from the Sun, even with relativistic time dilation. So they are NOT in primary cosmic rays. This has absolutely NOTHING to do with wave-particle duality: all stable and unstable particles too have wave characteristics; this is a totally unconnected property.

Protons, electrons and their antiparticles are stable on timescales far longer than the life time of the universe (so long that we don't even know if protons ever decay). On earth, both these particles and antiparticles can be kept trapped in accelerator storage rings for a day or more, and that's not limited by stability, but by the mechanics of the trap. They last hundreds or thousands of years between stars-- perhaps millions. They compose nearly all primary cosmic rays. Nobody has convincingly found an unstable particle in a primary cosmic ray. Do some reading, please. S B H arris 17:06, 5 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Signing this thread as its creator and noting that because I haven't contended the current lede doesn't mean I agree with it, my current understanding of the correct state of affairs is in the start of this thread. (a clarifying source). The crux of the contention is about stability in the sense of being stable in the earth and also origin primarily from there. I'm not contending that CRs are not otherwise known fundamental particles. Lycurgus (talk) 05:40, 20 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the plot of flux vs energy

I am curious about the lower right figure for high-energy cosmic rays. Bettini's Elementary Particle Physics text (2008) lists 1 particle/km^2.century. This might be a good edit for this graph to eliminate confusion. See page 29, fig. 1.10 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlitosand (talk • contribs) 18:46, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

But how FAST are they travelling?

The chart shows the range of ENERGIES that the cosmic rays have, in terms of eV, but doesn't translate that into something understandable (to non physicists), like how fast they are traveling. For instance, how fast is a proton traveling that has an energy of 10 to the 9th, or 10 to the 23? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.47.174.42 (talk) 15:32, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You're just talking about the number of 9's after the decimal point. The formula for ultrarelativistic particle speed is that it differs from the speed of light by 1 part in 2n^2, where n is the ratio of the particle energy to its rest energy.

So v/c = 1- 1/(2n²)

For example, if a proton has a rest energy of 938 MeV and a total energy of 938 GeV, it will have an n of 1000. Thus, it will be traveling less than the speed of light by one part in 2*1000^2 = 1/2000,000. The speed is c [1-1/2000,000] = 0.9999995 c. You can work out other examples if you like. S B H arris 01:01, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

references

i have revised some sections of this article, and added several "citations for verification needed" and "inline citation needed"-tags. i suspect that some of the content constitute a copyright concern due to improper use of sources, but i don't have any evidence. one such source might be e.g. "r.l. fleischer, p.b. price, r.m. walker (1975). nuclear tracks in solids: principles and applications. university of california press." the source is mentioned once in the "detection by particle track-etch technique"-section, but i suspect that the content from this book is just copy-pasted into the article. thus, i have added the "citations for verification needed" and "inline citation needed"-tags in this section. in addition, i have revised the section. the other sections that i have revised and tagged are the "flux"-, "detection"-, "composition" and "detection by air shower"-sections. all these sections lack references/quotations or are insufficiently cited. the uncited content was originally added by user User:Nuclear Scientist who hasn't edited since 2008.-- mustihussain (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Removed the "overtagging", we don't need redundant tags on every section - a single tag at the top should suffice as there are many refs provided. If specific problems exist they should be tagged inline with specific citation needed tags. Saying that copyvio is suspected, but you "don't have any evidence" is a bit odd. If you have no evidence, don't make the accusation. Vsmith (talk) 12:14, 1 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

it's not "odd" at all. i have also consulted admins who probe copyvios on wiki. it's better to be safe than sorry. however, you're probably right about the over-tagging.-- mustihussain (talk) 13:58, 2 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Simple Questions: % of what, charge balance of earth, C-14 neutrons ?

Do the percentages (e.g.,99% of the particles are protons) refer to numbers of particles, mass associated with a type of particle, or some other method? Does the 99% protons, 10% alpha particles, 1% elections mean the Earth is continuously getting more positively charged? Obviously this cannot be, so how is charge balance achieved? In the synthesis of carbon 14, where do the neutrons come from? They are not listed as primary or secondary cosmic particles, there must be some reaction that cosmic rays cause that produces them. Savoy rattler (talk) 07:17, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, very good question. It would also mean that the objects that are the sources would be becoming more and more negatively charged! What is the explanation? Eric Kvaalen (talk) 17:12, 2 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]