SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
from the tek-tek-tek-tek-tek-tek-tek-tek dept.
Unlike electromagnetic radiation, which consists of massless and accelerated charged particles, galactic cosmic rays (CR) are composed mostly of atomic nuclei and solitary electrons, objects that have mass. Cosmic rays originate via a wide range of processes and sources including supernovae, galactic nuclei, and gamma ray bursts. Researchers have speculated for decades on the possible effects of galactic cosmic rays on the immediate environs of Earth's atmosphere, but until recently, a causal relationship between climate and cosmic rays has been difficult to establish.
A research collaborative has published a paper in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that mathematically establishes such a causal link between CR and year-to-year changes in global temperature, but has found no causal relationship between the CR and the warming trend of the 20th century.
http://phys.org/news/2015-03-cosmic-fluctuations-global-temperatures-doesnt.html
[Abstract]: http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2015/02/23/1420291112
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @10:50PM
So photons are charged now? Quick, someone call CERN, they've been doing particles wrong.
"galactic cosmic rays (CR) are composed mostly of atomic nuclei and solitary electrons, objects that have mass. Cosmic rays originate via a wide range of processes and sources including supernovae, galactic nuclei, and gamma ray bursts"
So gamma rays aren't electromagnetic radiation, and have mass? Quick, someone call SLAC, they've been doing waves wrong!
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:09PM
Wibbly wobbly timey wimey radiation quantum mass rays cosmic... stuff
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:12PM
Photons have alternating charge. That's why they exhibit the particle/wave duality.
Gamma rays are not radiation. Like the summary says, they are made of protons, neutrons and electrons. Maybe you're thinking of alpha and beta radiation?
This is pretty basic physics. How are you misunderstanding so much of it?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:24PM
What age group do they start teaching that level of physics to? Should give you a clue as to why the ignorance...
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:26PM
I learned that type of physics during my first semester of college. Maybe FatPhil never went to college?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:42PM
Photons have alternating charge.
Photons don't have alternating charge. Instead they have no charge.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:47PM
> Gamma rays are not radiation.
Snigger. Is stupidity like yours painful?
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:53PM
Just because you disagree with the GP it does not mean that you need to use racial slurs.
(Score: 2, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @01:05AM
I'd mod you funny if I were logged in. We shouldn't be so niggardly with our vocabulary education.
(Score: 3, Informative) by Immerman on Thursday March 12 2015, @12:26AM
Umm, no, you've got your radiation all mixed up.
Gamma rays are extremely high-frequency electromagnetic radiation - some single photons have been detected with a mass-energy comparable to an entire iron atom!
Cosmic Rays are extremely high-speed charged particles of various types (mostly atomic nuclei) originating from outside the solar system
Alpha radiation is high-speed Helium-2 nuclei
Beta radiation is high-speed electrons and positrons
Neutron radiation is high-speed neutrons
(Score: 2) by Immerman on Friday March 13 2015, @01:25AM
Oops, I lied - alpha radiation is Helium-4, not 2. somehow "helium with 2 neutrons" got turned around when I as typing.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:41PM
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:49PM
If it helps, try to apply the knowledge you've demonstrated you have to the summary.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday March 11 2015, @11:59PM
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 12 2015, @12:12AM
I could find my ex-girlfriend (Cambridge-educated nuclear physicist) who could explain all this to you, but that just wouldn't be fair.
On you - she's a psycho.
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:37AM
And, being Oxonian, I can defend myself against Cantabrigians quite satisfactorily (mostly my just wandering away unnoticed while their attention is heavily focussed on their own brilliance). Cambridge has a better pub scene, that's the only thing of importance that I will concede to them.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday March 12 2015, @11:00AM
Well played, sir. Well played indeed.
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:46PM
You know, now you mention it, I'm not sure - I try not to remember those 5 years - but I think she did natural sciences then shifted into nuclear physics when she joined the NHS. No idea which department that puts her in. But yeah, the reason I brought this up, she was reading a journal, must have been 6 years ago now, and tried to summarise for me some ground-breaking article that argued a photon could be considered a charged particle. I studied both Physics and Maths myself but I kinda sucked at both and just couldn't follow what she was saying. Can't even remember which journal it was in now, probably would have been pretty relevant to this article if I could find it. And NO, I'm not calling her to find out.
Glad to hear folk of your educational caliber are contributing your intellectual presence to SN :)
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 12 2015, @04:16PM
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2007/jul/06/new-limit-placed-on-photon-charge
But were the photon to have charge, we'd have to rewrite *all* the textbooks - it breaks the standard model (which has photon == antiphoton).
Verifying that photons can't have mass above a certain level is like verifying that the complex zeroes of the Riemann Zeta function can't lie off the critical line below a certain size. It keeps us content to persue theories that are predicated on the Riemann hypothesis. Every now and then someone releases some theorem which choses ~RH as a postulate, which they have the right to do, but that doesn't make RH false.
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves
(Score: 2) by wantkitteh on Friday March 13 2015, @12:24AM
Hmm, seems a couple of years earlier than I was thinking, but sounds about right - maybe she was reading a report on a follow-up paper.
I was with your explanation up as far as "complex zeroes" - I'd like to think it's something to do with just having got home from a Pearl Jam / Nirvana tribute band double bill, but it's not - did I mention I suck at maths and physics? ;) Hell, I needed a Brian Cox TV series to illustrate relative velocity warping space time before I could understand it.
(Score: 2) by DeathMonkey on Thursday March 12 2015, @02:01AM
So photons are charged now?
Yes.
In the Standard Model of particle physics, photons are described as a necessary consequence of physical laws having a certain symmetry at every point in spacetime. The intrinsic properties of photons, such as charge, mass and spin, are determined by the properties of this gauge symmetry.
reference [wikipedia.org]
(Score: 2) by FatPhil on Thursday March 12 2015, @08:25AM
Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people; the smallest discuss themselves