Talk:Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray

message: The hyphens seemed more common, and "particle" lower-case seems more consistent with other particles, that's about as deep a reasoning as I have for this particular choice of name. Stan 06:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added a back-link from the GZK limit page, which should make it at least a little more accessible. --Christopher Thomas 07:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  hyphens 

message: Would be a Micro black hole affected by the GZK limit? If not, here's your "best" suspect. --LF1975 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  It's a proton or a Micro Black Hole?

message: If I have to use the sentence above - in particle physics I am one of those "joe off the street". However scientist tend to publish scientific jokes sometimes. Is this event confirmed by an independent source or it happened only for a short period in 1991 and only in particular region of Utah? The whole story and the name suggest more towards a joke. A real particle will not be only dubbed but will also be named. All the sources I was able to find through Google sooner or later go to fourmilab.ch. This is a site of an entusiast and not a scientific magazine (as it says in the faq - fermilab is in the other hemisphere). So please provide some verifiable sources. TIA, Goldie (tell me) 18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Merging it with proton makes no sense. If it was merged anywhere, it would be with cosmic ray, because it _is_ an extreme example of a cosmic ray. As for the validity of the term, it's used by two of the sources cited in the article. Searching on Google for '"oh my god particle" -wikipedia' (to exclude references sourced from Wikipedia) gives 30,000 hits, indicating that the term is at minimum in common use by laymen and popular press. It appears to have entered popular press via an article written by John Walker discussing the U of Utah detection results. --Christopher Thomas 18:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

text: Just did the search again. Still got "about 30,000" as the hit count. Try it yourself if you like. If you want more observations, follow the links in this article and elsewhere to the AGASA and Fly's Eye detector pages, and look through their publications. One particle with an energy of 3e+20 eV was detected, but many others in the 1e+19 range were also picked up. If you want to fix citations in the article to better reference these, go ahead, but I don't see a problem with the article as it presently stands. --Christopher Thomas 18:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific joke? 

message: "The Oh-My-God particle is a proton with the energy of a slow-pitched baseball. And it's moving so fast that after travelling for a year, it would only be a few nanometers behind a photon travelling at the speed of light."   OK not an authoratative  source, but can someone check the energy calculation?  Rich  Farmbrough 21:18 30  March 2006 (UTC).
:Already done for distance (see above). One light-year is about 9e15 m, so at (1-3e-11) C, it'd lag the photon by about 300 km. The value given in press releases, (1-5e-24) C, gives about 50 nm (consistent with the stated distance), but I really don't see how they got that speed value (it's inconsistent with the value I get using special relativity). The energy, 3e20 eV, corresponds to about 50 J. A baseball (weighing about 0.14 kg) with that energy would be moving at about 27 m/s (about 60 mph). I'd like to see where that source got its information, as it looks like recycled press release or Wikipedia material at first glance. --Christopher Thomas 22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: I goofed with my original calculations. The value of (1-5e-24) C is correct, as is the 46 nm value. All other values in my previous response are correct. --Christopher Thomas 05:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: How fast, and what is it?

message: Personally I would like a little mroe accuracy in the speed of the basebal, there has bene alot of comments on this reference, elts see if we can clear it up and see what the speed of the baseball would be. Eg i the format of "A baseball pitched at a speed of X would..." it flows decently with the article and probably stop to many more comments being raised about it. -Robert Maupin 03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If a 150 g baseball had a kinetic energy of 50 J it would be moving about 25 m/s. Should I put that in? —Keenan Pepper 03:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure ,it only helps.--Procrastinating@talk2me 09:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd found 140 g as the mass of a baseball, and got 27 m/s, and about 60 mph, as noted above. By all means put it in, but a mph conversion in parentheses is probably a good idea. --Christopher Thomas 15:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pitch Speed 

message: Instead of having UHECR point to this article, could we move that around? "Oh-my-god" particle isn't exactly a recognized name in any literature I've read. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 132.250.167.155 (talk • contribs) .
:I agree. —Keenan Pepper 21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move to UHECR 

message: what would it happen if it had hit a human? at that energies it would create tremendous pressures on the skin wouldn't it? or would it just pass right through? - jak (talk) 16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Generally, a particle's chance of interacting with matter goes down as its energy goes up, so it would almost certainly just pass right through (along with the many, many other cosmic rays that pass through you every second). If it did interact with you, it would be imparting some of its energy onto an electron or other charged particle in your body, which would then cause a jet of secondary radiation, but you wouldn't notice this either (your chance of getting cancer would go up by some infinitesimally small amount). --Christopher Thomas 20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Christopher Thomas is right. I work at a gamma-ray spectroscopy lab and one of the things we constantly have to deal with is the tendency for high-energy gamma rays not to be completely absorbed by the detector, but to scatter away and leave only a small fraction of their energy, which is useless for our purposes. Even though one of the particles discussed in this article carries as much energy as a baseball, there's no way it could give any significant part of that energy to your body, so you'd never notice it. —Keenan Pepper 23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say it would be more like being shot by a very very tiny bullet... -- megA (talk) 10:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A man was hit by a beam of accelerated particles in 1978, and survived, even if half of his face remained paralyzed: http://forgetomori.com/2008/science/hit-by-a-particle-accelerator-beam/ Gravitoweak (talk) 15:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  If it hit a human? 

message: The article doesn't seem to mention its mass. Does anyone know what it is? Would I be right in thinking it's a proton or something of similar mass? raptor 11:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mass 

message: The article talks about the so-called OMG particle, but has very little information about extremely high energy cosmic rays.  It should discuss how these particles are studied, for examples with detectors that measure cherenkov flashes in the sky.  It should mention how these particles produce a huge pancake of secondary radiation that can be measured and back-tracked by ground detectors.  71.112.95.176 01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs Work 

message: I think this article is misleading in light of the recent evidence from Pierre Auger Observatory.  As I understand it, the evidence points to a potential explanation of the ultra high energy cosmic rays that does NOT violate the GZK bound.  The article implies that single observations (like OMG particle) are sufficient evidence for the phenomenon being unexplainable using known physics. Atlytle 02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''more'' mysterious? 

message: The sentence "To a static observer, such a proton, traveling at [1 − (5×10−24)] times c, would fall only 46 nanometers behind a photon after one year." doesn't seem to make sense. Could you please explain the set up of this mind-experiment for the uninitiated? Plantsurfer (talk) 10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it means that in the static observer's frame of reference the proton is travelling at (1 − (5×10−24))c or (1 − (5×10−24)) light-years per year, whereas a photon travels 1 light-year in one year. So the difference in distance travelled in one year is 5×10−24 light-years, which is about 47.3×10−9 metres. So, apart from the small error in precision (which I have fixed), the calculation in the article (and the source which it cites) is correct. Of course, in the frame of reference of the proton, things look very different - here the photon still travels at 1 light-year per year relative to the proton. Gandalf61 (talk) 13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that's much better. Plantsurfer (talk) 14:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  clarification required 

message: It's hard to tell which of the senses of "tracer" is intended in explaining the source of these cosmic rays.Unfree (talk) 18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Tracers

message: Mechanism-Revealed Physics (32/40) 
  Completely solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays by discovering the mysterious source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays.  The mysterious source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been widely recognized as one of the most fundamental mysteries in physics and astrophysics for several decades.  The problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been completely solved by identifying the mysterious source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (P. 574 ~ 577, 5.9, Ch.5C, reference #1), with the newly established MRBHT* as fundamentally indispensable basis.   (*Note, MRBHT = Mechanism-Revealed Black Hole Theory, P. 541 ~ 548, 5.5, Ch.5B, reference #1). Be clarified, in solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, the concept and implication of black holes is based on MRBHT, rather than from current postulate-based black hole theory, i.e., mechanism-revealed black holes rather than postulate-based black holes. 
    First of all and most of all, based on MRBHT, black holes and only black holes, due to their hugely massive nature, can have the ability to generate and emit such ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, whereas all other ordinary astronomical objects (e.g., a variety of stars) do not have the ability to generate such ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays at all.  Second, observational evidence shows that ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays have to originate from the Milky Way galaxy. Therefore, the combination of MRBHT and observational evidence determines the clear and solid conclusion:  the black holes in the Milky Way galaxy are the source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays observed nearby Earth.  In addition, five clues that are supportive of or consistent with the very conclusion are provided and analyzed (P. 574 ~ 577, 5.9, Ch.5C, reference #1). This conclusion is further consolidated by the fact that black holes are the source of gamma ray bursts from the comprehensive and systematic perspective (P. 567 ~ 574, 5.8, Ch.5C, reference #1), since gamma ray is one of the four common types of cosmic rays. 
    The key to understanding the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays: (i) considering the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays together with the GZK limit in the famous GZK paradox, along with the reminding that the famous GZK paradox has been completely solved with the discovery of the source of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (P. 578 ~ 580, 5.10, Ch.5C, reference #1). (ii) As long as you have known the greatest equation in the history of science, which is Einstein’s famous mass-energy equation (E = mc2 or E0 = mc2), you will easily understand the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays, because the law of object’s mass doing work (OMDW) (P. 93 ~ 109, Ch.1A, reference #1), which is the root of the solving the problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays (P. 895, reference #2), has also revealed the mechanism behind the greatest equation (P. 114 ~ 118, Ch.1B, reference #1). (iii) The newly established MRBHT is the key to unlocking the mystery of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays. 
Reference #1: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 1(1/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-4913-9. 
Reference #2: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics [Vol. 2(2/2)], ISBN: 978-1-4357-5033-3. 
Ph.D., Bingcheng Zhao,  
The author of “From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics” 
1401 NE Merman Dr. Apt. 703, Pullman, WA 99163   USA.
Email: bczhao12@gmail.com   or   bzhao34@yahoo.com   or   bingcheng.zhao@gmail.com  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.52.246.120 (talk) 19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia is not the place to try to publish or popularize your own ideas. See WP:OR and WP:RS. --Christopher Thomas (talk) 19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  The problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been completely solved  

message: There is another possible source for the most energetic cosmic rays that should be listed.  A significant and reasonable explanation for the origin of the most energetic cosmic rays could be based on gravitational acceleration.  A reference could be given to www1.iwvisp.com/LA4Park/CosmicRays.txt , which serves as evidence that mentioning it would not be original research (as it is already published) on the Internet.  Cosmic rays could have their kinetic energies increased by absorbing more attractive gravitons head-on than tail-on.  That would apply if the speed of light is constant with respect to the frame containing the preponderance of particular-interacting-matter, given that gravity absorption evidence has been observed during some total solar eclipses.  One can see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allais_effect and prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101 for examples of this absorption evidence. Alden E. Park (talk) 06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Most Energetic Cosmic Rays from Graviton Acceleration 

message: Content of Oh-My-God particle was forked from here, and people have been making half-hearted attempts to merge it back ever since. The content of 'Oh-My-God particle' is almost completely duplicated in the target, the 'name' has no real independent notability, and there is no potential for expansion. This should be merged back, with a redirect to the relevant section. Reventtalk 23:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: A quick scan on google-scholar shows that the term is used academically, especially in conjunction with the first to be detected. Like the Wow! signal, it seems to stand out enough to warrant a colloquialism. Kleuske (talk) 13:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Oh-My-God particle]] 

message: 2* 10^20 ev/(3*Boltzmann's constant) = 7.7 * 10^23 kelvins
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/timlin.html
Just granpa (talk) 18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  10^20 ev corresponds to 7.7 * 10^23 kelvins 

message: It may be worth mentioning that the candidate dark matter particle mass -- 15 times the proton mass, or 1.4e10 eV -- has been excluded by later research. For example, Calmet & KuipersXavier Calmet and Folkert Kuipers, Theoretical bounds on dark matter masses, Physics Letters B, Volume 814 (2021), https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136068 or https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269321000083 use quantum gravity to show that a particle heavier than about 1e7 eV needs to either interact with photons (hence not dark) or decay on a timescale shorter than the age of the universe (hence not a candidate for dark matter in today's universe).
But I'm not sure how to work this in or if this is even appropriate so I'm just leaving this here. - CRGreathouse (t | c) 13:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Relation with dark matter