Anitmatter in Thunderbolts??
funkenstein
anybody have any clue what's going on here? Thanks :)
BURT
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49288/title/Signature_of_a...
>
> anybody have any clue what's going on here? Thanks :)
Anit matter doesn't exist. It couldn't make it through the atmosphere.
eric gisse
>
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49288/title/Signature_of_antimatter_detected_in_lightning
>
> anybody have any clue what's going on here? Thanks :)
My money is on pair production via the intense electric field that is
generated briefly at the strike point.
dlzc
On Nov 26, 11:30 am, funkenstein <luke.s...@gmail.com> wrote:
<snip link now broken by Google.Groups>
>
> anybody have any clue what's going on here?
> Thanks :)
Well, let's see:
There is a positive correlation between cloud formation and cosmic
radiation, and *something* seeds the initial lightning strike, and
there is usually a few billion eV between sky and ground... more than
enough for electron / positron pair creation.
So it could either be antimatter arriving from space, or antimatter
formed due to the high energies involved.
David A. Smith
xxein
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49288/title/Signature_of_a...
>
xxein: An interesting comment follows in the article. I see it
differently but a cosmic ray nonetheless.
Suppose a lightning bolt is hit by a cosmic ray. Nothing definitive
but within the realm of such speculation as to the frequency of such
recorded events.
There may be things we will never know for sure.
FrediFizzx
news:hemtqt$p5r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
What is the electric field strength of that case? Can it be high enough
for the Schwinger mechanism? If so, then this could be good evidence
that the Schwinger mechanism is correct.
Best,
Fred Diether
moderator sci.physics.foundations
dlzc
On Nov 26, 6:40 pm, "FrediFizzx" <fredifi...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "eric gisse" <jowr.pi.nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:hemtqt$p5r$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> > funkenstein wrote:
>
<snip link now broken by Google.Groups>
>
> >> anybody have any clue what's going on here? Thanks :)
>
> > My money is on pair production via the
> > intense electric field that is generated
> > briefly at the strike point.
>
> What is the electric field strength of that
> case? Can it be high enough for the
> Schwinger mechanism? If so, then this could
> be good evidence that the Schwinger mechanism
> is correct.
I'd be willing to bet they've produced antimatter at either the Z-
machine or Proton-21.
David A. Smith
Darwin123
> http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/49288/title/Signature_of_a...
>
Probably electron-positron pair production due to electrons hitting
ions and other electrons at high speed. The electric field in the
lightening bolt would produse enough acceleration to produce at least
some electron-positron pairs.
It take at least 511 KeV to produce an electron. It takes at
least 1022 KeV to produce an electron hole pair. A typical lightening
bolt starts out with a potential difference of a few million volts.
One electron, if it accelerated down the entire potential without
collision, could easily gain a kinetic energy of a few million
electron volts.
I doubt the electron could accelerate without collision in a
ground to cloud bolt. However, cluds reach pretty high. I suspect way
up there, where the air pressure is very low, an electron really could
accelerate to 1022 KeV. It then hits an oygen atom, which takes some
of the linear momentum out of the electron. And an electron-positron
pair is made.
Such an electron hole pair could be detected by gamma ray
emission. A positron goes into orbit around an electron, forming a
positronium. The positronium decays, producing a gamma ray. The
spectrum of the gamma rays would be very narrow at 511 KeV, producing
an unmistakable signature.
The problem with detecting such a thing is that gamma rays don't
move very far in the atmosphere. But I suspect there are ways around
the problem.
Could proton-antiproton pairs be made? Probably. Seems unlikely,
but anything is possible. You would need really high voltages in the
clouds.
BURT
Antiprotons do not exist.
Mitch Raemsch
FrediFizzx
news:c7f7ef46-cef5-457f...@m26g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
I would suspect they are producing antimatter by a different method than
the Schwinger mechanism. AFAIK, no lab has ever yet produced an
electric field intensity high enough for spontaneous pair production
from the "vacuum". A quick search reveals that the electric field
strength of lightning is probably not high enough so positron production
from lightning is probably more like how the labs are producing
positrons like you are suggesting. At least, I think that is what you
are maybe suggesting.
eric gisse
I don't really know. I know my astrophysics far, far better than particle
physics and the quantum domain.
What I have never seen answered adequately is how much energy you can put
into the vacuum before it starts sparking through pair production. A simple
guess would be eps_0 E^2 / 2 over a volume such that is above the 1.02MeV
threshold energy for pair production, but I haven't the faintest idea how
much 'space' is needed for that.
I only throw pair production out there because a _lot_ of energy gets put
into a relatively small area in a lightning strike and that just might be
enough.
From a search on the Schwinger mechanism I see that this is the process that
should dictate this reaction. However all my institutional access is gone.
OTOH this is a good reason to investigate the UW library...
Androcles
"Darwin123" <drose...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:e13a0ca4-c84d-44f2...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
==========================================
Could drosen0000 have a clue what he's babbling about? Seems
unlikely, but I suspect or doubt anything is possible, probably or
probabbley, but his cluds reach pretty high.
FrediFizzx
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0304139
"Boiling the Vacuum with an X-Ray Free Electron Laser"
You will find your answer in equation (1). About 1.3*10^18 volts/meter
electric field strength is needed to produce e+e- pairs spontaneously
from the vacuum. That is quite a bit that is needed. Can 100 million
volts of lightning produce that? Perhaps if it was somehow concentrated
in a very small space. Seems we are a few orders of magnitude away from
that though. :-) However, I suspect we are getting some accelerator
action and the positrons are being produced by interaction like how they
are produced in labs.
John Polasek
Fred I don't think Schwinger had a mechanism, he only had a
hypothesis. IIRC he thought if you had an electric field strong enough
to produce energy mec2 with an electron in the length of the Compton
wavelength, "space would come apart" or words to that effect (see page
197 in my book).
The figure 1.3e8 V/m comes from your reference Melissino, where for
some odd reason he used the short form hbar/mc instead of h/mc.
Using the proper value h/mc makes it 2.1e17V/m.
But in my theory the virtual charges are compressed into cells by
alpha 137 times so my critical field comes out 137 times higher:
2.886e19V/m..
Voltage alone won't do it; lightning won't do it; you need this
unbelievably high field gradient and it looks like lasers aren't able
to do it.
John Polasek
Tom Roberts
> About 1.3*10^18 volts/meter
> electric field strength is needed to produce e+e- pairs spontaneously
> from the vacuum.
Hopeless. Electrons are pulled from the surface of a metal at a few
MV/meter, and atoms are pulled from the surface at a few GV/meter. These
will short out the field at values almost a billion times smaller.
I agree that e+ e- pair production is almost surely the mechanism for
generating antimatter in lightning. At the tops of clouds, around 25,000
feet, air density is about 0.3 - 0.6 mg/cm^3. The range of a 1 MeV
electron in air at such densities is about 6 - 15 meters. So it must be
extremely rare for an electron to be accelerated to such an energy by
the few kV/meter fields of clouds. But out of something like 10^25
electrons in a lightning bolt, rare processes can occur. Especially if
some mechanism greatly reduces the air density within the bolt (which
transiently occurs while generating thunder) -- of course this is a
rather different time scale than the electric currents.
Note that the bolt is a plasma, and I don't know how possible it might
be for there to be local fields sufficient to accelerate a few electrons
to a few MeV; plasma wakefield acceleration might be possible, but I
don't know enough about it to evaluate whether a lightning bolt could
use it to reach such an energy. I do know that GV/meter fields have been
achieved, but in conditions far removed from a lightning bolt (20 GeV
electrons in a plasma at SLAC).
There are enough unknowns here that I don't think that antimatter
observation in lightning seriously challenges our current theories of
physics -- there are obviously megavolt potentials present. But it
likely does challenge our knowledge of the details inside a lightning bolt.
Tom Roberts
xxein
xxein: Non-informative speculation without reproducible results.
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
Anti protons cannot make it through the atmosphere.
Mitch Raemsch
Enes
An electrons leaving ions can be accelerated and some of them may
change electric charge, like in atoms usually do.
This is possible to explain thanks for electropositron hipothesis.
Examples:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/451f3af449c8bbbf/a45e29aad276402e?lnk=gst&q=Enes#a45e29aad276402e
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
This is dumb. Particles don't change charge. Why deosn't the electron
and proton come together under their attraction? They are not
oppositely charged.
Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
Enes
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> This is dumb.
> Particles don't change charge.
What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
example.
> Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
What do you meen ? Do not understand you.
waldofj
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > This is dumb.
>
> The best idea seems dumb at first , it is nothing new.
>
> > Particles don't change charge.
>
> What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
> example.
>
> > Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> > attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
>
> What do you meen ? Do not understand you.
don't feel bad, no one does.
BURT
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > This is dumb.
>
> The best idea seems dumb at first , it is nothing new.
>
> > Particles don't change charge.
>
> What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
> example.
>
> > Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> > attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
A neutron can decay into a proton and an electron. But if they are
oppositely charged they would come back togther again under their own
elctric attraction before they seperate.
Mitch Raemsch - A neutron decays in the aether
waldofj
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > This is dumb.
>
> > The best idea seems dumb at first , it is nothing new.
>
> > > Particles don't change charge.
>
> > What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
> > example.
>
> > > Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> > > attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
>
> > What do you meen ? Do not understand you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A neutron can decay into a proton and an electron. But if they are
> oppositely charged they would come back togther again under their own
> elctric attraction before they seperate.
>
> Mitch Raemsch - A neutron decays in the aether
so, there's no hydrogen in the universe?
Enes
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > This is dumb.
>
> > The best idea seems dumb at first , it is nothing new.
>
> > > Particles don't change charge.
>
> > What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
> > example.
>
> > > Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> > > attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
>
> > What do you meen ? Do not understand you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> A neutron can decay into a proton and an electron. But if they are
> oppositely charged they would come back togther again under their own
> elctric attraction before they seperate.
>
> Mitch Raemsch - A neutron decays in the aether
Electron is too fast (simply saying), to come back after leaving
proton.
But it is possible by the another way and known as "electron capture":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture
Enes
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > This is dumb.
>
> > > The best idea seems dumb at first , it is nothing new.
>
> > > > Particles don't change charge.
>
> > > What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
> > > example.
>
> > > > Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> > > > attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
>
> > > What do you meen ? Do not understand you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > A neutron can decay into a proton and an electron. But if they are
> > oppositely charged they would come back togther again under their own
> > elctric attraction before they seperate.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch - A neutron decays in the aether
>
> so, there's no hydrogen in the universe?
In special conditions not only hydrogen (H) can be make, but
antihydrogen (H_) and even halfantihydrogen (HH_)too.
eric gisse
[snip]
I'm fucking /staggered/ to see that people keep responding to the noise
generator. This fucktard hasn't written a single coherent sentence in 5
years, and people STILL keep engaging him like he's worth the effort.
BURT
>
> > > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > > This is dumb.
>
> > > The best idea seems dumb at first , it is nothing new.
>
> > > > Particles don't change charge.
>
> > > What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
> > > example.
>
> > > > Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> > > > attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> > > > Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
>
> > > What do you meen ? Do not understand you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > A neutron can decay into a proton and an electron. But if they are
> > oppositely charged they would come back togther again under their own
> > elctric attraction before they seperate.
>
> > Mitch Raemsch - A neutron decays in the aether
>
> Electron is too fast (simply saying), to come back after leaving
> proton.
But the attraction of the opposite electric charges would be at
maximum force between the electron and proton from the very beginning.
They then can't seperate.
Show me where I am wrong.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> But it is possible by the another way and known as "electron capture":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture- Hide quoted text -
Enes
>
> > > > > This is dumb.
>
> > > > The best idea seems dumb at first , it is nothing new.
>
> > > > > Particles don't change charge.
>
> > > > What about neutron, which can be change on a proton or antiproton? For
> > > > example.
>
> > > > > Why deosn't the electron and proton come together under their
> > > > > attraction? They are not oppositely charged.
>
> > > > > Mitch Raemsch and Aether science
>
> > > > What do you meen ? Do not understand you.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > > A neutron can decay into a proton and an electron. But if they are
> > > oppositely charged they would come back togther again under their own
> > > elctric attraction before they seperate.
>
> > > Mitch Raemsch - A neutron decays in the aether
>
> > Electron is too fast (simply saying), to come back after leaving
> > proton.
>
> But the attraction of the opposite electric charges would be at
> maximum force between the electron and proton from the very beginning.
> They then can't seperate.
>
> Show me where I am wrong.
>
> Mitch Raemsch
>
and energy, bigger then between electron and proton.
Hydrogen (proton and electron) also can be separating, by using
ionization energy.
>
> > But it is possible by the another way and known as "electron capture":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture-Hide quoted text -
BURT
That would be decay. And decay is not a force enes. But there is
maximum attraction from the onset of the decay. They should come back
together under their own opposite charges.
Mitch Raemsch
>
> Hydrogen (proton and electron) also can be separating, by using
> ionization energy.
>
>
>
>
>
> > > But it is possible by the another way and known as "electron capture":http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture-Hidequoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Enes
>
> > > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
>
There is no decay without forces.
...and usually no smoke without fire, do you remember?
BURT
>
> - Show quoted text -
That force is the weakest. So that won't work. The mutual attraction
is at a maximum in a much stronger force.
Mitch Raemsch