Talk:Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray

2806:

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.

365: 2870:

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/Allais_effect and prd.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v62/i4/e041101 for examples of this absorption evidence.

200: 974:"Because of its mass the Oh-My-God particle would have experienced very little influence from cosmic electromagnetic and gravitational fields..." and in the 1st external link "A particle with such energy would be deflected little by galactic magnetic fields" Is this a relativistic thing? because classically the force qv x B increases with velocity just as fast as the time spent in the field decreases with it, so deflections are the same for particles of all velocities. 685:, 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 Knowledge) 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. -- 355: 334: 2320:

Atoms "vibrate" at very high speeds in relation to the speed of light, however, any motion of the atom or particles would be inconsequential to a single atomic nuclei traveling at the speed of light. It is kind of like trying to shoot a bullet from earth and hit a bullet shot from the moon. This is hard for people to comprehend due to the extreme speeds and vast relative distances of an electron's orbit to the nuclei ratio.

254: 233: 580:

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,

191: 853: 264: 799:

non-technical term mainly used with the popular press, but that's what they're talking about. Likewise, real journal articles will refer to the "Higgs boson", not the "God particle" (as it's called in the media). Physicists tend to use cutesy names to get the general public to take some interest to what are actually rather esoteric topics.

696:

filtering ought not to apply. It was even more weird to me that one of the first-page hits was derived from Knowledge, was admitting the fact, but Google still have put it in the list. As few hundreds seemed to me still unmanageable I've ruled out "fourmilab" citations too and tried some one-by-one checks.

2328:

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

2247:

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

2034:

Per the original thread, all of this is consistent with SR, and nobody who replied (including me) said otherwise. Part of the point of relativity is that all observers see light as moving at C, regardless of their motions with respect to each other. An observer on earth sees the particle travel for a

1115:

where M_0 is the particle's rest mass, 0, v is the particle's velocity, and c is the speed of light. Okay, we know that the Oh My God proton has a rest mass of about 1 GeV, and a total kinetic energy of 3×10^20 eV, so let's solve equation for v, setting c to 1 to obtain velocity as a fraction of the

1010:

To give something a bit less cryptic than anon's answer, consider that as the particle's speed approaches that of light from some observer's reference frame, its velocity doesn't change much (still approximately C), and its charge stays the same, but its mass increases drastically. Thus, the force is

2229:

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

1243:

Going over my recollections, it looks like I'd botched last night's calculations (used a first-order formula valid only at low speeds - whoops). I've gone through the correct version, which produces an answer that agrees with the one given by John Walker. My (current, hopefully correct) calculations

757:

have a subscription (which should be basically any practicing physicist) can easily verify that they are legit. (And if you can even get to the Abstracts for free, it seems to me this should be proof enough, given that they are located at the well-known domains of major scientific journals.) Trust

2927:

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,

2869:

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 ,

2724:

Zevatron must be short for the metric jargon of zetta-electron-volt synchrocyclotron because zillion is not scientific English. The Bevatron and Tevatron were actual working devices. The zevatron is just a metaphor relating to what people might have hypothetically called a synchrocyclotron working

2703:

for zevatron in Google revealed only the use of the term in this Knowledge article and non physics uses such as a hair restorer advertisement. We missed a chance to simply delete the zevatron article for lack of notability or even notoriety. Now we should repair the damage the merger has done. -

2702:

The article misleads people into thinking that ZeV is an accepted term for 10^21 eV. Zevatron is merely slang or at best jargon used by some ultra-high-energy cosmic ray researchers. The name does not derive from a unit of energy named ZeV. ZeV is derived from the slang term zevatron. A search

1198:

I think s/he was poitning out that the number of 46 nanometers is incorrect and should be removed entirely or stated something about if the theory of relativity didn't apply. Though while the later would be a unwise idea, they are options. Its true that light moves away from any other object at the

1184:

So taking 3×10^8 metres per second as the speed of light, we find that the particle was traveling 2.9999999999999999999999853×10^8 metres per second, thus 1.467×10^-15 metres per second slower than light--one and a half femtometres per second slower than light. If God's radar gun is slightly out of

730:

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

2443:

It's predicted to affect the behavior of UHECRs, and to affect light that's propagated large enough distances (from high-Z quasars), and to affect the cosmic microwave background (due to quantization artifacts in the pre-inflationary universe). The problem is that nobody's managed to unambiguously

2111:

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

1067:

does indeed ensure that views of the system from all inertial frames remain consistent. However, the value stated in the article seems to be in error. At 3e20 eV, a proton with a rest mass of 1e9 eV would be moving at about (1-3e-11) C, not the (1-5e-24) C stated. Which source was this value drawn

579:

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

514:

The article first describes it as 3 × 10 electronvolts, then 50 joules, and only after those formal measures does it compare it to a fastball. Since an average everyday joe off the street is unlikely to have an intuitive grasp of what those first two measures are like I think it's quite useful to

2319:

If the OMG particle "hit" a person... It wouldn't or should I say the chances are very very low. Why? Due to the fact the OMG particle is traveling at the speed of light, or almost the speed of light, the chance of it hitting any particle (i.e. electron, proton, neutron) would be highly unlikely.

695:

It still strikes me that people tend to rely on Google for counting but are reluctant to rely on counters for ... er, searching. Moreover using the stated ("oh my god particle" -wikipedia) search pattern produced here only 482 hits. As I am not accessing Google from China, the politically-correct

602:

This is not a new _type_ of particle. This is an ordinary particle (either a proton or an atomic nucleus) moving at speeds more extreme than we've seen just about anything move at. Particles _moving in this manner_ are (whimsically) dubbed "oh-my-god particles". Whimsical naming in this manner is

2385:

per year, whereas a photon travels 1 light-year in one year. So the difference in distance travelled in one year is 5×10 light-years, which is about 47.3×10 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

3029:

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 & Kuipers use quantum gravity to show that a particle heavier than about 1e7 eV needs to either interact with photons

2805:

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

2346:

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

659:

Regardless whether it would be 1p or 1 million, I do not want to pay just to verify a scientific joke (or a nickname). So I still consider the information unconfirmed. For some reasons I am calling the proton a proton, and am not considering it a different particle than the ... proton. If those

2758:

where they are mentioned in the Energy comparison section. No one has come up with an energy comparison giving ordniary usage of ZeV. I suspect there is no ordinary usage of EeV or ZeV. It took me a little while to find that ZeV meant zetta-electronvolt. If the purpose of the article is to

2072:

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

798:

There's a free pre-prints archive located at www.arxiv.org. Use the search function to find physics papers with "Fly Eye" in the abstract, and you'll see tons of references to high energy cosmic ray detections. The term "Oh-My-God particle" won't appear in most of them, because that's a

794:

Incidentally, Goldie, you may be having trouble finding articles on the Oh-My-God particle because that name is mostly used in the media, not in technical journals. If you want to find real journal articles, you should search for terms like "Fly Eye", "cosmic ray", and "high energy".

2743:

is not an SI unit and hence a ZeV is not an SI unit, but there is nothing ambiguous, undefined or misleading about it as a unit. There seems to be nothing strange in the claim by the article about a zevatron (but whether it is notable and hence should be mentioned, I don't know).

699:

From what I've seen all references were rumors repeating the rumor (all that very famous John Walker article), and all was based on one-and-only observation! This article here is talking about "at least fifteen similar events confirming the phenomenon" but references do not show

2753:

Things that should be mentioned in the article do not need to be notable. The topic of the article itself must be notable. Things mentioned should be understandable, and reliably sourced, and reflect the weight of expert opinion. MeV, GeV, TeV, PeV, and EeV redirect to

2444:

detect any of these signatures, and a related problem is that it's so far been very difficult to come up with predictions in the first place (tying the variables in which LQG is expressed to observable variables is apparently non-trivial and still an area of research).

753:. These are some of the most well known journals of physics (follow the links to their Knowledge article if you don't believe me.) I appologize for the fact that access to scientific journals generally isn't free, but there's nothing I can do about that. Anyone who 607:" gene in fruit flies (one of a series of "hedgehog" genes, named because they produce spiky-looking development defects), but even the names of the quarks show this (up, down, strange, charm, bottom, and top, with the last two formerly called "beauty" and "truth"). -- 2759:

confuse readers with seldom used units that are unexplained, it succeeded in my case. I did not know whether to look for an English word or metric prefix to account for a z in the acronym. I will change the article to explain ZeV, then see what other editors do. -

2810:

Reference #1: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics , ISBN: 978-1-4357-4913-9. Reference #2: 2009, Bingcheng Zhao, From Postulate-Based Modern Physics to Mechanism-Revealed Physics , ISBN: 978-1-4357-5033-3.

2449:

Long story short, it might or might not explain them, and the impression I get is that it's too early to tell (otherwise we'd have experiments underway to conclusively prove or disprove various formulations of LQG by looking at the cosmic ray spectrum).

2035:

year and arrive 50 nm behind a photon emitted at the same place and time. An observer sitting on the particle sees the photon receding at C, but sees a much shorter time between emission and detection, making the viewpoints consistent with each other. --

1871: 2814:

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

2641: 2361:

The sentence "To a static observer, such a proton, traveling at 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?

1967: 828: 2498:

to warrant it's own article? And are there enough reliable sources to expand it beyond the stub it is now? I propose to merge it into this article and redirect Zevatron here. If the section gets too large we can always fork it off again.

567:

Comparing the energy fo UHECRs to a fastball is a somewhat standard practice, from what I've seen. In the same way a parsec is described as "about three light years," UHECRs are given a value that helps everyone understand the energies

1224:

10 seconds after the co-originating photon that means it was about 46 nanometers away when the photon hit. The theory of relativity is fine with this since it means that in the OMG particle's frame of reference the photon left it only

1516: 1199:

speed of light no matter what its speed, even light itself moves away from light at the speed of light(crazy eh?). So my vote is to just remove the reference to being only 46 nanometers away and save us all one big headache. //

153: 2081:(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 Knowledge material at first glance. -- 1423: 2049:"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." 813:

I think the term "Oh-My-God particle" should be dropped entirely from the article. I'm working in the field of high energy cosmic ray physics myself, and had never heard of the term prior to reading this Knowledge article.

1682: 1599: 616:

Definitely NOT a joke. The name "Oh-My-God" particle was clearly meant to be humorous, but there really have been detections of ultra high energy cosmic rays, which scientists are currently studying. See, for instance:

2248:

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. —

954:

Your proposals all sound reasonable. I would lean towards keeping roughly the current organization, in which GZK is covered in one article and cosmic rays themselves are discussed in one or more other articles.

1783: 712:

article, it is talking about much easy verifyable matter but is employing much more cautious approach. Maybe some people understand the Oh My God Almighty and His particles much better than His creatures. --

2260:

Ignoring science, it's funny to think about a guy getting blown back a few feet from a particle that nobody can see. It'd be as if an invisible man punched 'em. That's a frickin' crazy amount of energy.

2023: 1185:

calibration, this puppy's gonna be doin' hard time for speeding. After traveling one light year, the particle would be only 0.15 femtoseconds--46 nanometres--behind a photon that left at the same time.

3109: 204: 592:

I think the article mentions something about a proton or so, never heard of this one...gotta be a joke. In good meaning, i recommend to first get acquainted "how to search the internet" -: -->

1343: 147: 1297: 3129: 3099: 443:

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.

3114: 872:

is not challenged, as is the case for cosmic rays above the GZK cut-off. So either the title of this article doesn't make sense, or its content is focusing on the wrong issues.

44: 3144: 1051:

True, actually, when measured from the perspective of the observer "at rest." The particle's perspective presumably remains consistent due to time dilation effects and such.

848:

All right, but the thing is that they are not the same as Ultra High Energy Cosmic Rays (UHECR) at all. UHECR are generally defined to have energies from around 10 eV (cf.

452:

BTW, this article demonstrates the evils of orphans; I remembered reading the first article, but had a terrible time finding it. Finally located it in the list of links to

1790: 316: 2386:

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.

1878: 630: 2594:, the term was coined to refer to acceleration of particles within galactic jets. If this is the case, I'd be against a merger (if anything, it'd be best merged with 2094:

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. --

2214:

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? -

421: 1430: 2643:

seem to use the term in the "nickname" way. Or perhaps more precisely: for astrophysical sources as opposed to a result of new physics. The article cited at

2176:

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.

3124: 1026:

Not true, light moves away from everything at a constant rate, no mater what its speed, its called the theory of relativity. I think that should be fixed.

306: 745:" valid sources? What are you suggesting, that I'm trying to trick you? You are clearly not a practicing physicist, or you would recognize the journals 704:!?! OTOH I've seen numerous theories about the particle type (an example: neutrino coliding to anti-neutrino and emitting some others) but the article is 79: 3094: 1350: 1216:

But even moving at the speed of light there's still a point where the photon is only 46 nanometers away from the particle. 46 nanometers is about 1.5

3139: 2310:

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?

411: 3104: 2651: 2179: 1605: 1522: 2234:

of secondary radiation, but you wouldn't notice this either (your chance of getting cancer would go up by some infinitesimally small amount). --

781:

of particle. Similarly, if an amazing flying horse were discovered, it would make sense to give it its own article, not merely a section under

727: 2981:

the team has found evidence that these highest-energy cosmic rays might be iron nuclei, rather than the protons that make up most cosmic rays.

364: 2607:

You'd mentioned doing digging. What other sources did you find that use the term? These should probably be added to the reference section of

2191: 85: 909:

Furthermore, and this is an entirely different issue, we might think of changing the name UHECR to 'Extragalactic Cosmic Rays'. This would:

3030:(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). 2822: 2159:, 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. -- 168: 135: 3119: 2429: 1000: 1688: 3043: 1042: 387: 631:

http://scitation.aip.org/getabs/servlet/GetabsServlet?prog=normal&id=PRLTAO000092000015151101000001&idtype=cvips&gifs=yes

3134: 2941: 731:

citations in the article to better reference these, go ahead, but I don't see a problem with the article as it presently stands. --

652:"Access to PROLA requires a subscription. PROLA subscriptions are separate from the subscriptions to the current content journals." 2725:

up to the energy of one electron charge moved through 10^21 volts. A Zetta-electron-volt is not an SI unit as far as I know. -

923:

allow for a 'natural' classification based on physical cosmic ray sources instead of human-defined boundaries at random energies.

625: 3089: 277: 238: 99: 30: 1973: 129: 1105:

M_0 M = ------------ v² Sqrt c²

104: 20: 492: 2918:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2967:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

378: 339: 74: 860:

at around 5×10–10 eV. The reason for the excitement about the cosmic ray discussed in the article is that its energy was

125: 2854: 2686: 2616: 2568: 2563: 2524: 2495: 2455: 660:

scientific journals state just a high-energy proton was detected, this whole article ought to be merged as a section at

213: 24: 2572: 65: 2285:

A man was hit by a beam of accelerated particles in 1978, and survived, even if half of his face remained paralyzed:

2979:

I've edit out the parts where it says that it's a proton, and replaced it with Iron Nuclei because of this article:

175: 3065:

Xavier Calmet and Folkert Kuipers, Theoretical bounds on dark matter masses, Physics Letters B, Volume 814 (2021),

1873:(first-order expansion of square root of (1-x) is 1 - (1/2)x, valid because x is much smaller than 1 in this case) 2555: 2057: 2028:...And this is close enough to the 5e-24 value the article cites, which is consistent with a lag of about 50 nm. 2826: 2187: 1303: 2433: 996: 2944:

shows that the term is used academically, especially in conjunction with the first to be detected. Like the

2850: 2682: 2612: 2470:

It's hard to tell which of the senses of "tracer" is intended in explaining the source of these cosmic rays.

2451: 2235: 2160: 2095: 2082: 2036: 1069: 1038: 1012: 732: 686: 608: 467: 109: 1011:

approximately the same, but the mass its trying to deflect grows, making the particle harder to deflect. --

3039: 2992: 2649:

In this Letter, we put forth the filamentary AGN jets as a promising candidate for the cosmic-ray Zevatron

2377:

I think it means that in the static observer's frame of reference the proton is travelling at (1 − (5×10))

2286: 2231: 2183: 1250: 466:

I've added a back-link from the GZK limit page, which should make it at least a little more accessible. --

141: 2122:

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? —

3015: 2409: 2367: 2330: 2293: 992: 717: 668: 584: 219: 2527:. Is that correct? In that case we should almost certainly just mention the nickname here and redirect 1034: 765:, I'm afraid you are missing the point. The "Oh-My-God particle" isn't significant because it's a new 3070: 1866:{\displaystyle {\frac {v}{C}}\approx 1-\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)\left({\frac {M_{0}}{M}}\right)^{2}} 649:"The content you requested requires a subscription to this site or Science Pay per Article purchase. " 3033:

But I'm not sure how to work this in or if this is even appropriate so I'm just leaving this here. -

2875: 2871: 2818: 2764: 2730: 2708: 2422: 2054: 1030: 988: 190: 2391: 2215: 1962:{\displaystyle {\frac {v}{C}}\approx 1-0.5\left({\frac {1\cdot 10^{9}}{3\cdot 10^{20}}}\right)^{2}} 975: 917: 864:

this theoretical limit. Most UHECR are 'well-behaving' cosmic rays, however, and even though their

714: 665: 581: 161: 55: 386:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2924: 2886: 2658: 2536: 2504: 2494:

has its own very short article. Does it have enough notability beyond being a possible source of

2249: 2219: 2200: 2123: 2074: 1230: 1089: 1064: 1052: 800: 786: 636: 594: 551: 516: 70: 3006: 1229:

10 seconds ago (possibly less, does length contraction figure in here or just time dilation?).

832: 3034: 2988: 2953: 2745: 2347:

particle) are sufficient evidence for the phenomenon being unexplainable using known physics.

2156: 2078: 824: 746: 51: 626:

http://prola.aps.org/abstract/PRD/v34/i5/p1622_1?qid=75ae0aca4f0202c0&qseq=15&show=10

3011: 2983: 2638: 2636: 2595: 2475: 2405: 2363: 2289: 2262: 913: 620: 488: 480: 269: 2329:

pancake of secondary radiation that can be measured and back-tracked by ground detectors.

3048: 3019: 2957: 2934: 2906: 2879: 2858: 2830: 2768: 2760: 2748: 2734: 2726: 2712: 2704: 2690: 2662: 2620: 2540: 2508: 2479: 2459: 2437: 2413: 2395: 2371: 2351: 2333: 2314: 2311: 2297: 2280: 2265: 2252: 2238: 2223: 2203: 2163: 2144: 2126: 2116: 2098: 2085: 2039: 1233: 1203: 1092: 1072: 1055: 1015: 978: 959: 941: 839: 818: 803: 789: 750: 735: 720: 689: 671: 611: 597: 587: 554: 533: 519: 506:

gives this piece a look as if it was a joke, can it be re-written slightly more formally?

460: 457: 447: 444: 1511:{\displaystyle \left({\frac {M}{M_{0}}}\right)^{2}={\frac {1}{1-{\frac {v^{2}}{C^{2}}}}}} 655:"If you are not a registered subscriber but would like to purchase this article, use ..." 2387: 2276: 888:

article, since these topics are very closely related, and start a new article on UHECR;

604: 524:

Are you talkign about a baseball batted fastball..? It is unclear for non americans. --

507: 453: 370: 2721:

Tevatron is short for Trillion-electron-volt (or tera-electron-volt) synchrocyclotron.

3083: 2654: 2559: 2532: 2500: 2113: 1200: 1086: 938: 815: 709: 2681:

Fascinating reading; thanks for the links! I withdraw my objections to the merge. --

1088:. It shows the work used to get that figure. I'll paste it here, where's the error? 2949: 2846: 2842: 2755: 2740: 2348: 2589: 2050: 849: 3066: 2945: 2929: 2899: 2471: 2052:

OK not an authoratative source, but can someone check the energy calculation?

1418:{\displaystyle {\frac {M}{M_{0}}}={\sqrt {\frac {1}{1-{\frac {v^{2}}{C^{2}}}}}}} 956: 836: 550:

is linked, you can click on it and learn everything you ever wanted to know. :)

484: 354: 333: 2841:

Knowledge is not the place to try to publish or popularize your own ideas. See

2382: 682: 360: 259: 2230:

an electron or other charged particle in your body, which would then cause a

2272: 2136: 1677:{\displaystyle {\frac {v^{2}}{C^{2}}}=1-\left({\frac {M_{0}}{M}}\right)^{2}} 1594:{\displaystyle \left({\frac {M_{0}}{M}}\right)^{2}=1-{\frac {v^{2}}{C^{2}}}} 885: 857: 525: 282: 253: 232: 2271:

I'd say it would be more like being shot by a very very tiny bullet... --

892: 2644: 2608: 2551: 2528: 2516: 2491: 2062: 547: 503: 2112:

article and probably stop to many more comments being raised about it. -

2287:

http://forgetomori.com/2008/science/hit-by-a-particle-accelerator-beam/

383: 2779:

The problem of ultrahigh-energy cosmic rays has been completely solved

2490:

There are several possible explanations for these particles, but only

726:

Just did the search again. Still got "about 30,000" as the hit count.

881:

To resolve the situation, I suggest that we do one of the following:

782: 762: 678: 661: 891:

Rename this article to 'Extremely High Energy Cosmic Ray' (see e.g.

777:

is what's significant (and thus worthy of its own article), not the

3071:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0370269321000083

1244:

are as follows, for anyone who wanted to see the steps JW omitted:

1778:{\displaystyle {\frac {v}{C}}=\left^{\left({\frac {1}{2}}\right)}} 1220:

10 light-seconds, so if the OMG particle arrives at a detector 1.5

2031:

So in summary, I goofed about the values. Sorry for the trouble.

483:

affected by the GZK limit? If not, here's your "best" suspect. --

2598:). My vote would be for keeping it as a standalone stub for now. 2065: 2898:. Not enough discussion and appears to be notable separately. 184: 15: 2718:

Bevatron is short for Billion-electron-volt synchrocyclotron.

3007:

http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Astro/timlin.html

835:. That seems like enough justification to keep the name. -- 681:

makes no sense. If it was merged anywhere, it would be with

3003:

2* 10^20 ev/(3*Boltzmann's constant) = 7.7 * 10^23 kelvins

2948:, it seems to stand out enough to warrant a colloquialism. 2984:

http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100222/full/4631011a.html

2018:{\displaystyle {\frac {v}{C}}\approx 1-5.6\cdot 10^{-24}} 621:

http://www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/288/5469/1147a

898:

Change the content of this article to reflect its title.

2585: 2581: 2577: 2549:

From what I can tell from the journal article cited at

603:

common in science. A relatively recent example is the "

160: 3110:

Knowledge level-5 vital articles in Physical sciences

2865:

Most Energetic Cosmic Rays from Graviton Acceleration

2653:(first page, right column, somewhere in the middle). 2077:). The energy, 3e20 eV, corresponds to about 50 J. A 1976: 1881: 1793: 1691: 1608: 1525: 1433: 1353: 1306: 1253: 773:

kind of particle with a shockingly high energy. The

758:

me, this is a real subject of study, and not a joke.

2428:

Doesn't LQG explain ultra-high-energy comsmic rays?

382:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2017: 1961: 1865: 1777: 1676: 1593: 1510: 1417: 1337: 1291: 515:have a comparison to an everyday event like this. 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 761:As for the claim that it should be merged with 474: 3067:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.physletb.2021.136068 1425:(from SR; we both start with versions of this) 3130:C-Class Astronomy articles of High-importance 3100:Knowledge vital articles in Physical sciences 174: 8: 281:, which collaborates on articles related to 3115:C-Class vital articles in Physical sciences 2999:10^20 ev corresponds to 7.7 * 10^23 kelvins 1785:(this is equivalent to JW's ending formula) 3145:C-Class physics articles of Low-importance 2791:The following discussion has been closed. 2782: 328: 227: 2928:with a redirect to the relevant section. 2006: 1977: 1975: 1953: 1940: 1922: 1909: 1882: 1880: 1857: 1842: 1836: 1817: 1794: 1792: 1759: 1754: 1743: 1728: 1722: 1692: 1690: 1668: 1653: 1647: 1625: 1615: 1609: 1607: 1583: 1573: 1567: 1552: 1537: 1531: 1524: 1497: 1487: 1481: 1469: 1460: 1448: 1439: 1432: 1403: 1393: 1387: 1374: 1363: 1354: 1352: 1338:{\displaystyle M\approx 3\cdot 10^{20}eV} 1323: 1305: 1277: 1258: 1252: 2073:inconsistent with the value I get using 1345:(actually it's E + M0, but close enough) 645:valid sources they all require payment: 3058: 330: 229: 188: 2515:After some more digging it seems like 829:Eye Spies Highs in Cosmic Rays' Demise 1292:{\displaystyle M_{0}=1\cdot 10^{9}eV} 827:has called it that at least twice in 769:of particle. It's significant as an 7: 2914:The following discussion is closed. 2802:Mechanism-Revealed Physics (32/40) 475:It's a proton or a Micro Black Hole? 376:This article is within the scope of 275:This article is within the scope of 895:) and start a new article on UHECR; 218:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 3125:High-importance Astronomy articles 2995:) 23:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC+01:00) 14: 2155:I'd found 140 g as the mass of a 1167:v = 0.9999999999999999999999951 c 3095:Knowledge level-5 vital articles 2963:The discussion above is closed. 912:be analogous to the articles on 363: 353: 332: 262: 252: 231: 198: 189: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 3140:Low-importance physics articles 833:Oh My God--It's a Real Particle 708:it "was" proton. If we look at 416:This article has been rated as 311:This article has been rated as 291:Knowledge:WikiProject Astronomy 3105:C-Class level-5 vital articles 2786:Archived self-published work. 294:Template:WikiProject Astronomy 1: 2691:04:54, 24 February 2010 (UTC) 2663:21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 2621:19:44, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 2541:18:07, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 2525:ultra-high-energy cosmic rays 2509:17:57, 23 February 2010 (UTC) 2496:ultra-high-energy cosmic rays 2352:02:07, 16 November 2007 (UTC) 2298:15:07, 27 November 2011 (UTC) 2281:10:42, 30 November 2009 (UTC) 1016:04:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC) 979:19:47, 14 December 2005 (UTC) 893:Bhattacharjee & Sigl 1998 598:09:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC) 588:18:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC) 493:13:23, 21 February 2008 (UTC) 396:Knowledge:WikiProject Physics 390:and see a list of open tasks. 42:Put new text under old text. 3049:13:30, 12 October 2021 (UTC) 3020:18:49, 8 December 2016 (UTC) 2404:Thanks, that's much better. 2315:11:14, 3 November 2006 (UTC) 1003:) on 01:17, 10 February 2006 960:19:19, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 942:15:21, 15 January 2007 (UTC) 884:Merge this article with the 856:), well below the predicted 840:18:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 819:17:29, 12 January 2007 (UTC) 555:20:44, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 534:14:14, 28 January 2006 (UTC) 399:Template:WikiProject Physics 25:Ultra-high-energy cosmic ray 2880:06:32, 7 October 2011 (UTC) 2334:01:28, 28 August 2007 (UTC) 868:may be unclear, their very 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 3161: 3120:C-Class Astronomy articles 2958:13:20, 1 August 2014 (UTC) 2907:01:59, 29 April 2015 (UTC) 2859:19:17, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 2831:19:11, 18 March 2010 (UTC) 2164:15:46, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2145:09:40, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2127:03:52, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2117:03:35, 12 April 2006 (UTC) 2099:05:56, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 2086:22:19, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 2040:05:53, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1234:03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1204:02:00, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1093:03:34, 31 March 2006 (UTC) 1073:18:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 1056:17:07, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 690:18:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 672:17:28, 30 March 2006 (UTC) 422:project's importance scale 317:project's importance scale 3025:Relation with dark matter 2935:23:16, 31 July 2014 (UTC) 2769:10:37, 5 April 2015 (UTC) 2749:04:03, 3 April 2015 (UTC) 2735:00:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC) 2713:23:46, 2 April 2015 (UTC) 2480:18:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC) 2460:07:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 2438:05:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC) 2414:14:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 2396:13:53, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 2372:10:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC) 2253:23:54, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2239:20:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2224:16:01, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 2045:How fast, and what is it? 804:01:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 790:00:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC) 736:18:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 721:11:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC) 612:06:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC) 510:12:17, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC) 415: 348: 310: 247: 226: 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 3135:C-Class physics articles 2965:Please do not modify it. 2916:Please do not modify it. 2794:Please do not modify it. 2204:21:22, 6 June 2006 (UTC) 1150:And thus, approximately: 850:Nagano & Watson 2000 809:Naming/Merging/Splitting 470:07:02, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC) 461:06:34, 24 May 2004 (UTC) 448:06:29, 24 May 2004 (UTC) 2519:is just a nickname for 2266:03:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC) 520:17:34, 7 May 2005 (UTC) 3090:C-Class vital articles 2942:scan on google-scholar 2357:clarification required 2135:Sure ,it only helps.-- 2019: 1963: 1867: 1779: 1678: 1595: 1512: 1419: 1339: 1293: 75:avoid personal attacks 2896:No consensus to merge 2182:comment was added by 2020: 1964: 1868: 1780: 1679: 1596: 1513: 1420: 1340: 1294: 278:WikiProject Astronomy 205:level-5 vital article 100:Neutral point of view 2885:Proposed merge with 2423:Loop Quantum Gravity 1974: 1879: 1791: 1689: 1606: 1523: 1431: 1351: 1304: 1251: 918:galactic cosmic rays 105:No original research 2635:These two articles 502:I think the use of 379:WikiProject Physics 2925:Oh-My-God particle 2917: 2887:Oh-My-God particle 2851:Christopher Thomas 2683:Christopher Thomas 2613:Christopher Thomas 2452:Christopher Thomas 2236:Christopher Thomas 2210:If it hit a human? 2161:Christopher Thomas 2096:Christopher Thomas 2083:Christopher Thomas 2075:special relativity 2037:Christopher Thomas 2015: 1959: 1863: 1775: 1674: 1591: 1508: 1415: 1335: 1289: 1070:Christopher Thomas 1065:Special relativity 1013:Christopher Thomas 733:Christopher Thomas 687:Christopher Thomas 609:Christopher Thomas 468:Christopher Thomas 297:Astronomy articles 214:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 3047: 2915: 2838: 2837: 2821:comment added by 2531:to this article. 2222: 2195: 1985: 1947: 1890: 1851: 1825: 1802: 1767: 1737: 1700: 1662: 1631: 1589: 1546: 1506: 1503: 1454: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1369: 1047: 1033:comment added by 1005: 991:comment added by 914:solar cosmic rays 436: 435: 432: 431: 428: 427: 327: 326: 323: 322: 183: 182: 66:Assume good faith 43: 3152: 3073: 3063: 3037: 2932: 2904: 2833: 2796: 2783: 2596:relativistic jet 2593: 2575: 2381:or (1 − (5×10)) 2218: 2177: 2142: 2024: 2022: 2021: 2016: 2014: 2013: 1986: 1978: 1968: 1966: 1965: 1960: 1958: 1957: 1952: 1948: 1946: 1945: 1944: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1910: 1891: 1883: 1872: 1870: 1869: 1864: 1862: 1861: 1856: 1852: 1847: 1846: 1837: 1830: 1826: 1818: 1803: 1795: 1784: 1782: 1781: 1776: 1774: 1773: 1772: 1768: 1760: 1753: 1749: 1748: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1733: 1732: 1723: 1701: 1693: 1683: 1681: 1680: 1675: 1673: 1672: 1667: 1663: 1658: 1657: 1648: 1632: 1630: 1629: 1620: 1619: 1610: 1600: 1598: 1597: 1592: 1590: 1588: 1587: 1578: 1577: 1568: 1557: 1556: 1551: 1547: 1542: 1541: 1532: 1517: 1515: 1514: 1509: 1507: 1505: 1504: 1502: 1501: 1492: 1491: 1482: 1470: 1465: 1464: 1459: 1455: 1453: 1452: 1440: 1424: 1422: 1421: 1416: 1414: 1411: 1410: 1408: 1407: 1398: 1397: 1388: 1376: 1375: 1370: 1368: 1367: 1355: 1344: 1342: 1341: 1336: 1328: 1327: 1298: 1296: 1295: 1290: 1282: 1281: 1263: 1262: 1228: 1223: 1219: 1046: 1027: 1004: 985: 677:Merging it with 575:Scientific joke? 531: 481:Micro black hole 404: 403: 402:physics articles 400: 397: 394: 373: 368: 367: 357: 350: 349: 344: 336: 329: 299: 298: 295: 292: 289: 272: 270:Astronomy portal 267: 266: 265: 256: 249: 248: 243: 235: 228: 211: 202: 201: 194: 193: 185: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 3160: 3159: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3151: 3150: 3149: 3080: 3079: 3078: 3077: 3076: 3064: 3060: 3027: 3001: 2977: 2969: 2968: 2930: 2920: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2900: 2890: 2867: 2816: 2807: 2803: 2792: 2781: 2566: 2550: 2487: 2485:Merger proposal 2468: 2426: 2359: 2344: 2326: 2308: 2212: 2184:132.250.167.155 2178:—The preceding 2174: 2138:Procrastinating 2137: 2109: 2047: 2002: 1972: 1971: 1936: 1929: 1918: 1911: 1905: 1904: 1877: 1876: 1838: 1832: 1831: 1813: 1789: 1788: 1755: 1724: 1718: 1717: 1710: 1706: 1705: 1687: 1686: 1649: 1643: 1642: 1621: 1611: 1604: 1603: 1579: 1569: 1533: 1527: 1526: 1521: 1520: 1493: 1483: 1474: 1444: 1435: 1434: 1429: 1428: 1399: 1389: 1380: 1359: 1349: 1348: 1319: 1302: 1301: 1273: 1254: 1249: 1248: 1226: 1221: 1217: 1116:speed of light: 1106: 1028: 1024: 986: 972: 811: 751:Physical Review 728:Try it yourself 577: 527:Procrastinating 526: 500: 477: 441: 401: 398: 395: 392: 391: 369: 362: 342: 313:High-importance 296: 293: 290: 287: 286: 268: 263: 261: 242:High‑importance 241: 212:on Knowledge's 209: 199: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 3158: 3156: 3148: 3147: 3142: 3137: 3132: 3127: 3122: 3117: 3112: 3107: 3102: 3097: 3092: 3082: 3081: 3075: 3074: 3057: 3056: 3052: 3026: 3023: 3000: 2997: 2976: 2973: 2971: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2921: 2912: 2894: 2893: 2892: 2891: 2889: 2883: 2866: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2836: 2835: 2823:204.52.246.120 2809: 2804: 2801: 2798: 2797: 2788: 2787: 2780: 2777: 2776: 2775: 2774: 2773: 2772: 2771: 2722: 2719: 2700: 2699: 2698: 2697: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2693: 2672: 2671: 2670: 2669: 2668: 2667: 2666: 2665: 2647:does as well: 2640:and this book 2626: 2625: 2624: 2623: 2602: 2601: 2600: 2599: 2544: 2543: 2486: 2483: 2467: 2464: 2463: 2462: 2446: 2445: 2425: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2416: 2399: 2398: 2358: 2355: 2343: 2337: 2325: 2322: 2307: 2304: 2303: 2302: 2301: 2300: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2242: 2241: 2211: 2208: 2207: 2206: 2173: 2170: 2169: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2150: 2149: 2148: 2147: 2130: 2129: 2108: 2105: 2104: 2103: 2102: 2101: 2089: 2088: 2046: 2043: 2026: 2025: 2012: 2009: 2005: 2001: 1998: 1995: 1992: 1989: 1984: 1981: 1969: 1956: 1951: 1943: 1939: 1935: 1932: 1925: 1921: 1917: 1914: 1908: 1903: 1900: 1897: 1894: 1889: 1886: 1874: 1860: 1855: 1850: 1845: 1841: 1835: 1829: 1824: 1821: 1816: 1812: 1809: 1806: 1801: 1798: 1786: 1771: 1766: 1763: 1758: 1752: 1746: 1741: 1736: 1731: 1727: 1721: 1716: 1713: 1709: 1704: 1699: 1696: 1684: 1671: 1666: 1661: 1656: 1652: 1646: 1641: 1638: 1635: 1628: 1624: 1618: 1614: 1601: 1586: 1582: 1576: 1572: 1566: 1563: 1560: 1555: 1550: 1545: 1540: 1536: 1530: 1518: 1500: 1496: 1490: 1486: 1480: 1477: 1473: 1468: 1463: 1458: 1451: 1447: 1443: 1438: 1426: 1406: 1402: 1396: 1392: 1386: 1383: 1379: 1373: 1366: 1362: 1358: 1346: 1334: 1331: 1326: 1322: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1309: 1299: 1288: 1285: 1280: 1276: 1272: 1269: 1266: 1261: 1257: 1241: 1240: 1239: 1238: 1237: 1236: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1193: 1192: 1191: 1190: 1189: 1188: 1187: 1186: 1175: 1174: 1173: 1172: 1171: 1170: 1169: 1168: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1155: 1154: 1153: 1152: 1151: 1141: 1140: 1139: 1138: 1137: 1136: 1135: 1134: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1104: 1102: 1100: 1099: 1098: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1078: 1077: 1076: 1075: 1059: 1058: 1023: 1022:46 nanometers? 1020: 1019: 1018: 1007: 1006: 971: 968: 967: 966: 965: 964: 963: 962: 947: 946: 945: 944: 935: 929: 928: 927: 926: 925: 924: 921: 904: 903: 902: 901: 900: 899: 896: 889: 876: 875: 874: 873: 843: 842: 810: 807: 739: 738: 693: 692: 657: 656: 653: 650: 605:sonic hedgehog 593:google it up. 576: 573: 572: 571: 570: 569: 562: 561: 560: 559: 558: 557: 539: 538: 537: 536: 499: 496: 476: 473: 472: 471: 454:Salt Lake City 440: 437: 434: 433: 430: 429: 426: 425: 418:Low-importance 414: 408: 407: 405: 388:the discussion 375: 374: 371:Physics portal 358: 346: 345: 343:Low‑importance 337: 325: 324: 321: 320: 309: 303: 302: 300: 274: 273: 257: 245: 244: 236: 224: 223: 217: 195: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 3157: 3146: 3143: 3141: 3138: 3136: 3133: 3131: 3128: 3126: 3123: 3121: 3118: 3116: 3113: 3111: 3108: 3106: 3103: 3101: 3098: 3096: 3093: 3091: 3088: 3087: 3085: 3072: 3068: 3062: 3059: 3055: 3051: 3050: 3045: 3041: 3036: 3031: 3024: 3022: 3021: 3017: 3013: 3009: 3008: 3004: 2998: 2996: 2994: 2990: 2986: 2985: 2982: 2974: 2972: 2966: 2959: 2955: 2951: 2947: 2943: 2939: 2938: 2937: 2936: 2933: 2926: 2919: 2908: 2905: 2903: 2897: 2888: 2884: 2882: 2881: 2877: 2873: 2872:Alden E. Park 2864: 2860: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2840: 2839: 2834: 2832: 2828: 2824: 2820: 2812: 2800: 2799: 2795: 2790: 2789: 2785: 2784: 2778: 2770: 2766: 2762: 2757: 2752: 2751: 2750: 2747: 2742: 2738: 2737: 2736: 2732: 2728: 2723: 2720: 2717: 2716: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2706: 2692: 2688: 2684: 2680: 2679: 2678: 2677: 2676: 2675: 2674: 2673: 2664: 2660: 2656: 2652: 2650: 2646: 2642: 2639: 2637: 2634: 2633: 2632: 2631: 2630: 2629: 2628: 2627: 2622: 2618: 2614: 2610: 2606: 2605: 2604: 2603: 2597: 2591: 2587: 2583: 2579: 2574: 2570: 2565: 2561: 2557: 2553: 2548: 2547: 2546: 2545: 2542: 2538: 2534: 2530: 2526: 2522: 2518: 2514: 2513: 2512: 2511: 2510: 2506: 2502: 2497: 2493: 2484: 2482: 2481: 2477: 2473: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2453: 2448: 2447: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2435: 2431: 2430:74.14.111.238 2424: 2421: 2415: 2411: 2407: 2403: 2402: 2401: 2400: 2397: 2393: 2389: 2384: 2380: 2376: 2375: 2374: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2356: 2354: 2353: 2350: 2341: 2338: 2336: 2335: 2332: 2331:71.112.95.176 2323: 2321: 2317: 2316: 2313: 2305: 2299: 2295: 2291: 2288: 2284: 2283: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2264: 2254: 2251: 2250:Keenan Pepper 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2227: 2226: 2225: 2221: 2217: 2209: 2205: 2202: 2201:Keenan Pepper 2198: 2197: 2196: 2193: 2189: 2185: 2181: 2172:Move to UHECR 2171: 2165: 2162: 2158: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2146: 2143: 2141: 2134: 2133: 2132: 2131: 2128: 2125: 2124:Keenan Pepper 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2115: 2114:Robert Maupin 2106: 2100: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2087: 2084: 2080: 2076: 2071: 2070: 2069: 2067: 2064: 2060: 2059: 2056: 2051: 2044: 2042: 2041: 2038: 2032: 2029: 2010: 2007: 2003: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1990: 1987: 1982: 1979: 1970: 1954: 1949: 1941: 1937: 1933: 1930: 1923: 1919: 1915: 1912: 1906: 1901: 1898: 1895: 1892: 1887: 1884: 1875: 1858: 1853: 1848: 1843: 1839: 1833: 1827: 1822: 1819: 1814: 1810: 1807: 1804: 1799: 1796: 1787: 1769: 1764: 1761: 1756: 1750: 1744: 1739: 1734: 1729: 1725: 1719: 1714: 1711: 1707: 1702: 1697: 1694: 1685: 1669: 1664: 1659: 1654: 1650: 1644: 1639: 1636: 1633: 1626: 1622: 1616: 1612: 1602: 1584: 1580: 1574: 1570: 1564: 1561: 1558: 1553: 1548: 1543: 1538: 1534: 1528: 1519: 1498: 1494: 1488: 1484: 1478: 1475: 1471: 1466: 1461: 1456: 1449: 1445: 1441: 1436: 1427: 1404: 1400: 1394: 1390: 1384: 1381: 1377: 1371: 1364: 1360: 1356: 1347: 1332: 1329: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1313: 1310: 1307: 1300: 1286: 1283: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1267: 1264: 1259: 1255: 1247: 1246: 1245: 1235: 1232: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1205: 1202: 1201:Robert Maupin 1197: 1196: 1195: 1194: 1183: 1182: 1181: 1180: 1179: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1166: 1165: 1164: 1163: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1159: 1149: 1148: 1147: 1146: 1145: 1144: 1143: 1142: 1132: 1131: 1130: 1129: 1128: 1127: 1126: 1125: 1114: 1113: 1112: 1111: 1110: 1109: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1094: 1091: 1087: 1085:This source: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1079: 1074: 1071: 1066: 1063: 1062: 1061: 1060: 1057: 1054: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1044: 1040: 1036: 1032: 1021: 1017: 1014: 1009: 1008: 1002: 998: 994: 993:68.232.50.153 990: 983: 982: 981: 980: 977: 969: 961: 958: 953: 952: 951: 950: 949: 948: 943: 940: 936: 934:Any thoughts? 933: 932: 931: 930: 922: 919: 915: 911: 910: 908: 907: 906: 905: 897: 894: 890: 887: 883: 882: 880: 879: 878: 877: 871: 867: 863: 859: 855: 851: 847: 846: 845: 844: 841: 838: 834: 830: 826: 823: 822: 821: 820: 817: 808: 806: 805: 802: 796: 792: 791: 788: 784: 780: 776: 772: 768: 764: 759: 756: 752: 748: 744: 737: 734: 729: 725: 724: 723: 722: 719: 716: 711: 710:Vela Incident 707: 703: 697: 691: 688: 684: 680: 676: 675: 674: 673: 670: 667: 663: 654: 651: 648: 647: 646: 644: 641:Though these 639: 638: 633: 632: 628: 627: 623: 622: 618: 614: 613: 610: 606: 600: 599: 596: 590: 589: 586: 583: 574: 566: 565: 564: 563: 556: 553: 549: 545: 544: 543: 542: 541: 540: 535: 532: 530: 523: 522: 521: 518: 513: 512: 511: 509: 505: 497: 495: 494: 490: 486: 482: 469: 465: 464: 463: 462: 459: 455: 450: 449: 446: 438: 423: 419: 413: 410: 409: 406: 389: 385: 381: 380: 372: 366: 361: 359: 356: 352: 351: 347: 341: 338: 335: 331: 318: 314: 308: 305: 304: 301: 285:on Knowledge. 284: 280: 279: 271: 260: 258: 255: 251: 250: 246: 240: 237: 234: 230: 225: 221: 215: 207: 206: 196: 192: 187: 186: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 3061: 3053: 3035:CRGreathouse 3032: 3028: 3010: 3005: 3002: 2989:Michel_sharp 2987: 2980: 2978: 2970: 2964: 2922: 2913: 2901: 2895: 2868: 2813: 2808: 2793: 2756:Electronvolt 2741:electronvolt 2701: 2648: 2520: 2489: 2488: 2469: 2427: 2378: 2360: 2345: 2339: 2327: 2318: 2309: 2259: 2213: 2175: 2139: 2110: 2053: 2048: 2033: 2030: 2027: 1242: 1133:v = Sqrt / m 1101: 1035:12.32.72.233 1025: 973: 869: 865: 861: 854:Fonseca 2003 812: 797: 793: 778: 774: 770: 766: 760: 754: 742: 740: 705: 701: 698: 694: 658: 642: 640: 634: 629: 624: 619: 615: 601: 591: 578: 546:That is why 528: 501: 478: 451: 442: 417: 377: 312: 276: 220:WikiProjects 203: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 3012:Just granpa 2975:Iron Nuclei 2946:Wow! signal 2923:Content of 2817:—Preceding 2406:Plantsurfer 2383:light-years 2364:Plantsurfer 2342:mysterious? 2290:Gravitoweak 2263:BirdValiant 2107:Pitch Speed 1029:—Preceding 987:—Preceding 479:Would be a 148:free images 31:not a forum 3084:Categories 3054:References 2761:Fartherred 2727:Fartherred 2705:Fartherred 2523:source of 2324:Needs Work 2199:I agree. — 2058:Farmbrough 970:Deflection 775:phenomenon 683:cosmic ray 2388:Gandalf61 2063:30 March 870:existence 858:GZK limit 718:(tell me) 669:(tell me) 585:(tell me) 568:involved. 508:Cokehabit 498:fastball? 288:Astronomy 283:Astronomy 239:Astronomy 208:is rated 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2940:A quick 2819:unsigned 2655:Smocking 2645:Zevatron 2609:zevatron 2552:Zevatron 2533:Smocking 2529:Zevatron 2517:Zevatron 2501:Smocking 2492:Zevatron 2192:contribs 2180:unsigned 2157:baseball 2079:baseball 1068:from? -- 1043:contribs 1031:unsigned 1001:contribs 989:unsigned 976:Thor2023 939:Svenlafe 816:Svenlafe 749:and the 743:might be 643:might be 548:fastball 504:fastball 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2950:Kleuske 2746:Quondum 2569:protect 2564:history 2466:Tracers 2349:Atlytle 2068:(UTC). 866:sources 825:Science 747:Science 706:certain 439:hyphens 420:on the 393:Physics 384:Physics 340:Physics 315:on the 210:C-class 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2931:Revent 2902:Valoem 2573:delete 2472:Unfree 2312:raptor 2220:(talk) 2061:21:18 957:Strait 837:Strait 801:Tim314 787:Tim314 783:horses 763:proton 715:Goldie 679:proton 666:Goldie 662:Proton 637:tim314 595:Slicky 582:Goldie 485:LF1975 216:scale. 126:Google 2847:WP:RS 2843:WP:OR 2590:views 2582:watch 2578:links 2055:Rich 1231:Bryan 1090:Bryan 1053:Bryan 920:, and 862:above 664:. -- 552:Bryan 517:Bryan 197:This 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 3016:talk 2993:talk 2954:talk 2876:talk 2855:talk 2849:. -- 2845:and 2827:talk 2765:talk 2739:The 2731:talk 2709:talk 2687:talk 2659:talk 2617:talk 2611:. -- 2586:logs 2560:talk 2556:edit 2537:talk 2505:talk 2476:talk 2456:talk 2434:talk 2410:talk 2392:talk 2368:talk 2340:more 2306:Mass 2294:talk 2277:talk 2273:megA 2188:talk 2066:2006 1039:talk 997:talk 984:Yes 916:and 831:and 779:kind 767:kind 755:does 489:talk 458:Stan 445:Stan 307:High 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 3069:or 2521:any 2232:jet 2216:jak 2194:) . 1997:5.6 1902:0.5 1225:1.5 886:GZK 771:old 702:any 635:-- 412:Low 176:TWL 3086:: 3042:| 3018:) 2956:) 2878:) 2857:) 2829:) 2767:) 2733:) 2711:) 2689:) 2661:) 2619:) 2588:| 2584:| 2580:| 2576:| 2571:| 2567:| 2562:| 2558:| 2539:) 2507:) 2478:) 2458:) 2450:-- 2436:) 2412:) 2394:) 2370:) 2296:) 2279:) 2190:• 2011:24 2008:− 2004:10 2000:⋅ 1994:− 1988:≈ 1942:20 1938:10 1934:⋅ 1920:10 1916:⋅ 1899:− 1893:≈ 1811:− 1805:≈ 1715:− 1640:− 1565:− 1479:− 1385:− 1325:20 1321:10 1317:⋅ 1311:≈ 1275:10 1271:⋅ 1045:) 1041:• 999:• 955:-- 852:, 785:. 491:) 456:. 156:) 54:; 3046:) 3044:c 3040:t 3038:( 3014:( 2991:( 2952:( 2874:( 2853:( 2825:( 2763:( 2744:— 2729:( 2707:( 2685:( 2657:( 2615:( 2592:) 2554:( 2535:( 2503:( 2474:( 2454:( 2432:( 2408:( 2390:( 2379:c 2366:( 2292:( 2275:( 2186:( 2140:@ 1991:1 1983:C 1980:v 1955:2 1950:) 1931:3 1924:9 1913:1 1907:( 1896:1 1888:C 1885:v 1859:2 1854:) 1849:M 1844:0 1840:M 1834:( 1828:) 1823:2 1820:1 1815:( 1808:1 1800:C 1797:v 1770:) 1765:2 1762:1 1757:( 1751:] 1745:2 1740:) 1735:M 1730:0 1726:M 1720:( 1712:1 1708:[ 1703:= 1698:C 1695:v 1670:2 1665:) 1660:M 1655:0 1651:M 1645:( 1637:1 1634:= 1627:2 1623:C 1617:2 1613:v 1585:2 1581:C 1575:2 1571:v 1562:1 1559:= 1554:2 1549:) 1544:M 1539:0 1535:M 1529:( 1499:2 1495:C 1489:2 1485:v 1476:1 1472:1 1467:= 1462:2 1457:) 1450:0 1446:M 1442:M 1437:( 1405:2 1401:C 1395:2 1391:v 1382:1 1378:1 1372:= 1365:0 1361:M 1357:M 1333:V 1330:e 1314:3 1308:M 1287:V 1284:e 1279:9 1268:1 1265:= 1260:0 1256:M 1227:× 1222:× 1218:× 1037:( 995:( 937:— 814:- 741:" 529:@ 487:( 424:. 319:. 222:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index