Case of the Missing Electrons

Cosmic Rays VS. Solar Emissions...

Has anyone ever compared the ratio of particles emitted
by the Sun to cosmic rays from outside the Solar System?

I'm wondering especially about the electrons... there are
only relatively few electrons in cosmic rays. So are there
more electrons (relative to protons) in solar rays?

I suspect that there might be a greater number of electrons
in solar radiation...

....so what might be the reason that cosmic radiation, which
reaches us from other stars, contains fewer electrons than
our own solar radiation?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
Tender is my love for thee
Oh star so close at hand,
Warming those so dear to me
As we lay on the sand...

It's so easy to believe
In all this beachin' fun,
That some day you and i will be--
Altogether one.

Paine Ellsworth

Painius asks,

Has anyone ever compared the ratio of
particles emitted by the Sun to cosmic
rays from outside the Solar System?

You might find these articles of interest, Paine-

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_0...ws_103102.html

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/SKliew...ys/Primary.htm
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Painius asks,

Has anyone ever compared the ratio of
particles emitted by the Sun to cosmic
rays from outside the Solar System?

You might find these articles of interest, Paine-

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_0...ws_103102.html

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/SKliew...ys/Primary.htm
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Painius asks,

Has anyone ever compared the ratio of
particles emitted by the Sun to cosmic
rays from outside the Solar System?

You might find these articles of interest, Paine-

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_0...ws_103102.html

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/SKliew...ys/Primary.htm
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Thanks again, Bill -- great stuff! Some thoughts that came
to mind as i read the Berkeley Lab pages...

Although there was no mention why the Sun's radiation of
particles is electromagnetically neutral (the ratio of electrons
to ions is even-steven) and cosmic rays from space are
something like 95% hydrogen nuclei, 4% helium nuclei, and
1% everything else up to iron...

and including just a smattering of electrons...

if we accept for the moment that cosmic rays come from
sources similar to our Sun, then a couple things we must
explain are...

1) why some of these particles are far more energetic
than any coming from the Sun, and

2) what happens to all the electrons?

Number 1) is usually explained by saying that the sources
of the cosmic rays must start out by being very energetic,
and that in addition, these charged particles may take on
additional energy due to interactions with stellar and
galactic magnetic energy.

Unfortunately, neither interactions with magnetic fields nor
any known possible sources can account for the highest-
energy particles in cosmic rays.

I have not yet come across an explanation for number 2)
above...

So i'm thinking as i'm reading the Berkeley pages that the
charged particles in cosmic rays could be interacting with
the vacuum flux, that constant creation and destruction of
matter/antimatter particles that goes on in every cc of space.

This would not only account for the fewer electrons in cosmic
rays due to losses by their meeting up with positrons...

If electrons in stellar winds are meeting up with vacuum flux
pairs and annhilating with the positrons, that leaves a relatively
low-energy electron from each pair alive and well and capable
of adding to the dark matter of the inter-stellar/-galactic media.

And the energy that was possessed by the annihilated cosmic
ray electron, as well as the energy from the dual-particle
annihilation, can be imparted to the remaining cosmic ray
particles.

This would act to...

a) increase the energy of associated cosmic ray particles
(the longer they travel through space, the higher their energy
level may climb),

b) explain why cosmic rays from space are electron deficient,

c) be a source for a buildup of matter that does not shine with
its own light and is too far away from light sources to reflect
light. This applies whether within a galaxy or outside in
intergalactic space.

I suppose all this is too much to hope for though, eh?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
"Oh give me please the Universe keys
That unlock all those mysteries!"
You pay your fees, you find some keys,
That keeps you always groping.

"Oh give me please the Happiness keys
That ease the pain of biting fleas!"
Today you seize you need no keys,
That door is always open.

Paine Ellsworth

"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Painius asks,

Has anyone ever compared the ratio of
particles emitted by the Sun to cosmic
rays from outside the Solar System?

You might find these articles of interest, Paine-

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_0...ws_103102.html

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/SKliew...ys/Primary.htm
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Thanks again, Bill -- great stuff! Some thoughts that came
to mind as i read the Berkeley Lab pages...

Although there was no mention why the Sun's radiation of
particles is electromagnetically neutral (the ratio of electrons
to ions is even-steven) and cosmic rays from space are
something like 95% hydrogen nuclei, 4% helium nuclei, and
1% everything else up to iron...

and including just a smattering of electrons...

if we accept for the moment that cosmic rays come from
sources similar to our Sun, then a couple things we must
explain are...

1) why some of these particles are far more energetic
than any coming from the Sun, and

2) what happens to all the electrons?

Number 1) is usually explained by saying that the sources
of the cosmic rays must start out by being very energetic,
and that in addition, these charged particles may take on
additional energy due to interactions with stellar and
galactic magnetic energy.

Unfortunately, neither interactions with magnetic fields nor
any known possible sources can account for the highest-
energy particles in cosmic rays.

I have not yet come across an explanation for number 2)
above...

So i'm thinking as i'm reading the Berkeley pages that the
charged particles in cosmic rays could be interacting with
the vacuum flux, that constant creation and destruction of
matter/antimatter particles that goes on in every cc of space.

This would not only account for the fewer electrons in cosmic
rays due to losses by their meeting up with positrons...

If electrons in stellar winds are meeting up with vacuum flux
pairs and annhilating with the positrons, that leaves a relatively
low-energy electron from each pair alive and well and capable
of adding to the dark matter of the inter-stellar/-galactic media.

And the energy that was possessed by the annihilated cosmic
ray electron, as well as the energy from the dual-particle
annihilation, can be imparted to the remaining cosmic ray
particles.

This would act to...

a) increase the energy of associated cosmic ray particles
(the longer they travel through space, the higher their energy
level may climb),

b) explain why cosmic rays from space are electron deficient,

c) be a source for a buildup of matter that does not shine with
its own light and is too far away from light sources to reflect
light. This applies whether within a galaxy or outside in
intergalactic space.

I suppose all this is too much to hope for though, eh?

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
"Oh give me please the Universe keys
That unlock all those mysteries!"
You pay your fees, you find some keys,
That keeps you always groping.

"Oh give me please the Happiness keys
That ease the pain of biting fleas!"
Today you seize you need no keys,
That door is always open.

Paine Ellsworth

In message
, Painius
writes
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Painius asks,

Has anyone ever compared the ratio of
particles emitted by the Sun to cosmic
rays from outside the Solar System?

You might find these articles of interest, Paine-

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_0...ws_103102.html

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/SKliew...ys/Primary.htm
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Thanks again, Bill -- great stuff! Some thoughts that came
to mind as i read the Berkeley Lab pages...

Although there was no mention why the Sun's radiation of
particles is electromagnetically neutral (the ratio of electrons
to ions is even-steven) and cosmic rays from space are
something like 95% hydrogen nuclei, 4% helium nuclei, and
1% everything else up to iron...

and including just a smattering of electrons...

if we accept for the moment that cosmic rays come from
sources similar to our Sun, then a couple things we must
explain are...

But surely no-one does accept that, unless you're talking about
low-energy ones. They come from things like supernovae, and things more
mysterious.
If the sum of particles from the Sun wasn't neutral we'd never see them;
the charge difference that would be produced would be astronomical and
they would be attracted back to the Sun.
I'd guess that the reason we never see electrons is that they never make
it; they are so much less massive than protons that they get wrapped up
with magnetic fields and lose energy by synchrotron radiation.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

In message
, Painius
writes
"Bill Sheppard" wrote in message...
...

Painius asks,

Has anyone ever compared the ratio of
particles emitted by the Sun to cosmic
rays from outside the Solar System?

You might find these articles of interest, Paine-

http://www.brightsurf.com/news/oct_0...ws_103102.html

http://www.lbl.gov/abc/cosmic/SKliew...ys/Primary.htm
oc

Anti-spam address: oldcoot88atwebtv.net
Change 'at' to@

Thanks again, Bill -- great stuff! Some thoughts that came
to mind as i read the Berkeley Lab pages...

Although there was no mention why the Sun's radiation of
particles is electromagnetically neutral (the ratio of electrons
to ions is even-steven) and cosmic rays from space are
something like 95% hydrogen nuclei, 4% helium nuclei, and
1% everything else up to iron...

and including just a smattering of electrons...

if we accept for the moment that cosmic rays come from
sources similar to our Sun, then a couple things we must
explain are...

But surely no-one does accept that, unless you're talking about
low-energy ones. They come from things like supernovae, and things more
mysterious.
If the sum of particles from the Sun wasn't neutral we'd never see them;
the charge difference that would be produced would be astronomical and
they would be attracted back to the Sun.
I'd guess that the reason we never see electrons is that they never make
it; they are so much less massive than protons that they get wrapped up
with magnetic fields and lose energy by synchrotron radiation.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote...
in message ...
Painius writes...

if we accept for the moment that cosmic rays come from
sources similar to our Sun, then a couple things we must
explain are...

But surely no-one does accept that, unless you're talking about
low-energy ones. They come from things like supernovae, and things more
mysterious.

Yes, i was using the term "similar" very loosely. And even
supernovae are unable to account for the highest energy
particles in cosmic rays. Your "more mysterious" things
might be the ticket; however, scientists seem to be leaning
toward cosmic-ray particles getting boosts of energy while
in transit--ie, after emission from their sources.

If the sum of particles from the Sun wasn't neutral we'd never see them;
the charge difference that would be produced would be astronomical and
they would be attracted back to the Sun.

This seems to support the depletion of electrons happening
long after emission from the source.

I'd guess that the reason we never see electrons is that they never make
it; they are so much less massive than protons that they get wrapped up
with magnetic fields and lose energy by synchrotron radiation.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

You may be correct about this, however the few electrons
that *do* come with cosmic rays are loaded with energy
and are traveling at relativistic speeds. It would take an
extremely large and powerful magnetic field to capture
such energetic electrons and turn them into synchrotron
generators.

In fact, it almost seems as if the particles could have been
accelerated by a magnetic field and then released. But
this doesn't really hold water either. It wouldn't explain the
existence of the other particles in cosmic rays, particles
that don't take part in cyclotron or synchrotron radiation.

The faster an electron goes, the less likely it would be
captured by a magnetic field or anything else... with the
sole possible exception of a positron. And even the
positron would probably not capture it. The relativistic
electron may travel for light-years before accidently
bumping into a positron and *POOF*.

And yet, you travel enough light-years and the *POOF*'s
become more and more likely.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
"Oh give me please the Universe keys
That unlock all those mysteries!"
You pay your fees, you find some keys,
That keeps you always groping.

"Oh give me please the Happiness keys
That ease the pain of biting fleas!"
Today you seize you need no keys,
That door is always open.

Paine Ellsworth

"Jonathan Silverlight" wrote...
in message ...
Painius writes...

if we accept for the moment that cosmic rays come from
sources similar to our Sun, then a couple things we must
explain are...

But surely no-one does accept that, unless you're talking about
low-energy ones. They come from things like supernovae, and things more
mysterious.

Yes, i was using the term "similar" very loosely. And even
supernovae are unable to account for the highest energy
particles in cosmic rays. Your "more mysterious" things
might be the ticket; however, scientists seem to be leaning
toward cosmic-ray particles getting boosts of energy while
in transit--ie, after emission from their sources.

If the sum of particles from the Sun wasn't neutral we'd never see them;
the charge difference that would be produced would be astronomical and
they would be attracted back to the Sun.

This seems to support the depletion of electrons happening
long after emission from the source.

I'd guess that the reason we never see electrons is that they never make
it; they are so much less massive than protons that they get wrapped up
with magnetic fields and lose energy by synchrotron radiation.
--
"Forty millions of miles it was from us, more than forty millions of miles of
void"
Remove spam and invalid from address to reply.

You may be correct about this, however the few electrons
that *do* come with cosmic rays are loaded with energy
and are traveling at relativistic speeds. It would take an
extremely large and powerful magnetic field to capture
such energetic electrons and turn them into synchrotron
generators.

In fact, it almost seems as if the particles could have been
accelerated by a magnetic field and then released. But
this doesn't really hold water either. It wouldn't explain the
existence of the other particles in cosmic rays, particles
that don't take part in cyclotron or synchrotron radiation.

The faster an electron goes, the less likely it would be
captured by a magnetic field or anything else... with the
sole possible exception of a positron. And even the
positron would probably not capture it. The relativistic
electron may travel for light-years before accidently
bumping into a positron and *POOF*.

And yet, you travel enough light-years and the *POOF*'s
become more and more likely.

happy days and...
starry starry nights!

--
"Oh give me please the Universe keys
That unlock all those mysteries!"
You pay your fees, you find some keys,
That keeps you always groping.

"Oh give me please the Happiness keys
That ease the pain of biting fleas!"
Today you seize you need no keys,
That door is always open.

Paine Ellsworth