| Revision as of 20:25, 21 June 2015 editMichel sharp (talk | contribs)156 edits →Iron Nucleus← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:26, 21 June 2015 edit undoMichel sharp (talk | contribs)156 edits →Iron NucleusNext edit → | ||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
| ==Iron Nucleus== | ==Iron Nucleus== | ||
| I've changed in the beginning ''most likely a proton'' into ''Iron Nucleus'' and halfway in the article ''subatomic particle'' into ''Atomic Nucleus'' |
I've changed in the beginning ''most likely a proton'' into ''Iron Nucleus'', and halfway in the article ''subatomic particle'' into ''Atomic Nucleus''; because of this article: | ||
| ''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.'' | ''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.'' | ||
| http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100222/full/4631011a.html | http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100222/full/4631011a.html | ||
Revision as of 20:26, 21 June 2015
Iron Nucleus
I've changed in the beginning most likely a proton into Iron Nucleus, and halfway in the article subatomic particle into Atomic Nucleus; because of this article: 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. http://www.nature.com/news/2010/100222/full/4631011a.html Michel_sharp (talk) 22:20, 21 June 2015 (UTC+01:00)
Wait a minute
It is slower by 1.5 fm/s, but would only be behind 0.15 fm after a full year? There is a problem here. Tazerdadog (talk) 04:00, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
- 0.15 fs, not 0.15 fm. The bigger problem is the "year-long" race. A year in what frame of reference? Certainly not relative to the particle -- the particle would observe light traveling at the speed of light. I guess it is relative to a staionary observer. -- Schapel (talk) 14:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The detected kinetic energy was relative to the Detector; or, in other words, the Particle's velocity, v, was relative to the Detector's frame of reference. Suppose the Year Long Race commences as the Photon and the Oh-My-God-Particle whizz past the Detector. On the passage of one year, as reckoned from within the Detector's frame, the Photon and the OMGP will have receded to two different distances from the Detector. Of course it doesn't have to be relative to the Detector. It can be any frame of reference relative to which the OMGP has its characteristic velocity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.223.130.60 (talk) 00:20, 13 May 2014 (UTC)
So does that mean that if this particle hit you, it would be like getting hit by a baseball going 60mph? You'd like stagger or fall over for no apparent reason? If not, why not? Would you spontaneously human combust? lol :) This particle is the Oh-My-Devil particle. Dkelly1966 (talk) 16:03, 21 June 2013 (UTC)
- What could be the source of this thing? Kortoso (talk) 22:31, 21 October 2014 (UTC)
- One of the sources named is Cygnus X-3 and if it hit's you, you do not feel anything. These particles travel at a large fraction of he speed of light. It needs more time to impart kinetic energy than is available. Compare it to a bullet flying into a bunch of cotton-balls. Kleuske (talk) 12:51, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
Planck Energy
There wasn't a source for the fraction of the Planck energy: 3×10/1.22×10=2.46×10. Both Plank Energy and the energy of the particle in question are well sourced. Expressing that as a fraction is a routine calculation. I haven't reverted since a) i'm not that sure how meaningful such a fraction is and b) WP:CALC seems to refer to original research. Any opinions? Kleuske (talk) 09:24, 30 July 2014 (UTC)