desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) (02/10/86)
In article <139@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: > >The problem with this is that cosmic rays, which are largely subatomic >particles accelerated to high energies, strike the atmosphere every day, >and a significant number have higher energy than have ever been produced >in any man-made accelerator. If this is really true why don't we build orbiting detectors and wait for cosmic rays to strike their targets at these extremely high energies? Is the density of cosmic rays too low to make this practical? Sounds a lot cheaper than $1E10 for the SSC! -- David desJardins
tan@ihlpg.UUCP (Bill Tanenbaum) (02/11/86)
> In article <139@epimass.UUCP> jbuck@epimass.UUCP (Joe Buck) writes: > > > >The problem with this is that cosmic rays, which are largely subatomic > >particles accelerated to high energies, strike the atmosphere every day, > >and a significant number have higher energy than have ever been produced > >in any man-made accelerator. >----- > If this is really true why don't we build orbiting detectors and wait > for cosmic rays to strike their targets at these extremely high energies? > Is the density of cosmic rays too low to make this practical? > Sounds a lot cheaper than $1E10 for the SSC! > -- David desJardins ------ We DO build such orbiting detectors. However, the intensity of cosmic rays at high energies is many orders of magnitude below that achievable in man-made accelerators. The knowledge gained about the structure of matter in the last thirty years or more comes almost entirely from experiments at man-made accelerators. -- Bill Tanenbaum - AT&T Bell Labs - Naperville IL ihnp4!ihlpg!tan
waddingt@umn-cs.UUCP (Jake Waddington ) (02/12/86)
In article <11782@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> desj@brahms.UUCP (David desJardins) writes: > > If this, (cosmic rays have higher energy than ever been produced on earth), is really true why don't we build orbiting detectors and wait >for cosmic rays to strike their targets at these extremely high energies? >Is the density of cosmic rays too low to make this practical? > Sounds a lot cheaper than $1E10 for the SSC! > > -- David desJardins We do! We do! Yes, the flux is a problem but much of the earlyer work in high energy particle physics was done with cosmic rays. There are now at least two U.S. experiments in orbit looking at the "heavy Ions" which are in the same range as what the SSC will do. One problem as I understand it is that their is little accelerator time set a side for use with ion beams thus Cosimc Rays are still an important source of basic particle physic research. Also note the on going discussion about Cignus-X, or however you spell that. The radiation, cosmic rays, coming from Cignus are teaching us some new physics, or so it seams. By the way we still need the SSC for controlled experiments. Paul Fink U of MN Cosmic Ray Lab ihnp4!umn-cs!waddingt or all the way to where it is being done at: ihnp4!umn-cs!umn-phys!fink
guy@slu70.UUCP (02/13/86)
In article <11782@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU>, desj@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (David desJardins) writes: > > If this is really true why don't we build orbiting detectors and wait > for cosmic rays to strike their targets at these extremely high energies? > Is the density of cosmic rays too low to make this practical? > Sounds a lot cheaper than $1E10 for the SSC! > We do, or send them up in balloons or whatever to get them above most of the atmosphere. The problem, as you suggest, is one of density. Compared to the beam density of a typical accelerator, cosmic rays are very diffuse. As I recall, the brouhaha over the claimed discovery of a magnetic monopole back in the middle seventies was based on cosmic ray data.