Origin of Cosmic Rays: Intensity Explained

logearav
Messages
329
Reaction score
0
we all know the cosmic rays comes from outer surface of the Earth from higher altitudes and enter the Earth's atmosphere in all directions. but experimental studies have revealed that intensity of cosmic rays increases with altitude and reaches a maximum at about 20 km above Earth surface and above that altitude , the intensity decreases. cosmic rays, being high energetic, comes from outer surface but its intensity is less at higher altitudes above 20 km. what is the reason for this?
 
Space news on Phys.org
Most of the cosmic rays you detect eg. as noise in CCDs are muons created in the atmosphere when higher energy particles form space hit atoms

At low altitudes these secondary muons will have been absorbed by hitting other atoms, at very high altitudes there aren't enough atmospheric atoms to be hit by high energy particles and so fewer muons are generated.
 
Any notion that cosmic rays originate more from Earth than anywhere else seriously conflicts with observational evidence.
 
thanks nobody special for your explanation
 
Just to make Chronos' point clear.
Primary cosmic rays originate in space. When they enter the atmosphere they collide with atoms in the atmosphere and make a whole shower of secondary cosmic rays, it's these secondary rays that you mostly detect and have a characteristic height profile.
 
That's the area of accumulated energy problem.
Actually the cosmic ray intensity is high in the space.
But accumulated amount of the ionized particle is high around ~ 20km altitude.

--- high altitude area very low moleclular concentration, collison possiblity very low
.
.
--- middle altitude area low molecular concentraiton , collision probablity is high
.........(high amount of ionic atoms exist)
.
--- low altitude area very high molecular concentraion, low amount cosmic ray reached from the space
.
That's the amount of accumulated high energy particle problem.
 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Recombination_(cosmology) Was a matter density right after the decoupling low enough to consider the vacuum as the actual vacuum, and not the medium through which the light propagates with the speed lower than ##({\epsilon_0\mu_0})^{-1/2}##? I'm asking this in context of the calculation of the observable universe radius, where the time integral of the inverse of the scale factor is multiplied by the constant speed of light ##c##.
The formal paper is here. The Rutgers University news has published a story about an image being closely examined at their New Brunswick campus. Here is an excerpt: Computer modeling of the gravitational lens by Keeton and Eid showed that the four visible foreground galaxies causing the gravitational bending couldn’t explain the details of the five-image pattern. Only with the addition of a large, invisible mass, in this case, a dark matter halo, could the model match the observations...
Hi, I’m pretty new to cosmology and I’m trying to get my head around the Big Bang and the potential infinite extent of the universe as a whole. There’s lots of misleading info out there but this forum and a few others have helped me and I just wanted to check I have the right idea. The Big Bang was the creation of space and time. At this instant t=0 space was infinite in size but the scale factor was zero. I’m picturing it (hopefully correctly) like an excel spreadsheet with infinite...

Similar threads

Back
Top