Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Historic planetary instability and catastrophe. Evidence for electrical scarring on planets and moons. Electrical events in today's solar system. Electric Earth.

Moderators: MGmirkin, bboyer

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Apr 24, 2017 12:09 pm

Here is another article about gypsum and "dust devils". At 13,000 feet the source of the salts is clearly transmutation.

What Moves Gravel-Size Gypsum Crystals Around the Desert? ... esert.html

In 2007, a researcher observed this whirlwind carrying gypsum crystals in the Chilean desert. Kathleen Benison

The Salar de Gorbea, some 13,000 feet above sea level, in the Atacama Desert of northern Chile, is like another planet. Active volcanoes dominate the muted, but colorful, vegetation-free landscape. In a few places, groundwater collects in salty, acidic pools. It evaporates in the sun, leaving behind gypsum crystals as big as your feet that protrude from the ground like daggers.

But they don’t stay put. Somehow they are scattered all over the place. And about three miles away it’s even weirder: It looks as if someone intentionally swept them into 15-foot-high piles, with some crystals merged together like giant gobs of rock candy.

The gypsum crystals can be as big as a person’s foot and protrude from the ground like daggers. Kathleen Benison

How they got there was a mystery, until someone stumbled upon a whirlwind so powerful, it defied textbooks. In a paper published in Geology in March, Kathleen Benison, a geologist at West Virginia University, documented how what she calls a gravel devil may be responsible for the large crystals’ movement around the desert.

“I remember holding one of the crystals and noticing how they were all broken,” Dr. Benison said. “I looked up, and there was one of these gravel devils.”

She watched for five minutes as a huge white cloud that appeared to materialize in a valley between two volcanoes moved across the landscape and over the pools before it vanished, right above the gypsum dunes. This happened every afternoon during her three-day visit in March 2007, but it is unclear how regularly they occur.

The gypsum forms into gravel dunes. Kathleen Benison

Like windblown sand grains, the crystal surfaces were scratched, suggesting that the wind had carried them. But typically anything bigger than a grain of sand can be moved only by gravity or surface water. Desert whirlwinds aren’t supposed to be strong enough to carry anything as large as these gravel-size gypsum crystals.

But whirlwinds occasionally defy thermodynamic speed limits, said Nicholas Heavens, a planetary scientist at Hampton University who was not involved in the study but wrote a commentary about it. In Arizona, dust devils have been seen and proved capable of carrying small rodents, and in 2013, a ghostly wind ripped the side mirror off a police car in Hartford.

Dr. Heavens has no doubt that the gravel devil exists. It’s just extreme: To lift the crystals in the air and transport them, the speed at the center of a gravel devil must be around 150 miles per hour, he said. That’s at least the strength of an F0 tornado, and more like an F1.

After the gravel devils move the gypsum, some of it clumps together when exposed to groundwater. Kathleen Benison

He says he thinks the study of gravel devils may be a safe way to gain insights into how whirlwinds, including tornadoes, violate presumed speed limits on Earth. It may also reveal signs of extreme whirlwinds of the past if ancient gypsum deposits have a similar composition to these fresher ones in Chile.

But Dr. Benison, who found living algae and bacteria inside the crystals in Chile, is also interested in extreme life and how it can be preserved for thousands of years and transported via gypsum crystals. Recently in Mexico, scientists woke up microbes that were dormant for as long as 50,000 years in giant gypsum crystals.

And given the similarities in the climates in Salar de Gorbea and on Mars, Dr. Benison wonders if the crystals and dust devils here could serve as analogues for those that exist on Mars: “Can we look in those crystals and see the same kind of micro-organisms that we have in Chile?”
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby allynh » Mon Oct 09, 2017 2:00 pm

Here is another result showing that protons are smaller than once thought.

Proton-size puzzle deepens ... ns-1.22760
Measurement in ordinary hydrogen agrees with a surprising 2010 result on the element's exotic cousin — but gives a smaller value than virtually every other experiment.

05 October 2017

Axel Beyer

Researchers shone lasers at hydrogen atoms in a vacuum chamber to pinpoint the size of the protons inside.

The proton might truly be smaller than was thought. Experiments on an exotic form of hydrogen first found1 a puzzling discrepancy with the accepted size in 2010. Now, evidence from a German and Russian team points to a smaller value for the size of the proton with ordinary hydrogen, too.

The results, which appeared on 5 October in Science2, could be the first step towards resolving a puzzle that has made physicists doubt their most precise measurements, and even their most cherished theories.

Still, “before any resolution, this new value has to be confirmed”, says Jan Bernauer, a physicist at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Cambridge. If other labs confirm it, he adds, “then we can find why the old experiments were wrong, hopefully”.

Method mix-up

For decades, physicists have estimated the size of the proton using one of two main techniques. Atomic physicists use spectroscopy to measure the energy levels of electrons orbiting an atomic nucleus — consisting of either the single proton in a hydrogen atom, or a bigger nucleus. The size of the nucleus affects those energies because electrons spend some time moving through the nucleus as they orbit it.

Meanwhile, nuclear physicists have used a similar technique to the one that enabled Ernest Rutherford to discover atomic nuclei in the first place. They hit the atoms with beams of fast-moving electrons and measure how the electrons bounce off.

As their precision improved, both methods roughly came to agree on a radius of about 0.8768 femtometres (millionths of a millionth of a millimetre).

But in 2010, a novel kind of experiment completed at the Paul Scherrer Institute in Villigen, Switzerland, disrupted the consensus. After a decade of unsuccessful attempts, a multinational collaboration led by Randolf Pohl, then at the Max Planck Institute of Quantum Optics (MPQ) in Garching, Germany, measured energy transitions not in ordinary hydrogen, but in lab-made ‘muonic’ hydrogen. These are atoms in which the electron has been replaced by a muon — a particle similar to an electron in most of its properties, but 200 times more massive. The heavier particle spends more time inside the nucleus, which means that the proton’s size has a much larger effect on the muon’s energies — which, in turn, should lead to a much more precise estimate of the proton’s radius.

Pohl’s team found the proton to be 4% smaller than the accepted value. Some researchers speculated that perhaps some previously unknown physics could make muons act differently than electrons. This would have required a revision of the standard model of particle physics, which predicts that muons and electrons should be identical in every way except for their masses — and might have pointed to the existence of yet-to-be-discovered elementary particles.

Exciting technique

In the latest paper2, Pohl, now at the Johannes Gutenberg University in Mainz, Germany, and his collaborators tickled hydrogen atoms — containing ordinary electrons — with two different lasers. The first one sent the atoms’ electrons into an excited state, and the second one put them into a higher-energy excitation. The team then detected the photons that the atoms released as their electrons fell back into lower-energy excitation states.

The team combined its data with an earlier, high-precision measurement to calculate the Rydberg constant, which expresses the energy that it takes to rip the electron off the hydrogen atom. Standard theory then enabled the researchers to calculate the radius of the proton from this constant. The value they found was consistent with the muonic-hydrogen measurement, and 5% smaller than the 'official' proton radius.

To ensure that they eliminated any spurious experimental effects, the team spent three years analysing its data, says Lothar Maisenbacher, a co-author of the paper and an atomic physicist at the MPQ.

Bernauer, who works on the electron–proton scattering technique, is impressed. “It’s a great experiment,” he says. “I think they really advanced their field with this.”

The care that they took is “very impressive”, and makes their measurement more reliable than many others, says Krzysztof Pachucki, a theoretical physicist at the University of Warsaw who is on the task group of the Committee on Data for Science and Technology (CODATA).

CODATA, the international agency that publishes the best-known values of the fundamental constants, is taking notice of the Mainz experiment. “We will take this result very seriously,” says Pachucki. The committee is due to revise the ‘official’ handbook of universal constants of nature next year. Because of this experiment, CODATA will "most probably” change its values for the proton radius and Rydberg constant, he says.

More evidence needed

But the German–Russian group is not quite ready to claim that the puzzle has been solved, Maisenbacher says. “We have not identified any conclusive reason why the other measurements should not be correct themselves,” he says. “We would like to see more experiments from other people.”

A number of teams around the world are doing just that. Bernauer is interested, for example, in the results of spectroscopy experiments being done at York University in Toronto, Canada. If their measurement is also small, “then I would start to believe that the old data has a problem”, Bernauer says. But that would still leave open the matter of the electron–proton scattering results.

In those experiments, researchers have conventionally used electrons that have a range of different energies. Estimating the size of the proton required extrapolating all the way to an ideal situation, in which electrons had zero energy.

Ashot Gasparian, a particle and nuclear physicist at North Carolina A&T State University in Greensboro and his team have recently conducted an experiment at the Thomas Jefferson National Accelerator Facility in Newport News, Virginia. They injected cold hydrogen gas directly into their electron accelerator, rather than bombarding liquid hydrogen kept in a plastic box, as was previously done. This technique enabled them to remove some experimental uncertainties and also to use electrons with lower energies than before. In principle, this could reveal whether and where the previous extrapolations went wrong. They are now analysing their data and hope to have results next year. “The ball is in our court,” says Gasparian.
Posts: 806
Joined: Fri Aug 22, 2008 5:51 pm

Re: Mummified Dinosaurs / electric fossilization...?

Unread postby Cargo » Mon Oct 09, 2017 10:44 pm

similar does not equal identical. I think I see where they went wrong maybe. wth is a muon anyway. A dark atom we need to solve this problem without electricity.
Posts: 103
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 7:02 pm


Return to Electric Universe - Planetary Science

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest