Gamma Ray Burst

>>6786928

So you're going to refuse to leave your basement, just in case of an event that happens every few hundred million years?

Some Deep subterranean caves caverns etc. like sexy woman down in Peru

>>6786934
>So you're going to refuse to leave your basement, just in case of an event that happens every few hundred million years?

GRBs can last for some time. You'll have time to escape.

>>6786977

You won't. They last a couple minutes at most, during which you wouldn't even be aware it was occurring.

>>6786981
Correct me if I'm wrong but all of the gamma rays are stopped by our atmosphere. So how are GRBs different and what would they do if they hit Earth and people for few minutes?

By my rough calculations, there is approximately a 1 in 10,000,000 chance that a deadly gamma ray burst will hit the Earth in your lifetime.

In contrast, you have about a 1 in 100 chance of dying in a car crash.

>>6786928
What's the mechanism behind GRB? Maybe there are a neutrinos a few minutes prior. I guess hiding in some basement should be enough to survive. Although I have no idea how intense exactly those GRBs are. You never know with these huge cosmological phenomena.

>>6786985

According to Wikipedia, the immediate danger would be from ultraviolet.

>>6787001
>According to Wikipedia, the immediate danger would be from ultraviolet.

how can UV light cause mass extinction? makes no sense.

>how do you protect yourself from a GRB if it hits Earth?

you dont

Would lead-lining in your basement protect you?

no

How much lead do you need to stop GRB?

more than you can get

I thought massive neutrino burst caused the major extinction 500 million years ago.

>>6787135
>how does cooking all surface life on earth cause mass extinctions?

>>6787135
>how can UV light cause mass extinction?

Radiation poisoning.

>>6787212
>I thought massive neutrino burst caused the major extinction 500 million years ago.

Neutrino???? 10 BILLION neutrinos pass through the thumb of your finger every second. Yes, really.

Neutrino can't do shit to baryonic matter.

>>6787378
If our sun were to explode in a super nova (I know it can't) tomorrow, we wouldn't even survive to see it happening. Reason: Right before the visible super nova, an enormous neutrino burst happens that is in fact so intense that it kills (nearly) every living thing on earth. Neutrino cross sections in matter might be extremely small, but when you have a LOT of neutrinos, it's still enough to kill something.

>>6787406

I'm guessing you're getting that from that xkcd, which also notes that to be close enough to get a lethal dose of neutrinos from a supernova, you would have to be already inside the star that was exploding.

So, being literally inside a star (that is exploding) is probably more important than radiation poisoning.

>>6786928
>how do you protect yourself from a GRB if it hits Earth?
You don't. If you're on the hemisphere the burst hits, you will die instantly. If you're on the opposite hemisphere, you will die horribly over the course of several hours.

>>6786994
those are some completely shit statistics anon.

File: 2012.jpg (20KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 300x300px

>>6787212
>massive neutrino burst
that was the plot device in the movie "2012"

>>6787539
>neutrinos
>affecting anything at all

>>6787406
this is nonsense. it's simply NOT TRUE! please show me a peer-reviewed paper showing that neutrinos can kill you. you're literally bathed in neutrinos right now. over a trillion of them pass through you ever sec.

>>6788821
What is so hard to get about this? There are reactions between neutrinos and matter, the charged current is potentially ionising. Now, you need a LOT of neutrinos, but of course at one point you have enough neutrinos to kill somebody. It's not that complicated, you just need lots of neutrinos. A super nova produces unimaginably high amounts of neutrinos, so that is covered.

>>6787476
>those are some completely shit statistics anon.

How so?

>>6788835
see
>>6787429

>>6788835
Ok, not that i believe you or not, but im curious. I know you can detect neutrino only if it directly hits other particle, such as quark in nucleus, but does it have any effect on it besides bouncig of it? Can it destroy an atom somehow?

>>6786994

That's retarded. The chance to get hit by lightning is 1 in 1.000.000. You mean to tell me that a gama ray is only 10 times more likely to happen than a lightning strike? Nigga pls

>>6788849
Yes, I got it, thank you.

>>6788852
There are two major ways neutrinos interact with matter, the neutral current and the charged current. The neutral current is something like

Neutrino + Nucleon --> Neutrino + Nucleon + neutral Pion. (Neutron is either Proton or Neutron)

The Pion can theoretically ionise matter in reactions like

Pion + Proton --> Neutron + Pion^+.

The charged current is something like

Neutrino + Nucleon --> Lepton + Nucleon + charged Pion.

The Lepton has potentially ionising effects on the surrounding matter, the charged pion as well.

Oh great! somebody spreading poison about shit we cant even do anything about again, thank you so much, psst! get a job

>>6788860
>The chance to get hit by lightning is 1 in 1.000.000.

wut?

https://www.google.com/search?q=chance+of+getting+hit+by+lightning

>The chance of an average person living in the US being struck by lightning in a given year is estimated at 1 in 500,000, while the chance of being struck by lightning in a lifetime is 1 in 6250 (estimated lifespan of 80 years).

>>6788846
Because you pulled them from your ass

>>6786928
Just jump into your fridge and you will be save fellow survivor

>>6788885

But I didn't.

>>6788886
kek'd

fucking lucas

>>6788835
>What is so hard to get about this? There are reactions between neutrinos and matter, the charged current is potentially ionising. Now, you need a LOT of neutrinos, but of course at one point you have enough neutrinos to kill somebody. It's not that complicated, you just need lots of neutrinos. A super nova produces unimaginably high amounts of neutrinos, so that is covered.

Dumbfuck, neutrinos cannot kill you. If that were true, there would be no life anywhere because our Sun produces an incredible number of them every second.

>The flux of solar neutrinos at the earth's surface is on the order of 10^11 per square centimeter per second.

can you grasp what "10^11 per square centimeter per second" means???

http://www.sns.ias.edu/~jnb/Papers/Popular/Scientificamerican69/scientificamerican69.html

>>6788885
>Because you pulled them from your ass

Assume OP is ~20 year old male (reasonable since 4chan), then actuary tables give him 50 years to live. Assume gamma ray bursts of sufficient strength to kill OP hit the Earth on average every 500 million years (reasonable since that's the last time it happened). Probability is then approximately 1/10,000,000

In the United States, about 1.8% of deaths are car accidents (source: U.S. Census Bureau). I rounded it down to 1% chance for OP since I assumed he doesn't get out much (reasonable because 4chan).

Now fuck off.

>>6788897
>drowning is impossible, i ingest billions of water molecules every day!

>>6788897
Well, can you grasp what it means? I don't think so. I'm not talking about a realistic scenario, I'm just claiming it is theoretically possible if you have a neutrino flux that's big enough, which exist in the universe. The sun's neutrino flux is just not enough. Not even close. I know 10^11 sounds like a big number, but there are much, much bigger neutrino fluxes around.

>>6788902
> Assume gamma ray bursts of sufficient strength to kill OP hit the Earth on average every 500 million years (reasonable since that's the last time it happened).
This is not at all reasonable and it's unsourced too

>>6788919
>This is not at all reasonable

oh well if you say so

>and it's unsourced

Wikipedia?

>>6788919
>This is not at all reasonable

Why not?

>>6788925
Wikipedia doesn't say it happened, its a possible explanation.
And that doesn't mean that on average it hits once every 500M years.

>>6788932

I said it was a reasonable guess. Do you have some reason it isn't? Do you have a better one?

>>6788937
Do you have a reason why it would be reasonable?

File: light pollution.png (897KB, 643x854px) Image search: [Google]

897KB, 643x854px

>>6788925
>(reasonable since that's the last time it happened).
<(reasonable since that's the last time it happened).

Differentanon here, that's not reasonable, m8.

>>6788942
>>6788946

OK, since you clearly know so much more about statistics than me, what is it's most likely average frequency, given the data available? (1 occurrence 500 million years ago) Not a rhetorical question, btw.

>>6788942
>>6788946
>>6788954

lol i thought so you faggot(s)

>>6788904
LD50 of water is 7L. What's LD50 of neutrinos?

>>6788907
>but there are much, much bigger neutrino fluxes around.

Prove it.

>>6789289
>Prove it.

SN1987A was a supernova in the LMC, about 168 000 light years away. Kamiokande II for example registered 11 antineutrinos from this event. If the super nova was merely 1/60000 light years away (that's about 1 AE I think), Kamiokande would have detected 1.1e21 neutrinos. Now, the experiment had a test mass of about 3000 tons. A human is ~30000th of that. So that gives you 3.7e16 neutrino events inside one human body. These neutrinos have high energy, about a few dozen MeV or something, let's say 10 MeV on average. So the neutrinos deposit 3.7e17 MeV or about 60 kJ into your body. As mostly pions emerge from those reactions, that needs to be multiplied by a weighing factor of 2 to get the effective dose of 120/100 kSv = 1200 Sv. And that will kill you, more than once.

This is of course super simplified, but it gives you the idea. Supernovae emit 99% of their energy in the form of neutrinos. And supernovae are unimaginably energetic.

>>6787539
holy shit top laugh out loud

>>6789289
>LD50 of water is 7L. What's LD50 of neutrinos?

About 10^32, apparently.