[Kryptid]

If the chirality of electrons from cosmic rays can influence us, why should they outweigh the vastly larger number of electrons in the matter around us?

I'm pretty sure the energy levels of cosmic rays are incomparable to the energy levels of electrons in normal matter.

To confirm the stupidity, most of the cosmic rays at ground level are muons, which are achiral.

Achiral in what sense? That they cannot be polarized? Do you have a reference?

They decay into pairs of electrons and antineutrinos (and positrons and neutrinos) whose chirality cancel out. There are equal numbers of pairs of both types so the entire shower is achiral!

That seems unlikely. We appear to live in a strongly matter-dominated Universe. Do you have a reference for cosmic rays producing or containing equal numbers of electrons and positrons (or muons and anti-muons)?

the entire shower is achiral!

Electrons are significantly more likely to interact with matter than anti-neutrinos, so matter wouldn't see the shower as achiral on average.

[larens (OP)]

If the chirality of electrons from cosmic rays can influence us, why should they outweigh the vastly larger number of electrons in the matter around us?

I'm pretty sure the energy levels of cosmic rays are incomparable to the energy levels of electrons in normal matter.

The chirality of interaction does not depend on the  energy by the principle of equivalence.

To confirm the stupidity, most of the cosmic rays at ground level are muons, which are achiral.

I must remember to not let my own standards lapse, because of the low standards I have just encountered. In glibly answering I was thinking of the pions in the top part of the shower, which are pseudoscaler. Muons are, of course, just as chiral as electrons.

They decay into pairs of electrons and antineutrinos (and positrons and neutrinos) whose chirality cancel out. There are equal numbers of pairs of both types so the entire shower is achiral!

That seems unlikely. We appear to live in a strongly matter-dominated Universe. Do you have a reference for cosmic rays producing or containing equal numbers of electrons and positrons (or muons and anti-muons)?

The shower is created from the energy of the cosmic ray, not from matter. This is common knowledge. There have to be an equal number of electrons and positrons by conservation of charge.

the entire shower is achiral!

Electrons are significantly more likely to interact with matter than anti-neutrinos, so matter wouldn't see the shower as achiral on average.

The shower would still be achiral because there are an equal number of positrons.

[Kryptid]

The chirality of interaction does not depend on the  energy by the principle of equivalence.

Nobody ever said that it did.

There have to be an equal number of electrons and positrons by conservation of charge.

The shower would still be achiral because there are an equal number of positrons.

I imagine that the majority of the negative charge in cosmic rays is brought by electrons, whereas the majority of the positive charge is brought by protons. It's been a while since I've looked into it, but I'm pretty sure that electrons and protons are not equally well-absorbed or deflected by the atmosphere. Whatever the products of those interactions with air molecules are, they probably do not both reach the ground equally well for that reason. So I would expect there to be at least a slight bias towards one chirality over another at sea level.

[Bored chemist]

Well, so far the data easily satisfies all the ifs,

No.
At best, the data says "maybe" to all the ifs.
That's not the same as saying it happened.

Calcite crystals are long and pointed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_spar#/media/File:Silfurberg.jpg
That's the typical shape of calcite crystals- barely twice as long as they are wide with fairly blunt ends.

[larens (OP)]

Well, so far the data easily satisfies all the ifs,

No.
At best, the data says "maybe" to all the ifs.
That's not the same as saying it happened.

There you go again - pointing out that philosophically there is always the possibility of a counterexample. Generally people do not speak that way because it is too verbose. After a large number of confirming examples and no counterexamples they start using declarative sentences. When, if ever, are you going to start to seriously respond to my confirming examples, rather than continuing to nitpick?

Calcite crystals are long and pointed

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iceland_spar#/media/File:Silfurberg.jpg
That's the typical shape of calcite crystals- barely twice as long as they are wide with fairly blunt ends.

I am talking about crystals grown from a restricted area at one end with a restricted point of nucleation. They are rather knife like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite
Once the area is fixed by lateral constraints the aspect ratio will just keep growing. In my case the crystals start from a micrometeorite puncture and eventually become coated on the sides.

[larens (OP)]

The chirality of interaction does not depend on the  energy by the principle of equivalence.

Nobody ever said that it did.

How was I supposed to take this statement when we  were talking about interactions?

I'm pretty sure the energy levels of cosmic rays are incomparable to the energy levels of electrons in normal matter.

So I would expect there to be at least a slight bias towards one chirality over another at sea level.

There is but the flux is on the order of 0.1 electron per square meter per second. The density is about 34 orders of magnitude smaller than the density of electrons in the body, which was my original point.

[Kryptid]

How was I supposed to take this statement when we  were talking about interactions?

Because I was talking about the chirality of the cosmic rays hitting the ground, not the chirality of electrons in the matter on the ground (biological or otherwise).

There is but the flux is on the order of 0.1 electron per square meter per second. The density is about 34 orders of magnitude smaller than the density of electrons in the body, which was my original point.

And out of all of those electrons in the body, what proportion of them do you think have enough energy to damage DNA?

[larens (OP)]

And out of all of those electrons in the body, what proportion of them do you think have enough energy to damage DNA?

Not many, but still tens of thousands times more than from the cosmic ray. Beta radiation from potassium 40 is the largest source. Most of the ionizing damage is done by secondary electrons from matter in the body. Then there are free radicals and other mutagenic chemicals. Chemistry is electron clouds after all.

[Bored chemist]

There you go again - pointing out that philosophically there is always the possibility of a counterexample.

You are the one taking that stance.

You have convinced yourself that your idea is right, just because it is faintly possible.*
That's not the way to do science.

* It isn't : you need water for calcite crystals but water destroys the titanocene.

[Bored chemist]

I am talking about crystals grown from a restricted area at one end with a restricted point of nucleation. They are rather knife like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite

That illustrates my point.
There are 14 pictures of calcite crystals on that page; 13 of them show that you are wrong.
You focus on the minutiae that support your bizarre idea.

[puppypower]

One way to understand how everyone can appear to be right in their own mind, is connected to the contrast between pure and applied science. Pure science tries to explain things as they are in nature. Applied science uses this foundation, to show us things, as they could be. The latter approach is important to the development of new technology and products, which are often not part of the natural environment. Both use science. Pure science is dependent on this new technology to extend its own vision.

For example, diamonds are assume to form naturally under extreme pressure and heat over millions of years. They are often found near volcanoes. This is considered pure science.The applied scientist can make diamonds in the lab in a matter of weeks, using hot presses and catalysts. Both use science and both can lead to the same end result. The difference is applied and pure science will take different paths to the same place. In this example, both can show support experiments. The applied scientist can generate data much faster and build a preponderance of data in a shorter time. One has to be careful about the assumed correlation between the most data equals pure science, since applied is easier to generate.

This leads to the question of how much we can trust experiments, in pure science, if we are testing theory, and not just recording observations?  In other words, a clever experimental development person can set an experiment to get any final product desired. I was good at that. One can use applied science to prove pure science theory, with the experiment actually generating artificial end products that may have useful applications. The line can be blurred.   

As an analogy, when diamonds were first mined, practical mining limitations required diamonds be harvested from the surface of the earth. That being said, if I used a hot press to make diamonds in a lab, set up in the diamond mine, this experiment would appear to justify that as pure science. Nobody will get the funding to dig down ten miles and wait for 100,000 years. I was cheaper and could get reproducible results very fast. Who has the data? 

This approach, sometimes used in science, is one step removed from magic. In a magic trick, such as levitating a person, one will use science and technology to create the proper experimental conditions on the stage. If this experiment is successful, it will appear to offer proof of the theoretical concept that levitation is indeed possible.

Magic will fail the re-do test, by other researchers, since the magician may not show his trade secrets and the new testers may not have the magic skills.  Applied experiments, for pure science, can fool the experts, since a re-do experiment can be more consistent, if the original experimenter documents all his experimental details, as required for publication.   

The organic centric approach to evolution and biology is driven by free market applied science. There is lot of money spent and a lot of money to be made, to create medical and food products that are not natural to the earth. If pure science was important water, could not be ignored as it can with applied science. Often we the get the pot called the kettle black, if competition shows up in the applied market place, of pure applied science. Many may not understand there is a difference between pure and applied experiments.

Nobody can prove how life appeared on earth, period. There is no pure science observational data. This opens the need for applied science to help out, by showing what may have been, but not necessarily what was. This applied data has become the preponderance of data. If you could form the first cell in the lab, even by artificial means, this is big bucks, since the spin off has lots of practical applications. It may even become the basis for what will be sold as pure theory.

I was an applied scientist for many years, Later in life I shifted to looking at the conceptual framework of pure science. I noticed artificial things had been added, that is sold as pure. This is made difficult to see, since applied experiments are repeatable. A factory depends on this.

Science does not have its own resources, but is beholden for resources to government and industry,  who want to impact the cultural and market places in the short term. They can accept  applied contamination to the pure. This can be seen, if you look at the conceptual foundations.

[larens (OP)]

I am talking about crystals grown from a restricted area at one end with a restricted point of nucleation. They are rather knife like:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calcite

That illustrates my point.
There are 14 pictures of calcite crystals on that page; 13 of them show that you are wrong.
You focus on the minutiae that support your bizarre idea.

You have convinced yourself that your idea is right, just because it is faintly possible.*
That's not the way to do science.

* It isn't : you need water for calcite crystals but water destroys the titanocene.

I make my choices based on the larger picture. There are two horizontal UV polymerized hydrocarbon membranes with vacuum above, oil between, and water below. These have an approximately vertical interface with calcite. The top membrane gets punctured by micrometeorites, but these holes are healed by further polymerization of dissolved hydrocarbons. The lower membrane  was originally on the surface, got buried in dust, and is now thoroughly impermeable. This makes the oil extremely dry because it loses its water to the vacuum. The shape of the calcite crystal was first determined by it growing from a hole in the lower membrane. Water can travel along the oil/calcite interface where it reacts with the titanocene to form an anatase coating on the calcite. This coating is eroded away where the crystal has penetrated the vacuum allowing light to enter and induce photovoltaic action in the rest of the anatase. The T-Tauri stellar environment has adequate erosion. The oil is produced by the hydrogenation of carbon. The hydrogen is produced by the serpentinization of minerals in the underlying spring. My choices are not arbitrary, but are determined by the demands of the entire picture. This is good science.

[larens (OP)]

One can use applied science to prove pure science theory, with the experiment actually generating artificial end products that may have useful applications.

My model is pure science that needs to be validated by scientifically designed experiments. This should be relatively easy to do since many of the parts of my model can easily be translated into laboratory experiments. I definitely hope that this will have useful spin-offs.

Nobody can prove how life appeared on earth, period. There is no pure science observational data.

Pure science often deals with events removed in time and space. These are considered as provable as any complex phenomena.

[Bored chemist]

scientifically designed experiments.

OK mix titanocene dicarbonyl with water.
(use a fume cupboard to protect you from the carbon monoxide produced.)

It only needs one experiment to show that it fails.

[larens (OP)]

scientifically designed experiments.

OK mix titanocene dicarbonyl with water.
(use a fume cupboard to protect you from the carbon monoxide produced.)

It only needs one experiment to show that it fails.

OK to be realistic the experiment will also need to include calcite, ammonium sulfate/formamide (ASF) solution, and schreibersite (meteoritic trinickel phosphide). The anatase phase is stabilized in proximity with calcite but rutile is the bulk stable phase of titania. Thus an anatase/rutile heterojunction will develop. Anatase has the lower band gap so the calcite side will be negative. Water reacts with schreibersite to produce nickel cation and pyrophosphite, a precursor for ATP. ASF solution will dissolve some of the calcite next to the anatase. Nickel cation will be attracted to the anatase and be reduced forming a dendritic nickel contact for the calcite side. On the other side of the titania hydrogen will be oxidized by photovoltaic current leading to the polymerization of metallic cyclopentadienyl as a byproduct of the titanocene/water reaction. Voila! - a complete solar cell. When the temperature drops low enough ammonium sulphate will act as a battery. When the temperature warms up there will be a reversal of current allowing electrochemical electrodes in the larger system to clear themselves of impurities. I do not know the Schottky properties of the anatase/nickel contact but the anthropocentric argument says they are favorable. Unfortunately, some of the kinetics is very slow, particularly that of titania and surface diffusion, so the experiment make take a very long time.

[Bored chemist]

For what it's worth, the presence of ammonium sulphate will make the destruction of the titanocene derivative a little quicker.
The rest is a huge stack of wishful thinking.

[larens (OP)]

For what it's worth, the presence of ammonium sulphate will make the destruction of the titanocene derivative a little quicker.

I have been thinking along those lines. Calcite saturated ASF solution is probably necessary on the oil side to create an electronically suitable rutile layer. It will be then be deposited from a suitably concentrated calcium titanate solution.

The rest is a huge stack of wishful thinking.

There lays the difference between us. I am an optimist, so I go ahead and produce a successful model. You are a pessimist, engage in a huge stack of negative thinking, and produce nothing.

[Bored chemist]

, so I go ahead and produce a successful model.

It's not a success, because it requires the utterly implausible intervention (among other things) of titanocene dicarbonyl.

a suitably concentrated calcium titanate solution.

The solubility of calcium titanate is roughly zero.
You don't get a concentrated solution of it.

And yet  you say "

I go ahead and produce a successful model.

Whereas  a pessimist won't waste time on stuff that's impossible.
Who knows? They might actually achieve something instead of  cluttering bandwidth with impossible nonsense.

[Kryptid]

I am an optimist, so I go ahead and produce a successful model.

How do you know it's successful if you haven't tested it?

[Bored chemist]

I am an optimist, so I go ahead and produce a successful model.

How do you know it's successful if you haven't tested it?

Let's face it. Even in a simple thought experiment, it failed the test.
He still thinks it passed.