Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[forsaken1111]

So, Neutrino telescopes?
Do-able?

Yes, and we have them, but neutrinos are notoriously hard to detect, so they can't see anything but the brightest of sources (so far we only know of 1 definitive source beyond the sun). maybe that IceCube and it's sister got a slightly better resolution, but we'll still not be able to see a conventional star with them.

Well now that neutrinos move faster than light, we should build neutrino emitters and map the universe based on the return.

[klingon13524]

So, Neutrino telescopes?
Do-able?

Yes, and we have them, but neutrinos are notoriously hard to detect, so they can't see anything but the brightest of sources (so far we only know of 1 definitive source beyond the sun). maybe that IceCube and it's sister got a slightly better resolution, but we'll still not be able to see a conventional star with them.

Well now that neutrinos move faster than light, we should build neutrino emitters and map the universe based on the return.

Pretty much the next incarnation of Radar?

[Virex]

What part of "Neutrinos are really fucking hard to detect" don't you get?

[forsaken1111]

What part of "Neutrinos are really fucking hard to detect" don't you get?

The part where we detected them, and they moved faster than light.

[Virex]

Yeah we detected them because there was a hugely bright source sitting right next to the detector (in astronomic terms). Detecting neutrinos is like listening to someone. The CERN experiment was someone talking directly into your ear. Solar neutrino detectors is like trying to hear what someone is shouting across a football field, the distance is larger, but he's making more noise so you still hear it reasonably well (unless the wind is blowing hard, which incidentally happens to neutrino detectors as well in the form of cosmic background radiation messing with measurements). Trying to detect anything from beyond the solar system is like trying to stand in Chicago and listen to someone playing the violin in the Sydney Opera House.

[MonkeyHead]

.

What part of "Neutrinos are really fucking hard to detect" don't you get?

The part where we detected them, and they moved faster than light.

You do know how they are detected generally right? For ones originating in the Sun, basically take a massive disused mine, fill it with somthing similar to dry cleaning fluid, and wait for tiny energetic scintillations that are the signiture of a neutrino. You might get one for every few trillion neutrinos passing through the Earth. The ones in question at CERN are an expected product of a particle decay, where energy levels are used to show the presence of a particle/decay path more often than not over and above actually spotting the particle itself - this changes the game somewhat in terms of detection.

[andrea]

to get anything even remotely similar to an observable return that could tell us something about anything outside the solar system, you would probably need neutrinos emissions much higher than that of a supernova.

[MonkeyHead]

The wonderful inverse square law for intensity - its a bitch isnt it?

[forsaken1111]

to get anything even remotely similar to an observable return that could tell us something about anything outside the solar system, you would probably need neutrinos emissions much higher than that of a supernova.

Okay, so we know the required output and we have a detection method. Now we hollow out Mars, fill it with Windex and pop off a Supernova in the direction of the thing which we want to observe. I have solved exploration.

[Tellemurius]

deuterium water is actually best liquid used for bombard-detection.

[Virex]

to get anything even remotely similar to an observable return that could tell us something about anything outside the solar system, you would probably need neutrinos emissions much higher than that of a supernova.

A supernova and a lot of luck would work. Note that that's the only confirmed neutrino source outside of the solar system.

[lemon10]

But the difference in the nuetrino time is different from the one CERN detected. If it was consistent with the speed difference that was detected then their would have been a gap of a few years between the nuetrinos and light, not a few hours.
So thats pretty clear that A) CERN messed up somehow or B) it only occurs in specific circumstances.

[RedWarrior0]

Hm...

So CERN just found that Physics was just like "Fuck off relativity, I'm trying to sleep."

[Heron TSG]

Hey, I'm doing particle physics in Physics II right now.

Right...I remember something now about mass increasing with velocity, such that at lightspeed any object with non-zero mass at rest has infinite mass. And this is why it takes infinite energy to accelerate to that degree, which is why it's (supposed to be) impossible. So if neutrinos exceed c, they should theoretically have a mass that is some multiple of i. At which point you broke all the physics.

Wait a sec, if their mass was imaginary, then neutrinos would fit the definition of a tachyon. Capable of FTL travel, imaginary mass. Hmmm...

[Logical2u]

Of course, with v>c, that implies that any function that relies on gamma, including position and time from the frame of the neutrino, would be imaginary. The imaginary numbers may not imply a direct correlation to tachyons but rather that the Lorentz transforms simply are not applicable for velocities > c.