Beam Neutrinos

  • 254 Replies
  • 51035 Views
Beam Neutrinos
« on: March 06, 2009, 07:17:37 AM »
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38478
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #1 on: March 06, 2009, 12:34:31 PM »
Bendy neutrinos?
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #2 on: March 06, 2009, 12:42:58 PM »
Everything seems to bend in FE theory. The light, the logic, why is it that the Earth has to be so damn flat.
« Last Edit: March 06, 2009, 01:55:08 PM by bowler »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 38478
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #3 on: March 06, 2009, 12:54:35 PM »
I blame Rowbotham's unique interpretation of perspective.
Science is what happens when preconception meets verification.
Quote from: Robosteve
Besides, perhaps FET is a conspiracy too.
Quote from: bullhorn
It is just the way it is, you understanding it doesn't concern me.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #4 on: March 06, 2009, 01:37:21 PM »
Everything seems to bend if FE theory the light, the logic why is it the the Earth has to be so damn flat.

I'm not even sure that's a sentence  :P

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #5 on: March 06, 2009, 01:55:25 PM »
sorted

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #6 on: March 06, 2009, 01:58:22 PM »
Ah! Now I see what you did there.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #7 on: March 06, 2009, 06:19:43 PM »
I heard they got James McAvoy's character from "Wanted" to fire the neutrinos.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #8 on: March 07, 2009, 05:03:50 AM »
Bendy neutrinos?

Hmm, I had a similar idea not so long ago, but I'm buggered if I can find the post anywhere.
"The Zetetic Astronomy has come into my hands ... if it be childish, it is clever; if it be mannish, it is unusually foolish."

A Budget of Paradoxes - A. de Morgan (pp 306-310)

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #9 on: March 09, 2009, 02:22:26 AM »
This is disappointing. I was at least hoping to be called a conspirator again. If nothing else my ego likes the boost.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #10 on: March 09, 2009, 10:44:28 AM »

It's because you have a very valid point which they can't answer :)

I would also like to see how the FE theory links into this.

Although I think one of the arguments you'll get is the fact that they don't think the experiment exists.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #11 on: March 09, 2009, 11:04:49 AM »
I probably have pics on my camera still. Though admittedly I guess the hardware could be of anything. Well its pretty obviously some kind of particle experiment or a behind the scenes shot of the last Terminator movie. I guess that was all CGI though. Theres a beam neutrino experiment at CERN don't know if its on the tour not quite as impressive as the LHC.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #12 on: August 07, 2009, 09:23:11 AM »
I would like to see how the FE'ers debunk this one.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #13 on: August 07, 2009, 01:16:13 PM »
I would like to see how the FE'ers debunk this one.

Simple. Bendy Conspiracy.

*

John Davis

  • Secretary Of The Society
  • Administrator
  • 15663
  • Most Prolific Scientist, 2019
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #14 on: August 07, 2009, 05:59:41 PM »
Beam neutrinos, as is heavily implied by the name, are man made beams of neutrinos. Rather like the LHC at CERN beam beams of protons are accelerated to high energies. Unlike CERN the beams are collided with a solid target even less like CERN the resultant beam of muon neutrinos is aimed into the ground. Why the madness a sane person might ask? Well as I mentioned in the solar neutrino thread neutrinos do not interact strongly, infact they barely interact at all. Where as a gamma ray from nuclear radiation will penetrate a few feet of lead a neutrino will penetrate a few light years of lead. So for these experiments we need lots of neutrinos and big detectors. The sun provides lots of neutrinos but that is a long way away, so we'd rather make our own and target them exactly where we want them to collect lots more quickly. So we aim the neutrinos into the ground and build a big detector where they re-emerge from the ground. So this isn't really a tricky particle physics question is more of a geometry question. A beam of neutrinos is fired into the ground to be detected elsewhere. How do you do this with a flat surface. Keep in mind that they dont really interact so they don't bend, at least not unless your talking about cosmological distances (real ones not FE ones).
Where are the long and lats of where this was done?  OR has it been?
Quantum Ab Hoc

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #15 on: August 08, 2009, 01:27:35 AM »
Where are the long and lats of where this was done?  OR has it been?
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

?

Abysmal

  • 168
  • now with more tentacles
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #16 on: August 08, 2009, 08:36:51 PM »
Very nice post, I would like to see some more FE counter-arguments to this one.
Former Satanic Conspirator-now i've seen the bendy light.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #17 on: August 11, 2009, 06:56:06 AM »
and yet still no arguments... they google for arguments long enough  :P

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #18 on: August 11, 2009, 07:05:05 AM »
pwnd i would say but the FE will say that the dark energy bends it and sends it back up at the exact same spot that it would be if the earth was round :P

*

julianmartin

  • 109
  • Rationalism is the epitome of life.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #19 on: August 12, 2009, 03:31:29 AM »
Good post....

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #20 on: August 12, 2009, 04:07:31 AM »
I always wondered how is it that the neutrinos which interact very weekly with ordinary matter and, hence, the explaination that they travel in a straight line, can be detected? It seems these detectors counter the accepted physical laws.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #21 on: August 12, 2009, 04:53:06 AM »
I always wondered how is it that the neutrinos which interact very weekly with ordinary matter and, hence, the explaination that they travel in a straight line, can be detected? It seems these detectors counter the accepted physical laws.

They interact weakly. That doesn't mean they don't interact. I don't actually know how particle detectors work, but I see nothing that stops neutrinos being detected.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #22 on: August 12, 2009, 06:46:23 AM »
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #23 on: August 12, 2009, 07:20:12 AM »
Unless the ground is made of lead or something, then I guess the beam will travel in a slightly curved line.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #24 on: August 12, 2009, 07:39:22 AM »
Why lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?

?

zork

  • 3319
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #25 on: August 12, 2009, 08:33:25 AM »
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

 Have you any suggestions why they must deviate from the straight line they travel? Or do you just ask - why they must travel straight. Why not curved or spiraled or whatever else trajectory. As I see they just have no reason to travel any other way than straight line. Except when they hit something.
Rowbotham had bad eyesight
-
http://thulescientific.com/Lynch%20Curvature%202008.pdf - Visually discerning the curvature of the Earth
http://thulescientific.com/TurbulentShipWakes_Lynch_AO_2005.pdf - Turbulent ship wakes:further evidence that the Earth is round.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #26 on: August 12, 2009, 08:34:36 AM »
Why lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?

high density

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #27 on: August 12, 2009, 09:07:30 AM »
Why lead? What magical properties does it have to interact with neutrinos better than the atoms of other elements?

Anything seems to be magical to you...

Then why must it BEND??

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #28 on: August 24, 2009, 10:44:15 AM »
Ah one of my old posts has been resurrected. Ill start by answering the non-controversial questions. As to how the detectors work. I said neutrinos interact very weakly, not, they don't interact. So to detect them you need a huge detector and a lot of neutrinos. The most famous detector is Superkamiokande in Japan, which is filled with 50'000 tonnes of water. There are other designs, Iron is another common material, denser than water so you don't need as much, although its a pain to see anything with photo sensors as Iron is not transparent to light. You get round this by having alternating layers of Iron and plastic.

As to where the experiments are located, in vague chronological order;
K2K - source: KEK, Tsukuba, Japan      detector: Superkamiokande, Japan
KamLAND - source: nuclear reactors all over Japan   detector: Same place as Superkamiokande, Japan
MINOS - source: Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois, US    detector: Soudan, Minnesota, US
CNGS - source: CERN-SPS, Geneva, Switzerland     detector: Gran Sasso, Italy (near where the earthquake was)
T2K - source: Tokai, Japan      detector: Superkamiokande, Japan   (Construction nearly completed, beginning data runs in December 09/Jan 10)
NOVA - source: Fermilab, Batavia, Illinois, US   detector: Ash River (I think), Minnesota, US

A plethora of short baseline experments also exist but are not really relevant here. The experiments above have a baseline between 200km and 1000km, roughly. This corresponds to the beam passing between about 1 and 10 miles deep through the crust, if you do the math assuming the Earth that all bar a few of people accept. The mother of all long baseline neutrino experiments, the neutrino factor is being designed to have a baseline of about 7000km hopefully construction will begin when someone figure out how to make a beamline going down in to the ground at a steep angle. Current long baseline experiments only need to be a few degrees from the horizontal.

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #29 on: August 26, 2009, 10:55:30 AM »
Neutrinos do not penetrate a light year of lead. This is all RET propganda.