Solar Neutrinos

If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?

If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?

Touche!

Well the results would be more useful that the plans. If you build an identical experiment then you render yourself sensitive to a systematic flaw in the design. If you think you have a signal for a new particle then publish. Einstein published special relativity at the same time he finished his PhD while working as a patent clerk. Theres nothing that says you have to be a tenured academic. Though solar neutrinos have been detected by a number of experiments in the last 40 years with thousands of people having worked on it by now; after the LHC its the next largest area of particle physics.

Though you are not without a point; the size, cost and associated infrastructure required for particle physics makes confirming discoveries hard. There are unverified claims at the moment simply because no one has s second experiment to verify it. This is a problem with big science, its why the LHC has 2 detectors out to do almost exactly the same task, as no one is planning on building a second LHC any time soon. Though it is now 53 years since the discovery of the neutrino and 40ish since the discovery of the solar neutrino.

If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?

Ok well tell us what problems do you have with the experiment, which parts of the experiment do you want to know?

Quote from: MotherNature on March 03, 2009, 03:45:46 PM

Quote from: Matrix on March 03, 2009, 01:55:36 PM

Quote from: Scl0182 on March 02, 2009, 03:05:39 PM

Actually, out-dated Uranium and Plutonium core A-Bomb schematics are quite easy to find if you have the conviction to learn about them and their functions. Of course, modern A-Bombs are highly classified.

Actually, they're not.  All bomb designs, 'outdated' or not are still highly classified under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.  If you think you've got a 'real' bomb schematic, I can virtually guarantee that you haven't (unless you're a spy or work for the government, or both).

Actually you can get a great deal of info over the net.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_weapon

Although there will be fundamental parrameters and new designs which won't be on there.

Functional block diagrams are hardly schematics.

Yes I know that, I was only trying to point out that you can get a surprising amount of info about nuclear weapons on the net.

If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?

No, of course not. But even if you did post the plans, I still wouldn't believe you. In fact, I wouldn't believe you until you published a research paper in a peer-reviewed journal.

This is exactly what the discoverers of the neutrino did! Look up "Detection of the Free Neutrino: a Confirmation" by Clyde Cowan, Frederick Reines, F. B. Harrison, H. W. Kruse, and A. D. McGuire, Science, 1956; a paper that won them the 1995 Nobel prize.

Here is a link to the article, but you have to pay. As you can see, it has been cited numerous times, which is a good indicator that it is a quality paper.

If me and Tom Bishop announce that we have discovered a new sub atomic particle independently of each other but we don't post plans why should you believe us?

You don't post the plans for the equipment that you used.  You post the techniques and types of equipment that you used to discover your particle along with the particle's properties that you observed.  Then other researchers will attempt to reproduce your results with equipment that may or may not be exactly the same as the equipment that you originally used.  They may use newer and/or better equipment in an attempt to get better and more consistent observations.

I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

The thing is we have. Admittedly the old experiments are harder to come by because they are only in paper publications so access to a library is required. An account at a university is enough these days, though I guess your probably stymied there as well. Modern experiments SNO and Super-kamiokande post results on the arXiv document server and are available for free as the the technical design reports. We have posted them you have chosen not to read them, which I have say is a bit ridiculous/pathetic.

I think he wants us to post detailed schematics of the machine used to detect these neutrinos.  Even though that is not at all how it is done in the scientific community as Markjo just stated.

I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 04, 2009, 02:26:19 PM

I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

What source is the oscilloscope reading?

Quote from: MotherNature on March 04, 2009, 02:50:12 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 04, 2009, 02:26:19 PM

I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

What source is the oscilloscope reading?

So you would like to know how the experimental apparatus detects the neutrino?

Seriously this is all in the TDR that was linked. Its a pdf and i can't cut copy paste, but needless to say no ones used an oscilloscope since before disco died. SuperK has over 11'000 output channels, thats a lot of oscilloscopes.

Seriously this is all in the TDR that was linked. Its a pdf and i can't cut copy paste, but needless to say no ones used an oscilloscope since before disco died. SuperK has over 11'000 output channels, thats a lot of oscilloscopes.

Yeah know I was using it as an example most experiments use a data capture card connected to a PC

I was just trying to ascertain which part of the experiment they have a problem with.

Seriously this is all in the TDR that was linked. Its a pdf and i can't cut copy paste, but needless to say no ones used an oscilloscope since before disco died. SuperK has over 11'000 output channels, thats a lot of oscilloscopes.

I still use scopes 

Yeah I had a go but it caused me to have a fit.

edit

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 04, 2009, 02:53:48 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 04, 2009, 02:50:12 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 04, 2009, 02:26:19 PM

I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

What source is the oscilloscope reading?

So you would like to know how the experimental apparatus detects the neutrino?

That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.

What does the acronym TDR stand for?

Quote from: MotherNature on March 04, 2009, 02:56:39 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 04, 2009, 02:53:48 PM

Quote from: MotherNature on March 04, 2009, 02:50:12 PM

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 04, 2009, 02:26:19 PM

I have yet to see plans for the experiments/equipment from you guys. It doesn't seem peer reviewed to me. As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

I would like to know what problems you have with the experiment so we could possible give you the references and details that will be most relavent.

Simply asking for the schematics of something is not likely to answer the problems you have with the experiment.

I don't think you understand how experimental apparatus are put together. The experiment is going to have an oscilloscope attached to it somewhere. Do you want the details of how an oscilloscope works?

You need to be more specific in relation to the problems you have with the experiment.

What source is the oscilloscope reading?

So you would like to know how the experimental apparatus detects the neutrino?

That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.

What does the acronym TDR stand for?

Knowing how to build the experiment and how the experiment works are two different questions.

If you want to build the experiment then a knowledge of both is required.

If you want to use the experiment for research and to verify results then a knowledge of how it works is required.

TDR, I assume stands for Technical Design Report.

The following reference gives you the concept behind the detectors used in the experiments.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_detector

http://underground.cityofember.com/2008/07/japans-superkamiokande.html

http://icecube.wisc.edu/science/publications/pdd/pdd.pdf  (this is a design document for a neutrino detector)

As peers who have no money are unable to review it.

If you don't have the money, how do you expect to build the equipment?    These detector projects take tens of millions of dollars to built and operate.  How is this a DIY project again?  And what qualifications do you have that make you a peer that could review the findings in the first place?

That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.

What does the acronym TDR stand for?

Total Domination Racing?

Quote from: Johannes Kepler on March 04, 2009, 04:41:46 PM

That is the essence of my argument. I would like to know how to build such instrumentation.

What does the acronym TDR stand for?

Total Domination Racing?

or Time-Domain Reflectometer? lol

Yeah TDR is technical design report.

Yeah TDR is technical design report.

Now i know why i never visit this side of the forums, everyone is so technical. I was f'ing around with my answer dipdoodle.