Beam Neutrinos

  • 254 Replies
  • 56043 Views
*

Parsifal

  • Official Member
  • 36115
  • Bendy Light specialist
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #30 on: August 26, 2009, 02:55:36 PM »
Please be careful when saying that neutrinos interact weakly. It can also be taken to mean that they interact through the weak force, which is true but also completely different to your intended meaning.
I'm going to side with the white supremacists.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #31 on: August 26, 2009, 03:09:20 PM »
Actually it was a deliberate pun another gag about the top being heavier than the bottom making the standard model unstable almost made my thesis, but thanks for noticing as it beings me on nicely to the calculation of the mean free path of a neutrino. The key quantity when finding the mean free path of a particle is the cross section it has to other particles. For a neutrino electroweak theory predicts and experiment has found that the cross section is of order 10-47m2 at energies found in nuclear beta decay. This increases by a few orders of magnitude, the cross section goes up with energy. Though though typically it is around 20 orders of magnitude less than two nucleons. We find the path length by;
path = u/(xsec x density), for lead this works out as;
path = 1.66x10-27/(10-47 * 11400) = 1.5x1016m. A light year by comparison is 9.46x1015m. This is a standard quantum mechanical calculation that has been around since Fermi and is in many textbooks.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #32 on: September 05, 2009, 11:53:59 AM »
So, flat earth is impossible after all..

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #33 on: September 05, 2009, 12:22:01 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).

Please tell us the locations from where they are emitted and where they are detected. I suspect this is highly possible according to FE.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #34 on: September 05, 2009, 04:46:01 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).

Please tell us the locations from where they are emitted and where they are detected. I suspect this is highly possible according to FE.

learn2read

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #35 on: September 05, 2009, 04:47:59 PM »
I only saw a list of detectors. Would you give me a quote where the exact locations of the said experiment are.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #36 on: September 05, 2009, 05:03:27 PM »
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #37 on: September 05, 2009, 05:05:43 PM »

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39838
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #38 on: September 05, 2009, 05:45:05 PM »
Google for the "long baseline neutrino experiment".


http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ei=fvyiSsPCJIKknQeA59WFBQ&sa=X&oi=spell&resnum=0&ct=result&cd=1&q=long+baseline+neutrino+experiment&spell=1

The first page of search results is dominated by government or somehow related sources.

Well, since governments are just about the only ones with the financial resources for such experiments, I'm not sure what your question is.
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 #39 on: September 05, 2009, 06:00:58 PM »

The first page of search results is dominated by government or somehow related sources.
this response always makes me laugh no matter how many times I read it. Nevermind the fact that all results are published in peer reviewed journals which can be read and verified by anyone with the drive to do so. ANd there are non governments groups conducting the same experiments and getting the same results
Only 2 things are infinite the universe and human stupidity, but I am not sure about the former.

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #40 on: September 05, 2009, 06:46:55 PM »
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.

?

Tristan

  • 180
  • Bendy Earth Proponent
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #41 on: September 15, 2009, 06:58:38 AM »
Dude, they can't even tell you how the sun rises and sets, or how people get from Australia to Argentina without going via the north pole. You really think they're going to have a proper answer for beam neutrinos?
Image used in Avatar:
"Duck Dodgers™ in the 24&1/2th Century"
© Warner Brothers Animation
All Rights Reserved

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #42 on: September 15, 2009, 09:10:16 AM »
1) What bulge? Is the Earth a hemisphere? Or are we talking dimples, like some kind of shallow mountain range? If so how do you know where in a dimple you are? I know how to take a cosine unfortunately without any context you may as well pick a random number?

2) If the 'bulge' at 3 well spaced points on the Earths surface (Europe, Japan and North America) are consistent with the Earth being a sphere then may I posit one crazy hypothesis - the Earth is a sphere. Then we could use the equivalence principle to suggest that infact the reason that everything in the universe with the exception of the things on this planet seem to be accelerating upwards at 9.81 m/s is due to the mass of the Earth (actually this happens even in FE though its a fact ppl seem blissfully ignorant of). If we assume this to be true then the fact that one can get from South America to Sydney without some kind of warp drive or indeed make any sense of weather patterns.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #43 on: September 16, 2009, 10:08:40 AM »
It would be interesting to see this for longer distances.
Although it will probably be categorized as an action of the conspiracy, it would yield interesting results because EA can not apply here.
First, neutrinos fired directly down should never come back because they should bend at an angle, but they would, exactly on the other side of RE.
Second, pointing the neutrinos slightly south, they should come out behind the FE ice wall, but in RE the they would come out on the other side at a different latitude.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #44 on: December 06, 2009, 02:17:05 PM »
I only saw a list of detectors. Would you give me a quote where the exact locations of the said experiment are.

A presentation that I made about T2K that contains background information (reading past slide 12 may require knowledge of digital electronics):
http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/T2KFGDDAQ_Presentation.pdf?hl=en&gsc=dpZkfBYAAABTl-BqToBP6YtkdhV4EunzxLvg5J8DkvikzuC_7TuOSg

For now here is a picture from the near detector (ND280) in Tokai (TPC detectors [in blue] are not currently present):
http://www.flickr.com/photos/45321145@N03/4162595960/

If any FET'ers happen to also be physics grad students they could directly participate in the analysis of the T2K data and eliminate the conspiracy angle. If so please let me know and I may be able to direct you to the SVN where we keep the analysis software. Of course it would be best if you could personally visit an analysis cluster where you could be shown how to use the software. There is one at UBC, Vancouver and they have free tours Wednesday and Friday at 1:00pm.
http://maps.google.ca/maps/ms?hl=en&ie=UTF8&msa=0&msid=114542839659020283502.00047a16ad9b0cab0dc59&ll=49.247748,-123.23193&spn=0.006836,0.019076&z=16
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

Robert64

  • 121
  • Lives on a Round Earth
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #45 on: December 06, 2009, 02:56:56 PM »
This is the most watertight proof so far as far as I am concerned. The FE'ers would have to invent a new force that is unknown to modern science... or just accept a spherical planet.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #46 on: December 06, 2009, 03:20:36 PM »
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

It is proven that they travel in a straight line because they can be detected coming from the Sun. If they were not travelling straight they'd appear to be coming from elsewhere.
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #47 on: December 06, 2009, 03:22:53 PM »
This is the most watertight proof so far as far as I am concerned. The FE'ers would have to invent a new force that is unknown to modern science... or just accept a spherical planet.

I guess so, though I do like my "why can't anyone go further south than the south pole" proof too.  8)
Gayer doesn't live in an atmosphere of vaporised mustard like you appear to, based on your latest photo.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #48 on: December 06, 2009, 03:46:28 PM »
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.

The point is that the neutrino's are shot into the ground at a downward angle. For them to be detected 300km away on a flat earth with a downward angle of 1 degree:

depth = 300km * sin(1[degree]) = 5.236km

So for Super K to see the neutrinos from Tokai it would have to be ~5km deep...
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2009, 12:35:25 AM »
I got the following post from parsec on another related thread and I felt that it belonged here.

I must note that this is a straw man argument. The OP is clearly more confident in computer systems and uses this strenght to divert the question from the main issue, namely, the rectilinear propagation of neutrinos and their arrival at two distant points on Earth's surface. This is used to deduce that the outer surface is convex. But, there are two hidden assumptions.
Well, in the forum you posted this in, I was providing hardware specs for a neutrino detector because Johannes asked for them.

The first one might seem as a bit of a desparate attempt from nitpickers, but, nevertheless, it is important. We have seen on this website a theory that proposes that light actually travels along curved paths being put forward. In this respect, the position of the Sun is not exactly where it appears to be on the sky. But, they use they 'prove' that neutrinos travel along a straight line by saying that the observed neutrinos come from a position where the sun appears to be on the sky. All I can deduce from this, in light of the above mentioned theory, is that neutrinos travel along the same path as light rays from the Sun.
I am not using the idea that solar neutrinos appear to come from the direction of the Sun as a proof that they travel straight. Previously in this thread it was mentioned that the direction of observed neutrino events can be interpolated to point in the expected direction of the Sun in RET, assuming they travel in straight lines. The assumption of straightness can be made because neutrinos are observed to travel in straight lines over short distances, and there is no reason to believe that they curve over long distances except due to gravitation. Neutrinos have no observable charge and the upper limit on their mass is very small, so without invoking some new yet unobserved force I can think of no reason for them to bend.

Secondly, they always ommit to mention that the detector itself is not on the Earth's surface, but underground, and, for that matter, deep underground.
I have never personally visited the Super K site, but according to their website it is not actually underground relative to sea-level. The website states that the Super K detector has a 1000m overburden of rock, and is located under the peak of Mt. Ikeno-yama, which has a height of 1360m above sea level.
http://www-sk.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/sk/location-e.html
This is also illustrated in the second slide of the T2KFGDDAQ presentation in my previous post. It shows the far detector Super K suspended in the mountain ranges as it says on the Super K website.

Therefore, even straight paths for neutrions allow for detection on a Flat Earth.
Of course they can! If the Earth was flat and you shot neutrinos horizontally from one side you might expect them to be detectable straight across the Earth because of the low influence of gravitation (or UA or whatever). Of course, the experiment I am referring to is T2K, which shoots neutrinos at a downward angle of about 1 degree from sea level. The receiving end is in the mountains slightly above sea level, about 300km away. In my previous post I showed that a downward angle of 1 degree over 300km would require Super K to be 5.2km below sea level on a flat Earth, assuming neutrinos travel in straight lines.

The purpose of T2K is not to test if the Earth is round, it is to observe neutrino behavior over long distances. If the Earth was flat we wouldn't bother with the downward angle, we would just shoot them straight. Of course Tom Bishop has said that this is the case, we are just wasting our time, and T2K will fail (I assume he means fail to produce events at both detectors, but he can correct me if I am wrong).
« Last Edit: December 07, 2009, 12:39:28 AM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #50 on: December 08, 2009, 07:04:03 PM »
Any rebuttal? T2K may not be complete, but K2K and MINOS are. I am sure I can talk to people there and get some pictures neutrino tracks.
For starters from the Interwebs:
http://www.ps.uci.edu/~tomba/sk/tscan/k2k-1st/
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 07:07:22 PM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #51 on: December 08, 2009, 07:21:27 PM »
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #52 on: December 08, 2009, 08:55:59 PM »
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.
So, according to your viewpoint of UA and its affect on neutrinos, they should travel straight. Now that we are on the same page, what is the explanation for neutrinos traveling at a downward angle and being detected elsewhere in the world?

Also, I believe I have shown that Super K is above sea level, in response to this:
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
« Last Edit: December 08, 2009, 08:57:32 PM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #53 on: December 08, 2009, 09:08:11 PM »
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.
So, according to your viewpoint of UA and its affect on neutrinos, they should travel straight. Now that we are on the same page, what is the explanation for neutrinos traveling at a downward angle and being detected elsewhere in the world?
I am afraid I don't understand your question.

Also, I believe I have shown that Super K is above sea level, in response to this:
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
But, still, it is sufficient that the the two points be on different heights relative to sea level.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #54 on: December 08, 2009, 09:39:29 PM »
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
Sorry, I just noticed this request for locations.

T2K Neutrino Source and Near Detector 280m in Tokai, Japan:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=36.459661,+140.599483

K2K Neutrino Source and Near Detector in Tsukuba city, Japan:
http://maps.google.ca/maps?hl=en&source=hp&q=36.149668,+140.078208

Both experiments terminate at the Super Kamiokande Neutrino Observatory in Hida, Japan:
http://www.google.ca/#hl=en&source=hp&q=36.433874%2C+137.277106&fp=1&cad=b

MINOS is based out of Fermilab:
http://www.slac.stanford.edu/econf/C9910183/papers/025.PDF

MINOS is at an even steeper angle...
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #55 on: December 08, 2009, 09:41:57 PM »
The UA has influence even on neutrinos just as on everything else, because its effects are due to changing of reference frames. However, because the neutrinos travel at speeds very close to the speed of light, their deflection in the vertical direction is negligible. Namely, if neutrions are fired horizontally, then, at a point that is at a distance D, they would have a vertical deflcetion of approximately (t = D/c, h = g*t2/2):

h = g*D^2/(2*c^2),

or, if we express D in kilometers and h in micrometers, we get:

h/(um) = 5.46 x 10-8 x (D/km)2.

For the above case D = 250 km, we get a vertical deflection of h = 0.0034 um = 3.4 nm, which is just of the order of one wavelength for soft X-rays. That's pretty straight.
So, according to your viewpoint of UA and its affect on neutrinos, they should travel straight. Now that we are on the same page, what is the explanation for neutrinos traveling at a downward angle and being detected elsewhere in the world?
I am afraid I don't understand your question.

Also, I believe I have shown that Super K is above sea level, in response to this:
The only important quantity for our purposes I found was L = 250 km. This is not a very long distance and, according to RE, the 'bulge' between the two points is:

h = R*[1 - cos(L/(2*R))]

With a RE radius R = 2*10,000 km/π = 6,366 km, we get a height of h = 1.2 km. The depth of the instruments (Super-Kamiokande. for example) is estimated to be 1,000 m.
But, still, it is sufficient that the the two points be on different heights relative to sea level.
The neutrino source is just above sea level, and pointed down, so if the receiving end is above sea level than I don't see how straight neutrinos will get there.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #56 on: December 08, 2009, 11:27:31 PM »

Like this?

*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #57 on: December 09, 2009, 04:57:08 AM »
Both are above sea level, and pointed down INTO the planet.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #58 on: December 09, 2009, 10:06:48 AM »

Like this?
Since your diagram is not labeled, I will assume the small dot on the right is the first detector and the big dot on the left is the second detector. What you have drawn is an upward angle from the first to the second, which is opposite to what I said.
Here is a simple, labeled diagram of what it might look like. Not to scale!
http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/General%20Neutrino%20Detector%20Diagram.jpg?hl=en&gsc=81ObtAsAAADg5gu_c_6XUl9IC-5YX-tj
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #59 on: December 09, 2009, 10:09:11 AM »
no, actually, it's the other way around.