Beam Neutrinos

  • 254 Replies
  • 53071 Views
?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #60 on: December 09, 2009, 10:18:14 AM »
no, actually, it's the other way around.

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

Did you look at my presentation (up to page 3 would be enough)? Did you read my post about having personally worked on the T2K near detector, which is in a 40m deep pit? Would you like to read the TDR for MINOS that I posted on the Neutrino Hardware thread? Here it is anyway:
http://www-numi.fnal.gov/Minos/info/minos_tdr.html

Regardless, where is the information that tells you "its the other way", other than "the Earth is flat".
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #61 on: December 09, 2009, 10:19:21 AM »
lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.

*

SupahLovah

  • 5164
  • Santasaurus Rex!
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #62 on: December 09, 2009, 10:23:51 AM »
I'm above sea level.
"Study Gravitation; It's a field with a lot of potential!"

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #63 on: December 09, 2009, 10:25:40 AM »
I am underground and above sea level.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #64 on: December 09, 2009, 10:29:14 AM »
lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.
The source is in the basement of a building, a few meters below sea level. The near detector is 40m below sea level. Super K is roughly 100-300m above sea level (since I am using information relative to the 1360m mountain peak and their report of 1000m of rock overburden). I never said the near detector was above sea level in any of my posts, I previously said that the neutrino source was at sea level, which is pretty much bang on. The neutrino source would have to be in a ~43m deep pit to change the angle to an upward angle, and I can attest to the fact that it is not.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #65 on: December 09, 2009, 10:43:11 AM »
lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.
Besides, there is no both. There are three points on this line. If you reduce it to two you can infer what you want, but we have three: Neutrino source, near detector, far detector.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #66 on: December 09, 2009, 10:45:04 AM »
do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #67 on: December 09, 2009, 11:50:35 AM »
do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?
I detect a circular argument (pun intended), so I will take a moment to clarify.
First, you question if they travel in straight lines:
So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

When an explanation is provided, you switch to question the relative location of the experiment, now apparently accepting the straightness.
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.

Then you questioned the authenticity of the experiment information:
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.

Then you tried to show that the experiment could be done on a flat Earth:
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.

Which I feel that I successfully answered:
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...

Then for some reason (this makes it much easier for me), you appeared to agree based on UA that neutrinos would travel in a straight line:
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.

Then, when asked again, you went back and attacked the idea that the angle is downward with this post:

Like this?
Which is missing the third point on the line, the below sea level near detector. I replied with this picture:

http://t2k-information.googlegroups.com/web/General+Neutrino+Detector+Diagram.jpg?hl=en&gda=gQtfqFcAAACRTuUW9np5-UAIyR2Eir-sJ0Ok0tEziVbbPG5GIe4snYxv0q0VZhjKiWMs9yi7adzMY-wpAXVKhiwImBIOO5DiJey9J-K9TpVnNBVqJ8Vj4u10aVPw-pIVf8OUHFYczcU

Edit: Photo source changed from Google Groups to Flickr

Now you are back to questioning if neutrinos travel in a straight line:
do neutrinos keep traveling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

Before continuing, I am going to make a habit of including my current assumptions in the beginning of my post, to avoid confusion. It is great to debate, and I enjoy it, but it becomes frustrating when there is a lack of agreement on a definition or premise.

« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 12:21:27 PM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #68 on: December 09, 2009, 11:53:08 AM »
nice picture.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #69 on: December 09, 2009, 11:54:17 AM »
nice picture.
Thanks, its the best I could do with 3 minutes and a FET model. There is a much better picture in my presentation, but it assumes RET. Do you have any response to the logic that the picture is trying to convey?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

parsec

  • 6196
  • 206,265
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #70 on: December 09, 2009, 11:58:28 AM »
not until i can see your picture.


EDIT:

Btw, you quote too much, without any essence. I guess you think pretending you're an expert in the field by supplying us with irrelevant detail would give you more credibility.
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 12:03:07 PM by parsec »

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #71 on: December 09, 2009, 12:27:53 PM »
not until i can see your picture.


EDIT:

Btw, you quote too much, without any essence. I guess you think pretending you're an expert in the field by supplying us with irrelevant detail would give you more credibility.

This appears to be an attack on my credibility, a new one. Perhaps this picture can settle that:

I believe my detailed explanations of the T2K data acquisition hardware on the Neutrino Hardware thread can attest to the fact that I did work in the field. I do not claim to be an expert, I only worked on T2K for eight months. I did however directly contribute to the data acquisition hardware and software. I also traveled to Japan to install and commission the DAQ. I can post more pictures if you still feel like attacking my credibility, or you can try to attack my argument.

Edit: To avoid confusion, this is a picture of the FGD in the assembly building, not in the 40m ND280 pit. It is much more difficult to debug hardware in the pit!
« Last Edit: December 09, 2009, 12:30:06 PM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #72 on: December 09, 2009, 07:28:29 PM »
It doesn't take an expert in the field of neutrino physics to understand the geometry of the picture I drew. There are three points to match up, and I can't seem to find a way to make them match up in FET. If the relative elevation of the three points is in question, please point to information which indicates what you instead think the elevation should be.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #73 on: December 10, 2009, 12:22:35 AM »
For a flat Earth, the neutrino beam would have to curve by 1 degree in those 300 km.  I'm curious how something interacting so weakly could possibly pull this off.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #74 on: December 10, 2009, 10:15:31 AM »
Does any other FET'er want to try to explain how this experiment might work on a flat Earth? At this point in the thread it seems that neutrinos travel in roughly straight lines due to UA. I believe that the elevation relative to sea level of the three points in the experiment have also been demonstrated.
Anyone care to contest either of these points, or propose a different solution?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

Thermal Detonator

  • 3135
  • Definitively the best avatar maker.
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #75 on: December 10, 2009, 11:28:03 AM »
do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

Yes, because once detected they do not reach the second detector, and those undetected don't interact with it.
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 #76 on: December 11, 2009, 10:24:26 AM »
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #77 on: December 11, 2009, 11:19:04 AM »
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?

While not my field of scientific study, I find it amusing that this new item, the "Neutrino" which has near zero mass and supposedly travels near the speed of light is suddenly (relatively) hailed by all of you as proof the Earth is round. Just when the RET is being critically evaluated this magical particle is "discovered". Let me ask you this; Have you ever seen a neutrino? Even better, let us use taxpayer and contributing monies to build large detectors and artificial neutrino generators.

I find it concerning that the "research" for these projects is supported by government funding. How convenient that the government controls the outcome of the data, once again.

I have seen your picture young man. While you seem intelligent and are obviously very attractive in a boyish way, I am inclined to believe you have drunk the Kool-Aid refreshment.

Nice try but you will not fool us.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #78 on: December 11, 2009, 11:39:14 AM »
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?

While not my field of scientific study, I find it amusing that this new item, the "Neutrino" which has near zero mass and supposedly travels near the speed of light is suddenly (relatively) hailed by all of you as proof the Earth is round. Just when the RET is being critically evaluated this magical particle is "discovered". Let me ask you this; Have you ever seen a neutrino? Even better, let us use taxpayer and contributing monies to build large detectors and artificial neutrino generators.

I find it concerning that the "research" for these projects is supported by government funding. How convenient that the government controls the outcome of the data, once again.

I have seen your picture young man. While you seem intelligent and are obviously very attractive in a boyish way, I am inclined to believe you have drunk the Kool-Aid refreshment.

Nice try but you will not fool us.
Thanks for posting, I appreciate the interesting discussion.
I see two points here:

First, the Neutrino Conspiracy... I have begun to address this point in the thread http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forum/index.php?topic=34703.0
If you want to be involved in the data analysis then get a physics degree and sign up, they need people. Also, you can have a free tour of many government physics experimentation halls (at least in the USA and Canada). If you visit Vancouver, BC on a Wednesday or Friday I can show you around TRIUMF myself. You can view all the physics data and code that you want. You will see that its the grunts (physics grad students) that directly analyze the data, not a few highly paid executives.

Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter. For example, one can attempt to direct electrons towards a phosphorus screen in the presence of a magnetic field and observe the deflection from a straight path (CRT). For neutrinos, one way (the one I worked on) is to direct them towards a closely observed mass in a strong magnetic field, and look for flashes of light (neutrinos hitting things). If the directed beam does not appear to bend due to the magnetic field, we can infer that we are observing a non-charged particle. Since we observe many more flashes when shooting other known particles, we infer that the neutrino interacts weakly with matter. When we shoot it through 750km of Earth and still observe it on the other side, then we strengthen the idea that it interacts weakly.

Again, taken in a nice 0.2T magnet.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #79 on: December 11, 2009, 11:41:22 AM »
While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?
I have seen your picture young man. While you seem intelligent and are obviously very attractive in a boyish way, I am inclined to believe you have drunk the Kool-Aid refreshment.
I admit I am not sure how to respond to this statement.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #80 on: December 11, 2009, 11:46:48 AM »

Quote
Thanks for posting, I appreciate the interesting discussion.

I see two points here:

If you want to be involved in the data analysis then get a physics degree and sign up, they need people. Also, you can have a free tour of many government physics experimentation halls (at least in the USA and Canada). If you visit Vancouver, BC on a Wednesday or Friday I can show you around TRIUMF myself. You can view all the physics data and code that you want. You will see that its the grunts (physics grad students) that directly analyze the data, not a few highly paid executives.


Trying to further capitalize on your business or are you spreading the propaganda? I can also go to NASA and look at "Moon Rocks" and "Space Suits". Nice try.

Quote
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #81 on: December 11, 2009, 12:28:59 PM »
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.
Could be, its certainly possible (its impossible to prove that its impossible). However, this is not the theory that I am defending. Besides, the theory of fluid flow is quite well developed and I see no reason to think its from a neutrino beast. You can come up with all the fanciful hypotheses you want, but you have to test them before they become theories.
« Last Edit: December 11, 2009, 12:31:29 PM by ERTW »
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #82 on: December 11, 2009, 12:51:23 PM »
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.
Could be, its certainly possible (its impossible to prove that its impossible). However, this is not the theory that I am defending. Besides, the theory of fluid flow is quite well developed and I see no reason to think its from a neutrino beast. You can come up with all the fanciful hypotheses you want, but you have to test them before they become theories.

Could a better hypothesis be to invent "Neutrinos" as conclusive evidence of a round Earth then use taxpayer and "grant" money to employ bright people and build elaborate machinery to find "evidence" which really amounts to nothing more than "spots on detectors"?

*

markjo

  • Content Nazi
  • The Elder Ones
  • 39107
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #83 on: December 11, 2009, 01:24:59 PM »
Could a better hypothesis be to invent "Neutrinos" as conclusive evidence of a round Earth then use taxpayer and "grant" money to employ bright people and build elaborate machinery to find "evidence" which really amounts to nothing more than "spots on detectors"?

No.  Neutrinos were not "invented" to prove the shape of the earth. 

Quote from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Proposal_of_neutrino_existence.2C_from_conservation_arguments
Proposal of neutrino existence, from conservation arguments
The neutrino was first postulated in 1930 by Wolfgang Pauli to preserve the conservation of energy, conservation of momentum, and conservation of angular momentum in beta decay -- the decay of a atomic-neucleus (not known as neutron back then) into a proton, an electron and an antineutrino.

He theorized that an undetected particle was carrying away the observed difference between the energy, momentum, and angular momentum of the initial and final particles.
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.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #84 on: December 11, 2009, 11:18:52 PM »
Second, have I seen a neutrino? By definition one cannot 'see' a neutrino, any more than one can see an electron. However, one can observe the affect that neutrinos have on matter.

Using your logic I could say that no one has ever seen the wind, only the effects of the wind. Therefore, using your logic, a Neutrinobeast could be blowing on the Earth which is evidenced by the leaves blowing in the wind. Once again, nice try.
Could be, its certainly possible (its impossible to prove that its impossible). However, this is not the theory that I am defending. Besides, the theory of fluid flow is quite well developed and I see no reason to think its from a neutrino beast. You can come up with all the fanciful hypotheses you want, but you have to test them before they become theories.

Could a better hypothesis be to invent "Neutrinos" as conclusive evidence of a round Earth then use taxpayer and "grant" money to employ bright people and build elaborate machinery to find "evidence" which really amounts to nothing more than "spots on detectors"?
That sounds like a hypothesis to me. I suggest you begin to present evidence for this or show some reasoning, but I won't hold my breath waiting for it to become a theory. For the moment, I have presented evidence for my hypothesis so I suggest you focus your attention on it instead of inventing new ones. If you want to start a neutrino conspiracy hypothesis then please start a new thread, and I will debate you there. It is my understanding that discussions of conspiracy belong in Flat Earth General Forums.
By the way, what do you think the spots on the CRT screen are? The fact that we can manipulate those particle is pretty amazing don't you think? And again, nobody said T2K, MINOS, or K2K were built to prove that the Earth is round. They were built to better understand neutrinos by testing them over long distances.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #85 on: December 13, 2009, 01:37:03 PM »
So, I got another conspiracy rebuttal. I must admit I enjoy when I get these because it indicates that the poster has no coherent argument against my claims. Please feel free to continue setting up a card house of Conspiracy, and I will continue to let the Neutrinobeast's wind blow it down.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #86 on: December 13, 2009, 10:18:24 PM »
So, I got another conspiracy rebuttal. I must admit I enjoy when I get these because it indicates that the poster has no coherent argument against my claims. Please feel free to continue setting up a card house of Conspiracy, and I will continue to let the Neutrinobeast's wind blow it down.

I'm no scientist, but I think I get the gist of what you're saying. You shoot laser thingies into the ground that can pass through anything without bending and they come out at a higher angle several hundred kilometers away. Makes enough sense to me. I don't know why anybody would need a diagram to understand it.

The only possible argument that the Flat Earthers can produce is that you are lying. How can any sane person rationalize the sheer magnitude of this "conspiracy"?
« Last Edit: December 14, 2009, 07:43:58 AM by Canadark »
There is evidence for a NASA conspiracy. Please search.

Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #87 on: January 03, 2010, 08:22:25 AM »
Nice to see those initial event displays have been put to good use.

?

ERTW

  • 611
  • Always fall back to common sense
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #88 on: January 21, 2010, 03:11:36 PM »
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Don't diss physics until you try it!

*

Johannes

  • Flat Earth Editor
  • 2755
Re: Beam Neutrinos
« Reply #89 on: January 21, 2010, 03:37:04 PM »
So for the moment, it appears several thousand grad students must be added to the conspiracy. I am starting to see that this conspiracy is more on the scale of what Dino is suggesting over in the General forums. Are there any FET'ers who have a problem with leaving this where it is, or is someone going to jump back into the pool?
Parsec had something going for a while, but I think he got busy with exams and forgot about it.

If there is no rebuttal, perhaps it should be added to the FAQ as an unexplained phenomenon, since others in the future may ask about it.
Maybe, if you could prove neutrinos exist.