Beam Neutrinos

no, actually, it's the other way around.

Quote from: parsec 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.

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

lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.

lol, and you said several posts above, both are above sea level.

do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

So, it means they might not travel in a straight line.

Quote from: bowler 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).

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

Quote from: raziel on September 05, 2009, 05:03:27 PM

Quote from: zork on August 08, 2009, 01:27:35 AM

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.

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...

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.

Like this?

do neutrinos keep traveling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

nice picture.

not until i can see your picture.

Quote from: ERTW on December 09, 2009, 11:50:35 AM

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.

do neutrinos keep travelling in a straight line after passing through the first detector?

While Parsec is studying for exams, any other FET'ers want to take a stab?

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:24:26 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.

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 10:24:26 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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 11, 2009, 11:19:04 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.

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 11:39:14 AM

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.

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 11, 2009, 11:46:48 AM

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 11:39:14 AM

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"?

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.

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 12:28:59 PM

Quote from: adolf einholm on December 11, 2009, 11:46:48 AM

Quote from: ERTW on December 11, 2009, 11:39:14 AM

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"?

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.

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.