The sun at midnight; and neutrinos

This is a picture of our sun -- not remarkable, you might think. Pretty grainy and crappy actually. The cool part is... it was taken at night.

Normally of course you can't see the sun at night because the Earth gets in the way. This was taken looking through the middle of the Earth. Like if you pointed a camera straight down at the ground at midnight, and saw the sun on the other side.

How the hell did we do this? Well the picture isn't taken using light (photons). It's taken using amazing little particles called neutrinos.

The amazing thing about neutrinos is that they're ghostly and virtually invisible. Zillions of them zoom through us every second without leaving a trace! And they can pass straight through the Earth just as easily. Ordinary light (photons) can be stopped by just a thin sheet of paper, and a thin sheet of lead will stop even high-energy gamma-ray photons, but it would take a few light-years of lead to stop an average neutrino from the sun. To put it another way, if you filled the whole distance from the Earth to the sun with solid lead, 99.999% of the neutrinos would pass through unaffected!

You might wonder, if they're so ghostly, how do we see any at all? Mainly there are just so many zillions of them coming from the sun that with a big enough and sensitive enough detector we can see a few. So physicists have built gigantic detectors made out of huge vats of liquid, and buried them deep inside the Earth where nothing can reach them except for neutrinos. For example, the Super-Kamiokande detector is inside a mountain in Japan (Mt Ikenoyama, Gifa prefecture) and contains 20 Olympic-sized swimming pools worth of water. That's where the picture above was taken. It took a year and a half. (!)



One of the cool experimental developments in particle physics & astrophysics today is the development of actual neutrino telescopes! These are designed to not just see neutrinos, but to look at far away objects using them! There's numerous uses for this. Since neutrinos are so ghostly, neutrino telescopes offer a sort of 'X-ray vision' -- they can see inside things like neutron stars, supernovae, and GRBs and help us better understand how they work. And by observing neutrino cosmic rays, they will be able to test some new theories of physics. They may even be able to detect dark matter.

(Indeed neutrinos are a perfect example of dark matter themselves! We feel their gravitational interaction, but they're so weakly interacting they're hard to see any other way. For a while people thought the dark matter might actually be just neutrinos. But recently we've accumulated evidence that shows neutrinos make up only a small fraction of the missing dark matter -- most of it has to be something else.)

More info:

PBS: The Ghost Particle: http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neutrino/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu.../neutrino.html
http://www.physics.ubc.ca/~waltham/sno_talks/tno.pdf
ICECUBE: http://icecube.wisc.edu/
Super-Kamiokande: http://neutrino.phys.washington.edu/~superk/
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/...mg18524885.900

source: bluelight forums, posted by Zorn, a phys grad student
http://www.bluelight.ru/vb/showthread.php?t=274174

Where's your proof that this picture was taken in this way?

Yep, you left yourself open to the 'its photoshopped' rebuttal. For shame.

Where's your proof that this picture was taken in this way?

Where's your proof that it was not?



Thanks for the info QWE. I didn't know we already had neutrino telescope, humans rock:)    I guess it wouldn't help to find black holes but it can be used to see way farther than ordinary telescope would when blocked by various matter in space. That's very interesting.

This would indicate that neutrinos have even less mass than photons is that right? Do they travel faster?

^

This would indicate that neutrinos have even less mass than photons is that right? Do they travel faster?

im no physicist (i love physics but am going in the biology direction) but wikipedia has one of your answers

neutrinos were considered massless until recent experiments have shown that they have a non-zero mass.  photons on the other hand are massless

both neutrinos (unless it has very low kinetic energy) and photons move at neary C, im not sure which is faster

^

Quote

This would indicate that neutrinos have even less mass than photons is that right? Do they travel faster?

im no physicist (i love physics but am going in the biology direction) but wikipedia has one of your answers

neutrinos were considered massless until recent experiments have shown that they have a non-zero mass.  photons on the other hand are massless

both neutrinos (unless it has very low kinetic energy) and photons move at neary C, im not sure which is faster

Actually QWE, light does have mass. But the value is so incredibly small that it is 0 by any humans standard. This is demonstrated by light being affected by strong enough gravitationall fields, like that of a neutron star or a black hole.

I'm tempted to think that neutrinos are faster if they can go right through the core of a planet with no deviation and without being slowed down, but unfortunately, density would play into this as well so it's hard to tell.

For the record, I'm not saying that the picture is fake, on the contrary, I think it's real, but you need to provide proof on this website or you'll be ignored.

Clearly this website is the Flat Earth Society website and if you're to come here and tell us that you're wrong you need to prove it - that is to say that we're already convinced that the Earth is flat and we're not trying to "spread the word" - we're happy with our own knowledge - so if you want to convince us of something else the burden of proof is on you.

While I found your article interesting, if the Earth is flat then it's probably fake.  I say probably because maybe that's not a picture of the Sun at all.  Maybe that's the power source that is powering the Earth?

While I found your article interesting, if the Earth is flat then it's probably fake. I say probably because maybe that's not a picture of the Sun at all. Maybe that's the power source that is powering the Earth?

Interesting thought. The FE power source has never really been figured out and has been the subject of very little debate.

Clearly this website is the Flat Earth Society website and if you're to come here and tell us that you're wrong you need to prove it - that is to say that we're already convinced that the Earth is flat and we're not trying to "spread the word" - we're happy with our own knowledge - so if you want to convince us of something else the burden of proof is on you.

While I found your article interesting, if the Earth is flat then it's probably fake.  I say probably because maybe that's not a picture of the Sun at all.  Maybe that's the power source that is powering the Earth?

if you look at the red part of the image, notice htey are 'trails' because the sun moves around the earth (since one neutrino hits reacts every 90 minutes, they have to leave the machine on for a certain amount of time before and after midnight, thus the sun causing trails)

unless you're implying a power source that moves across the bottom of the earth, then dissapears, and after a certain amount of time, appears back at the other side, and continues this on a 24 hour cycle

occam's razor takes care of that

as for 'faking the picture' now numerous universities are in on the conspiracy!?  occam's razor again.  it removes superfluous layers of complexity so well:)

Heres a question:
wheres the neutrino image of the moon?

First I wanted to say that Occam's razor is not a form of proof - all it indicates is which theory is most likely to be true - not which is actually true.  It is clearly illogical to say that one theory is false because it is more complicated than a theory that can explain the same events.  Often the base of theory depends largely on how much knowledge we have and as we gain more knowledge our theories change.  That can make a discarded and unlikely theory seem likely again.  Occam's razor tells us which theory we should accept - not which theory is actually true.

Secondly I wanted to say that your theory on the reason for the "trails" is based around the assumption that the Earth is round and that that is the Sun.

^in this case the razor is nearly a form of truth.  the probability that multiple universities and independent science teams are in on hte 'conspiracy' without any leak of information to the public is very very low.  

it's like saying that, even though there's a 0.0001% chance it will rain tomorow, i choose to believe that it will rain tomorow

wheres the neutrino image of the moon?

since neutrinos barely interact with normal matter, they don't tend to reflect off the moon.  a neutron telescope would either be unable to see the moon, or it would take a very long time (i dont know how long, thousands of years? unless maybe we got new technology)


edit: yay, my 64th post! (comp sci ppl will understand)

Also, the moon doesn't emit these sub-atomic particles. As you would hope for your very life, there are not nuclear reactions going on inside of the moon.

by the way, my explanation for the trails on the picture turns out to be wrong, since the telescope was pointed at the center of the sun (not just straight down at vertical angle)

so... this is a picture of the sun?  Taken at night?  Over the course of a Year?  and this statment made sense to you?  If it's a fixed device supposedly rotating with the earth and with an exposure period of a year and a half.... wouldnt it be blurred?

The statment itself proves that the Earth isnt moving or in fact that the supposed picture is a fake and the entire process of trying to prove the existence of particles that are incredibly inert is simply another set in covering up the total ignorance of the scientific institution to explain processes they know nothing about.  If it took 200 years for any scientist to realize the RE theory was wrong they would probably want to keep it under wraps to preserve their credibility.

The whole concept of the existence of that picture makes absolutely no sense.

so... this is a picture of the sun?  Taken at night?  Over the course of a Year?  and this statment made sense to you?  If it's a fixed device supposedly rotating with the earth and with an exposure period of a year and a half.... wouldnt it be blurred?

The statment itself proves that the Earth isnt moving or in fact that the supposed picture is a fake and the entire process of trying to prove the existence of particles that are incredibly inert is simply another set in covering up the total ignorance of the scientific institution to explain processes they know nothing about.  If it took 200 years for any scientist to realize the RE theory was wrong they would probably want to keep it under wraps to preserve their credibility.

The whole concept of the existence of that picture makes absolutely no sense.

the image exists because we can detect neutrinos

in no way does this imply that the earth is stationary... how would it?

did he mean that it took a year an a half to actually take the photo, or a year and a half to build the telescope? He didnt specify.

Also, come on. This is multi-million dollar, maybe even into the billions, of research. As if they wouldnt consider that if they had a photo of the sun exposing over the course of a year the earth would be rotating and you'd lose the picture; if anything they would have taken snapshots of the particles at the same time each night over a period of time, taking in to account the adjustments needed to keep the focus of the telescope in the same position.



Interesting article to read there, I didnt realise our neutrino research was so far along.

im very skeptical...neutrinos are not formed in the fission reactions taken place on the sun as is my understanding. instead neutrinos are formed in beta plus decay. this comes from the decay of radioactive elements...such as those present on earth...

beta plus decays happen everywhere...possibly on the sun aswell...but not in a very significant increase from that occuring in other places. now, if we were to take a picture of something that barely emits more neutrinos than the earth...through the earth...and this object is a long way away, whereas the earth is right next to the machine...

surely u can see why i am skeptical that this picture could possibly be taken through the earth

your pics are clearly photoshopped therefore you are clearly involved with the government conspiracy  :evil:

My point is that the detector is stationary and just like old photographs where people had to sit perfectly still for 10mins or the picture would blurr the sun is constantly moving.  Since the exposure time was in fact over a year and a half, it should have been blurred, otherwise they're really just using a program to interpret data and group the data.  

If these photo sensors are sensitive enough, normal beta radiation(electrons) would be a problem.  This is the process that develops errors in computer data.  The nuclear decay of the lead used in the solderof your computer circuits can add an input that is interpreted as a "bit" by the computer.  This would probably be enough to trigger electrical signals within the sensors.  So it would be like looking through interferance.  Then if you truely did get a detection interpreting a group of them over a range of time as long as that is like looking at an ink blot.

If you just use a little common sense you can see that the problems of detecting something as inert as the "neutrino" is all but drown out by the natural radiation of the device and it's surroundings.  As for it being a telescope, it's only looking in one direction so again you're using computer programs to interpret the data.

I mean through the entire year and a half survey of the sun they must have been receiving these particles from every other possible direction as well.  So just saying: "Oh that detect came from the general direction of the sun so it must be from it is as bold as simply attributing it to natural decay.  I havent read any of the results of the experiment yet but I plan to.  It just seems like a very complex measurement to automatically attribute it as proof of "neutrino" existance.

You dont really seem to grasp the concept that these researchers know much more than you. Now given, your whole FE theory is based on the "the other people know more than us, hence they can get away with it" debate, but back to the real world for a second here, these scientists that set up neutrino research facilities would know all the common little fiddly issues that you've come up with, and wouldnt bother starting projects like this if the only reason we couldnt take that image was because the earth is rotating on its axis as well as orbiting around the sun. And yes, that telescope can be aimed, even though the body of it remains stationary. The recievers inside it can be aimed/ focused. It would be a totally useless device if you couldnt choose what you wanted to point it at.

No I'm afraid you're wrong.  There is no way to focus the device because "neutrinos" are already incredibly inert.  Every point I brought up is completely valid.  The only thing they used to focus the data would be a computer program after all the data was collected.

By your own admission it is a completely useless device then.  As any data collected is then subjected to a computer program to make an actual interpretation.

ixion, i looked into it and they aimed the device at the sun, thats why i said my explanation for the trails was wrong

and the device detects neutrinos, not electrons.  it's a neutrino telescope

neutrinos are indeed inert, but why would that interfere with focusing the telescope?  you have the telescope aimed at the sun, and based on the distance to the sun and the size of the sensor, focusing wouldnt be a problem at all

did he mean that it took a year an a half to actually take the photo, or a year and a half to build the telescope?

it took a year and a half to take the image, not to build it, because the neutrinos react in the instrument only about once every 90 minutes, which is why we needed to wait so long to get an image.  data was not 'regrouped'

im very skeptical...neutrinos are not formed in the fission reactions taken place on the sun as is my understanding. instead neutrinos are formed in beta plus decay. this comes from the decay of radioactive elements...such as those present on earth...

woopedazz, i reccomend wikipedia'ing "the sun"

I was just wondering what the point of this topic is, as the picture won't convince anybody of anything.

No there is no focusing involved which is why there are sensors on all sides of the device.  Focusing is the act of taking incoming particles and redirecting them to a central point(ie your sensors) using lens and mirrors.  Neutrinos can not be focused.  Hell gamma rays can barely be focused.  The gamma ray telescopes have a huge angle of incidence for their mirrors which is used to redirect the particles to form a picture.

If they only catch one particle every 90 mins the sun will have change it's angle of reaction with the device significantly.  So they need a computer to keep track of where the sun is and extrapolate by the angle of reaction in the chamber weather it came from the sun or not.

Point is they must have been collecting them from a mirade of sources throughout their survey.  So it's impossible to prove difinatively that all the particles entering the device, even at the correct angle of reaction came from the sun.

It would be like creating a picture with a machine gun while spinning around the target at a high speed.  After great analysis and calculations you can figure out what direction it came from but because it's impossible to focus you'll never get a true picture out of it.

The general purpose of these so called telescopes is to simply try prove the existence of these particles.  Not to use them as a tool of observation.  I for one am not yet convinced.  I mean the laughable idea of using a computer to artificially focus the image is the work of an artist not a scientist.

As to your other question about my beta radiation theory...

It has nothing to do with what it's measuring.  You need to understand how a photo sensor works.  When it receives light, and in this case incredibly faint light it converts that into a voltage or signal.  A very faint signal.  Now if at any point along the line of transfer for this signal, stray electrons from natural beta radiation of the surrounding Earth get introduced, because the real and fake signals would both be incredibly faint they would be indistiquishable from each other.  This process would greatly increase the margin of error for their data.

My earlier example was an explination of the nuclear decay of the lead in your computer can create errors in data transfer.  I wasnt saying the data that their computers were processing was in any way changed im saying the source of the data may not neccisarily be what you think it is.

If they only catch one particle every 90 mins the sun will have change it's angle of reaction with the device significantly. So they need a computer to keep track of where the sun is and extrapolate by the angle of reaction in the chamber weather it came from the sun or not.

They turn the device on around midnight.

"They turned it on at midnight"

Did you get that from a source?  It sounds made up and still wouldnt solve the problem.

The angle would still change over the seasons.  Also simply aligning the device in a perticular direction still isnt going to solve the problem of not being able to focus the particles.

If these things go through just about everything it shouldnt matter what time of day or where since there are sensors on all sides of the chamber.

The chamber still cant move nor does it need to since there is no focusing
device.  Are you also suggesting that they built this thing in such a precise spot that it would be pointing at the sun at midnight?

woopedazz, i reccomend wikipedia'ing "the sun"

               :evil:

lol, that sed, i do know a little about radiation, and the fact is that the interference created by natural radiation on earth (a certain type of which [beta plus decay] produces neutrinos and positrons), would just about make it impossible to take the picture through the earth.

as ixion verified wen he talked about this interference. i'm certain that this picture is not falsified, scientists have better things to do, but im not convinced it was actually taken "through" the earth unless methodology was used that was not prior explained in this post. it just isn't plausible

Qwe and Mad_Aussie are arguing from authority; Authority A believes that P is true.
Therefore, P is true.
 From an extremest FE perspective; the very Authority cited is part of the conspiritorial mechinations and therefore automatically suspect anyway.

Give me simple personally verifiable evidence.