Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

spectrum.ieee.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 109 posts

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#51

Post by craftyguy »

tobias2014 wrote: post #46
cozzyd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work on an experiment at the south pole (not IceCube). sshing into fix stuff is painful, even when the "good" satellite is up. Protip: pressing up several times and then enter is very dangerous since the command that you will actually run may not have appeared on your screen yet.

Use mosh and you will have a much better experience. It's made for high latency connections.

Some mission critical production systems don't really want you installing . That's probably a highly unpopular view on HN, but having downtime on IceCube, for example, means they may miss an extremely rare event (neutrino hitting something and generating muons/photon shockwaves) that they could detect.

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#52

Post by craftyguy »

foobarian wrote: post #34
cozzyd wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work on an experiment at the south pole (not IceCube). sshing into fix stuff is painful, even when the "good" satellite is up. Protip: pressing up several times and then enter is very dangerous since the command that you will actually run may not have appeared on your screen yet.

Even on a good console I put a # at the start of the line before editing or typing it in case I accidentally hit Enter too soon. And never ever paste commands without first trying it into a trash terminal or editor.

That's an interesting technique that I've never heard of. Do you have fast shortcuts/keybindings for removing the # when you are ready, or is it '(left arrow x N) + ^H' each time?

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#53

Post by 8bitsrule »

nategri wrote: post #2

Recovering astroparticle physics PhD here. I read this news with great interest because I thought they might have finally detected the flux of neutrinos predicted by the GZK process[1]. But, this can't be the case because 1) 10^14 eV is probably on the low side for GZK neutrinos, and (more importantly!) 2) that flux would be fairly isotropic, and not from point source. But still! Exciting results! IceCube is an ambit…

Curious: alcoholics have Bill Wilson to help them recover ... who do astrophysicists have?

(the kind of question that reveals search engine limitations)

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#54

Post by raziel2701 »

nonbel wrote: post #48
cozzyd wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's exactly why the author gets paid. By local I meant near the source, not near us.

Not saying you are wrong about the terminology, but if local photons are "produced at the source", the use of "local" seems to be redundant. When would a photon not be created at the source? What is a non-local photon, only CMB photons?

If you're in a field in a windy day you cannot tell where the wind is originating from. If you're in a room with a fan turned on, you can tell where the wind is being sourced. The source of the wind has been localized in this latter scenario, whereas in the first you can detect the wind but you can't tell what the source of the wind is. That's the gist of the local versus non-local neutrinos being detected.

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#55

Post by analog31 »

Diederich wrote: post #10
nategri wrote: post #2

Recovering astroparticle physics PhD here. I read this news with great interest because I thought they might have finally detected the flux of neutrinos predicted by the GZK process[1]. But, this can't be the case because 1) 10^14 eV is probably on the low side for GZK neutrinos, and (more importantly!) 2) that flux would be fairly isotropic, and not from point source. But still! Exciting results! IceCube is an ambit…

> Recovering astroparticle physics PhD here If I may ask: why 'recovering'?

I'm not in astro, but have a physics degree. It's pretty well known that only a few of us get to stay in basic research after we finish our degrees. Most of us have to make the transition to some "real world" activity. Some have an easier time of it than others.

While it's also well known that you don't go into certain fields to make the big bucks (astrophysics, viola da gamba performance, etc.), a corollary is that you do go into those fields because they're highly addictive. So, referring to it as "recovering" might be appropriate.

Disclosure: The people I know who are astrophysicists, and violists da gamba, both now have successful careers as software developers.

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#56

Post by scarejunba »

craftyguy wrote: post #52
foobarian wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even on a good console I put a # at the start of the line before editing or typing it in case I accidentally hit Enter too soon. And never ever paste commands without first trying it into a trash terminal or editor.

That's an interesting technique that I've never heard of. Do you have fast shortcuts/keybindings for removing the # when you are ready, or is it '(left arrow x N) + ^H' each time?

^A ^D

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#57

Post by Diederich »

ISL wrote: post #47
everybodyknows wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A pity some of our new billionaires don't make a hobby out of funding genuine science research. Rather than, say, adventures in space tourism.

Agreed. If Musk had wanted to make a science contribution, he might have launched one of these [1] instead of a Tesla. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LARES_(satellite)

Would they have allowed their satellite to be launched on an untested platform?

That's the idea of putting a 'worthless' payload up first.

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#58

Post by scarejunba »

everybodyknows wrote: post #41
jjoonathan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a massive oversupply of people who want to do science vs science that people will pay to have done. Supply and demand are balanced by making the environment so toxic that most leave. Hence 'recovering.'

A pity some of our new billionaires don't make a hobby out of funding genuine science research. Rather than, say, adventures in space tourism.

The US may never have come to be what it is today if all Columbuses were bound to their homes.

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#59

Post by mjfl »

everybodyknows wrote: post #41
jjoonathan wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a massive oversupply of people who want to do science vs science that people will pay to have done. Supply and demand are balanced by making the environment so toxic that most leave. Hence 'recovering.'

A pity some of our new billionaires don't make a hobby out of funding genuine science research. Rather than, say, adventures in space tourism.

what if scientists actually considered being economically competent? There is no law of nature that holds that scientists must be aloof savants.

Re: The IceCube Neutrino Detector at the South Pole Hits Paydirt

#60

Post by nonbel »

raziel2701 wrote: post #54
nonbel wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not saying you are wrong about the terminology, but if local photons are "produced at the source", the use of "local" seems to be redundant. When would a photon not be created at the source? What is a non-local photon, only CMB photons?

If you're in a field in a windy day you cannot tell where the wind is originating from. If you're in a room with a fan turned on, you can tell where the wind is being sourced. The source of the wind has been localized in this latter scenario, whereas in the first you can detect the wind but you can't tell what the source of the wind is. That's the gist of the local versus non-local neutrinos being detected.

So if I know the source but you don't, its local to me but non-local to you?
Post reply on HN