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

101–109 of 109 posts

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

#101

Post by nonbel »

cozzyd wrote: post #62
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?

I am probably being confusing because there are distinct photons involved here... the ones that protons interact with to make neutrinos, and the gamma rays (which are of course, just high-energy photons) detected by FERMI or MAGIC. ' The neutrinos are produced in the process: proton + photon -> (usually) Delta_1232 (basically an excited proton, which is very unstable so that's why you may not have heard of it)-> neut…

>"The protons are accelerated at the source."

So by "source" you mean "source of the protons"? And "local photons" means "produced near the source of the protons"?

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

#102

Post by ISL »

Diederich wrote: post #57
ISL wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

A tungsten or brass (LAGEOS) sphere covered in optical and radar retroreflectors is cheap and inert. The major cost for that type of mission is the launch.

Given 3-6 months, $If Elon is reading and plans to do something similar again, get in touch (cah49@uw.edu). We'll make science happen.

Or, just launch a dense one of these: http://www.landfallnavigation.com/davis-emergency-radar-refl...

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

#103

Post by aplc0r »

aaronbrethorst wrote: post #80
8bitsrule wrote: post #50

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Static damage? Where I was raised, winter temps regularly reached -40. That cold, outside air already had most of the moisture 'wrung out of it'. Now let that cold dry air into the house and warm it: the relative humidity plummets. Now walk across a carpet in leather-soled shoes. Do NOT even touch metal doorknobs, let alone metal faucets!

A favorite game of my siblings and I during the winter growing up in Minnesota was to shuffle across the floor and then poke each other.

In the winter (in MN), I usually wake up to my dog shocking us nose-to-nose while he checks if I'm still sleeping.

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

#105

Post by nonbel »

cozzyd wrote: post #62
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?

I am probably being confusing because there are distinct photons involved here... the ones that protons interact with to make neutrinos, and the gamma rays (which are of course, just high-energy photons) detected by FERMI or MAGIC. ' The neutrinos are produced in the process: proton + photon -> (usually) Delta_1232 (basically an excited proton, which is very unstable so that's why you may not have heard of it)-> neut…

Basically when talking about multiple particles, and using the term source, it would be clearer to say "source of x". Yet three times now you've just said "the source".

It seems needlessly confusing so I think there is some reason I'm not grasping that you keep saying "the source".

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

#106

Post by Cyph0n »

skrebbel wrote: post #74
ghaff wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Pilots being another good example. Years ago, I interviewed for a couple of positions with Schlumberger which, at the time, basically went out to oil wells and made various measurements. In a lot of ways, it was essentially a tech job but the reason you had engineers (assisted by techs) was that you had various training and, presumably, other background for when things went sideways.

Fun story, though off topic: Schlumberger, having people all over the world on dangerous places such as oil platforms (but also in offices), thinks that physical safety for their employees is very important. They iterated on this so well for so many decades, that the primary cause of employee death is now traffic accidents, involving employees thousands of miles away from oil wells, on their way to the office. Proble…

Not only that, but not wearing a seatbelt (even as a passenger) can get you fired on the spot!

I was extremely impressed with the safety-first culture when I interned at Schlumberger a few years back. Your coworkers will yell at you if you simply step into a work area with proper PPE (hardhat, safety boots, etc.).

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

#107

Post by mattkrause »

adrianN wrote: post #88
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.

The problem is that each professor trains more than a dozen PhDs over their career but they open up only one spot once they retire. Exponential growth in scientists isn't sustainable, no matter how many billionaires like science.

It’s worth noting that this isn’t an iron-clad law of nature. We could train fewer students and hire more staff scientists, for example, but the people who decide such things are largely the folks who “made it” so....

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

#108

Post by mattkrause »

mjfl wrote: post #59
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.

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

This drives me nuts. If a quaint, ivory tower environment ever existed at all, it’s long, long gone. Science these days is incredibly fast-paced and competitive (for better or worse) and running a successful lab takes a similar level of managerial chops, hustle, and luck to running small business.

If you have actual suggestions, please do share them, but taking the mickey out of people trying to figure out the universe on $45k/yr is just mean.

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

#109

Post by aaronbrethorst »

aplc0r wrote: post #103
aaronbrethorst wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A favorite game of my siblings and I during the winter growing up in Minnesota was to shuffle across the floor and then poke each other.

In the winter (in MN), I usually wake up to my dog shocking us nose-to-nose while he checks if I'm still sleeping.

I'm kind of surprised he hasn't been trained out of this from the pain/surprise. Seems like sort of a shock collar effect.
Post reply on HN