41–47 of 47 posts
Is it just ice? I thought most neutrino detectors were large underground pools of water. I mean ... tomāto/tomăto, yes, but is solid water better than liquid water?
I was involved in this analysis if anybody has questions (though the student and postdoc did most of the real work) original article: https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.21104 or https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/xwqy-yzrk
All these high energy particles travel at tremendous speeds, and for them it looks like you traveled half the Universe in a fraction of a second. And then you've hit an Antarctic ice. I think I'd be extremely excited at this, because I'm sure any particle dreams about becoming alive, and falling on Earth give pretty solid chances to integrate into a living organism. And even maybe to fly to the Moon then, to build a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So, [controlled] liquid water is better but [controlled] solid water is more abundant?
I wouldn't say liquid is "better". The neutrinos don't care from a cross section standpoint. Uniformity of the light field is going to be different, but that is not my sub-domain.
Just read the title and thought "Not now Cthulu, we've got enough going on"
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wouldn't say liquid is "better". The neutrinos don't care from a cross section standpoint. Uniformity of the light field is going to be different, but that is not my sub-domain.
Wouldn't the higher density of liquid water be an advantage?
Cough, Cough. (Dusting off my Hacker News Fan Boy Hat.) I just want to come round again to how amazing it is to have a small slice of the internet where “amazeballs scientific discovery happens” and we get, of course, someone on the site who has been part of it. (Hat goes back in box)