Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

Thread starter Flunklesnarkin_sl
Start date Dec 17, 2012

Guest, it's time once again for the massively important and exciting FoH Asshat Tournament!

Go here and give us your nominations! Who's been the biggest Asshat in the last year? Give us your worst ones!

P

Picasso3

Silver Baronet of the Realm

Oct 7, 2015

#3,881

Does the machine have a "tare" button?

T

Troll_sl

shitlord

Oct 7, 2015

#3,882

Furry_sl said:
Every neutrino detector ever made produces the same radiation that its designed to detect. On top of that, they detect way less "neutrinos" than is necessary to say that what they're detecting isn't just radiation from the machine itself. Until that problem is corrected, neutrinos are a fancy idea that is mathematically required by parts of physics, but barely more then tenuous in terms of hard scientific data.

I mean, feel free to prove me wrong and show me a machine that isn't designed to detect itself. You'll find some that claim to have limited this issue, but they'll all be vulnerable to cascade decay.

lol You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.

Neutrinos (or antineutrinos) are produced each and every time a proton<->neutron conversion happens. The same amount of particle stuff is measuredevery single time.

I've heard the argument before. "That doesn't mean neutrinos exist!" Wellsomethingextra is coming out of the reaction. We can fucking detect that. And E=mc^2 demands it. And it just so happens that thatsomethingcorrelates very fucking strongly with what we call neutrinos. There's also a massive amount of science that depends on neutrinos existing. If they didn't exist, so much shit would fall down around our ears. If you can prove neutrinosdon'texist at this point, you get the Nobel Prize. No question.

Is it the name neutrino that gets your panties in a bunch? Did Enrico Fermi touch you in a bad spot when he was thinking up the name?

T

Troll_sl

shitlord

Oct 7, 2015

#3,883

Oh, and the sun is a giant neutron production machine. Guess what we detect flooding out from it?

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

<Gold Donor>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,884

Theories being inconvenienced by something not existing is not proof that it does exist. I mean, maybe it is to you, but my{and the scientific communities] standards require ACTUAL, OBSERVABLE data.

So while neutrinos seem a more likely explination than most, it is perfectly fine to question their existence until concrete data exists supporting them.

T

Troll_sl

shitlord

Oct 7, 2015

#3,885

You have at the same time the worst and most unreasonable definition of evidence.

The data is there. Whether or not you personally accept it is immaterial. It works and explains shit quite well. There's room for adjustment (there almost always is), but it still works, which is the hallmark of a good, sound andrepeatedly observablephenomenon.

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

<Gold Donor>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,886

The hallmark of an observable phenomenon is that its observable. Seems pretty simple to me.

T

Troll_sl

shitlord

Oct 7, 2015

#3,887

And neutrinos are observable.

There's direct and indirect observation. Both are valid. Sorry that you're too dense to understand that.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,888

Furry_sl said:
The hallmark of an observable phenomenon is that its observable. Seems pretty simple to me.

Observation does not need indicate direct observation.

I know that's hard to get through your head, but its true.

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

<Gold Donor>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,889

Troll_sl said:
And neutrinos are observable.

There's direct and indirect observation. Both are valid. Sorry that you're too dense to understand that.

The only neutrino detectors that 'work' create the same sort of radiation that they detect. It is almost impossible to differentiate between natural radioactive decay and neutrino emissions, and no experiment devised has successfully shown that the neutrinos they detect could not be a by-product of their machines own carbon decay.

Are you one of those nuts who think carbon decay isn't real? How else do you explain this potential, how else do you explain the fact that experiments without this element don't detect neutrinos. If you say neutrinos are our "best mathematical theory" for the problem they cover, I'll agree with you. If you say neutrinos as a particle are observationally verified, you're an idiot.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,890

Antarctic detector confirms observation of cosmic neutrinos | NSF - National Science Foundation

Neutrinos are subatomic particles, and billions of them pass through Earth every day, but they are incredibly difficult to detect. The particles are never directly observed, but the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, a cubic-kilometer-sized detector sunk into the ice sheet at the South Pole, allows researchers to see the byproducts of neutrino interaction with the ice. The instrument's array, IceTop, and its denser inner subdetector, DeepCore, significantly enhance its capabilities, making it a multipurpose facility.

The observatory records 100,000 neutrinos each year, most of which are a type called "muon neutrinos" generated when cosmic rays interact with the Earth's atmosphere. In contrast, the researchers were trying to find just a few dozen neutrinos generated elsewhere.

To find those, the IceCube Collaboration used an old strategy for a neutrino telescope: It looks through the Earth, using the planet itself to filter out the large background of atmospheric muons. By observing neutrinos coming from the Northern Hemisphere, they confirmed their cosmic origin, as well as the presence of extragalactic neutrinos and the intensity of the neutrino rate.

"Looking for muon neutrinos reaching the detector through the Earth is the way IceCube was supposed to do neutrino astronomy and it has delivered," said Francis Halzen, IceCube principal investigator and the Hilldale and Gregory Breit Distinguished Professor of Physics at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. "This is as close to independent confirmation as one can get with a unique instrument."

Sentagur

Low and to the left

<Silver Donator>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,891

Furry_sl said:
The only neutrino detectors that 'work' create the same sort of radiation that they detect. It is almost impossible to differentiate between natural radioactive decay and neutrino emissions, and no experiment devised has successfully shown that the neutrinos they detect could not be a by-product of their machines own carbon decay.

Are you one of those nuts who think carbon decay isn't real? How else do you explain this potential, how else do you explain the fact that experiments without this element don't detect neutrinos. If you say neutrinos are our "best mathematical theory" for the problem they cover, I'll agree with you. If you say neutrinos as a particle are observationally verified, you're an idiot.

I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what Neutrinos are and how they are detected.
Neutrinos have extremely weak interaction with pretty much anything else and the easiest way to detect them is indirectly by observing the effects of those interactions when they occur.

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

<Gold Donor>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,892

Sentagur_sl said:
I think you have a serious misunderstanding of what Neutrinos are and how they are detected.
Neutrinos have extremely weak interaction with pretty much anything else and the easiest way to detect them is indirectly by observing the effects of those interactions when they occur.

This direct/indirect argument is entirely a creation of the other arguers minds. I don't care if the observations are direct or indirect. There are plenty things in science which get observationally proven via only indirect observation. Look back at what I've read, have I mentioned direct or indirect observation with reference to this discussion even once before now? No, because its irrelevant.

So answer me a question, is the weak interaction that you claim indirectly proves neutrinos also incidentally caused by carbon radioactive decay? Yes or No. If the answer is yes, then how do you prove that your 'neutrino detections' aren't incidental radiation.

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi

<Silver Donator>

Oct 7, 2015

#3,893

Furry_sl said:
I don't care if the observations are direct or indirect.

Well then you can go ahead and believe in neutrinos because they've been indirectly detected through their interaction with ice, not via carbon decay, as demonstrated in my preceding post.

Further proof

IceTop

The surface array, called IceTop, consists of 162 tanks of ice, each instrumented with two standard IceCube sensors, to detect showers of secondary particles generated by interactions of high-energy cosmic rays in the atmosphere. The analysis supported by this grant focuses on cosmic-ray events detected in coincidence by both the surface array and the deep detectors. The ratio of deep signal to surface signal can be used to measure the relative fraction of heavy cosmic rays (e.g. nuclei of iron) to light cosmic rays (e.g. protons) in an energy region not accessible to direct observation with detectors carried above the atmosphere on balloons or spacecraft. In particular we look for a characteristic signature of a transition from sources inside our Milky Way Galaxy to extra-Galactic sources at higher energy.

No carbon decay is used to determine the interaction of neutrinos with the ice.

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider

Oct 8, 2015

#3,894

Furry_sl said:
This direct/indirect argument is entirely a creation of the other arguers minds. I don't care if the observations are direct or indirect. There are plenty things in science which get observationally proven via only indirect observation. Look back at what I've read, have I mentioned direct or indirect observation with reference to this discussion even once before now? No, because its irrelevant.

So answer me a question, is the weak interaction that you claim indirectly proves neutrinos also incidentally caused by carbon radioactive decay? Yes or No. If the answer is yes, then how do you prove that your 'neutrino detections' aren't incidental radiation

This pretty much proves that you don't know anything about neutrinos or how they're detected.

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

<Gold Donor>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,895

Ambiturner_sl said:
This pretty much proves that you don't know anything about neutrinos or how they're detected.

Oh, they don't detect it with cerenkov radiation now adays? You know the light caused by charged particals moving through a material faster than its speed of light. Charged particles like electrons. electrons being emitted in carbon decay, carbon which tends to be an important part in the detector used to read the cerenkov light. This can be up to a ~150KEV signal for one particle, or even higher if its a cascade (which I specifically mentioned earlier).

please, tell me how these machines work now adays mr ambiturner.

AngryGerbil

Poet Warrior

<Donor>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,896

PARTICALS!

Szlia

Member

Oct 8, 2015

#3,897

Why a flipped neutrino just won the Nobel Prize | ExtremeTech

So... the idea is that it got discovered that neutrinos (or should we say neutrini?) can oscillate between their three flavors (electron neutrino, muon neutrino, tau neutrino). Apparently, a corollary of this is that neutrino must have a mass instead of being mass-less like previously thought and the teams promptly observed/measured that (very slight) mass (not enough to account for dark matter!).

As for the IceCube, if wikipedia is to be believed, the signature of the muons created by muon neutrinos interacting with the ice is different enough from the signature of electrons for carbon decay to create false positives when it comes to muon neutrino detection.

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider

Oct 8, 2015

#3,898

Furry_sl said:
Oh, they don't detect it with cerenkov radiation now adays? You know the light caused by charged particals moving through a material faster than its speed of light. Charged particles like electrons. electrons being emitted in carbon decay, carbon which tends to be an important part in the detector used to read the cerenkov light. This can be up to a ~150KEV signal for one particle, or even higher if its a cascade (which I specifically mentioned earlier).

please, tell me how these machines work now adays mr ambiturner.

Your questions don't even make any sense. You seem to be saying neutrinos don't exist and then say they're created by the detectors themselves.

Does that mean humans created a brand new particle that never existed before, or that neutrinos don't come from beta decay?

All type scientific hang ups seem to come from a fundamental lack of understanding combined extreme confidence which is a pretty bad combination

T

Troll_sl

shitlord

Oct 8, 2015

#3,899

furry is a study in the Dunning-Kruger effect.

Furry

🌭🍔🇺🇦✌️SLAVA UKRAINI!✌️🇺🇦🍔🌭

<Gold Donor>

Oct 8, 2015

#3,900

Ambiturner_sl said:
...

Oh, I thought you knew anything about neutrino detectors. I'll explain it more simply for you.

Neutrino detectors work by detecting cerenkov radiation.
Neutrino detectors emit cerenkov radiation passively.

Since passively emitted radiation from carbon usually has a cap (~150 kev), the makers of neutrino detectors try to limit this factor by searching for energy >150kev. Even so, multiple atoms of carbon can decay at the same time occasionally and emit energy higher than 150kev.

Neutrinos represent something in physics, but saying we've proven what they are already is silly.

Show hidden low quality content

You must log in or register to reply here.

Share: