Science!! Fucking magnets, how do they work?

  • 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!
Sentagur

Sentagur

Low and to the left
<Silver Donator>
3,825
7,937
Furry_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.
Click to expand...
Who said anything about proving what they are.
Didn't some crazy scientists just discover that Neutrinos might have mass and won a Nobel prize for it ? That means we know there is something, for now its called Neutrinos and people are still working on figuring out its properties. They also have multiple different ways of detecting them and detecting some of their properties.
You were saying this whole thing is BS and they don't exists ( dont consider them factual)

On one had there is all of the scientists working with Neutrinos and on the other there is you refusing to acknowledge they exist until you see one of the for your self, preferably with a name tag.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
Furry_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.
Click to expand...
You didn't answer my question and now seem to acknowledge that they exist, but we don't know their exact properties.
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,629
1,375
You guys are still very good at misrepresenting arguments. Furry's point is that the machines used to detect neutrino are looking for events that can also happen because of the natural decay of carbon that is found in the machine. More specifically, in the case of IceCube, the machine is basically light detectors in a huge block of very pure ice. The idea is that when a neutrino interacts with the ice, it produces a particle (an electron, a muon or a tau), and if that particle goes faster than the speed of light in ice, it creates an luminous effect (Cherenkov radiation) that the detectors can see. The problem, is that there is carbon in the detectors and some isotope of it (the notorious Carbon-14) will decay, emitting an electron and there really is no way to know if the electron shooting through the ice comes from carbon decay or an electron neutrino's interaction with ice.

That being said, it seems the light pattern caused by an electron is different than the one caused by a muon (something about cascade shape and track shape). Even better, the signature of the muon, not only ensure that it is caused by a muon neutrino, but the directional nature of the signature allows to know where the neutrino comes from.

Still, the numbers of muon neutrino detected did not really add up to what was expected by the model, but apparently this is somewhat fixed by the new Nobel winning notion that neutrino can change flavor.

I leave the floor to Furry to correct my inaccuracies if there are any.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Szlia_sl said:
You guys are still very good at misrepresenting arguments. Furry's point is that the machines used to detect neutrino are looking for events that can also happen because of the natural decay of carbon that is found in the machine. More specifically, in the case of IceCube, the machine is basically light detectors in a huge block of very pure ice. The idea is that when a neutrino interacts with the ice, it produces a particle (an electron, a muon or a tau), and if that particle goes faster than the speed of light in ice, it creates an luminous effect (Cherenkov radiation) that the detectors can see. The problem, is that there is carbon in the detectors and some isotope of it (the notorious Carbon-14) will decay, emitting an electron and there really is no way to know if the electron shooting through the ice comes from carbon decay or an electron neutrino's interaction with ice.

That being said, it seems the light pattern caused by an electron is different than the one caused by a muon (something about cascade shape and track shape). Even better, the signature of the muon, not only ensure that it is caused by a muon neutrino, but the directional nature of the signature allows to know where the neutrino comes from.

Still, the numbers of muon neutrino detected did not really add up to what was expected by the model, but apparently this is somewhat fixed by the new Nobel winning notion that neutrino can change flavor.

I leave the floor to Furry to correct my inaccuracies if there are any.
Click to expand...
This is only a concern if youre taking one measurement.

The reason we take many measurements over and over and over again is to reduce bias and chance error of this sort in the results.

Carbon decay would be error, which is reduced by taking more measurements, and aggregating the results.

No one is misrepresenting him. He doesnt understand how science works.

These interactions are a statistical phenomena, and the key to reducing bias and error in statistics is a large sample size. Hence why these experiments take years to decades to complete. It takes that long to get a large sample size of interactions to work from.
 
Ambiturner

Ambiturner

Ssraeszha Raider
16,043
19,530
The carbon decay would still produce an anti-neutrino, even if it was caused by the detector itself. That's why I'm asking for clarification on what he's actually trying to say.
 
I

Itzena_sl

shitlord
4,609
6
a_skeleton_03_sl said:
FTFY
Click to expand...
Mean.
frown.png
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,629
1,375
Ambiturner_sl said:
The carbon decay would still produce an anti-neutrino, even if it was caused by the detector itself. That's why I'm asking for clarification on what he's actually trying to say.
Click to expand...
My understanding is that there is a huge quantity of neutrinos that run through the IceCube and very very few that interact with it, so it would be extraordinarily unlikely for the tiny stream of anti-neutrinos produced by carbon decay to create false positives. But this difference in orders of magnitude is somewhat bridged when you compare the electrons produced by electron neutrino interacting with the ice and the electrons produced by carbon decay.
 
Szlia

Szlia

Member
6,629
1,375
hodj_sl said:
Carbon decay would be error, which is reduced by taking more measurements, and aggregating the results.
Click to expand...
That would work if the false positive created by carbon decay were freak accidents. If they were, you take 100 measures, there is a freak accident in one of them, no big deal. But Furry's argument here is that the false positives due to carbon decay might even be more likely than the actual positives. In that configuration, you can take a thousand measurements and that will do nothing to help culling the false positives.

That being said, if they know how much carbon is in their apparatus, they can make a statistical model that predicts how many false positives they should get and, knowing that, the more data you gather, the closer you should get to the expected value. Still, when just about everything is very unlikely to happen, you might need to gather three millennia worth of data to get somewhat close to the expected value...
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Furrys argument is that people who spend decades building designing and working with these devices didnt think about this and account for it and he did, dude. Think about how silly that is. Do you understand how people get funding for this type of research? Hint: they wouldnt get a multi million dollar sensor constructed in Antartctica if they were not designing the equipment and conducting their experiments in such a way as to account for that.

His argument is shitty.
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
Itzena_sl said:
Mean.
frown.png
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, I saw the low hanging fruit and took it.

hodj_sl said:
Furrys argument is that people who spend decades building designing and working with these devices didnt tiphink about this and account for it and he did, dude. Think about how silly that is. Do you understand how people get funding for this type of research? Hint: they wouldnt get a multi million dollar sensor constructed in Antartctica if they were not designing the equipment and conducting their experiments in such a way as to account for that.

His argument is shitty.
Click to expand...
Well, to be fair people do that kind of fraud all the time. I know nothing about this research at all and probably barely enough about physics but you can't just say that there is no way they could design an experiment that would pay their own bills regardless of the outcome. It's kind of what theoretical physics is, isn't it? It's just something to spend grant money with nothing "useful" yet to come out of it? I am not starting into a debate about it by the way.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
Citation on "people do that kind of fraud all the time"

What "kind of fraud" and how often?

There are oversight bodies of actual experts in these fields which go through these proposals with fine tined combs seeking for any justification to throw them out. So please, its not some big conspiracy to defraud Murrica by faking sub atomic particles.

Give me an example of a major physics laboratory defrauding the public on a project of the scale of Icetop or gtfo.

And if you think measuring rates subatomic particles is spending grant money wit nothing useful coming out of it, youre so short sighted youre fucking myopic.
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
One guy testing superconductors in germany, also the first link from google, and a meager 2.7 milion in funding to a regional university.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. You googled physics fraud like I did, and thats the best you got.

The icetop program is a massive project. Fuck off. That isnt remotely comparable, and it doesnt happen all the time, the german case is 14 years old.

Collaborating Institution List: The international IceCube collaboration includes over 300 members from 45 institutions in 12 countries.
Click to expand...
Heres a list of funding bodies

Funding Agencies Supporting IceCube Construction
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
hodj_sl said:
One guy testing superconductors in germany, also the first link from google, and a meager 2.7 milion in funding to a regional university.

Thanks for demonstrating my point. You googled physics fraud like I did, and thats the best you got.

The icetop program is a massive projct. Fuck off
Click to expand...
Umm that was the settlement price. Do you know how much Icetop has received? Northeastern mishandled over $20M for 10 years. I just picked the top from google that I remember. Those are both big deals.

You were just saying that they wouldn't get a multi million dollar deal if they were tricking everyone and I showed you $20M mishandled just in 2 seconds. How much is multi millions to you? I am guessing your threshold is at least $21M? Where do you want to move the goalposts to?
 
hodj

hodj

Vox Populi Jihadi
<Silver Donator>
31,672
18,377
And let me point out that the scientific communt did its job properly in both those cases by exposing the fraud via peer review.

a_skeleton_03_sl said:
Umm that was the settlement price. Do you know how much Icetop has received? Northeastern mishandled over $20M for 10 years. I just picked the top from google that I remember. Those are both big deals.

You were just saying that they wouldn't get a multi million dollar deal if they were tricking everyone and I showed you $20M mishandled just in 2 seconds. How much is multi millions to you? I am guessing your threshold is at least $21M? Where do you want to move the goalposts to?
Click to expand...
Icetop is of a scale far larger, subject to international review by multiple bodies. Youre dumb and strawgrasping all over, trying to create false analogies and hair splitting by comparing the 2.7 million to tens of millions of dollars.

Schoen was one guy. There are hundreds involved with icetop dumb dumb.
 
A

a_skeleton_03

<Banned>
29,948
29,763
hodj_sl said:
And let me point out that the scientific communt did its job properly in both those cases by exposing the fraud via peer review.
Click to expand...
They did and just because a few cases happen doesn't mean it's rampant or anything else.

The thing with theoretical research is you can't just say "well they didn't get this funding by making it all up". They can in fact make it up.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.