Results 1 to 10 of 10

Thread: Jerry's Take on IceCube null result

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,270
    "http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3283 Recent Results of the ANTARES Neutrino Telescope
    Juan Josť HernŠndez-Rey

    A quick read on what ANTARES has found. Basically, nothing from cosmic sources, although ANTARES is operating at nominal performance levels."
    Disappointing. This and early Ice Cube results do not bode well for the neutrino theories these depthy telescopes hoped to flesh out. What next?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by Jerry View Post
    "http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.3283 Recent Results of the ANTARES Neutrino Telescope
    Juan Josť HernŠndez-Rey

    A quick read on what ANTARES has found. Basically, nothing from cosmic sources, although ANTARES is operating at nominal performance levels."
    Disappointing. This and early Ice Cube results do not bode well for the neutrino theories these depthy telescopes hoped to flesh out. What next?
    Jerry, how come these results are disappointing, and don't bode well. But, the lack of detection of gravity waves are an automatic "the gravitational wave detectors aren't going to detect anything", GR is wrong?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Posts
    922
    I've never seen a list of the candidate sources. How many are continuous and how many are temporal and are any witin a few hundred light years.??
    Just wondering..Null results gets my Holmes Detector going.)

    G^2

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Gsquare View Post
    I've never seen a list of the candidate sources. ...
    What we'd be looking at as candidates are things that produce many high energy neutrinos, perhaps directed at us, or perhaps even more, just going everywhere. Such things might be relatively nearby GRBs, or perhaps active galactic nuclei (such as M87 or Cen A), or perhaps micro-quasars, or nearby supernovae.

    The fact is that most models say that we should not quite yet be detecting any of these, unless we got very lucky with when a relatively close or intense event occurred.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Have any neutrino detectors detected anything, besides the burst from 1987a?

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    2,693
    Sun, Earth, atmospheric neutrinos produced in interactions with cosmic rays, nuclear reactors, and particle accelerators.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Massachusetts, USA
    Posts
    20,156
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Have any neutrino detectors detected anything, besides the burst from 1987a?
    IceCube and Antares detect extremely high energy neutrinos, and they DO detect them. What they haven't done is detect any of these high energy neutrinos from a specific object or event. While it is interesting to know that there are cosmic sources producing these things, we would LOVE to get some good stats on the high energy processes in GRBs among other things.
    Forming opinions as we speak

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by ngc3314 View Post
    Sun, Earth, atmospheric neutrinos produced in interactions with cosmic rays, nuclear reactors, and particle accelerators.
    Yeah, I should have specified cosmic sources.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 2002
    Posts
    6,238
    Quote Originally Posted by antoniseb View Post
    IceCube and Antares detect extremely high energy neutrinos, and they DO detect them. What they haven't done is detect any of these high energy neutrinos from a specific object or event. While it is interesting to know that there are cosmic sources producing these things, we would LOVE to get some good stats on the high energy processes in GRBs among other things.
    I thought there were detection, but not specific events. Thanks for the confirmation.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Ocean Shores, Wa
    Posts
    5,270
    Quote Originally Posted by Tensor View Post
    Jerry, how come these results are disappointing, and don't bode well. But, the lack of detection of gravity waves are an automatic "the gravitational wave detectors aren't going to detect anything", GR is wrong?
    It is disappointing we have not been able to isolate cosmic neutrinos from local sources - this is what these ultra-sensative large arrays are hoping to be able to isolate. Yes, a local supernova event should light these detectors up like a christmas tree...or will it? These are the first neutrino dectectors that have enough resolution to find distant point sources.

    Onl the other hand, we are on about the fifth generation of failed gravitational wave detectors; and each set of expectations has been parred down from prior failures. That is about two generations beyond where Einstein declared it was stupid to keep repeating failed Michelson-Morley experiments. So what is good for the goose...

    Meanwhile:

    *Dark Matter*
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1202.4179 Two papers on Dark Matter caught me today. First this one about the rejection of the idea that neutral muons (and other things) are polluting the DAMA data at Gran Sasso. This experiment looks at the daily flux of 2-6 keV events inside roughly a ton of Sodium-Iodide crystals down in a cave, and looks for the annual change as the Earth goes around the Sun sometimes with the presumed flow of Dark Matter around the galaxy, and sometimes against it... and a difference in flux IS observed. This paper goes through the list of non-Dark Matter alternatives and shows why they aren't causing the signal.

    Funny that...is...isn't that what Michelson and Morley were hoping to find? I'm kidding - they were expected a similar signal in EMF broadbands. Nonetheless, i don't remember anyone predicting DAMA data looking like this would expose dark matter. It isn't nearly as bad as suggesting DM particle collisions produce other unexpected particles; but I get to suspect the usual unexpected suspects.

Similar Threads

  1. Null result for LIGO
    By Argos in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 23
    Last Post: 2009-Sep-25, 03:17 AM
  2. World's Strangest Telescope - The IceCube
    By Fraser in forum Universe Today
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 2008-May-20, 10:16 PM
  3. Webcast Today on IceCube
    By Fortunate in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 2007-Jul-26, 05:54 PM
  4. IceCube Performance
    By antoniseb in forum Astronomy
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: 2006-Nov-27, 07:16 PM
  5. An Alternative History: Michelson-Morley non-null result
    By Yannox in forum Against the Mainstream
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 2004-Jun-12, 12:21 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
here
The forum is sponsored in-part by: