To make a camera you need a lens/pinhole/whatever - some way of detecting variations in intensity in different directions. That'd need a whole other discovery. You could use it to detect nuclear reactors by simple proximity, though. Maybe by satellite, even. If the effect is real.But yeah, what the others said.
You could use it to detect nuclear reactors by simple proximity, though. Maybe by satellite, even. If the effect is real.
yeah, i know. the thing is if the article is true assuming the secondary effects of neutrino reactions were real then wouldn't a pinhole be enabled since you don't have to screen the neutrino flux directionally directly? you'd only need to screen the products of the decay?
The problem is that neutrinos are tiny, an atom is mostly made of open space and the only way neutrinos interact with ordinary matter is by collision.
Possible solutions are:Make matter (or metamaterial) that has less open space in it (than the stuff in dry cleaning fluid) so collisions are more frequent
Detect secondary effects of neutrino behavior or interactions (this is what is alleged in the present article and subsequent cites provided by other forum members)
if your resolution was good enough you might be able to detect the shape, mass and isotopic info on a neutrino source. perhaps in an ideal case you could detect species and oscillation frequency or some sort of polarization in the signals which would enable development of algorithms to discriminate near and far sources, adjacent sources, densities and other properties from which you could derive a great deal of valuable information. perhaps (since we are going for something that is way out anyway) you could pick up info on what the neutrinos have passed through and not just emitted from making it the ultimate magical x ray machine.
Quote from: momerathe on 11/10/2016 03:40 pmTo make a camera you need a lens/pinhole/whatever - some way of detecting variations in intensity in different directions. That'd need a whole other discovery. You could use it to detect nuclear reactors by simple proximity, though. Maybe by satellite, even. If the effect is real.But yeah, what the others said.yeah, i know. the thing is if the article is true assuming the secondary effects of neutrino reactions were real then wouldn't a pinhole be enabled since you don't have to screen the neutrino flux directionally directly? you'd only need to screen the products of the decay?
This sounds, I should add, suspiciously similar to the DAMA/LIBRA dark matter modulation claim nobody can replicate, but nobody can convincingly dispute either: likely an unaccounted-for systematic uncertainty (or combinations thereof) that hides well-buried under the intricacies in the design of this particular experiment.
Quote from: eeergo on 11/10/2016 11:48 pmThis sounds, I should add, suspiciously similar to the DAMA/LIBRA dark matter modulation claim nobody can replicate, but nobody can convincingly dispute either: likely an unaccounted-for systematic uncertainty (or combinations thereof) that hides well-buried under the intricacies in the design of this particular experiment.I think DAMA's result has been ruled out by the LUX results that were released over the summer.
Quote from: Stormbringer on 11/10/2016 04:14 pmQuote from: momerathe on 11/10/2016 03:40 pmTo make a camera you need a lens/pinhole/whatever - some way of detecting variations in intensity in different directions. That'd need a whole other discovery. You could use it to detect nuclear reactors by simple proximity, though. Maybe by satellite, even. If the effect is real.But yeah, what the others said.yeah, i know. the thing is if the article is true assuming the secondary effects of neutrino reactions were real then wouldn't a pinhole be enabled since you don't have to screen the neutrino flux directionally directly? you'd only need to screen the products of the decay?I don't think there's any evidence to indicate that the direction of the products from the radioactive decay are correlated with the direction the neutrinos came from. (modern Cherenkov detectors are sensitive to direction but the resolution is obviously bad.)
Quote from: momerathe on 11/11/2016 01:11 pmQuote from: Stormbringer on 11/10/2016 04:14 pmQuote from: momerathe on 11/10/2016 03:40 pmTo make a camera you need a lens/pinhole/whatever - some way of detecting variations in intensity in different directions. That'd need a whole other discovery. You could use it to detect nuclear reactors by simple proximity, though. Maybe by satellite, even. If the effect is real.But yeah, what the others said.yeah, i know. the thing is if the article is true assuming the secondary effects of neutrino reactions were real then wouldn't a pinhole be enabled since you don't have to screen the neutrino flux directionally directly? you'd only need to screen the products of the decay?I don't think there's any evidence to indicate that the direction of the products from the radioactive decay are correlated with the direction the neutrinos came from. (modern Cherenkov detectors are sensitive to direction but the resolution is obviously bad.)well if these papers are legit (and that seems to be a big if) then you should be able to build a "box" with one open end that blocks enough neutrinos to be able to distinguish the ones coming in from the open end of the box. (I think.)
I'm curious. If a table top detector is possible, will there be any point to the large detectors like Ice Cube at Amundsen Station?https://icecube.wisc.edu/icecube/static/science/images/icecube_detector_sm.png
Quote from: Eric Hedman on 11/11/2016 06:27 pmI'm curious. If a table top detector is possible, will there be any point to the large detectors like Ice Cube at Amundsen Station?https://icecube.wisc.edu/icecube/static/science/images/icecube_detector_sm.pngIf such fantastic pre-requisites are valid and it turns out there are super-neutrino-absorbing materials, it may still be that it only happens with a certain type of neutrinos (possibly electron, given they would be interacting with beta-decaying isotopes) and not with others, such as it happens with the matter-oscillation effect (MSW).There are many and very varied large neutrino detector types, which do not necessarily observe the same channels. IceCube detects muon neutrinos, so even if the miracle happened and the 32Si effect was indeed due to a new much larger interaction for neutrinos, it may not be applicable for them. Of course, this is another level of "if-concatenation"
if is the genesis of countless ideas that don't pan out but it also the genesis of nearly every discovery that did. Anyway so is there a way of forcing an energy state that a neutrino cannot occupy and therefore cannot enter? something like how the the casimir effect limits particles (such as photons and electrons) in narrowly spaced plates or spheres?are are there super-positioned states where a neutrino passing through might disturb the wave function and collapse it? or is there a condensed matter state (superfluid of elementary particles or even quarks or gluons etc) where the spaces between bits is so low it increases the frequency of interactions we normally detect neutrinos from?is a neutrino made of still more fundamental bits and therefore can potentially be induced to decay into something more easy to see?
if is the genesis of countless ideas that don't pan out but it also the genesis of nearly every discovery that did.
Anyway so is there a way of forcing an energy state that a neutrino cannot occupy and therefore cannot enter? something like how the the casimir effect limits particles (such as photons and electrons) in narrowly spaced plates or spheres?are are there super-positioned states where a neutrino passing through might disturb the wave function and collapse it?
or is there a condensed matter state (superfluid of elementary particles or even quarks or gluons etc) where the spaces between bits is so low it increases the frequency of interactions we normally detect neutrinos from?
is a neutrino made of still more fundamental bits and therefore can potentially be induced to decay into something more easy to see?
well if these papers are legit (and that seems to be a big if) then you should be able to build a "box" with one open end that blocks enough neutrinos to be able to distinguish the ones coming in from the open end of the box. (I think.)
Quote from: Stormbringer on 11/11/2016 05:38 pmwell if these papers are legit (and that seems to be a big if) then you should be able to build a "box" with one open end that blocks enough neutrinos to be able to distinguish the ones coming in from the open end of the box. (I think.)Where are you getting that from?
Quote from: momerathe on 11/12/2016 07:53 amQuote from: Stormbringer on 11/11/2016 05:38 pmwell if these papers are legit (and that seems to be a big if) then you should be able to build a "box" with one open end that blocks enough neutrinos to be able to distinguish the ones coming in from the open end of the box. (I think.)Where are you getting that from?Well, IF these results are to be believed, 32Si has an absolutely astonishing neutrino interaction cross section. So just use 32Si to make the walls of the box (you may also want to add a layer of lead to keep the stuff from decay 32Si away, but that does nothing to neutrinos). Then have another unshielded (by 32Si, you can encase it in lead if you want) clump of 32Si as your detector.
In relative terms, maybe. But we're talking about a fractional increase in decay rate, in the face of a truly enormous solar neutrino flux (something like 10^10/cm^2). And even then, the neutrinos are unlikely to be absorbed or scattered through large angles, because then the energy transferred to the decay products would be far more diagnostic - that's why we can detect them with Cherenkov light. The idea that this process is "blocking" neutrinos is way out there.
http://phys.org/news/2016-11-solar-physicists-easier-peculiar-particles.htmlif this is real then (eventually) why not a high resolution neutrino "camera?" one that would have applications for studying the interiors of planets and stars or used for nuclear treaty verification or targeting a nuke in flight even? i know the neutrino environment is the one with the most noise possible but there could be processing techniques that could filter out all the noise. what if the advancement of technology eventually yields a micro or nano scale detector?
Quote from: Stormbringer on 11/10/2016 02:43 amhttp://phys.org/news/2016-11-solar-physicists-easier-peculiar-particles.htmlif this is real then (eventually) why not a high resolution neutrino "camera?" one that would have applications for studying the interiors of planets and stars or used for nuclear treaty verification or targeting a nuke in flight even? i know the neutrino environment is the one with the most noise possible but there could be processing techniques that could filter out all the noise. what if the advancement of technology eventually yields a micro or nano scale detector?What specifications would you be looking for?Have you been following the 3D Printing thread? Only a few items get posted, its wide open.http://forum.nasaspaceflight.com/index.php?topic=33141.msg1569436#msg1569436