A breakdown of why the awarded work, Ice Cube, is significant:
- A neutrino is an elementary subatomic particle. Neutrinos are produced by nuclear reactions inside stars, supernovae, radioactive decay. They are one of the most abundant particles in the universe.
- Neutrinos are known as "ghost particles". They have 0 charge and near-zero mass. They only react with the weak nuclear force and gravity. Incredibly hard to detect. Trillions can pass through a whole planet without hitting a single atom!
- Neutrinos give us a pristine snapshot into the origin of the universe. They have travelled billions of years and trillions of miles without interacting with anything. Unless...we catch them!
- Ice Cube does this. Located in Antarctica, the project turns a cubic kilometer of ice into a neutrino detector. How? Scientists drilled boreholes 2.5km deep into the ice and placed 5000 optical detectors to catch a neutrino interaction.
- When a neutrino, rarely, collides with an atom, it produces charged particles. In ice - not vacuum! - certain particles can travel faster than light. This produces something similar to a sonic boom. A faint, blue glow known as Cherenkov radiation (see it in action https://youtube.com/watch?v=hSuSG19Pcoc).
- IceCube was first to detect neutrinos coming from outside the solar system, establishing the source of high energy cosmic radiation. It also opened a whole new chapter of neutrino astronomy.
" - When a neutrino, rarely, collides with an atom, it produces charged particles. In ice - not vacuum! - certain particles can travel faster than light."
That confused me for a moment so it seems worth clarifying: in ice, certain particles can travel faster than light does in ice.
Light slows down in dielectric materials because as an em wave it interacts with the polarization of molecules. Neutrino has very little interaction with matter, OTOH.
This is also the source of the classic blue glow in water cooled nuclear reactors. Electrons move through the water faster than light and leave behind a kind of 'sonic boom' of photons in its wake.
>Neutrinos give us a pristine snapshot into the origin of the universe. They have travelled billions of years and trillions of miles without interacting with anything. Unless...we catch them!
I assume this is not a hard, totalizing law since it seems we're able to get samples of neutrino collisions in just a kilometer sized chunk of ice on Earth (meaning that the probability of collision is not absolutely zero and there's no way to know the full neutrino travelogue through the universe)
Correct, they do have a probability of interacting, but it's extremely low, depends of the energy of the neutrino (its momentum) but basically it can go through 1 light year of lead and still have only a 50/50 chance of interacting.
to put things to scale 1 ly is 9,460,730,472,580,800 meters, or 63,241.077 astronomical units, the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
Needless to say, it's pretty weakly interacting as far as interaction goes...
Since neutrinos donât interact with much of anything, its path doesnât deviate from its origin. Different origins emit neutrinos of different levels of energy. When a neutrino hits a nucleus, the blue light emitting particle in ice follows closely the same direction. Measuring the direction and the magnitude (lighting energy) of the vector we can classify its origin. From the vector and energy we kind of know whether itâs from the solar system or not.
Identifying the origin let us see objects behind dust clouds or other obstacles.
Most of the observable ones are. They do not always follow the exact same path, though they generally travel in a very close alignment with the original neutrino's path due to momentum.
Hitting a heavy muon mostly preserve the neutrino's path. Hitting an electron or other particles can scatter the particle, spreading the energy out, making it hard to show up in detection.
- In the beginning, for the first couple of events, only because they have way higher energies than anything in the solar system could produce
- By now, with enough data collected, their origin correlates very well with the milky way
- we are close to identifying several far away galaxies as well
This is the significance. Contrary to some statements published today, IceCube was not primarily built to study Neutrinos, it was built to study the universe using Neutrinos.
That's why we care where they are coming from, we want to learn about the astrophysical objects that produce them.
Mechanism is via conversion of neutrinos into charged particles which are then detected via Cherenkov radiation which is produced when a charged particle moves with speeds larger then the speed of light in the medium. (That is only possible because it is less than the speed of light in vacuum which cannot be exceeded.)
If anyone was wondering how some of that heavy stuff gets to the south pole to build such a large engineering project, at the farthest possible end of any logistics chain:
It would probably be harder if they wanted to put it, for instance, on the ocean floor at Point Nemo, but for sure the literal south pole is pretty damn expensive on a $ per kg to get stuff sent to. And on an ongoing basis to sustain operations 24x7x365 (it's my understanding it runs almost entirely on diesel fuel and/or Jet-A for a big-ass set of generators).
It is expensive and it doesn't need to be there, but the reason its at the south pole is that the US has money for SOMETHING at the south pole. They want to maintain a presence at the south pole for international relations reasons. To be consistent with insternational treaties they need to do science there.
So, the US/NSF is like "we have a bunch of money to do science, but it has to be at the south pole". People like Halzen who had a crazy idea go to NSF and say how can I get a bunch of money to do this. NSF says, we don't have that kind of money in our physics budget, but if you were to do it at the southpole we could fund it.
I disagree: anywhere in the ocean is easier logistics than crawler trains over land: ship it there and chuck it overboard. They do that to install oil rigs all the time (but that's more like float it there and sink it). Eg: https://www.wired.com/2014/07/dockwise-vanguard-shipping
Yeah, but now imagine the cost of putting large active electronics 4,000 meters down on the sea floor and keeping it running, and getting the data back off it... The cost of running the drill rig seen in the photos of the icecube detector would be a fraction of that.
For sure, there are more difficult places, but I donât think there is any conceivable place where the supply chain runs through the South Pole on its way. I hope not.
This is quite nuanced and not as most people assume.
It is the "phase velocity of light in that medium" that is exceeded.
phase velocity of light in a medium = speed of light / refractive index of the medium.
Thus the EM wave is slowed down in a medium and so a charged particle can exceed it producing Cherenkov radiation. This is similar to a sonic boom in atmosphere when speed of sound is exceeded. In both cases the object is traveling faster than the wavefront.
It is only in vacuum that "phase velocity of light" = "group velocity of light" = c (i.e. 300,000 km/sec)
IIRC the group velocity in a medium can also exceed c when you send pulses through certain nonlinear media. Basically, the "lump" of the pulse can appear to "exit before it entered," but what really happens is that the tiny tip of the pulse has already gone through at <= c, and starts growing into the body at the exit before it has completely shrank at the entrance because of the nonlinearity. So it is actually the information/"signal" velocity (the tip of the signal) that cannot exceed c.
To be more perfectly precise, it is only in a vacuum with an infinitely repeating regular signal that "phase velocity of light" = "group velocity of light".
The deviation caused by uncertainty in the package arrival time is typically extremely short, but not zero, for finite signals.
The actual "entity" that is restricted to be <=c is "information velocity". An infinitely repeating pattern would have travel at (phase velocity)=c ... but would ironically transmit no actual information (the bit value is restricted to 1, not 0 or 1).
Neutrinos need a large detector volume for efficiency because they interact so rarely. You canât detect them directly so you need a transparent medium to detect their collision byproducts. Good detector mediums are water and ice, and are underground to minimise background light. There are relatively few places you can do this. Mine caverns and under the sea are the most common, but marine detectors are notoriously hard to build. Francis Halzen proposed using ice. At the Pole, the glacial plateau is 2 miles high and the breakthrough was confirming that the ice is in fact highly transparent if you go deep enough.
Why the pole specifically? You could probably build a second IceCube 100 miles away, but how are you going to get that materials there? Pole has a skiway for large aircraft and infrastructure to house a large number of people. The traverse (SPoT) only became operational near the end of construction - the initial holes were drilled in 2005 and almost everything had to be flown in.
Telescope In The Ice does a great job of explaining the history and science behind the experiment.
The biggest challenge is finding ice without dust layers from historical volcanic activity, and the South Pole is particularly clean because of it's remoteness as well as the prevailing wind directions. There is, however, one big dust layer that causes signal distortion.
The best science comes from areas that have no obvious use. The original insights into nuclear physics, quantum physics and relativity were all pure thought experiments. They led to the world we live in.
I'm personally very happy that we're still funding science that isn't obviously monetised.
The reason for Antarctica is that it's the only place you find cubic kilometres of stable ice that doesn't drift around.
1: Ice-mass that isn't contaminated by atomic testing fallout (if the ice has been there since the 40s it's without radioactive waste (faschinating to read about how WW2 wrecks is a prime resource of steel since it's a huge amount of steel without trace amounts of radionucletiods from testing fallout).
2: No current interference (nuclear power, radiowaves,etc) creating possible test uncertainties.
3: I'm sure there are other reasons
The negative naturally is cost, but since the expriment succeeded it will probably be useful for any attempts to send robots or even humanity into space beyond the solar system.
Greenland is much better logistically in some ways (I work on experiments both in Greenland and in Antarctica), but the ice in Greenland is unlikely to be as good for IceCube as in Antarctica, due to a presumed larger number of dust layers from dry periods in Europe.
The US has a research station at Summit Station Greenland but compared to South Pole, it's spartan (like, the first time I went there, I slept in a tent because of lack of hard-sided berthing, but then a Polar bear came a few years later and now hard-sided berthing is required). There are longer-term plans to improve the station in Greenland but we'll see.
There's a weird overlap in engineering and physics disciplines between the hard engineering/business practices of the mining industry, and particle physics.
Right, but for those they need to make/move/collect a large amount of transparent material, like heavy water etc for the particles to interact with. But they get that 'for free' with the ice.
> which are then detected via Cherenkov radiation which is produced when a charged particle moves with speeds larger then the speed of light in the medium. (That is only possible because it is less than the speed of light in vacuum which cannot be exceeded.)
I have been researching applications of FTL as well;
Where is there an actual vacuum on Earth or in microgravity? So, there are Proca waves within dielectric Proca metamaterials and plasmas and waveguides; and photons can have effective mass and/or longitudinal charge Ez in ionized plasma?
So, Maxwellian waves with no longitudinal (Ez,) component can exist in what fraction of the universe if they can only exist in a vacuum?
I appreciate the boldness of this project, it has an element of sci-fi to it. Building a base at the south pole to bury sensors in ice to measure elusive particles. The stuff of dreams!
To be fair, the base was already there and logistically essential. The IceCube topside building is just a part of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, about a km or so from the Elevated Station.
This image* from Wikipedia surprised me. The topside building is...you could say...the tip of the iceberg. The detectors span a huge area going over 2km deep. The predecessor AMANDA array was also down there.
The building is just for housing the data gathering and comms equipment and whatever maintenance and engineering stuff the array needs. I donât think anybody physically works there regularly.
What an amazing accomplishment! I played a very tiny part in this project and went to the South Pole in 2009 to help with construction. Didn't see any neutrinos the entire time I was there though :/
I worked with a guy who worked on IceCube. He flew down to the South Pole, went all the way to the station, just to install debian for their data processing systems. I was... a bit jealous.
We think of receiving a Nobel Prize as something super rare and exceptional and it is. What still always astounds me though, is this:
There are nearly 300 living laureates. Enough to hold a yearly meetup for them in Lindau, where usually about 40 gather. This year, for the event's 75th anniversary, there were even about 70. Imagine that.
IIRC Oppenheimer facilitated / sponsored a meeting there after the Manhattan Project, as a gathering where physicists could talk freely about physics for a change.
All of science is collaborative and this is especially true in these big experiments: the IceCube collaboration is over 400 people [1] from several dozen institutes. There are a lot of experiments where giving a Nobel prize would be impossible because there's no "principal investigator" for the experiment.
I wonder - was there really no other people they could have given it to? The detection of gravitational waves was split between a theorist, experimentalist and a person who had a big hand in shepherding the project along. Could not the same have been done here?
I would imagine the problem is that there are too many of them.
For better or worse the prize can only go to 3 people. Over the years there are generally many dozens of people who make absolutely critical contributions to these kinds of experiments. In this case, though, the same guy was listed as the PI of the UW Madison group, and Madison is very clearly "the" operator of the project.
Halzen is by any measure an awesome physicist, but he's also a good "fit" for the Nobel because of this unique situation.
I was in the IceCube experiment for a bit as well as the ATLAS Experiment at CERN. So you could say I contributed a bit to both this and the Higgs Nobel. Being part of these big collaborations, you know what the deal is. The Nobel is excellent PR for physics, and science in general, but it is just a prize. Francis is the singular leader of IceCube, and a visionary in the area, it is perfectly fair to award it to him, if not to the total collaboration.
As for theory, I donât think this award hinges on theoretical predictions but the enablement of observation itself.
Pretty cool. One of the big challenges in trying neutrino detection in ice is dealing with funding agencies. The optical properties of ice only get good when you are actually a few kilometers deep in very old ice. That is you can't just build a demonstrator in the nearest glacier with a few leftover photomultipliers, you need to go directly to Antarctica and bore a three kilometer hole into the ice. And projects where the MVP is quite expensive are always very hard to get funded.
I remember one of my professor, a pioneer of neutrino detectors in Europe, mentioning Ice Cube in a lecture more than 20 years ago. Long time scale (due to funding).
I worked on IceCube. Was at the South Pole for a little over a month. Wild once in a lifetime experience. And if I am being honest I was terribly bored after the first 2 weeks. Its very flat and white and cold and not much to do. I was asked to go back the next year and I said no.
Field work even in beautiful places can get stifling. When you don't have access to friends, family, routine, various freedoms... It can be a bit much.
I romanticized that kind of work, but I think my limit is roughly what you said at around 2 weeks. The novelty wears off. Especially because I miss my kids a lot after a few days.
Actually, another big one: I love cooking. When you eat what you're given and don't have a choice, even if the food is pretty good it's kind of... I don't know... I really just want to go home and make something that is distinctly 'my food', something I would only have at home.
Even so, I absolutely love field work. The stuff I do is nowhere near as crazy as the Antarctic. I'm typically on the semi-remote islands of the British Columbia coast. My wife goes to the Arctic; her experience is probably more like yours. Lots of time isolated on icebreakers. Occasionally visiting remote navy or military bases, though. Some indigenous communities. Not as middle-of-nowhere as the Antarctic! The longest she has done is 7 weeks, with ~4 days off of the ship.
Clear skies happen regularly enough. You can see refractive phenomena frequently (sun dogs, moon halos and the like). Same for night, plenty of clear skies and auroras during the winter when itâs dark enough to see them.
We hire two people to stay over the winter and operate the detector each year. No icecube affiliation or physics background required, although a technical background helps.
I spent a bit over a year at South Pole for IceCube. There's an old joke in the Antarctic: the first time is for the adventure, the second time is for the money, and the third time is because you don't fit in anywhere else anymore.
I had a professor who talked about working there. In his words, âThank God for whiskey!â
While there is some romantic imagery (penguins!) down there, and the disconnect from the rest of the world might be appealing, for large parts of the year youâre just stuck inside.
Well holy shit. I didn't expect to wake up this morning and see the "outside" guy from my thesis committee (aka, the only one who wasn't a rubber stamp) winning the Nobel Prize.
Francis isn't the first Nobel Prize winner I've crossed paths with. But I think he's the only one I'd call a "decent human being". (When I use it, that phrase has a meaning roughly comparable to "nontrivial", so, saying it is nontrivial.) He was well enough liked by faculty and students during my time at UW-Madison.
It's important to note that he's not getting the prize for "conceiving of IceCube" like some people are saying. It's for "conceiving of IceCube and somehow actually making it happen". The latter is the achievement.
Neutrino physics is the frontier. Itâs one area where we know there are âphysics beyond the standard modelâ though IceCube hasnât quite been able to answer the neutrino mass question.
I love Ice Cube, as it is great engineering contributing significantly to science. It is also the perfect way to describe the concept of a great âhackâ to people outside the field.
That's an uncharitable take. The proposed observatory was through pristine dense forest, and one of the most important elephant corridors in Asia. It was opposed by the democratically elected government, and litigated in courts in an open and transparent way. The physics gains do not outweigh the environmental cost, and the fact that scientists were able to get valuable data from an observatory in the lifeless Antarctic is further justification not to build this.
IceCube observatory is for studying the high energy cosmic neutrinos from a distant galaxy or black holes. But the one proposed INO is to study the low and medium energy atmospheric neutrinos. INO was designed to study the mass ordering of neutrinos. Both observatories are for studying different aspects and properties of neutrinos and are not the same.
As a trained high-energy physicist who loves the subject, I wouldn't want the destruction of forests, tiger and elephant habitats (or any other habitats) for "science". There are always alternatives - alternate sites, alternate designs, alternate experiments.
One of my primary disagreements with my friends and colleagues was based on their insistence that opposing a new facility was anti-science and only done by the "uneducated". IMO, while this was true for a small subset of opposing factions, there were often real reasons for not building which took realities outside research into consideration.
What? Since when does even the Nobel Institute themselves proclaim that economics of all things is as much part of the pantheon of science as fundamental physics, the same economics that was deliberately added to that list by the same powers that made free-trade economics the only allowed form within catholic economics, the same powers that funded research and shaped policy worldwide to first normalize neoliberalism and then to turn it into the only orthodoxy in economics, that prize that is actually the mundane "Bank of Sweden Economics Prize" is not only mentioned, it is treated as part of the holy set (of actually five) by the institute themselves?!
Sometimes I think it would be nice if there were biographies that laid out when and how Nobel laureates made their discoveries. Then wouldn't it be possible to pattern how people discover certain phenomena?
Not Nobel laureates, but people have tried this. I once was looking for the early education of famous scientists and found the book Cradles of Eminence [1], which compares the childhoods of several hundred famous people.
One thing I noticed was that more than a few were seriously sick in childhood and had to be homeschooled. This includes Edward Morley, Peter Higgs, RenĂŠ Descartes (though I'm not sure how rare it was at his time), and the mathematician Julia Robinson, who was bedridden with scarlet fever at 9 years old, then had to get tutoring to catch back up, and had this to say about it [2]:
> I have since read that a solitary childhood or, what amounts to the same thing, a period of isolation resulting from an illness is frequently noted in the early lives of scientists. I am not sure what the significance of this finding is. Obviously I had to amuse myself for long periods of time, but I didnât do so with mathematics. I am inclined to think that what I learned during that year in bed was patience.
> By the time I was well enough to go back to school, I had missed more than two years. My parents arranged to have me tutored by a retired elementary school teacher. In one year, working three mornings a week, she and I went through the state syllabuses for the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. It makes me wonder how much time must be wasted in classrooms.
Sidenote: I found the book [1] through asking a free LLM what source this quote might be referring to. They are reasonably good at this kind of literature search, especially because it's easy to judge whether they gave you something useful.
Uh not sure Halzen personally made discoveries, in the original sense of the word!
Indeed, "in-spiraling" seems more like a one-man discovery (or has more of a chance to become one) than many (not all, obv) nobel prize winning work
The mechanism for which Higgs was awarded was also independently discovered by at least ten other people (I can't count)
>The Higgs mechanism is therefore also called the BroutâEnglertâHiggs mechanism, or EnglertâBroutâHiggsâGuralnikâHagenâKibble mechanism,[9] AndersonâHiggs mechanism,[10] AndersonâHiggsâKibble mechanism,[11] HiggsâKibble mechanism by Abdus Salam[12] and ABEGHHK'tH mechanism (for Anderson, Brout, Englert, Guralnik, Hagen, Higgs, Kibble, and 't Hooft)
Can't wait for OpenAI to get the nobel prize; Swedes are more sympathetic than mathematicians!! (so that human beings might completely separate discovery from reward/awards/recognition. Discovery is a human right!!!)
> wouldn't it be possible to pattern how people discover certain phenomena?
This question in the field of "general problem-solving" (inventions etc.) was investigated by studying patent literature by Genrich Altshuller in the former Soviet Union and systematized as TRIZ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ
Theory of inventive problem solving' is a methodology which combines an organized, systematic method of problem-solving with analysis and forecasting techniques derived from the study of patterns of invention in global patent literature.
TRIZ developed from a foundation of research into hundreds of thousands of inventions in many fields to produce an approach which defines patterns in inventive solutions and the characteristics of the problems which these inventions have overcome.
The common denominator is money and time. The only way to get more results is to put more funding out there (and accepting that not everything is about a direct ROI).
It could be the beginning of Neutrino astronomy [1]. So far, we only used the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays, to observe the universe. If we could equally leverage neutrinos or gravitational waves, we could observe much more of the universe. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation enables us to deduce the conditions at 300ky after the Big Bang. The cosmic neutrino background [2] could give us insight in the conditions 1s after the Big Bang.
Similar to the Millennium prize by the Clay institute, the amount of luck and effort you need to receive the prize don't make it worthwhile. Plus, it's generally expected to use that money for further research. It would be advisable to focus on other endeavors, if money is your motivator.
Photons work better for driving a car too but being able to hear is still quite useful.
In other words: we already have lots of things that measure photons. You see things on two totally different media it's a lot more compelling than just one.
That may be the case, but it doesn't explain why neutrinos would be essential for intergalactic communication. Maybe the person I was responding to didn't realize neutrinos travel very close to the speed of light, not infinitely fast?
Kind of contrived, but if you're sending a signal from some other planet to our planet, depending on the geometry, there will be times of the year that our local star is in the way of photons.
Also, if you're sending out photons from a planet, chances are there's a local star nearby. Stars tend to be a broad-spectrum photon source, which is going to make it tough for receivers to decode the intentional signal.
Neutrinos are not an analog to sound in the point you are trying to make. They are many orders of magnitude more weakly interacting and much, much difficult to measure.
What a circle j*k that academia is. Fake Science is what it is. It's, like, they take everything good and pervert it into something ungodly. We could've been eons ahead in science if academia wasn't a leftist bastion off backend lickers, bottom to top, working assiduously to create more and more artificial complexity with one objective in mind - their own job security. I'm not even afraid to generalize because they all bend over when they graduate. They are literally discouraging critical thought at this point and intelligence is discouraged as well. It's all about control. See if there's any real conversation about anything important anywhere anymore.
While I understand academia has its own systematic problems, I do not get your rant. Could you give concrete examples of how academia is "discouraging critical thought at this point and intelligence is discouraged as well"?
I won't even go down to that level of yours where you think people would say waste, fraud, and abuse for no reason. Read the news, see how much waste, fraud, and abuse Trump's administration has uncovered. The left and the entire academia were entirely moot about all of that horrible stuff going on in our country.
I don't see academia shouting at every street corner to think about all this brain implant craze because there are people who are being tortured for years remotely using brain implants and other invasive techniques. Zero word from academia 'bout that. Oh, wait, yeah, history shows the crazy psychos from the intel agencies doing terror on human subjects on unimaginable scale were recruiting from the academia. Yeah, okay, plenty critical thought by the academia when nothing has been done to prevent that from happening again.
I guess they're all compliant now, as there's no real pushback for using remotely controlled terrorists with brain and body implants to wreak havoc on the populace. Like I said, nobody asks any really hard questions anywhere.
Did you read what I wrote? Waste, fraud, and abuse! They do virtually ZERO theoretical physics and then expend gazillions of resources on contraptions to study elusive stuff they could've derived theoretically first and in very elegant fashion. It's just making themselves indispensable at any cost. And they are clever, which is why they are successful in that enterprise so far, but it's not the enterprise that has anyone's interests in mind, except them being in control.
Sounds like you'll be in line for the Nobel Prize next year once you derive all of this theoretically in a very elegant fashion! Think of the money they could have saved if someone had just come ask you to show them it was possible.
And who's gonna pay for the hordes of PhDs who vote overwhelmingly Democrat then?
95% of faculty political donations in Cornell went to the Democrats. 98% in Princeton. Whereas 100% of billions of federal funds disbursed to all the universities comes from the tax base that's Republican as equal share. Is this not weaponization of education?
(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBML_wEeSk)
Nobody cares about the Nobel Prize as anything more than a circle j*k anymore. Someone would even say a bunch of filth sell outs propping each other up.
A breakdown of why the awarded work, Ice Cube, is significant:
" - When a neutrino, rarely, collides with an atom, it produces charged particles. In ice - not vacuum! - certain particles can travel faster than light."
That confused me for a moment so it seems worth clarifying: in ice, certain particles can travel faster than light does in ice.
Thank you, I lost my mind, briefly, reading that part.
Light slows down in dielectric materials because as an em wave it interacts with the polarization of molecules. Neutrino has very little interaction with matter, OTOH.
This is also the source of the classic blue glow in water cooled nuclear reactors. Electrons move through the water faster than light and leave behind a kind of 'sonic boom' of photons in its wake.
>Neutrinos give us a pristine snapshot into the origin of the universe. They have travelled billions of years and trillions of miles without interacting with anything. Unless...we catch them!
I assume this is not a hard, totalizing law since it seems we're able to get samples of neutrino collisions in just a kilometer sized chunk of ice on Earth (meaning that the probability of collision is not absolutely zero and there's no way to know the full neutrino travelogue through the universe)
Correct, they do have a probability of interacting, but it's extremely low, depends of the energy of the neutrino (its momentum) but basically it can go through 1 light year of lead and still have only a 50/50 chance of interacting.
to put things to scale 1 ly is 9,460,730,472,580,800 meters, or 63,241.077 astronomical units, the distance from the Earth to the Sun.
Needless to say, it's pretty weakly interacting as far as interaction goes...
what is so special about ice?
> neutrinos coming from outside the solar system How do we know this and why do we care where they came from?
Since neutrinos donât interact with much of anything, its path doesnât deviate from its origin. Different origins emit neutrinos of different levels of energy. When a neutrino hits a nucleus, the blue light emitting particle in ice follows closely the same direction. Measuring the direction and the magnitude (lighting energy) of the vector we can classify its origin. From the vector and energy we kind of know whether itâs from the solar system or not.
Identifying the origin let us see objects behind dust clouds or other obstacles.
> When a neutrino hits a nucleus, the blue light emitting particle in ice follows the same direction.
How does this not violate conservation of momentum? Are you saying every single collision is head-on?
Most of the observable ones are. They do not always follow the exact same path, though they generally travel in a very close alignment with the original neutrino's path due to momentum.
Hitting a heavy muon mostly preserve the neutrino's path. Hitting an electron or other particles can scatter the particle, spreading the energy out, making it hard to show up in detection.
We know this because
- In the beginning, for the first couple of events, only because they have way higher energies than anything in the solar system could produce - By now, with enough data collected, their origin correlates very well with the milky way - we are close to identifying several far away galaxies as well
This is the significance. Contrary to some statements published today, IceCube was not primarily built to study Neutrinos, it was built to study the universe using Neutrinos.
That's why we care where they are coming from, we want to learn about the astrophysical objects that produce them.
Didnât the big bang theory show have an episode about this?
He receives the prize for conceiving the IceCube neutrino detector, a cubic-kilometer-sized detecter in the Antarctics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory
Mechanism is via conversion of neutrinos into charged particles which are then detected via Cherenkov radiation which is produced when a charged particle moves with speeds larger then the speed of light in the medium. (That is only possible because it is less than the speed of light in vacuum which cannot be exceeded.)
This was also discussed recently if you are interested: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49655286
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation
If anyone was wondering how some of that heavy stuff gets to the south pole to build such a large engineering project, at the farthest possible end of any logistics chain:
https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=south+pol...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Pole_Traverse
https://octanepress.com/content/south-pole-traverse_antartic...
Significant amounts of things still come in by air cargo at great cost, but a lot also comes the long slow way.
I am adopting âFurthest possible end of any logistics chainâ as a more refined version of âmiddle of fucking nowhereâ. Thank you.
It would probably be harder if they wanted to put it, for instance, on the ocean floor at Point Nemo, but for sure the literal south pole is pretty damn expensive on a $ per kg to get stuff sent to. And on an ongoing basis to sustain operations 24x7x365 (it's my understanding it runs almost entirely on diesel fuel and/or Jet-A for a big-ass set of generators).
It is expensive and it doesn't need to be there, but the reason its at the south pole is that the US has money for SOMETHING at the south pole. They want to maintain a presence at the south pole for international relations reasons. To be consistent with insternational treaties they need to do science there.
So, the US/NSF is like "we have a bunch of money to do science, but it has to be at the south pole". People like Halzen who had a crazy idea go to NSF and say how can I get a bunch of money to do this. NSF says, we don't have that kind of money in our physics budget, but if you were to do it at the southpole we could fund it.
That's such interesting context. Thank you!
I disagree: anywhere in the ocean is easier logistics than crawler trains over land: ship it there and chuck it overboard. They do that to install oil rigs all the time (but that's more like float it there and sink it). Eg: https://www.wired.com/2014/07/dockwise-vanguard-shipping
Yeah, but now imagine the cost of putting large active electronics 4,000 meters down on the sea floor and keeping it running, and getting the data back off it... The cost of running the drill rig seen in the photos of the icecube detector would be a fraction of that.
Thatâs also a thing, e.g. in the Mediterranean.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM3NeT
why would "ship it there and chuck overboard" be easier than "crawler train it there and chuck overboard"?
Because shipping is easier than trucking at subzero temperatures on roads constantly being covered in snow.
Also, we've been shipping by water much longer than we've been trucking things on wheels, because the tech is easier: get on floaty wood and paddle.
For sure, there are more difficult places, but I donât think there is any conceivable place where the supply chain runs through the South Pole on its way. I hope not.
This was fascinating, thank you for posting! Here is a video I found of the different types of sleds they use on the traverse - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mjrQrKjotpA
Okay but how is this useful to humanity (since thats part of the prizes condition)? Its cool that we can detect them but...now what?
> produced when a charged particle moves with speeds larger then the speed of light in the medium.
Thanks, I had no idea this was possible!
https://xkcd.com/1053/
And remember, the "speed of light in the medium" depends on the wavelength of the light. This is why prisms separate light by color.
Optical sonic boom.
Actually called a "Luminal Boom" or "Photonic Boom".
This is quite nuanced and not as most people assume.
It is the "phase velocity of light in that medium" that is exceeded.
phase velocity of light in a medium = speed of light / refractive index of the medium.
Thus the EM wave is slowed down in a medium and so a charged particle can exceed it producing Cherenkov radiation. This is similar to a sonic boom in atmosphere when speed of sound is exceeded. In both cases the object is traveling faster than the wavefront.
It is only in vacuum that "phase velocity of light" = "group velocity of light" = c (i.e. 300,000 km/sec)
What really is the speed of light in a medium/vacuum, group or phase velocity? - https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/450377/what-real...
IIRC the group velocity in a medium can also exceed c when you send pulses through certain nonlinear media. Basically, the "lump" of the pulse can appear to "exit before it entered," but what really happens is that the tiny tip of the pulse has already gone through at <= c, and starts growing into the body at the exit before it has completely shrank at the entrance because of the nonlinearity. So it is actually the information/"signal" velocity (the tip of the signal) that cannot exceed c.
Are there interesting relativistic effects related to this other than this Cherenkov radiation?
To be more perfectly precise, it is only in a vacuum with an infinitely repeating regular signal that "phase velocity of light" = "group velocity of light".
The deviation caused by uncertainty in the package arrival time is typically extremely short, but not zero, for finite signals.
The actual "entity" that is restricted to be <=c is "information velocity". An infinitely repeating pattern would have travel at (phase velocity)=c ... but would ironically transmit no actual information (the bit value is restricted to 1, not 0 or 1).
The Telescope in the Ice was a solid book about this.
https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137280085
The book about it can also be used to detect neutrinos too?
Only if you bury it a kilometer below the ice.
I read all of that and other resources online and still couldn't understand why the hell we need to build that and especially in south pole antartica
Neutrinos need a large detector volume for efficiency because they interact so rarely. You canât detect them directly so you need a transparent medium to detect their collision byproducts. Good detector mediums are water and ice, and are underground to minimise background light. There are relatively few places you can do this. Mine caverns and under the sea are the most common, but marine detectors are notoriously hard to build. Francis Halzen proposed using ice. At the Pole, the glacial plateau is 2 miles high and the breakthrough was confirming that the ice is in fact highly transparent if you go deep enough.
Why the pole specifically? You could probably build a second IceCube 100 miles away, but how are you going to get that materials there? Pole has a skiway for large aircraft and infrastructure to house a large number of people. The traverse (SPoT) only became operational near the end of construction - the initial holes were drilled in 2005 and almost everything had to be flown in.
Telescope In The Ice does a great job of explaining the history and science behind the experiment.
The biggest challenge is finding ice without dust layers from historical volcanic activity, and the South Pole is particularly clean because of it's remoteness as well as the prevailing wind directions. There is, however, one big dust layer that causes signal distortion.
dust layers wont effect them neutrinos can pass anything or I am missing a point
You have to see the light from when a neutrino interacts with something, so you want very clear water or ice for that.
The best science comes from areas that have no obvious use. The original insights into nuclear physics, quantum physics and relativity were all pure thought experiments. They led to the world we live in.
I'm personally very happy that we're still funding science that isn't obviously monetised.
The reason for Antarctica is that it's the only place you find cubic kilometres of stable ice that doesn't drift around.
My best guess would be just the remoteness.
1: Ice-mass that isn't contaminated by atomic testing fallout (if the ice has been there since the 40s it's without radioactive waste (faschinating to read about how WW2 wrecks is a prime resource of steel since it's a huge amount of steel without trace amounts of radionucletiods from testing fallout).
2: No current interference (nuclear power, radiowaves,etc) creating possible test uncertainties.
3: I'm sure there are other reasons
The negative naturally is cost, but since the expriment succeeded it will probably be useful for any attempts to send robots or even humanity into space beyond the solar system.
Where else would you go look for a cubic km of ice?
Greenland, though that is probably not much better in any measurable way, when it comes to transport.
Greenland is much better logistically in some ways (I work on experiments both in Greenland and in Antarctica), but the ice in Greenland is unlikely to be as good for IceCube as in Antarctica, due to a presumed larger number of dust layers from dry periods in Europe.
The US has a research station at Summit Station Greenland but compared to South Pole, it's spartan (like, the first time I went there, I slept in a tent because of lack of hard-sided berthing, but then a Polar bear came a few years later and now hard-sided berthing is required). There are longer-term plans to improve the station in Greenland but we'll see.
Another option that's been popular is to get it as deep underground as possible, hard rock mines with empty areas:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SNO+
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super-Kamiokande
There's a weird overlap in engineering and physics disciplines between the hard engineering/business practices of the mining industry, and particle physics.
Right, but for those they need to make/move/collect a large amount of transparent material, like heavy water etc for the particles to interact with. But they get that 'for free' with the ice.
and another option is putting it in the sea, see KM3NeT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM3NeT
Logistics is much easier for Greenland, but the optical properties of the ice are not as good as at the south pole.
If we're serious about AI taking over jobs, we'll probably need to get more comfortable with any kind of undirected work-for-its-own-sake, not less.
> which are then detected via Cherenkov radiation which is produced when a charged particle moves with speeds larger then the speed of light in the medium. (That is only possible because it is less than the speed of light in vacuum which cannot be exceeded.)
I have been researching applications of FTL as well;
Where is there an actual vacuum on Earth or in microgravity? So, there are Proca waves within dielectric Proca metamaterials and plasmas and waveguides; and photons can have effective mass and/or longitudinal charge Ez in ionized plasma?
So, Maxwellian waves with no longitudinal (Ez,) component can exist in what fraction of the universe if they can only exist in a vacuum?
A Twistor model can model such;
Perhaps this was downvoted in ignorance?
This question could have avoided the offense:
What is the relation between Cherenkov relation and effective mass in longitudinal plasma waves?
I'm in love with the cute little figure that came with the press release: https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2026/10/fig_fy_26_3x2.jpg
I appreciate the boldness of this project, it has an element of sci-fi to it. Building a base at the south pole to bury sensors in ice to measure elusive particles. The stuff of dreams!
The same guy (Johan Jarnestad) has been doing all the nobel prize illustrations and infographics for years!
https://www.infographics.se/
https://www.behance.net/JohanJarnestad
Looking at the behance site it's a pretty good choice, glad some illustrators are still making a living in the AI age.
To be fair, the base was already there and logistically essential. The IceCube topside building is just a part of the Amundsen-Scott South Pole Station, about a km or so from the Elevated Station.
This image* from Wikipedia surprised me. The topside building is...you could say...the tip of the iceberg. The detectors span a huge area going over 2km deep. The predecessor AMANDA array was also down there.
*https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IceCube_Neutrino_Observatory#/...
Yes. It spans a cubic kilometer.
The building is just for housing the data gathering and comms equipment and whatever maintenance and engineering stuff the array needs. I donât think anybody physically works there regularly.
A trillion of these silly small guys pass through us every second. Funny to imagine them like that.
There are many things that my brain just can't handle, the size of the universe, more than 3 dimensions and this fact especially.
I will argue on your behalf that your brain can handle just one more dimension than the 3 you are likely referring to. :)
Most people are pretty bad at accounting for the effects of time.
Is this a GĂśdel Completeness thing?
If you ever feel lonely, think about all those little friends who come visit you!
We rarely bump into each other, actually. When we do it happens in a flash.
My wife is Frances Haugen, I almost thought her 30 minutes of fame became 45
What an amazing accomplishment! I played a very tiny part in this project and went to the South Pole in 2009 to help with construction. Didn't see any neutrinos the entire time I was there though :/
I worked with a guy who worked on IceCube. He flew down to the South Pole, went all the way to the station, just to install debian for their data processing systems. I was... a bit jealous.
I wintered for IceCube - most of the job is on-call Linux admin, cluster management and a bit of field work depending on the year.
"You know I could just do it remotely. Hmm wait... never mind, forget I said anything... when does my flight leave?"
We think of receiving a Nobel Prize as something super rare and exceptional and it is. What still always astounds me though, is this:
There are nearly 300 living laureates. Enough to hold a yearly meetup for them in Lindau, where usually about 40 gather. This year, for the event's 75th anniversary, there were even about 70. Imagine that.
> yearly meetup for them in Lindau
IIRC Oppenheimer facilitated / sponsored a meeting there after the Manhattan Project, as a gathering where physicists could talk freely about physics for a change.
Every year a few of the Nobel Prize winners attend the IgNobel Prize ceremony and dance on stage.
The first time in as long as I can think that a single physicist was chosen.
All of science is collaborative and this is especially true in these big experiments: the IceCube collaboration is over 400 people [1] from several dozen institutes. There are a lot of experiments where giving a Nobel prize would be impossible because there's no "principal investigator" for the experiment.
[1]: https://icecube.wisc.edu/collaboration/meet-the-collaboratio...
I wonder - was there really no other people they could have given it to? The detection of gravitational waves was split between a theorist, experimentalist and a person who had a big hand in shepherding the project along. Could not the same have been done here?
I would imagine the problem is that there are too many of them.
For better or worse the prize can only go to 3 people. Over the years there are generally many dozens of people who make absolutely critical contributions to these kinds of experiments. In this case, though, the same guy was listed as the PI of the UW Madison group, and Madison is very clearly "the" operator of the project.
Halzen is by any measure an awesome physicist, but he's also a good "fit" for the Nobel because of this unique situation.
I was in the IceCube experiment for a bit as well as the ATLAS Experiment at CERN. So you could say I contributed a bit to both this and the Higgs Nobel. Being part of these big collaborations, you know what the deal is. The Nobel is excellent PR for physics, and science in general, but it is just a prize. Francis is the singular leader of IceCube, and a visionary in the area, it is perfectly fair to award it to him, if not to the total collaboration. As for theory, I donât think this award hinges on theoretical predictions but the enablement of observation itself.
other relevant people are probably dead
I can confirm. The most relevant other contributors are dead but even then Francis is the most deserving.
1992
Here's the APOD for IceCube back from 2011
https://science.nasa.gov/image-article/apod-2011-february-13...
Pretty cool. One of the big challenges in trying neutrino detection in ice is dealing with funding agencies. The optical properties of ice only get good when you are actually a few kilometers deep in very old ice. That is you can't just build a demonstrator in the nearest glacier with a few leftover photomultipliers, you need to go directly to Antarctica and bore a three kilometer hole into the ice. And projects where the MVP is quite expensive are always very hard to get funded.
I remember one of my professor, a pioneer of neutrino detectors in Europe, mentioning Ice Cube in a lecture more than 20 years ago. Long time scale (due to funding).
Anyone else romanticize going to work at some remote location like the IceCube? Probably some escapism going on
I worked on IceCube. Was at the South Pole for a little over a month. Wild once in a lifetime experience. And if I am being honest I was terribly bored after the first 2 weeks. Its very flat and white and cold and not much to do. I was asked to go back the next year and I said no.
Field work even in beautiful places can get stifling. When you don't have access to friends, family, routine, various freedoms... It can be a bit much.
I romanticized that kind of work, but I think my limit is roughly what you said at around 2 weeks. The novelty wears off. Especially because I miss my kids a lot after a few days.
Actually, another big one: I love cooking. When you eat what you're given and don't have a choice, even if the food is pretty good it's kind of... I don't know... I really just want to go home and make something that is distinctly 'my food', something I would only have at home.
Even so, I absolutely love field work. The stuff I do is nowhere near as crazy as the Antarctic. I'm typically on the semi-remote islands of the British Columbia coast. My wife goes to the Arctic; her experience is probably more like yours. Lots of time isolated on icebreakers. Occasionally visiting remote navy or military bases, though. Some indigenous communities. Not as middle-of-nowhere as the Antarctic! The longest she has done is 7 weeks, with ~4 days off of the ship.
was there any clear sky ever? how did it look like? I'm assuming you went during daylight?
Clear skies happen regularly enough. You can see refractive phenomena frequently (sun dogs, moon halos and the like). Same for night, plenty of clear skies and auroras during the winter when itâs dark enough to see them.
Not right now though! https://www.usap.gov/videoclipsandmaps/spwebcam.cfm
We hire two people to stay over the winter and operate the detector each year. No icecube affiliation or physics background required, although a technical background helps.
Sounds like the intro to a horror.
The Shining with a nerd cast
The scariest thing about the Neutrino Monster is that you can't see it and it can walk right through you.
I spent a bit over a year at South Pole for IceCube. There's an old joke in the Antarctic: the first time is for the adventure, the second time is for the money, and the third time is because you don't fit in anywhere else anymore.
Anyway, I'd love to do it again
I had a professor who talked about working there. In his words, âThank God for whiskey!â
While there is some romantic imagery (penguins!) down there, and the disconnect from the rest of the world might be appealing, for large parts of the year youâre just stuck inside.
It depends on where you are, Away from the coast, there's no penguins or any large creatures.
Great news for UW-Madison and all the work that went into such a forward thinking, creative scientific instrument!
Well holy shit. I didn't expect to wake up this morning and see the "outside" guy from my thesis committee (aka, the only one who wasn't a rubber stamp) winning the Nobel Prize.
Francis isn't the first Nobel Prize winner I've crossed paths with. But I think he's the only one I'd call a "decent human being". (When I use it, that phrase has a meaning roughly comparable to "nontrivial", so, saying it is nontrivial.) He was well enough liked by faculty and students during my time at UW-Madison.
It's important to note that he's not getting the prize for "conceiving of IceCube" like some people are saying. It's for "conceiving of IceCube and somehow actually making it happen". The latter is the achievement.
Congratulations.
Absolute loved this book by Halzen and Martin
https://archive.org/details/quarksleptonsint0000halz
Neutrino physics is the frontier. Itâs one area where we know there are âphysics beyond the standard modelâ though IceCube hasnât quite been able to answer the neutrino mass question.
I love Ice Cube, as it is great engineering contributing significantly to science. It is also the perfect way to describe the concept of a great âhackâ to people outside the field.
IceCube Neutrino Observatory - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gLbegYWCqkg
Its rare to have noble prize given to just one person! This feels extra special for the work he has done.
The last time a physicist won the award alone dates back to 1992, 34 years ago
Shouldn't the prize have been co-awarded to Ice Cube for inspiring the name?
Noble prize is only given to individuals
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Cube
Madison WI mentioned!
Time for cheese curds at the Old Fashioned!
Last years favorite finally wins it this time. https://www.rtbf.be/article/avec-icecube-le-physicien-belge-... (2025)
As we celebrate the IceCube neutrino detector for wining this year Nobel Prize in Physics, people in my country India should feel lost for missing the opportunity to setup INO (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/India-based_Neutrino_Observato...)
https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/chennai/why-the-neu...
That's an uncharitable take. The proposed observatory was through pristine dense forest, and one of the most important elephant corridors in Asia. It was opposed by the democratically elected government, and litigated in courts in an open and transparent way. The physics gains do not outweigh the environmental cost, and the fact that scientists were able to get valuable data from an observatory in the lifeless Antarctic is further justification not to build this.
IceCube observatory is for studying the high energy cosmic neutrinos from a distant galaxy or black holes. But the one proposed INO is to study the low and medium energy atmospheric neutrinos. INO was designed to study the mass ordering of neutrinos. Both observatories are for studying different aspects and properties of neutrinos and are not the same.
But all the objections GP mentioned are still valid.
As a trained high-energy physicist who loves the subject, I wouldn't want the destruction of forests, tiger and elephant habitats (or any other habitats) for "science". There are always alternatives - alternate sites, alternate designs, alternate experiments.
One of my primary disagreements with my friends and colleagues was based on their insistence that opposing a new facility was anti-science and only done by the "uneducated". IMO, while this was true for a small subset of opposing factions, there were often real reasons for not building which took realities outside research into consideration.
isnt theni the place where hemp farm were destroyed in 1800?
Quite rare for a it to be awarded to just one person.
> Six days, six prizes
What? Since when does even the Nobel Institute themselves proclaim that economics of all things is as much part of the pantheon of science as fundamental physics, the same economics that was deliberately added to that list by the same powers that made free-trade economics the only allowed form within catholic economics, the same powers that funded research and shaped policy worldwide to first normalize neoliberalism and then to turn it into the only orthodoxy in economics, that prize that is actually the mundane "Bank of Sweden Economics Prize" is not only mentioned, it is treated as part of the holy set (of actually five) by the institute themselves?!
woah, mindblowing!
Sometimes I think it would be nice if there were biographies that laid out when and how Nobel laureates made their discoveries. Then wouldn't it be possible to pattern how people discover certain phenomena?
Not Nobel laureates, but people have tried this. I once was looking for the early education of famous scientists and found the book Cradles of Eminence [1], which compares the childhoods of several hundred famous people.
One thing I noticed was that more than a few were seriously sick in childhood and had to be homeschooled. This includes Edward Morley, Peter Higgs, RenĂŠ Descartes (though I'm not sure how rare it was at his time), and the mathematician Julia Robinson, who was bedridden with scarlet fever at 9 years old, then had to get tutoring to catch back up, and had this to say about it [2]:
> I have since read that a solitary childhood or, what amounts to the same thing, a period of isolation resulting from an illness is frequently noted in the early lives of scientists. I am not sure what the significance of this finding is. Obviously I had to amuse myself for long periods of time, but I didnât do so with mathematics. I am inclined to think that what I learned during that year in bed was patience.
> By the time I was well enough to go back to school, I had missed more than two years. My parents arranged to have me tutored by a retired elementary school teacher. In one year, working three mornings a week, she and I went through the state syllabuses for the fifth, sixth, seventh, and eighth grades. It makes me wonder how much time must be wasted in classrooms.
Sidenote: I found the book [1] through asking a free LLM what source this quote might be referring to. They are reasonably good at this kind of literature search, especially because it's easy to judge whether they gave you something useful.
[1] https://archive.org/details/cradlesofeminenc0000goer_l9f8/pa...
[2] https://web.archive.org/web/20181207045746/https://www.maa.o...
thanks!
Uh not sure Halzen personally made discoveries, in the original sense of the word!
Indeed, "in-spiraling" seems more like a one-man discovery (or has more of a chance to become one) than many (not all, obv) nobel prize winning work
The mechanism for which Higgs was awarded was also independently discovered by at least ten other people (I can't count)
>The Higgs mechanism is therefore also called the BroutâEnglertâHiggs mechanism, or EnglertâBroutâHiggsâGuralnikâHagenâKibble mechanism,[9] AndersonâHiggs mechanism,[10] AndersonâHiggsâKibble mechanism,[11] HiggsâKibble mechanism by Abdus Salam[12] and ABEGHHK'tH mechanism (for Anderson, Brout, Englert, Guralnik, Hagen, Higgs, Kibble, and 't Hooft)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism
Can't wait for OpenAI to get the nobel prize; Swedes are more sympathetic than mathematicians!! (so that human beings might completely separate discovery from reward/awards/recognition. Discovery is a human right!!!)
> wouldn't it be possible to pattern how people discover certain phenomena?
This question in the field of "general problem-solving" (inventions etc.) was investigated by studying patent literature by Genrich Altshuller in the former Soviet Union and systematized as TRIZ - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TRIZ
Theory of inventive problem solving' is a methodology which combines an organized, systematic method of problem-solving with analysis and forecasting techniques derived from the study of patterns of invention in global patent literature.
TRIZ developed from a foundation of research into hundreds of thousands of inventions in many fields to produce an approach which defines patterns in inventive solutions and the characteristics of the problems which these inventions have overcome.
See also my older comment for more resources - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45976697
thank you
The common denominator is money and time. The only way to get more results is to put more funding out there (and accepting that not everything is about a direct ROI).
Still no affordable antigravity? Dang.
He's working on it; still in deep black.
Just happy it's not another AI related prize.
+1
Oh, it's amazing that the AI didn't prize.
Why? They gave that out already.
There's no such thing as AI, it's just JĂźrgen Schmidhuber in a small room typing really really quickly. And no way they're giving him a Nobel Prize.
Just woke up this morning to this news. Thank God. Today is a good day.
Makes me sad, that even there we put our human stuff and Metal boxes
What is practical application of Francis work?
It could be the beginning of Neutrino astronomy [1]. So far, we only used the electromagnetic spectrum, from radio waves to gamma rays, to observe the universe. If we could equally leverage neutrinos or gravitational waves, we could observe much more of the universe. For example, the cosmic microwave background radiation enables us to deduce the conditions at 300ky after the Big Bang. The cosmic neutrino background [2] could give us insight in the conditions 1s after the Big Bang.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino_astronomy
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_neutrino_background
The million dollars. A Nobel prize is worth a million dollars.
Similar to the Millennium prize by the Clay institute, the amount of luck and effort you need to receive the prize don't make it worthwhile. Plus, it's generally expected to use that money for further research. It would be advisable to focus on other endeavors, if money is your motivator.
So, two years salary in the Bay Area where it's a lot warmer?
Knowing the properties of neutrinos is essential for building the neutrino bomb, the most ethical weapon possible.
Neutrino detectors are essential in receiving communication from other galaxies.
That doesn't make any sense. Photons would work much better.
Photons work better for driving a car too but being able to hear is still quite useful.
In other words: we already have lots of things that measure photons. You see things on two totally different media it's a lot more compelling than just one.
That may be the case, but it doesn't explain why neutrinos would be essential for intergalactic communication. Maybe the person I was responding to didn't realize neutrinos travel very close to the speed of light, not infinitely fast?
Neutrinos might be a better medium for intergalactic communication, since they can travel through most objects.
Or we can all just think big thoughts at the same time... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calling_Occupants_of_Interplan...
There isn't anything in the way that would require this. I mean, we can see back to (shortly after) the Big Bang.
Kind of contrived, but if you're sending a signal from some other planet to our planet, depending on the geometry, there will be times of the year that our local star is in the way of photons.
Also, if you're sending out photons from a planet, chances are there's a local star nearby. Stars tend to be a broad-spectrum photon source, which is going to make it tough for receivers to decode the intentional signal.
Neutrinos are not an analog to sound in the point you are trying to make. They are many orders of magnitude more weakly interacting and much, much difficult to measure.
What a circle j*k that academia is. Fake Science is what it is. It's, like, they take everything good and pervert it into something ungodly. We could've been eons ahead in science if academia wasn't a leftist bastion off backend lickers, bottom to top, working assiduously to create more and more artificial complexity with one objective in mind - their own job security. I'm not even afraid to generalize because they all bend over when they graduate. They are literally discouraging critical thought at this point and intelligence is discouraged as well. It's all about control. See if there's any real conversation about anything important anywhere anymore.
While I understand academia has its own systematic problems, I do not get your rant. Could you give concrete examples of how academia is "discouraging critical thought at this point and intelligence is discouraged as well"?
I won't even go down to that level of yours where you think people would say waste, fraud, and abuse for no reason. Read the news, see how much waste, fraud, and abuse Trump's administration has uncovered. The left and the entire academia were entirely moot about all of that horrible stuff going on in our country.
I don't see academia shouting at every street corner to think about all this brain implant craze because there are people who are being tortured for years remotely using brain implants and other invasive techniques. Zero word from academia 'bout that. Oh, wait, yeah, history shows the crazy psychos from the intel agencies doing terror on human subjects on unimaginable scale were recruiting from the academia. Yeah, okay, plenty critical thought by the academia when nothing has been done to prevent that from happening again.
I guess they're all compliant now, as there's no real pushback for using remotely controlled terrorists with brain and body implants to wreak havoc on the populace. Like I said, nobody asks any really hard questions anywhere.
My own PhD leaves me inclined to share your rage against the machine but do you care to expound on why this applies to this award?
Because, knowing little about physics, this strikes me as reasonably interesting work compared to the slop in my own field.
Did you read what I wrote? Waste, fraud, and abuse! They do virtually ZERO theoretical physics and then expend gazillions of resources on contraptions to study elusive stuff they could've derived theoretically first and in very elegant fashion. It's just making themselves indispensable at any cost. And they are clever, which is why they are successful in that enterprise so far, but it's not the enterprise that has anyone's interests in mind, except them being in control.
Sounds like you'll be in line for the Nobel Prize next year once you derive all of this theoretically in a very elegant fashion! Think of the money they could have saved if someone had just come ask you to show them it was possible.
And who's gonna pay for the hordes of PhDs who vote overwhelmingly Democrat then?
95% of faculty political donations in Cornell went to the Democrats. 98% in Princeton. Whereas 100% of billions of federal funds disbursed to all the universities comes from the tax base that's Republican as equal share. Is this not weaponization of education? (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tTBML_wEeSk)
Nobody cares about the Nobel Prize as anything more than a circle j*k anymore. Someone would even say a bunch of filth sell outs propping each other up.
You have a real point but the way you're communicating it is hurting your cause rather than helping it