On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Marshall Eubanks <[email protected]> wrote: > On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM, <[email protected]> wrote: >> On Fri, 23 Mar 2012 13:16:59 -0700, George Herbert said: >>> The physics is not conducive to improving the situation a lot. >>> >>> There's probably $1.5 billion in the ground already in neutrino >>> detectors; the total combined detector bit rate is pretty poor. One >>> experiment looking at neutrinos coming off the Fermilab accelerator >>> had 473 million accelerator pulses with under 1.1 million detected >>> neutrinos. >> >> Note that each pulse was probably millions or even billions of neutrinos, so >> the detection rate was even worse than you'd think. I saw a statistic that >> every second, 50 trillion neutrinos pass through your body. And the number >> that will interact is well into the single digits. >> > > Small detection numbers are not, per se, fatal to communication. What > fraction of the photons generated by a GPS satellite are captured by > your phone?
Much higher fraction than with neutrinos. Remember their MFPs are measured in light-years... > The neutrino interaction rate increases with neutrino energy, and sea > water makes a good neutrino detector. You could, for a billion > dollars, do > a LOT better than they did. On the detector end, sure. On the transmitter end, it's just not a well collimated beam due to physics, and no matter how hard you try the generation of neutrinos is a low-efficiency process. > By the way, here is the original paper : http://arxiv.org/pdf/1203.2847v1.pdf Yep. I meant to include the URL but forgot. -- -george william herbert [email protected]
