It is good to have a northern-hemisphere counterpart to IceCUBE [wisc.edu], hopefully they'll see something. The previous (and lesser) versions [wikipedia.org] of it in Baikal did not see much.
Using a grid of light detectors similar to the Baikal telescope, IceCube identified a neutrino in 2017 that scientists said almost certainly came from a supermassive black hole. It was the first time that scientists had pinpointed a source of the rain of high-energy particles from space known as cosmic rays — a breakthrough for neutrino astronomy, a branch that remains in its infancy.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
The Americans spent US $279 million on the one in Antarctica, while this neutrino telescope by the Russians is reported to cost US $30 million... seemingly nothing given the economies of modern nations, yet shamefully, what a small percentage of current budgets goes to science and exploration.
The point with these projects is that they're but a small portion of a small portion of a small portion of science spending at best. Because they're in a small fraction of astronomy, which is a small fraction of natural sciences, which is a small fraction of totality of sciences.
So spending on such projects should not be massive unless they're extremely necessary/revolutionary. They should be funded in moderation, which is seemingly what has happened here.
So spending on such projects should not be massive unless they're extremely necessary/revolutionary.
Bad metric. This is basic research, so by definition none of it is "necessary".
It may, or may not, give useful results in 80 or 90 years. It may pave the way for inventing a warp drive in 150 years. Or may demark a region of physics as "checked; uninteresting" for somebody else, who instead of going through this again, would instead research the *real* technology behind warp drives, when eventually neutrinos will have been ruled out.
Neutrinos are at the outer frontier of known physics, we still don't unders
Fascinating. FTA:
Using a grid of light detectors similar to the Baikal telescope, IceCube identified a neutrino in 2017 that scientists said almost certainly came from a supermassive black hole. It was the first time that scientists had pinpointed a source of the rain of high-energy particles from space known as cosmic rays — a breakthrough for neutrino astronomy, a branch that remains in its infancy.
The more you know, the more you know you don't know.
The Americans spent US $279 million on the one in Antarctica, while this neutrino telescope by the Russians is reported to cost US $30 million... seemingly nothing given the economies of modern nations, yet shamefully, what a small percentage of current budgets goes to science and exploration.
The point with these projects is that they're but a small portion of a small portion of a small portion of science spending at best. Because they're in a small fraction of astronomy, which is a small fraction of natural sciences, which is a small fraction of totality of sciences.
So spending on such projects should not be massive unless they're extremely necessary/revolutionary. They should be funded in moderation, which is seemingly what has happened here.
So spending on such projects should not be massive unless they're extremely necessary/revolutionary.
Bad metric. This is basic research, so by definition none of it is "necessary".
It may, or may not, give useful results in 80 or 90 years. It may pave the way for inventing a warp drive in 150 years. Or may demark a region of physics as "checked; uninteresting" for somebody else, who instead of going through this again, would instead research the *real* technology behind warp drives, when eventually neutrinos will have been ruled out.
Neutrinos are at the outer frontier of known physics, we still don't unders
>Bad metric. This is basic research, so by definition none of it is "necessary".
You are utterly confused. Basic research by definition is necessary, because new branching fields of applied science come from basic research.
The correct metric, which I'm noting above is "which necessary research should have how much priority?"