upvote
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.

reply
I am adopting “Furthest possible end of any logistics chain” as a more refined version of “middle of fucking nowhere”. Thank you.
reply
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).
reply
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.

reply
That's such interesting context. Thank you!
reply
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
reply
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.
reply
That’s also a thing, e.g. in the Mediterranean.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM3NeT

reply
why would "ship it there and chuck overboard" be easier than "crawler train it there and chuck overboard"?
reply
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.

reply
For sure, there are more difficult places, but I don’t think there is any conceivable place where the supply chain runs through the South Pole on its way. I hope not.
reply
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
reply
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?
reply
> 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/

reply
And remember, the "speed of light in the medium" depends on the wavelength of the light. This is why prisms separate light by color.
reply
Optical sonic boom.
reply
Actually called a "Luminal Boom" or "Photonic Boom".
reply
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...

reply
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.
reply
Are there interesting relativistic effects related to this other than this Cherenkov radiation?
reply
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).

reply
The Telescope in the Ice was a solid book about this.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/1137280085

reply
The book about it can also be used to detect neutrinos too?
reply
Only if you bury it a kilometer below the ice.
reply
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
reply
Neutrinos need a large detector volume for efficiency because they interact so rarely. You can’t 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.

reply
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.
reply
dust layers wont effect them neutrinos can pass anything or I am missing a point
reply
You have to see the light from when a neutrino interacts with something, so you want very clear water or ice for that.
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
Where else would you go look for a cubic km of ice?
reply
Greenland, though that is probably not much better in any measurable way, when it comes to transport.
reply
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.

reply
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.

reply
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.
reply
and another option is putting it in the sea, see KM3NeT: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KM3NeT
reply
Logistics is much easier for Greenland, but the optical properties of the ice are not as good as at the south pole.
reply
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.
reply
[dead]
reply
> 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;

reply
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?

reply