Difference between revisions of "Talk:3017: Neutrino Modem"
Line 7: | Line 7: | ||
That packet loss rate (detecting only 1 in 100 trillion) is actually a very high rate of neutrino detection, isn't it? And that's assuming a "packet" is a single neutrino. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 23:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | That packet loss rate (detecting only 1 in 100 trillion) is actually a very high rate of neutrino detection, isn't it? And that's assuming a "packet" is a single neutrino. [[User:DKMell|DKMell]] ([[User talk:DKMell|talk]]) 23:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
+ | :Ah, yes, just added something about that. Going by (confirmable) solar-neutrino detection rates, because I couldn't work with figures for generated/detected neutrino streams (and, besides, you might then have {{w|2011 OPERA faster-than-light neutrino anomaly|FTL latency times!}} :D ), it seemed that we're detecting hundreds of events ''per day'' in "cubic kilometre" detectors which would be being hit by perhaps 60-65 million neutrinos ''per second per square centimetre'' so I don't think it's far wrong (scaling up to the square face of the cube, over a full day) to suggest one in 50 long-Trillion (or 50 short-sextillion) neutrinos is identifiably captured. The rates might be better for merely "several olympic swimming pools of fluid" detectors, so I fudged it rather than talk of 10<sup>18</sup>ish rates with respect to the 10<sup>14</sup>ish ones quoted. (Which, because it is at least ''two'' neutrinos, one there and one back (with magically implied Ping Request/Ping Response status), is more like two 10<sup>7</sup>ish rates anyway, in order that the neutrino-spamming is equally intense from either side in order to attempt to minimally convey a message... Could still be short-trillions sent, one ping request detected, short-trillions replied to that one as a similar 'overkill', yet one valid returnee received.) | ||
+ | :But if I'm overestimating (or underusing, on the flipside) anything by an order of magnitude or three, then it still doesn't really change the comparison. The numbers are still huge. We don't even know the transmission bandwidth, just that somehow Ping-Request then Ping-Reply (and no other ACKing and handshaking or OSI Physical Layer overheads, never mind other layer 2, 3 and 4 fine details) happened at practically the speed of light regardless of the necessary near-simultaneous spamming of attempts that the boxes that each endpoint concerned must have to juggle when prodded accordingly. [[Special:Contributions/141.101.96.41|141.101.96.41]] 14:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
The explanation says that it's Blondie floating behind Cueball, but I think it's actually Ponytail. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 01:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | The explanation says that it's Blondie floating behind Cueball, but I think it's actually Ponytail. [[User:PDesbeginner|PDesbeginner]] ([[User talk:PDesbeginner|talk]]) 01:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | ||
Why do I have the feeling that the sysadmin from the title text is the same as in [[705: Devotion to Duty]]? --[[User:Frog23|Frog23]] ([[User talk:Frog23|talk]]) 12:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC) | Why do I have the feeling that the sysadmin from the title text is the same as in [[705: Devotion to Duty]]? --[[User:Frog23|Frog23]] ([[User talk:Frog23|talk]]) 12:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC) |
Revision as of 14:00, 28 November 2024
If someone wants to describe the logo on the Neutrino Modem in the transcript, have at it. Barmar (talk) 22:42, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
I wonder how long it took Cueball to send and receive enough packets to be able to calculate that average ping time? Barmar (talk) 22:47, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
If you ping every IPv4 address on the planet once a second, 3-4 packets will be received per day. Unfortunately, the packet loss is bidirectional, so your chance of hearing the reply is equally low. So maybe when the earth is 16 times older than it is now you will have a reply. Divad27182 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
That packet loss rate (detecting only 1 in 100 trillion) is actually a very high rate of neutrino detection, isn't it? And that's assuming a "packet" is a single neutrino. DKMell (talk) 23:33, 27 November 2024 (UTC)
- Ah, yes, just added something about that. Going by (confirmable) solar-neutrino detection rates, because I couldn't work with figures for generated/detected neutrino streams (and, besides, you might then have FTL latency times! :D ), it seemed that we're detecting hundreds of events per day in "cubic kilometre" detectors which would be being hit by perhaps 60-65 million neutrinos per second per square centimetre so I don't think it's far wrong (scaling up to the square face of the cube, over a full day) to suggest one in 50 long-Trillion (or 50 short-sextillion) neutrinos is identifiably captured. The rates might be better for merely "several olympic swimming pools of fluid" detectors, so I fudged it rather than talk of 1018ish rates with respect to the 1014ish ones quoted. (Which, because it is at least two neutrinos, one there and one back (with magically implied Ping Request/Ping Response status), is more like two 107ish rates anyway, in order that the neutrino-spamming is equally intense from either side in order to attempt to minimally convey a message... Could still be short-trillions sent, one ping request detected, short-trillions replied to that one as a similar 'overkill', yet one valid returnee received.)
- But if I'm overestimating (or underusing, on the flipside) anything by an order of magnitude or three, then it still doesn't really change the comparison. The numbers are still huge. We don't even know the transmission bandwidth, just that somehow Ping-Request then Ping-Reply (and no other ACKing and handshaking or OSI Physical Layer overheads, never mind other layer 2, 3 and 4 fine details) happened at practically the speed of light regardless of the necessary near-simultaneous spamming of attempts that the boxes that each endpoint concerned must have to juggle when prodded accordingly. 141.101.96.41 14:00, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
The explanation says that it's Blondie floating behind Cueball, but I think it's actually Ponytail. PDesbeginner (talk) 01:58, 28 November 2024 (UTC)
Why do I have the feeling that the sysadmin from the title text is the same as in 705: Devotion to Duty? --Frog23 (talk) 12:20, 28 November 2024 (UTC)