5 ms·

If there were a way to reliably detect neutrinos in sufficient quantities they'd be ideal since you could send messages through the earth and at near light spee

If there were a way to reliably detect neutrinos in sufficient quantities they'd be ideal since you could send messages through the earth and at near light speed, I suppose.

contravariant 5y ago
Do neutrino's have a wavelength? If not then there'd be one channel and almost no way to prevent crosstalk.
R0b0t1 5y ago
Just generate inordinate amounts of neutrinos. Doable for something akin to a undersea cable. If we could focus the output of the reaction then I see this being feasible, otherwise maybe not.
hungryforcodes 5y ago
As opposed to how we communicate now globally?
- zodiac 5y ago
  Communication via EM waves travel around the earth, not through it. (eg radio waves, fibre optic cables, satellite...)
  - hungryforcodes 5y ago
    But it's at pretty near the speed of light and how would there be an advantage to doing it the way the GP says?
    - zodiac 5y ago
      Let the radius of the earth be R. Say you want to send a message from the north pole to the south pole. If you use radio waves that travel around the earth, the shortest distance they can travel is πR ≈ 20,000km. If you use neutrinos that travel through the earth, the shortest distance is 2R ≈ 12,700km. So the advantage is about 7,300km (or in time units, 25ms ≈ 7,300km / (the speed of light))
      - hungryforcodes 5y ago
        Fair enough, your calculation seems valid. But my point still stands -- are we going to build enormous LHCs all over the world to get a (maximum) 24 millisecond advantage in global communications via neutrinos?!
        ithkuil 5y ago
        I assume the story is "if we find a magic new tech that is otherwise similar to our existing tech in terms of cost effectiveness, size, bandwidth, reliability, etc, and it also could pass straight through earth, then we could shave off 25ms and that would be useful"
        zodiac 5y ago
        > If there were a way to reliably detect neutrinos in sufficient quantities they'd be ideal since you could send messages through the earth and at near light speed, I suppose. > As opposed to how we communicate now globally? From this interaction I thought you'd missed the point that "send messages through the earth" is something we're currently not doing. Of course you're right that the "if there were a way to reliably detect neutrinos" is doing a lot of work.
      - db48x 5y ago
        You’re talking about using gigawatts of power, and detectors that weigh in at thousands of tons, in order to send a signal best measured in bits per decade. It’s an idiotic suggestion; fiber optics beat anything based on neutrinos hands–down. Authors who make their aliens use neutrino communications are idiots. But that’s ok, most authors are idiots, and most of them stopped taking physics in high school. Authors who take physics seriously are quite rare, even in the science fiction genre. If you want a book written by someone who knows some real physics, read The Clockwork Rocket by Greg Egan. He changed one simple law of physics, worked out the consequences for quantum mechanics and relativity, made up some plausible–enough biology, and wrote a series of books in the resulting universe. The characters in the book have to discover or teach each other those laws, so the book is actually a pretty decent way to learn something of the laws of our own universe too. He wrote a huge amount of supplementary material as well, going into all the details. Truly an astounding accomplishment.
dclowd9901 5y ago
This is important because… line of sight has somehow stymied us? I feel like quantum entangled communication would be a better direction to head. Not that they’re mutually exclusive development paths.
- thatcherc 5y ago
  (un?)fortunately quantum entanglement cannot be used to send information any faster than classical communications. Entanglement is a good way to share bits for encrypting secrets, but you still need to be send entangled photons over a <c channel like a fiber optic or microwave cable.

If there were a way to reliably detect neutrinos in sufficient quantities they'd be ideal since you could send messages through the earth and at near light speed, I suppose.

contravariant 5y ago

Do neutrino's have a wavelength? If not then there'd be one channel and almost no way to prevent crosstalk.

R0b0t1 5y ago

Just generate inordinate amounts of neutrinos. Doable for something akin to a undersea cable. If we could focus the output of the reaction then I see this being feasible, otherwise maybe not.

hungryforcodes 5y ago

As opposed to how we communicate now globally?

zodiac 5y ago
Communication via EM waves travel around the earth, not through it. (eg radio waves, fibre optic cables, satellite...)
- hungryforcodes 5y ago
  But it's at pretty near the speed of light and how would there be an advantage to doing it the way the GP says?
  - zodiac 5y ago
    Let the radius of the earth be R. Say you want to send a message from the north pole to the south pole. If you use radio waves that travel around the earth, the shortest distance they can travel is πR ≈ 20,000km. If you use neutrinos that travel through the earth, the shortest distance is 2R ≈ 12,700km. So the advantage is about 7,300km (or in time units, 25ms ≈ 7,300km / (the speed of light))
    - hungryforcodes 5y ago
      Fair enough, your calculation seems valid. But my point still stands -- are we going to build enormous LHCs all over the world to get a (maximum) 24 millisecond advantage in global communications via neutrinos?!
      - ithkuil 5y ago
        I assume the story is "if we find a magic new tech that is otherwise similar to our existing tech in terms of cost effectiveness, size, bandwidth, reliability, etc, and it also could pass straight through earth, then we could shave off 25ms and that would be useful"
      - zodiac 5y ago
        > If there were a way to reliably detect neutrinos in sufficient quantities they'd be ideal since you could send messages through the earth and at near light speed, I suppose. > As opposed to how we communicate now globally? From this interaction I thought you'd missed the point that "send messages through the earth" is something we're currently not doing. Of course you're right that the "if there were a way to reliably detect neutrinos" is doing a lot of work.
    - db48x 5y ago
      You’re talking about using gigawatts of power, and detectors that weigh in at thousands of tons, in order to send a signal best measured in bits per decade. It’s an idiotic suggestion; fiber optics beat anything based on neutrinos hands–down. Authors who make their aliens use neutrino communications are idiots. But that’s ok, most authors are idiots, and most of them stopped taking physics in high school. Authors who take physics seriously are quite rare, even in the science fiction genre. If you want a book written by someone who knows some real physics, read The Clockwork Rocket by Greg Egan. He changed one simple law of physics, worked out the consequences for quantum mechanics and relativity, made up some plausible–enough biology, and wrote a series of books in the resulting universe. The characters in the book have to discover or teach each other those laws, so the book is actually a pretty decent way to learn something of the laws of our own universe too. He wrote a huge amount of supplementary material as well, going into all the details. Truly an astounding accomplishment.

dclowd9901 5y ago

This is important because… line of sight has somehow stymied us? I feel like quantum entangled communication would be a better direction to head. Not that they’re mutually exclusive development paths.

thatcherc 5y ago
(un?)fortunately quantum entanglement cannot be used to send information any faster than classical communications. Entanglement is a good way to share bits for encrypting secrets, but you still need to be send entangled photons over a <c channel like a fiber optic or microwave cable.