[151547] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: $1.5 billion: The cost of cutting London-Tokyo latency by 60ms
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (George Herbert)
Sat Mar 24 00:52:27 2012
In-Reply-To: <CAJNg7VK0sXsTLXJiWNJqqXKSNM81rOGAdwK0vZZK3OX7VAYpKg@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 23 Mar 2012 21:51:37 -0700
From: George Herbert <george.herbert@gmail.com>
To: Marshall Eubanks <marshall.eubanks@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG list <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces+nanog.discuss=bloom-picayune.mit.edu@nanog.org
On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 7:11 PM, Marshall Eubanks
<marshall.eubanks@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 23, 2012 at 5:14 PM, =A0<Valdis.Kletnieks@vt.edu> 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. =A0One
>>> 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. =A0I saw a statistic=
that
>> every second, 50 trillion neutrinos pass through your body. =A0And the n=
umber
>> 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.
--=20
-george william herbert
george.herbert@gmail.com
