A Neutrino Communication System?

I have this obsession of a neutrino-based communication system. For one, it'd completely eliminate the need for satellites. The only (official) purpose of communication satellites, those that the other nations are sending into orbit and that eventually end up as soace trash, is to circumvent the Earth. Because the Earth isn't transparent to electromagnetic signals, the satellites try to redirect a signal form point A on Earth, around in space, and back down at point B on the other side. However the Earth is pretty much transparent to neutrinos. What that means is that signals can be sent from point A, through the Earth to point B.

The only practical limitation to such a communication system is the fact that neutrinos are very hard to detect. So far the only way other nations are detecting some neutrinos is with very large water tanks. When a neutrino happens to directly bump into a water molecule, the molecule will change, and that will show up on the sensor.

However my preon theory predicts that neutrinos might cause neutrons to decay. Until my theory, there was no way to explain why free neutrons would wait an average of 14 minutes before suddenly decaying. My theory proposes that the presence of neutrinos might be the cause for that - the neutrinos would mostly miss the neutron, but after an average of 14 minutes a neutrino would finally bump into the neutron and cause it to decay.

This is actually supported by a recent puzzling observation from scientists that unstable isotopes, here on Earth, would decay faster during peaks of neutrinos emissions from the Sun.

I therefore hypothesise that it could be possible to detect neutrinos using some kind of coil, of a thin wire made of an isotope of some metal. My reasoning is that the coil would have a specific resistance before the interaction with a neutrino. After the interaction of a neutrino, atoms of the metal will change, causing the coil to change in its composition, and therefore in its resistance.

If I am right, this might become the basis of a new kind of communication system, one that could supercede all this manmade electromagnetic mess we're living in right now.

originally posted by: swanne
This is actually supported by a recent puzzling observation from scientists that unstable isotopes, here on Earth, would decay faster during peaks of neutrinos emissions from the Sun.

No, it's not. From 2010, that's not so recent and this more recent paper claims that what you cite has been convincingly refuted:

Solar influence on radon decay rates: irradiance or neutrinos?

Radon decay rate data from 2007–2011, measured in a closed canister with one gamma counter and two alpha detectors, were made available for analysis by the Geological Survey of Israel (GSI). Sturrock et al. have published several papers in which they claim that decay rate variations in the gamma counter can be associated with solar rotation. They assert influences by solar and cosmic neutrinos on beta decay and draw unsubstantiated conclusions about solar dynamics. This paper offers an alternative explanation by relating the daily and annual patterns in the radon decay rates with environmental conditions. Evidence is provided that the radon measurements were susceptible to solar irradiance and rainfall, whereas there is no indication that radioactive decay is influenced by the solar neutrino flux. Speculations about solar dynamics based on the concept of neutrino-induced beta decay are ill-founded.

Sturrock is mentioned in your article, and this paper cites that his claims have been refuted:

All claims raised by Fischbach, Sturrock, and co-workers on ’neutrino-induced decay’ (see e.g. [11,12,13,14,15]) have been scrutinised and refuted convincingly (see [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10] and references therein).

Here's a related paper, even more recent:
Evidence against solar influence on nuclear decay constants

The experimental data in this work are typically 50 times more stable than the measurements on which recent claims for solar influence on the decay constants were based. The observed seasonal modulations can be ascribed to instrumental instability, since they vary from one instrument to another and show no communality in amplitude or phase among – or even within – the laboratories.

I therefore hypothesise that it could be possible to detect neutrinos using some kind of coil, of a thin wire made of an isotope of some metal. My reasoning is that the coil would have a specific resistance before the interaction with a neutrino. After the interaction of a neutrino, atoms of the metal will change, causing the coil to change in its composition, and therefore in its resistance.

Since the claims you cite didn't hold up to scrutiny, that doesn't bode well for your hypotyhesis. I think you were right earlier in your post when you said "neutrinos are very hard to detect". They still are and that's the problem with this idea.

How is this ?

In November 2012, American scientists used a particle accelerator to send a coherent neutrino message through 780 feet of rock. This marks the first use of neutrinos for communication, and future research may permit binary neutrino messages to be sent immense distances through even the densest materials, such as the Earth's core

Neutrinos
Neutrino-based communication is a first

Unfortunately the speed was about 1bit/s

originally posted by: Gothmog
How is this ?

In November 2012, American scientists used a particle accelerator to send a coherent neutrino message through 780 feet of rock. This marks the first use of neutrinos for communication, and future research may permit binary neutrino messages to be sent immense distances through even the densest materials, such as the Earth's core

Neutrinos
Neutrino-based communication is a first

Unfortunately the speed was about 1bit/s

According to your link the speed was ten times slower than that though it's not clear from this if the speed included the repetition or not.

Stancil approached Fermilab with the proposal and, having gained agreement, the researchers encoded the word “neutrino” into binary code. This was then used to modulate the neutrino beam with a bit rate of 0.1 bits/s. The message was received with a bit error rate of just 1%, allowing the message to be decoded easily after one repetition. Nevertheless, given the short distance over which communication was achieved, the low data transmission rate and the extreme technology required to achieve it (MINERvA itself weighs several tonnes), neutrinos are clearly not a viable method of communication in the short term.

And some people thought 56k modems were slow...


The fact that something can be done very inefficiently isn't necessarily a good indicator that it will be useful in the future. You can also destroy an anthill with a nuclear bomb, and you might be the first to do that too, but there are a lot easier and cheaper ways to do that, just like there are a lot easier and cheaper and way faster ways to communicate than using neutrinos.

Everything is pretty much transparent to neutrinos. Including any communication hardware you propose to use them.

They need vast pools of water just to detect a hint one of trillions constantly hitting the earth.

a reply to: swanne

a reply to: Arbitrageur

The fact that something can be done very inefficiently isn't necessarily a good indicator that it will be useful in the future

Nor is it an indicator that it will not be.

At the end of The Hummingbird Project ( I think that was the name) one of the main character wanted to use Neutrino's to get a faster way to trade stocks to make a lot of money. That was the first time I heard of that.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

How much faster and efficient are today's computers compared to the very first computers?

a reply to: Alien Abduct
Computers don't use neutrinos which are hard to make and hard to detect. To speed up computers you just had to use more transistors and make them smaller, but the transistors have worked since they were invented, so the improvements could be made incrementally in small steps.

It's not easy to see how a similar process can apply to neutrino creation or detection. Swanne proposed some kind of fundamental improvement in neutrino detection, which if possible might make it work but the idea was based on apparently flawed measurements. The production side could be tackled too, but making neutrinos currently is very expensive, and I don't see any clear path to making them faster and cheaper like happened with transistors.

So I won't say efficient communication with neutrinos will never happen, beyond the trivial experiments like taking 90 minutes to send the word "neutrino" using neutrinos, but I see nothing on the horizon that would make it competitive as a communication technology. Maybe in 100 years it could be used to communicate with submarines since there aren't many viable alternatives for that, so even inefficient communication might be better than no communication, but even that would take some significant advances I think. For example submarines move and with the current neutrino beams, it's not easy to aim them in a different direction. This is the facility that was used to send the word "neutrino" in 90 minutes, I think, look at how big it is in this aerial view:

scx1.b-cdn.net...

Sure transistors used to be bigger, but they were never that big.

Nice idea, but!
you need a sun or a nuc bomb to make them.
And they are not stop't by shilding.
If you could make a beam of them,
it would be the best wepon ever.

ask the hadron collider people if they make any?

originally posted by: buddha
ask the hadron collider people if they make any?

What, you slept through CERN's dubious announcement they measured neutrinos going faster than light, several years ago?

Which by the way, turned out to me another measurement error, due to a bad connection from a cable to their instrument I think. So neutrinos don't go faster than light after all, and the apparent measurement errors in 2010 mentioned in the OP have also been resolved as an instrumentation issue and not a change in decay rates due to neutrino emissions.

Neutrino beams are not impossible or new... there are a few neutrino beamlines around the world...

JPARC in Japan is an example. All you need for one is a Carbon Target and a high luminocity proton beam and a powerful pulsed horn magnet.

I say All you need but it is obviously expensive, the infrastructure is huge and basically the effort that several nations get involved in rather than... Joe Blogs from down the road.

a reply to: ErosA433

Interesting. I am not aware of that development; could you elaborate?

a reply to: swanne

Smart 5G technology has been limited by battery life.
There are IP issues obviously.
You know who's turn it is to play?

a reply to: swanne

Neutrino beams have been a thing for a while in the field of Particle Physics research, specifically to study neutrino oscillation.

I worked for an experiment at JPARC, T2K Specifically but a quick search on the history of Neutrino beams will give you the following.

1962 - AGS accelerator at Brookhaven. Proton on Beryllium at 15GeV. The point of the experiment was to prove the existence of two distinct flavours of neutrino, muon and electron neutrinos. Protons striking Beryllium at the end of a long straight section resulted in the production of Pions and a small amount of Kaons, boosted forward in the direction of the beam. These decay, and along the beam path there was a 13.5m thick iron wall shield in front of a spark chamber detector. The idea of the shield is to stop any kaons or pions that are left theoretically allowing only neutrinos to pass through. With a high enough intensity beam and enough repetitions, they would see some neutrinos interacting in the spark chambers.

pion and kaon decay is primarily to muons at those energies. If the decays of these particles are identical to say, neutrons decaying to protons which will also produce electrons and neutrinos, then they expected to see a mix of electron showers and muons in the spark chambers. The result was actually the observation of only muons

At the same time a Beam was commissioned at CERN and became operational in 1963, the difference being that it had a Van der Meer magnetic Horn magnet to focus the pions and kaons before they decay, the goal producing a more collimated beam and thus higher intensity at in a detector.


Since then there have been Neutrino beams produced at FermiLab, Brookhaven, SLAC, Serpukhov, CERN and JPAC to name a few facilities. All doing it in slightly different ways, different targets, different proton beam intensities etc.

a reply to: swanne

Very nice thought, I like it. But the way things go, it'd probably be a lot easier to make and use a quantum entanglement communication system, with a central server farm location that redirects communications. You could be the next galaxy over and have 0ping.

a reply to: WhyDidIJoin

I remember hearing something about Hummingbird and negative Ions.
There are practical applications for etching and building next generation devices using ion/neutrino beams.
The name Joseph L. Barton shows up in a lot of carbon deposition research documentation from as far back as 1968.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

If you know someone with a security clearance for a facility like Pine Gap in Australia you might be able to get some information from their museum? The rumored deep antennae under Pine gap could have used the 1930's technology, it was linked with low frequency Auroral propagation technology During WW2. So many of the Physics advancements after the 1920's were hidden or covered with disinformation that we will never know.

The Queensland UFO group might have some information that won't waste the resources of the search honeypots.

uforq.asn.au...