Tangentially related if you're interested: I worked on IceCube and ARA as an undergrad in college and wrote a lengthy paper on the autonomous power stations we built for the ARA neutrino detectors at the South Pole.
Not only that, but a neutrino of that energy! Its speed must have been ridiculously close to c, rather than "only" extremely close to c like almost all other neutrinos.
Another impressive one: Ultra high energy cosmic rays have been detected to 3e20 eV (300 EeV; detected by the Fly's Eye Collaboration). They're nuclei, however, so the rest mess is at least about 10000x higher.
If you're interested in popular science but haven't read about this before, consider following the link to the GZK cutoff from that page. It's super cool.
I used to work for the Pierre Auger Observatory. Happy to try to answer any questions if folks are curious. :)
I was hoping O'Shea Jackson had gotten into physics, but apparently not. IceCube, in this case, is a Neutrino Observatory is the first detector of its kind, designed to observe the cosmos from deep within the South Pole ice.
I've not heard of it before, looks very, uh, cool :-)
> I've not heard of it before, looks very, uh, cool :-)
Indeed! I worked for IceCube for a bit over a year, several years ago, as a Winterover Experiment Operator - more like "on-site technician" than "frozen experimental physicist". Happy to answer questions about that experience.
How many people apply each year?
What criteria do they use to judge whether you can mentally(and physically) manage months of darkness in an extreme environment?
I don't know, having only been in the HR process from the employee end, but my impression is that IceCube gets more qualified applicants than there are positions. IceCube is (at least was) noticeably more proactive than other Science groups in terms of hiring; it's a bit past time to apply with them for next winter[1], but some other similar groups might be worth looking at if you're keen [2][3][4].
One thing that's perhaps not obvious: at least in the US program, the vast majority of people who work in Antarctica are not directly working for Science projects. IIRC, the winter I spent at S Pole there were 41 people at Pole with 8 of those employed to keep experiments running, that same winter McMurdo had more like 150-200 people and I don't think a single one was a "beaker". So, if you're interested in Antarctic work in general, start by looking for jobs with the support contractor, currently Leidos[5].
> What criteria do they use to judge whether you can mentally(and physically) manage months of darkness in an extreme environment?
Months of darkness is pretty far down on the list of challenges for most people in this sort of work really. It's not common, but I've heard of people only being outside for the walk from the plane to the station at the start of a season, then back to the plane at the end. Inside the station it's comfortable, could be anywhere that's very dry and fairly high elevation. The most relatable analogy I've found to a winter at Pole (except dry and high elevation, obviously) is a 9- or 12-month trip on a big boat with about 40 other people - the biggest challenges are about the other people you're with, and the isolation from the people you're not with.
What you're asking about is is called "PQ" (Physical Qualification, I believe) and when I did it there were three distinct parts: medical, dental, psychological. They don't do the psychological part the same way as when I last went through PQ, which is a good thing because the old psych eval was a bad joke. Basically the PQ process is about ensuring that a person isn't at risk of needing an evacuation in the middle of winter, because that would be slow, very expensive, and risky. Things like gallstones, cancer, heart conditions, wisdom teeth, alcoholism are red flags. I believe in recent years there's been more of an emphasis on team building before deploying too, not sure how that relates to the PQ itself.
What employers /do/ look for varies a bit with role, as you'd expect, but in general flexibility and self-direction are helpful. Prior experience in the area is good too, but certainly not critical - I worked for the support contractor in the mid-00s in fuels, and of the dozen or so in our group I think only one or two had ever fueled a plane outside of Antarctica. IceCube generally seemed keen on technical generalists, good communication skills are also important. My co-winterover (and the first Norwegian to winter at South Pole) had a PhD in physics, I had a BS in electrical/computer engineering. Basically, IceCube wanted someone who could fix minor and/or very-urgent problems directly, and fall back to phone/email with an expert up North when appropriate.
Oh cool! Dag is great, if you're keen on working with Antarctica do ask him about our winter - most of the challenging/interesting stuff didn't make it on to the blog.
Headlines like this kind of discredit the research - because we all know that it's complete BS that it "proves the theory". It's easy to dismiss the whole publication based untruthful headlines like this.
The author is quoted with "This result proves the feasibility of neutrino astronomy—and IceCube’s ability to do it", which is a completely different claim.
wow, my friend went to install some servers for this at the south pole in.... must have been 2006? It's pretty crazy how they drill these deep holes in the ice, then drop baubles on a cable where the baubles actually have some amount of computing power to process the incoming signals.
Hey hum sorry to contact you here but I did not want to write to you on your acting address and I don't use Twitter. If I followed the math correctly I think there is a small mistake in the computation of diffused light at https://gabrielgambetta.com/computer-graphics-from-scratch/0... : In figure 3.5, the two triangles that are presented side by side are not the same.
It follows I think that it is the cos of the Beta angle that should be used. Please correct me if I am wrong.
Also let me thank you again for making it available as your method is very clear for a beginner and your explanations are good and straight to the point. I have sworn to myself I would buy the book by the time I finish implementing part 1 :)
Hey, thanks for reaching out. As you've realized by yourself, the diagram is actually correct - but thanks for pointing out that it is confusing! The book is almost ready to go to print, but I'll see if this can still be fixed.
A long long time ago I was sitting with my mother in the living room when the big glass ashtray on the round table became a thousand pieces that dispersed like a liquid with a sand-like sound.
Someone told me that cosmic rays could do that. Scary.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1403.1253