@ManishEarth : I looked at that once in this Phys.SE post, although not numerically.

Anyone know anything about \captionof versus \caption in LaTeX?

@ChrisWhite \captionof is used for Tables & TikzPictures

It's giving me double-spaced captions while \caption is giving me single spaced

I probably should ask this on TeX.SE

says singlespacing undefined in families caption@fnt

Okay, there must be something about the packages I installed then

A simple test shows it does work correctly

Found it

I invoke \doublespacing in the main body

Guess I have to type \singlespacing before each use of \captionof and \doublespacing after

could probably wrap that in some sort of \newcommand? my tex-fu is relatively weak though, I could be way off

I'm checking Tex.SE for this

Time for some physics trivia: Did you know that, for the hydrogen atom, the wavelength of the photon emitted in a transition from one state to the one directly below it is exactly the distance light would travel in one (initial) orbital period?

^what does this mean

ahhh hahaha

very nice

@ChrisWhite: Uh, isn't -76 in the south?

Or am I thinking wrongly of RA-Dec again?

Yeah, that is a bit of a problem

Unless they've managed to see through the planet (and aim a telescope downwards at the same time)

@ChrisWhite The classic SUper-K picture of the sun in neutrinos is taken by integrating the measured flux 24 hours a day for a long time.

@ChrisWhite I'm pretty sure at least ICECUBE does that!

So about half the time they are imaging the sun through the planet. But they reject atmospheric (i.e. generated by cosmic rays) neutrinos mostly by energy, rather than by direction as the atmospheric neutrinos also penetrate the planet pretty well.

...but that's not a telescope

The actual cosmic muons make a very different signature in the detector and are easy to reject directly on that basis.

right

@Danu Is so.

icecube is a telescope

Mind you, it has very poor focus and works best at very high energies.

That counts as a telescope? Oh :)

in a loose sense, yes... it's a detector with directional sensitivity = telescope

As an experimental noob I picture a telescope as something that points up into the sky

:)

I guess you could claim that you need focussing, but that's up for debate I suppose

That definition has to be slightly generalized...

@Kyle At least you need the pointing to be better than this-side/that-side, but the water cherenkov machines can do +/- a few degrees

I'll just let you guys do the talking ;) I took a single course that basically gave me a list of particle physics experiments and related machines at a very superficial level, but that's it

@Kyle Is that IceCube's ultra-high energy map?

hmm it's one of the ice cube maps, afaik it's all neutrinos they think are from astrophysical sources

(that they are sensitive to)

this is the one that shows something that looks like a substantial excess from near, but convincingly offset from, the galactic centre (Sag A*)

point 14 is more or less on top of SagA* iirc

yeah the talk I heard on this, there didn't seem to be any concern over an asymmetry in the hemispheres... your map says 'galactic', does that mean it (sort of maybe) shows an excess in the galactic southern hemisphere?

right, in my image the lines are swapped (and there are some more points, guess yours is more recent)

I don't think that image jumps out at me with an excess in either hemisphere (other than the obvious Sag A* blob)

though the offset from the GC is intriguing

last I heard they were unsure

I believe they are setting a pretty high bar for "statistically significant", and that big cluster is non-trivial but not quite up to the level they want before making any claims that could look silly later.

They still have relative few events in the energy range where they feel confident they can track them back.