Live data from Hacker News

The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

backreaction.blogspot.com

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#31

I'm surprised Sabine did not bring her usual drama and controversy to this one and talk about the fact that there is, shall we say, "extreme tension" between the results from LSND/MiniBooNE and those of other experiments. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11... The 4th figure is the money shot.

Unpaywalled https://escholarship.org/content/qt496002sb/qt496002sb.pdf I don't have the background to interpret these figures, and based on a quick search for MiniBooNE mentions in the paper, the authors don't seem to say that MiniBooNE is an outlier relative to all the other experiments. Where does the paper talk about the tension? EDIT: based on the comments below, it sounds like the tension is between appearance-b…

They do mention it, it's at the end of their conclusions:

"The results explicitly show the strong tension between null results from disappearance searches and appearance-based indications for the existence of light sterile neutrinos." p7

So yes they are saying there is tension between disappearance and appearance experiments, which is which?

"In this analysis, the measurement of muon (anti)neutrino disappearance by the MINOS experiment is combined with electron antineutrino disappearance measurements from the Daya Bay and Bugey-3 [16] experiments using the signal confi- dence level (CLs) method [17, 18]. The combined results are analyzed in light of the muon (anti)neutrino to electron (anti)neutrino appearance indications from the LSND [8] and MiniBooNE [9] experiments." p3

So yes they are saying there is tension between MiniBooNE results and MINOS, Bugey-3. I've no insight into the results either but GP's characterization of this paper was accurate.

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#32

I'm surprised Sabine did not bring her usual drama and controversy to this one and talk about the fact that there is, shall we say, "extreme tension" between the results from LSND/MiniBooNE and those of other experiments. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11... The 4th figure is the money shot.

Unpaywalled https://escholarship.org/content/qt496002sb/qt496002sb.pdf I don't have the background to interpret these figures, and based on a quick search for MiniBooNE mentions in the paper, the authors don't seem to say that MiniBooNE is an outlier relative to all the other experiments. Where does the paper talk about the tension? EDIT: based on the comments below, it sounds like the tension is between appearance-b…

uh,they do say "Regions of parameter space to the right of the red contour are excluded." you can see for yourself where mosto of the miniBoone resylts lie. By the way, why not link the preprint? https://arxiv.org/abs/1607.01177

The existence of a contradiction with other experiments was also something that was reported at the time:

> Despite the affirmation of LSND’s 20-year-old results, physicists have not concluded that there is a fourth neutrino species. The findings directly contradict those by a diverse set of experiments, including the Main Injector Neutrino Oscillation Search, the Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment, and the IceCube Neutrino Observatory

https://physicstoday.scitation.org/do/10.1063/PT.6.1.2018061...

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#33
post #14

Why do we need a particle accelerator to run experiments on neutrinos, given their apparent abundance? Is there any other way to observe neutrinos without a particle accelerator?

That's a good and subtle question, with multiple relevant answers:

1) As _Microft says in a sibling reply, the reason is because for this type of experiment, the researchers were studying short-baseline oscillations. A curious property of neutrinos is that they oscillate -- we interact with them through their "flavor", but they propagate through space in a mixture of flavor eigenstates, so a neutrino that is created as an electron-type neutrino can interact later as a muon-type (or tau-type) neutrino.

LSND and MiniBooNE study short-baseline oscillations, where L/E (the distance travelled divided by the particle energy) is very small, a few meters on a ~1MeV neutrino. By comparison, almost all the (vast number!) neutrinos that pass through each of us each second come from much farther away. Most of them come from the Sun, so their origin is distributed over a sphere 100x the diameter of the Earth (and, to make matters worse, something called the MSW-effect scrambles things further). So, people who study these effects either build an accelerator or snuggle up next to a reactor.

In principle, one could use the existing neutrinos from the Sun to do this sort of experiment, but one would need a material capable of blocking all of, say, the electron-type neutrinos from the Sun. If such a thing existed, we could place a detector a few meters away from that filter and watch for electron-type neutrinos to reappear. Alas, the only known material perhaps capable of achieving such a task exists for a fraction of a second inside core-collapse supernovae -- the extremely dense infalling matter is so dense that it can actually trap some of the outgoing neutrinos.... until the neutrino pressure blows it apart.

2) In this specific case, the experiments were originally done with muon anti-neutrinos. The easiest way to get those is with a particle accelerator.

3) One can also attempt to get at this sort of thing (though the approach has different sensitivity/systematics) through reactor-neutrino experiments, as one of the downvoted posts below suggests. For the shortest baselines, though, there's probably really nothing like a beam-experiment.

4) (an aside) One thing that Hossenfelder doesn't really address in the article: There are still systematic-uncertainty questions around LSND and Mini/MicroBooNE. The modern experiment has addressed many of them, but not all. The experiments are difficult and the anomalies have their quirks. Yes, the combined result reaches a statistical power of ~6-sigma, but I don't think you'll have to look too far to find credible experimentalists who have concerns about the result.

This is in contrast to something like the Higgs, where the discovery was fairly clean and simultaneously confirmed by two groups. LSND was huge news back in the day, but the difficulty/expense of replication and the substantial experimental challenges mean that the situation remains fairly murky.

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#34
post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

She mentions this in her transcript. First of all they aren’t as common on earth as other particles (she says “10-15 have passed through you while listening to this paragraph”. How many photons hit you in that period of time? If you can make a bunch at once (as a side effect of another high energy interaction) you can look at them in a known place at a known time. Secondly, she mentions LSND which was a big tub of li…

She said 10 to the 15. 10^15

To be fair I also heard 10-15 on the first pass and then had to think about it for a second.

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unpaywalled https://escholarship.org/content/qt496002sb/qt496002sb.pdf I don't have the background to interpret these figures, and based on a quick search for MiniBooNE mentions in the paper, the authors don't seem to say that MiniBooNE is an outlier relative to all the other experiments. Where does the paper talk about the tension? EDIT: based on the comments below, it sounds like the tension is between appearance-b…

They do mention it, it's at the end of their conclusions: "The results explicitly show the strong tension between null results from disappearance searches and appearance-based indications for the existence of light sterile neutrinos." p7 So yes they are saying there is tension between disappearance and appearance experiments, which is which? "In this analysis, the measurement of muon (anti)neutrino disappearance by t…

[deleted]

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#36
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of experiments that do not require particle accelerators but if you want to observe neutrinos after they have travelled only a few dozen meters, you need a source at that distance.

> if you want to observe neutrinos after they have travelled only a few dozen meters Genuinely curious here, why is the travelled distance important?

From TFA:

> the three types of neutrino-flavors mix into each other. That means, if you start with, say, only electron-neutrinos, they’ll convert into muon-neutrinos as they travel. And then they’ll convert back into electron neutrinos. So, depending on what distance from a source you make a measurement, you’ll get more electron neutrinos or more muon neutrinos.

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#37
post #14

Why do we need a particle accelerator to run experiments on neutrinos, given their apparent abundance? Is there any other way to observe neutrinos without a particle accelerator?

From TFA:

> we have three flavors of neutrinos and these mix into each other as they travel….There are natural sources like the sun, and neutrinos that are created in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit. And then there are neutrinos from manmade sources, particle accelerators and nuclear power plants. In all of these cases, you know how many neutrinos are created of which type at what energy. And then after some distance you measure them and see what you get.

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#38
post #14

Why do we need a particle accelerator to run experiments on neutrinos, given their apparent abundance? Is there any other way to observe neutrinos without a particle accelerator?

There are lots of experiments that do not require particle accelerators but if you want to observe neutrinos after they have travelled only a few dozen meters, you need a source at that distance.

How do they know they are only detecting neutrinos from the designated source, and not also other neutrinos mixed in?

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#39
post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> if you want to observe neutrinos after they have travelled only a few dozen meters Genuinely curious here, why is the travelled distance important?

If you want to measure neutrinos transforming, then knowing the distance to source lets to calculate rate of transformation.

Why can't you sample at one point on the earth's surface and sample again at that point's antipode? You would know the distance that was travelled, and have measurements at both points.

Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?

#40
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are lots of experiments that do not require particle accelerators but if you want to observe neutrinos after they have travelled only a few dozen meters, you need a source at that distance.

How do they know they are only detecting neutrinos from the designated source, and not also other neutrinos mixed in?

I am not an expert on this, so take it with a grain of salt:

Neutrinos are not directly detected. What happens is that they interact with matter in a medium and produce muons or electrons that are moving faster than the speed of light in that medium. That's only possible because the speed of light in said medium is less than the speed of light in vaccuum by the way. These fast-moving, charged particles lead to the generation of a cone of cherenkov radiation, not unlike a supersonic object is producing a mach cone. From that cone, the direction of the particle motion can be inferred.

One could also keep the detector running while switching the source on and off to establish a baseline and calculate the excess of detected particles while the source was switched on.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov_radiation

Post reply on HN