First Neutrinos Detected At Fermilab Short-Baseline Detector (phys.org) 53
Scientists at Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory have observed the first neutrino interactions in the Short-Baseline Near Detector (SBND), marking a significant milestone in their efforts to explore neutrino oscillations and search for a potential fourth neutrino flavor that could challenge the Standard Model of particle physics. Phys.org reports: SBND is the final element that completes Fermilab's Short-Baseline Neutrino (SBN) Program and will play a critical role in solving a decades-old mystery in particle physics. Getting SBND to this point has been an international effort. The detector was built by an international collaboration of 250 physicists and engineers from Brazil, Spain, Switzerland, the United Kingdom and the United States. [...] The Short Baseline Neutrino Program at Fermilab will perform searches for neutrino oscillation and look for evidence that could point to this fourth neutrino. SBND is the near detector for the Short Baseline Neutrino Program while ICARUS, which started collecting data in 2021, is the far detector. A third detector called MicroBooNE finished recording particle collisions with the same neutrino beamline that same year.
The Short Baseline Neutrino Program at Fermilab differs from previous short-baseline measurements with accelerator-made neutrinos because it features both a near detector and far detector. SBND will measure the neutrinos as they were produced in the Fermilab beam and ICARUS will measure the neutrinos after they've potentially oscillated. So, where previous experiments had to make assumptions about the original composition of the neutrino beam, the SBN Program will definitively know. "Understanding the anomalies seen by previous experiments has been a major goal in the field for the last 25 years," said Schmitz. "Together SBND and ICARUS will have outstanding ability to test the existence of these new neutrinos."
The Short Baseline Neutrino Program at Fermilab differs from previous short-baseline measurements with accelerator-made neutrinos because it features both a near detector and far detector. SBND will measure the neutrinos as they were produced in the Fermilab beam and ICARUS will measure the neutrinos after they've potentially oscillated. So, where previous experiments had to make assumptions about the original composition of the neutrino beam, the SBN Program will definitively know. "Understanding the anomalies seen by previous experiments has been a major goal in the field for the last 25 years," said Schmitz. "Together SBND and ICARUS will have outstanding ability to test the existence of these new neutrinos."
I'm betting (Score:4, Funny)
I'm betting the standard model survives the challenge intact. But then I know roughly as much about these things as you do, dear reader, and that rounds to fuck-all.
Re:I'm betting (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Big Science is spineless now. (Score:5, Informative)
"Time was, when they didn't understand something, they would dive directly at it, inundate themselves with new mysteries, and try to figure it out as they went. "
Maybe science in the 1800s and before did this, not since 1900. What happens is physicists come up with theories and models built on what they know from previous experiments and current theories and models. The most promising, judged by fellow physicists, are forwarded for experimentation at the accelerators and other various sundry labs. You don't just turn on an accelerator beam and look at what comes out. Even the detectors themselves have a fair amount of theory backing them so they know what they are looking for. One detector may specialize in one particle, another specializes in another. Even with one particle, one has to look for special properties that may differ between detectors for that same particle.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Big Science is spineless now. (Score:5, Insightful)
Relativity and QM were the last big steps
Actually, both of those have been united in QFT. So we have a perfectly good model of everything quantum and gravity, except for where curvature gets large and distances over which curvature changes get really tiny, like near the Planck scale.
There, theories break down and we don't know what happens. That is in extreme gravity situations, like near the Big Bang or inside black holes.
Also, the Standard Model, from the sheer observation of H/He ratio in primordial gas (75/25), determines there's just 3 neutrino flavors. And with that, 3 flavors of every basic particle: quarks, electrons, neutrinos.
Yet we keep looking. Because once we can find an observational crack in either of those models, however small, we can once again scrap a whole bunch of theories and narrow down the possibilities.
Reason as to why it gets exponentially difficult to make any observational progress is that our current models work really really well: We've long picked all the low-hanging fruit.
Re: (Score:2)
Relativity and QM were the last big steps
Actually, both of those have been united in QFT.
Yes and no. Relativistic quantum mechanics unites special relativity with QM, and Quantum Field Theory adds in classical fields (i.e., electricity and magnetism). But General Relativity isn't covered in QFT.
Fortunately for us, the types of objects where we need to apply General Relativity are completely different from those where we need to apply quantum mechanics, so there isn't anywhere that we need both. Unfortunately for us,the types of objects where we need to apply General Relativity are completely d
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Relativity and QM were the last big steps, evolved from very little preceding either of them but weird electrical behavior.
Um, what? Quantum mechanics has a very long history built over centuries [wikipedia.org]. Einstein's Theory of General Relativity is an adaption of Special Relativity which extends classical mechanics proposed by Newton. To say there was "little preceding either of them" is just ignorance over the history of both.
It seems like the current system is, by comparison, intellectually incestuous: Instruments built on assumption after assumption, like an Aristotlean orrery. It's not hard to avoid a mystery with lazy workarounds.
What are you talking about? Instruments are not built on assumption like a wishing fork. There is hard science behind what they measure and what the level of precision should be.
Re: (Score:2)
"Hard science" in instrumentation...hmm. A dishearteningly huge amount of statistical interpretation goes into these types of experiments. And guess where a lot of the assumptions in interpretation come from? The theories that seek to be disproven. Part o
Re: (Score:2)
No you said: "Relativity and QM were the last big steps, evolved from very little preceding either of them but weird electrical behavior." That is clearly false.
"Hard science" in instrumentation...hmm. A dishearteningly huge amount of statistical interpretation goes into these types of experiments.
By "statistical interpretation" you mean science relies on repeatability and reproducibility which rely on statistics. You do know using statistics is normal in every day right?
And guess where a lot of the assumptions in interpretation come from? The theories that seek to be disproven. Part of the strategy for limiting the scope of the question. It's not wrong. No, "not wrong" at all. Which is the problem. As a ton of researchers will tell you.
You do know that "theories' are not wild conjectures that scientist made one night by smoking too much weed, right? Parts of theories are proven before they are used. It see
Re: (Score:2)
That is clearly false. There was no foreseeable incling of relativity on the horizon before it emerged. The entire concept was laughable until it was proven. And QM is still unintuitive. Hindsight is not sight at all.
As far as
Re: (Score:2)
That is clearly false. There was no foreseeable incling of relativity on the horizon before it emerged. The entire concept was laughable until it was proven.
I suppose you are talking about Genera Relativity and there were no inkling before Einstein presented it. That is a lie [wikipedia.org]. Before General Relativity, Poincaré used relativity when applying forces to electrons. Even Einstein himself proposed Special Relativity ten years before. Please present evidence that people laughed at Einstein. Scientists
And QM is still unintuitive. Hindsight is not sight at all.
Your false contention was that there no history before QM. Unintuitive is not the same "unprecedented". Those are different words with different meanings.
As far as non sequiturs go, that's quite a doozy. Statistics is completely reliant on conditional assumptions. Any version of it that isn't, isn't statistics at all - it's just counting and arithmetic.
And you k
Re: (Score:2)
That is clearly false. There was no foreseeable incling of relativity on the horizon before it emerged. The entire concept was laughable until it was proven. And QM is still unintuitive. Hindsight is not sight at all.
There doesn't need to be a "foreseeable inkling" of any theory for it to be based on a great deal of what preceded it. I think that was Unknowing Fool's point, i.e., s/he took issue with your claim there was "very little preceding" relativity and quantum theory. And if scientists laughed at all at these theories, it wasn't for long. More like they said "that's weird" and scratched their heads but noticed that they work. And continue to scratch their heads today, especially when it comes to quantum theory.
As far as non sequiturs go, that's quite a doozy. Statistics is completely reliant on conditional assumptions. Any version of it that isn't, isn't statistics at all - it's just counting and arithmetic. Reproducible results prove the internal logic of the experiment, which is one necessary thing for valid science. It does not and cannot address the validity of assumptions.
Yo
Re: (Score:2)
Not so. Every single fallacy to which statistics is subject (e.g., bias) is rooted in the conditional assumptions attached to the input, which produces the interpretation of the output. The issue with modern methods isn't that their stats are wrong, but that they've been designed to produce trivi
Re: (Score:3)
You don't just turn on an accelerator beam and look at what comes out.
Absolutely correct, it’s a very, very, very bad idea [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be detected unless you fund our enormous accelerator and then maybe, just maybe, we will be able to detect them.
lets build one in texas called the superconducting super collider
Re: (Score:2)
My read of that is it was actually a serious thing, and one of the last bold science projects. Politicians had the nerve to plead poverty on it while spending tens to hundreds of times more "developing" weapons that couldn't pass tests just to prove they could be safely stored in a warehouse.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can't be detected unless you fund our enormous accelerator and then maybe, just maybe, we will be able to detect them.
Neutrinos are not detected by accelerators. SBND makes neutrinos using an accelerator. Detectors have existed decades before SBND.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
That's using an overly narrow, inadequate definition of observation. Not to mention that gravitational lensing seems to refute your assertion that we cant observe the bending of light because it's going "straight" [actually on a geodesic] from the "perspective" of the gravitationally "bent" space.
Re: (Score:2)
That's using an overly narrow, inadequate definition of observation. Not to mention that gravitational lensing seems to refute your assertion that we cant observe the bending of light because it's going "straight" [actually on a geodesic] from the "perspective" of the gravitationally "bent" space.
False, you cannot. You see the objects behind the waves wiggle (if you were able to observe such small wiggles, which we cannot) and from inference know that they cannot be moving so. But again, unobservable. You are confusing waves with a gravitational potential field, which is essentially static. And again, even that looks straight as an arrow, it’s just we know the objects behind them cannot have those shapes (such as a ring) and therefore must be seeing a distortion. Again, unobservable. Only
Re: (Score:2)
The low hanging fruit of complicated but cheap to develop theories and experiments seem to be gone in particle physics, now we seem to need insanely large machines to achieve absurd energy levels that are pretty much built with no "guarantee" to find anything, guarantee in quotes because they are exploring new energy levels but the theories that indicate that can exist something at these levels are often times pretty weak and they are built at that level because is what we can achieve technologically, not b
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think you meant Sabine Hossenfelder. [youtube.com] I'm a fan of her videos too.
Serendipitous spinoffs are nice, but pretty much by definition, you can't make them the objective of research. You need to be aiming at something presupposed, even if it turns out in the end not to be there. And sometimes not finding anything can create a paradigm-shift. [wikipedia.org]
Re: (Score:2)
You are correct about her name, sorry.
Regarding the research, I think it is actually her argument that the current particle physics experiments are more on the camp of "throw at the wall and see what sticks" with some not so well established theories than the "we really think there will be something there, it there isn't we will be quite surprised".
Re: (Score:2)
When was that? It was definitely some time before Newton. Even the Alchemists were big into theories, they were just very closed mouthed about sharing them.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Read Faraday, then. He was big in both theories and experimentation.
Re: (Score:3)
Time was, when they didn't understand something, they would dive directly at it, inundate themselves with new mysteries, and try to figure it out as they went. Out of that came progress so rapid that fundamental theories changed multiple times in a single lifetime. But now...
I don't know where you've been but scientists still dive directly at things. For example the current crisis in cosmology with dark matter and dark energy is the subject of intense focus. By estimates, physicists do not know exactly what makes up 95% of the known universe. The confusion you are experiencing is that scientists have knowledge so they do not waste their time on things they already know. Scientists know that 95% is not the historic "aether".
Now when they find anomalies, they seem to "quarantine" them in little corners and take decades nibbling away at them, making extremely narrow investigations designed to not inconvenience anyone else's work with new oddities.
Again, scientists have figured things out so they do n
Re: (Score:2)
And that's where you admit unfamiliarity with the basic ideas of science. Occam's Razor is recursive, not a hard limit to imagination: You abandon assumptions when they consistently stop fitting observation.
LOL. That's the kind of claim a high school chemistry teacher would make, not a researcher. Let me do you a favor with a simple stat
Re: (Score:2)
And that's where you admit unfamiliarity with the basic ideas of science. Occam's Razor is recursive, not a hard limit to imagination: You abandon assumptions when they consistently stop fitting observation.
So physicists are not trying to determine what dark energy and dark matter are? Or with just one example did I destroy your premise?
LOL. That's the kind of claim a high school chemistry teacher would make, not a researcher. Let me do you a favor with a simple statement:
Again, you cannot pour chemicals over lead to make it into gold. That was figured out long ago. The fact you do not know that says a great deal of your other statements.
Science is open-ended. It's navigation, not digestion.
Science is based on . . . what for it . . . science. I could spend millions of dollars pouring chemicals over lead or I could rely on the centuries of scientific data before me that says it is not possible. Sc
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are. And in centuries past they were trying to determine the nature of the "luminiferous aether". And long before that, when philosophers only had tools of verbal logic to explore questions, they wanted to know where inside the substance of wood the fire was hiding. Dark matter started decades ago as a "god of the gaps" explanation for anomalous galactic motion, and still is. They've failed to find a single
Re: (Score:2)
Of course they are. And in centuries past they were trying to determine the nature of the "luminiferous aether".
Aether was debunked long ago. Please try to keep up.
And long before that, when philosophers only had tools of verbal logic to explore questions, they wanted to know where inside the substance of wood the fire was hiding.
Physicists are not philosophers. Try to keep up.
Dark matter started decades ago as a "god of the gaps" explanation for anomalous galactic motion, and still is.
Lord Kelvin was the first one to postulate about dark matter. Your "decades" label is off by a hundred years. It seems you do not know the history of it yet are sure you are right about it.
They've failed to find a single tangible trace: All evidence has simply been to re-confirm the anomaly.
There have been many observations that confirm it. That is bold faced lie and you know it. And we haven't gotten past your first paragraph.
You can do nuclear reactions that have the same result, albeit unprofitably.
What part of "chemicals" is unclear to you?
And since all the substances in your reactor/bomb are "chemicals," you absolutely can do it if you chose.
I see you redefining the term "chemicals"
Re: (Score:2)
Okay, I literally just told you that. You're having a Reading Comprehension Crisis.
LOL, the good ones are, you fucking moron. Not only do you not know what a scientist is, you don't know "philosopher" either. It's like English is a foreign language to you, and an more alien concept.
I'm out. This conversation was fun, but you're not listening.
Re: (Score:2)
LOL, the good ones are, you fucking moron. Not only do you not know what a scientist is, you don't know "philosopher" either. It's like English is a foreign language to you, and an more alien concept.
Again your inclination is to redefine words to mean what you want them to mean because it is conducive to your argument. Claiming that I don't speak English is just another tactic to cover up the fact you don't know what you are talking about.
I'm out. This conversation was fun, but you're not listening.
As I suspected, you have nothing to contribute.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Big Science depends on Big Funding. Big Funding depends on Big Bigwigs liking your proposal. Big Bigwigs these days don't much like risk.
Mmmmmm, flavor (Score:5, Funny)
and search for a potential fourth neutrino flavor
Let's hope it's a good one like Cookies N Cream or maybe banana nut bread.
Re: (Score:3)
and search for a potential fourth neutrino flavor
Let's hope it's a good one like Cookies N Cream or maybe banana nut bread.
Well we sure aren’t looking for truth and beauty anymore.
Re: (Score:2)
It's a pity those got renamed top and bottom.
(At least in the US. I heard that the Europeans were resisting that renaming, but that was decades ago, and I haven't heard since.)
Re: (Score:2)
"Second base" and "third base" might have been better.