800,000 Tons of Rock Excavated for Massive Underground Neutrino Detector (energy.gov) 77
800,000 tons of rock have been excavated from a South Dakota research facility — part of a multi-year process "to help answer some of physics' biggest questions," writes America's Energy Department.
"The caverns they excavated will hold a massive particle detector and accompanying equipment." Along with partners from more than 35 countries, the Department of Energy's Office of Science is supporting the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment at the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF-DUNE)... To study how neutrinos change type as they travel, LBNF-DUNE will be sending a stream of neutrinos from DOE's Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois [nearly 600 miles away] to South Dakota. At the beginning and end of the particles' journey, detectors will measure the types of neutrinos and antineutrinos. By comparing the rates of how both particles change type, scientists may find a difference that accounts for that ancient misalignment.
There's also hope they'll detect neutrinos from supernovae explosions — and maybe even decaying protons LBNF-DUNE will use massive, seven-story tall detectors. Each detector will have 17,000 tons of liquid argon. That vast quantity of liquid maximizes the likelihood that scientists will detect as many neutrinos as possible. The far detector — the one in South Dakota — will be located about a mile underground. That distance places it in the right location compared to Fermilab and blocks the detector from other cosmic particles.
"Just carrying out the excavation took three years," the announcement notes. ("The team had to dissemble the equipment, move it deep underground, and then reassemble it.) The 800,000 tons of rock were moved to the surface and then stored in a former mine.
"Now that the excavation is complete, the LBNF-DUNE team is moving on to the next steps. Currently, they are installing the far detector in the Sanford Underground Research Facility. They anticipate finishing construction and starting to operate the detector in 2028. The team will then move on to installing the near detector at Fermilab.
"The launch of LBNF/DUNE will be the beginning of a new era in understanding neutrinos and knowing more about our universe as a whole."
"The caverns they excavated will hold a massive particle detector and accompanying equipment." Along with partners from more than 35 countries, the Department of Energy's Office of Science is supporting the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment at the Long-Baseline Neutrino Facility (LBNF-DUNE)... To study how neutrinos change type as they travel, LBNF-DUNE will be sending a stream of neutrinos from DOE's Fermilab National Accelerator Laboratory in Illinois [nearly 600 miles away] to South Dakota. At the beginning and end of the particles' journey, detectors will measure the types of neutrinos and antineutrinos. By comparing the rates of how both particles change type, scientists may find a difference that accounts for that ancient misalignment.
There's also hope they'll detect neutrinos from supernovae explosions — and maybe even decaying protons LBNF-DUNE will use massive, seven-story tall detectors. Each detector will have 17,000 tons of liquid argon. That vast quantity of liquid maximizes the likelihood that scientists will detect as many neutrinos as possible. The far detector — the one in South Dakota — will be located about a mile underground. That distance places it in the right location compared to Fermilab and blocks the detector from other cosmic particles.
"Just carrying out the excavation took three years," the announcement notes. ("The team had to dissemble the equipment, move it deep underground, and then reassemble it.) The 800,000 tons of rock were moved to the surface and then stored in a former mine.
"Now that the excavation is complete, the LBNF-DUNE team is moving on to the next steps. Currently, they are installing the far detector in the Sanford Underground Research Facility. They anticipate finishing construction and starting to operate the detector in 2028. The team will then move on to installing the near detector at Fermilab.
"The launch of LBNF/DUNE will be the beginning of a new era in understanding neutrinos and knowing more about our universe as a whole."
Re: (Score:1)
It's a secret. You'll have to read the article to find out.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
About 320,000m.
Re: (Score:3)
320,000 cubic meters. Stupid interface ate the exponent.
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Now I have to take the cubic root to get an idea how big that is!
Damn ... will take a while to do that on paper.
Seems to be a "cube" of roughly 70m length.
For you American unliberated simpletons: for all practical purpose a meter is nearly the same as a yard. Just do not build a house half with meters and half with yards ...
Re: (Score:3)
No you don't, it's 1 meter X 1 meter X 320,000 meters or 320 km
Re: (Score:2)
Just do not build a house half with meters and half with yards ...
So where is my dog supposed to poop if we got no yards? Further to that where am I supposed to poop if all we have is yards?
Re: (Score:2)
Now I have to take the cubic root to get an idea how big that is!
Damn ... will take a while to do that on paper.
Seems to be a "cube" of roughly 70m length.
For you American unliberated simpletons: for all practical purpose a meter is nearly the same as a yard. Just do not build a house half with meters and half with yards ...
And the meter is defined by a fraction. Specifically:
The length of the path travelled by light in vacuum during a time interval of 1/299,792,458 of a second.
Although there is a tiny issue with gravity at the measurement site.
But seriously, what is the deal with people who fly into a rage when they hear anything other than metric? It almost sounds like rather than us simpletons, they aren't capable of knowing more than one thing.
My shop in the garage is metric. I mostly work in metric. But I reg
Re: (Score:1)
Originally the meter was defined to be one million meters from the equator to the north pole.
The silly rage some people have is about as ridiculous as getting all pissed about a 9 mm bolt versus a 10 mm bolt.
That is actually a thing that matters.
There was an incident in an British Airways flight, where the window flew away and the pilot nearly got sucked out of the window.
The maintenance engineer who replaced the screws, admitted - and surprisingly remembered - a mistake: instead of looking up the speccs f
Re: (Score:2)
Originally the meter was defined to be one million meters from the equator to the north pole.
Sure Of course, that wasn't at all accurate. So over time they used a number of different measurements, like a platinum bar. But it turns out that the bar didn't stay the same size. Prett yweird, but we must remember trhat the Metric only crowd likes to act as if they are some sort of standard. It turns out that saying 1 million meters form equator to north pole is completely stupid. The earth is an oblate spheroid, and the distance is not equal - therefore not accurate.
The silly rage some people have is about as ridiculous as getting all pissed about a 9 mm bolt versus a 10 mm bolt. That is actually a thing that matters. There was an incident in an British Airways flight, where the window flew away and the pilot nearly got sucked out of the window. The maintenance engineer who replaced the screws, admitted - and surprisingly remembered - a mistake: instead of looking up the speccs for the screws, or using an instrument, he just used his eye measures. So he put in replacements that had an unnoticeable different winding and were unnoticeable a little bit to thin.
Just random freak knowledge, no one cares about.
That has not a thing to do with this
Re: (Score:2)
Time is naturally measured using a distance metric.
How long will it take to make those eggs? It will take about 5400000000000 light centimeters.
Before you know it, you've re-invented the ad hoc CGS system that came before SI, but removed the S. Everything can be expressed in other units, perhaps just 2 of them: Centimeters, and Grams.
Re: (Score:2)
So we've had it backwards all along. Before you know it, you've re-invented the ad hoc CGS system that came before SI, but removed the S. Everything can be expressed in other units, perhaps just 2 of them: Centimeters, and Grams.
I miss my Grams.
Re: (Score:2)
320,000 cubic meters. Stupid interface ate the exponent.
works fine for me just like in the bc calculator: 320,000m^3
Re: (Score:3)
Re:How much is 800,000 tons? (Score:4, Funny)
How much is 800,000 tons?
About 1.76 GLb or 1.64GiLbs
Re: (Score:2)
How much is 800,000 tons? I know they wouldn't have listed the amount in the title unless it was very little or a lot, but which?
That's more than the weight of five adult African elephants.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
very little
Its standard civil engineering work. The requirements were a lot which took three years to reprocess the overburden from the rock cut into an existing underground mineshaft.
I oversaw CA smallest state inspected dam in Carlsbad, a 1,000,000 cu ft remove and replace with engineered fill which took 2yrs. Its now a dog park but the dam precipitates out toxins from downstream fish hatchery.
Re: (Score:2)
800,000 tons * 2,000 lbm/ton = 1,600,000,000 lbm of rock.
1 ft^3 of rock weights about 200lbm so:
1,600,000,000 / 200 = 8,000,000 ft^3 of rock removed.
But, many nerds don't know how much a ft^3 is so here's something you can understand:
"The displacement of the Japanese battleship Yamato, which was approximately 72,000 long tons (73,000 t) at full load."
72,000 Ltons * 1.12LTon/Ton = 80,640tons
=>
1 Yamato = 80,640T
Rock removed = 800,000T
=>
800,000 / 80,640 = 9.920 Yamatos
The Space Ship Yamato was made from
Re: (Score:2)
How much is 800,000 tons? I know they wouldn't have listed the amount in the title unless it was very little or a lot, but which?
A whole lot of railroad track ballast....
Excavated? (Score:2)
I glanced over TFA and I couldn't confirm this but; any reasons they didn't use dynamite?
Tunnels through rock usually use that method. It's been used for railway tunnels etc. for ages.
Even in a city where I lived, they used dynamite to clear the rock under a street to install new water and sewer bigger pipes deeper than the old ones although in another city with the same use case, I have been told dynamiting was forbidden by that city in their case so it took them ages compared to the other city.
Anyway, may
Re: (Score:3)
I glanced over TFA and I couldn't confirm this but; any reasons they didn't use dynamite?
Tunnels through rock usually use that method. It's been used for railway tunnels etc. for ages.
Even in a city where I lived, they used dynamite to clear the rock under a street to install new water and sewer bigger pipes deeper than the old ones although in another city with the same use case, I have been told dynamiting was forbidden by that city in their case so it took them ages compared to the other city.
Anyway, maybe it would have taken less time than 3 years using dynamite if indeed they didn't use any and I assume they are far from any city.
Or, maybe they did use dynamite but don't mention to sound somehow more politically correct. My inquiring mind is curious...
There is a link in TFA to an article about the construction https://news.fnal.gov/2021/05/... [fnal.gov] It doesn't mention dynamite as such but "blasting".
Re: (Score:1)
Blasting can be done for a small area and with little setup.
https://bestsupportunderground... [bestsuppor...ground.com]
Re: (Score:2)
For doing tunnels that are long and uniform, blasting comes out as more expensive and takes longer to do. Blasting can be done for a small area and with little setup. https://bestsupportunderground... [bestsuppor...ground.com]
I concur. The old abandoned Rail tunnels in our are were done Dig and Blast. They definitely aren't uniform. Especially when they had to clear out the fractured rock that wasn't obvious immediately after blasting.
Re: (Score:3)
I know it's futile I respond to this. I'd just like to point out the precious hypocrisy of claiming that something is both unfalsifiable and wrong. Unless all things that are unfalsifiable in your weltanschauung are automatically 'wrong', you've presented a cute contradiction of your own claims.
Re:another physicist employment program. (Score:5, Informative)
Errr...and from where do you think experiments come? They must grow on trees in your world. Your problem appears to be that you have no understanding of mathematics. All math does not necessarily intersect with the real world, you could say it is unverifiable. And verifiable for a physical theory means only verifiable up to an epsilon of error. Math is perfect, our measuring apparatus is not. What is important in mathematics is that it be consistent. Is Hilbert's geometry verifiable? No. It is however internally consistent.
Physics theories, at least relatively new ones, start out as math. They are unverifiable until some bright spark comes along and figures out how to verify them. And the experiment for verification might be inconclusive. Maybe more better technology is needed, maybe a different theory contradicting the first blows it out of the water because the different theory is more descriptive.
Regardless, you cannot never observe "Das Ding an sich". The reason is that in order to get down on all fours with that thing you wish to observe means that you will disturb it and you are only reading the results of your testing equipment. And if you get small enough, you require so much energy and mass in your detector that the detector will collapse into a black hole. So we do the best we can. Maybe you could ask God for a bit of guidance here. I'm sure he'll listen to you.
Re: (Score:2)
Is Hilbert's geometry verifiable? No. It is however internally consistent.
Well, we hope so. Pretty much any nontrivial maths is impossible to prove consistency for.
Re: (Score:2)
Anything unfalsifiable is pseudo-science.
Irrespective of any particular physics theories, the very existence of a physical reality outside of your own mind is unfalsifiable.
So maybe you should just let it go and shut up.
Re: (Score:1)
Hi ChatGPT. Write a few trolling sentences about physics. Use incorrect spelling and grammar. Thank you.
Re: (Score:1)
How long did it take for experimental evidence of parallax motion of the stars to disprove geocentric universe theories? Was it a mistake during those millennia not to consider carefully Aristarchus of Samos's 3rd Century Bc heliocentric theory of the solar system, just because the then-current measuring techniques showed that either the earth did not move or the stars were ridiculously far away? What do you consider ridiculous today that will become supported by tomorrow's evidence?
Re: (Score:2)
the sooner we throw out this trash the better.
The only thing worthwhile in that post was its self-summary.
Re: (Score:2)
There are only two options: /. web site ...
Either your powerful mind made this post appear out of nowhere in the
Or: you used a device like a computer or a phone: that is completely running on quantum effects. Even the display is based on quantum effects.
By the way: word like "unfalsifiable" do not exist. How many nots can you put into a single world? You probably wanted to say something like nonantiunfalsifiable?
Re: (Score:3)
Don't forget that if you throw out Quantum physics, you lose semiconductors, tablets, smart phones, and computers, CD ROMs amongst other useful items.
At least people wouldn't be able to post drivel (or anything else).
Re: (Score:1)
How about atom bombs?
Modern World literally built on QM and Relativity (Score:3)
Relativity and Quantum physics are (a) unfalsifiable, (b) wrong, (c) incompatible with eachother, and (d) laughable.
How do you think the computer you are literally using to make these ignorant posts works? Classical physics gave us the valve, understanding the quantum nature of the atom and, from that, semiconductors gave us the silicon transistor and now integrated circuits that themselves are getting so small that quantum mechanics is becoming even more important.
Ever used GPS because if you have then the timing accuracy needed to location your position requires corrections from General Relativity to keep the satel
How is a stream of neutrinos generated? (Score:1)
I asked Gemini and I post excerpts form its replies. I'm confident enough to reject one but I don't know about the other
- How can one send a stream of neutrinos?
-- "By colliding high-energy particles (like protons or electrons) in a particle accelerator, neutrinos can be produced as a byproduct. These neutrinos can then be directed using magnetic fields, but controlling t
Re:How is a stream of neutrinos generated? (Score:5, Informative)
You cannot steer a beam of neutrinos using magnetic fields - they are neutral particles. What you can do is generate and steer a beam of more easily-controlled particles - particles that readily decay into neutrinos.
This page from Fermilab [fnal.gov] describes the process. They start with a high-energy proton beam going in roughly the right direction. The proton beam hits a graphite target, creating a spray of collision products. You can tune the beam energy to favor certain collision products over others. In particular, they want to maximize the production of positive pions. These particles decay rapidly, but they do stick around long enough that you can (with magnetic fields) separate them from the other chaff, select for pions that have a certain momentum, and focus the beam in the direction you want. Not long after, the pions decay into anti-muons and neutrinos - still mostly going in the same direction the pion beam was going. (They can also change the pion filter to select for negative pions to produce antineutrinos.) The muons get absorbed by a thick wall of steel and concrete, but the neutrinos just sail on their way.
The resulting neutrino beam is not perfectly focused - think spotlight rather than laser - but has enough flux going in the right direction for the experiment to work.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
It gives you neutrinos with a particular energy. Neutrino oscillation is a function of the distance / energy. It's handy to be able to modify the energy because modifying the distance is usually difficult.
Re: How is a stream of neutrinos generated? (Score:3)
Paging Greta! (Score:1)
To study how neutrinos change type as they travel (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:To study how neutrinos change type as they trav (Score:5, Informative)
Neutrino oscillation is itself a weird phenomenon. It was predicted as a theoretical possibility decades ago, but like all things related to neutrinos really, really hard to detect. We don't have a good explanation for why it should be possible (other than: it's not forbidden by our models). This experiment should help pin down the what and how of that mechanism.
The second main thrust is that this experiment can produce neutrinos and antineutrinos (not at the same time, but they can switch back and forth). That hasn't been possible before (we've mostly been detecting neutrinos from the sun or cosmic rays, and we have to take what we can get). Our present understanding of physics predicts that matter and antimatter should have existed in exactly equal amounts during the Big Bang. It obviously didn't, because we and the whole cosmos exist, with no antimatter to be found. It is possible that better understanding neutrinos is the key to explaining that mystery.
A third goal is to train and employ a new generation of particle physicists, highly-skilled technicians, computer scientists, and other really intelligent people. That by itself probably doesn't mean much, except 1) it avoids a brain drain to other countries, while 2) attracting such talent to the US, and 3) such people don't necessarily stay at accelerator labs forever: they go out into the world and use their impressive skills for other things that we all benefit from.
Accelerator-based Neutrinos Well Established (Score:2)
The second main thrust is that this experiment can produce neutrinos and antineutrinos (not at the same time, but they can switch back and forth). That hasn't been possible before (we've mostly been detecting neutrinos from the sun or cosmic rays, and we have to take what we can get).
That's not correct: not counting the short baseline neutrino beams that discovered the muon and tau neutrinos, this long baseline design has been done before. T2K ("Tokai to Kamioka") in Japan and CERN-Gran Sasso are both examples of this long baseline neutrino beams and even Fermilab has sent beams to the Soudan mine in Minnesota before. DUNE is improving on these with a greater beam power (so more neutrinos) and a longer baseline of over 1,000km vs. several hundred for T2K. These improvements should give
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And what do they hope accomplish ?
To answer known questions in science? There is no grand conspiracy here.
What's the goal ?
To answer known questions in science.
Teleport ?? Time travel ? Warp drive ? Create warp hole ? Better microwave oven ? Death ray ?? Figure out how aliens travel in their space crafts ???
Understanding a fundamental particle of physics may yield results that no knows yet.
Re: (Score:3)
... while we waste money on vanity science.
Please tell me what you mean by "vanity" science. This is not the Elon Musk Neutrino experiment.
How about we take care of our real responsibilities first?
And what responsibilities should we take of first?
Before we fund upper class kids science projects with tax dollars that could be much better spent?
What are you talking about when you say "upper class kids"? This is a Department of Energy project that will have international participants. Also I am pretty sure one or two stealth bombers would pay for this for project.
This is classism and this is corruption, this is not science.
Again what are you talking about? A major science experiment got federal funding. That's it.
Re: (Score:2)
vanity / junk science is science done so upper class people can pretend to be scientists, give themselves impressive titles and use thisall as an excuse to act high and mighty with lofty public salaries, it's all just classism and corruption, science has been gentrified
denial is inevitable
Re: (Score:2)
vanity / junk science is science done so upper class people can pretend to be scientists
1) What are you talking about? Do you actually know scientists? Many of them make a decent wage but are not Elon Musk/Bill Gates levels of "upper class" Especially in this case many of them are government so they do not exactly make the most money. 2) These scientists actually have degrees so there is no "pretending". 3) Particle Physics is not "junk science".
give themselves impressive titles
What is your actual complaint? That people who earn doctorates are called "Doctor". This is a DoE experiment so many working on this project may not h
Re: (Score:2)
I work with 'scientists and engineers and some of them feel exactly as I do. I've seen so many projects, departments and companies run into the ground by incompetent upper management that did not rise through the ranks . all i see is a bunch of upper class people hiring each other for their own mutual benefit
let's call it the dilbert effect
if you think there's no classism and that the upper class isn't entitled and that money is power and rich and powerful don't make decisions that benefit only themselves
ar
Re: (Score:2)
With all due respect Big Science is just as corrupt as Big Business and Big Government, not to even mention the Peter Principle.
I sure hate to be the one to burst your bubble but our society is clearly both classist and corrupt.
Re: (Score:2)
the reality is giving how well these people are paid and the resources available to them, we could all be doing much better and we should be
like I said, denial, greed and self-justification keep our leaders from grasping the nettle and they won't until it's far too late
Why are we spending money on this? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
We already know they exist. To study how neutrinos change type as they travel,
The purpose of this detector is not merely to detect neutrinos exist. The purpose is to determine how neutrinos oscillate. It is like the 2nd sentence of the quoted article: "To study how neutrinos change type as they travel, . . ."
All I see is vague statements about the future and our understanding and blah blah blah.
We do not know how neutrinos oscillate. Neutrinos are an elementary particle for which there is little known. This will expand knowledge on them.
This is not a cheap project.
And?
What are we going to learn from it other than "yep, they still exist and we can still detect them sometimes."
How about how they oscillate? How about using that oscillation to detect other phenomenon? We do not know the ramifications of su
The time needed to detect particles... (Score:3)
Years ago two experiments were performed to detect an exotic particle. One detector was at about 4,000 meters depth in the Hawaii offshore, the other deep under a mountain. The Hawaii experiment needed three times the time that people in the cave needed to have the detector up and working, and find the particle they were looking for.
They put it where? (Score:1)
Wait - 3 years, to dig out 800,000 tons of rock, drag it up, and then store it down a mine...?
I would have just used the mine. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Existing mines (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
So they dug out rock and dumped it in an old mine. Any normal sane person would simply have used the old mine for the detector.
Maybe there were bats living in the old mine? Everyone loves bats!
Re: (Score:2)
WTF is Paying for this Hole? (Score:2)
Texas' contribution to taxpayer fundwasting: the superconducting supercollider (1/8 of it): https://www.dallasnews.com/new... [dallasnews.com]