T2K is a collaboration between 500 senior scientists from 12 countries, who have come together to study the mysterious and elusive neutrino particle
Dr. Francacca di Ludovico of the Queen Marie Center for Particle Physics Research, says: "Trillions of neutrino particles pass through our bodies every second, but we don't feel it. They pass through space and through space without affecting anything. This is what makes neutrinos very difficult to study, but nevertheless they are considered key particles that play an essential role in the creation of the universe and in understanding the origin of our formation."
A neutrino comes from outer space, its origin can be from the sun, or from the big bang. But even though their quantity is enormous, technologies for understanding their nature have only begun to develop in the last decades.
"The theories predict that there should be 3 types of neutrinos," explains Dr. Di Ludovico. "Unexpectedly, previous data suggest that neutrinos can change themselves from one type to another, a distinction that could deepen our understanding of the universe."
The scientists intend to shoot the most powerful neutrino beams ever produced in an underground orbit from the east coast of Japan to a detector located on the west coast, so they will be able to see what happens to the particles as they fly through the galactic center. Do they change shape? And if so, then why?
The scientists hope that the neutrinos will provide clues to understanding how our universe has evolved over time and we can also learn about deep space events such as supernovae, active galaxies, and gamma-ray bursts. They can also explain the biggest mystery in the universe: why there is a lot of matter and very little antimatter.
Dr Di Ludovico says: “T2K will soon advance our understanding of the strange properties of the enigmatic neutrino particles to an unprecedented degree. In about a year, we will be able to study the properties of neutrinos as we are unable to do in the current experiments, and this will shed light on the unknown."
40 תגובות
Yael
By the way, in my opinion the theory of elementary particles is absolutely aesthetic and elegant! With the help of some basic symmetries, it describes the entire jungle of particles in nature and the interactions between them (apart from gravitation).
The scaling to low accelerations is observationally defined by MOND (by fitting to observations). The greatness of this theory is that it offers an acceleration scale from nothing (similar to the hbar proposed at the time by Planck). In practice the scale is an acceleration of 10 to the power
10 meters per second squared. To make MOND a relativistic theory (general relativity) Beckenstein added
A scalar vector and tensor field in addition to the material field and the metric field that appear in general relations.
sympathetic,
Could you explain what you mean by "low accelerations", and what fields does TeVes add? (By the way, if we are talking about aesthetics and elegance, then the particle theory does not really meet expectations)
Yael
MOND is a phenomenological theory not based on fundamental principles. When the observations did not match the observed mass many researchers tried to modify Newton's laws, the assumption was that on the large length scales the theory changes.
There have been many failed attempts when people assumed that beyond a certain distance Newton's laws change. Finally, it was Prof. Mordechai Milgrom from the Weizmann Institute who showed that if we assume that Newton's laws
Varying not as a function of large distances but as a function of low accelerations, it is possible to obtain an excellent fit for many of the observations that previously could only be fitted within the framework of the dark mass assumption.
MOND had a number of inherent problems for it to become a theory of gravitation. The corrections to MOND for a relativistic theory called TeVeS were also made by an Israeli researcher, Prof. Yaakov Bekenstein, from the Hebrew University (a laureate of the Israel Prize and one of the most famous physicists working in Israel). I personally don't like you
TeVeS because it seems to me too cumbersome and requires too many additional fields, but this is a matter of personal preference.
A rule that states that the laws of nature must be elegant or simple.
sympathetic,
I'm not that familiar with MOND, but it sounds like an interesting thought experiment. If anything comes out of it, then we've won.
Ghost,
We currently have no tools to know what dark matter is, what it is made of, and how it functions.
rationalize:
From your words, I understand that dark matter is a type of matter that creates gravity like the neutrino, which as you said is also matter, only that both have a mass that is still difficult to measure with the existing technology.
So it could be that the neutrino is somehow related to that dark matter (for example, a new type of gravitation or something like that) but it's still not possible to connect them with the help of existing technology or knowledge? Or surely there is no connection between them?
rationalize
The discussion of dark matter is a bit of a deviation from the topic of the article, but since you asked I will answer.
I don't know of theories that are a good alternative to dark matter, but in my opinion this does not justify the dark matter theory. As I have already expressed before, the theory of gravitation suffers from several problems:
Theoretical problems - incompatibility with quantum theory.
Compatibility problems for observation at medium ranges (clusters of galaxies) - mismatch of stellar velocity field
to the apparent mass
Adjustment problems for observation at large ranges - the universe appears as if its expansion is accelerating over time
These problems can be addressed by arguing that the theoretical domain in which problems are revealed is not exposed to observations and that the observational discrepancies can be resolved using dark mass and dark energy.
In my opinion (which is a minority opinion it should be noted) the problems indicate that a new gravitation theory is needed.
The solutions of dark mass and dark energy seem to me similar to the use of the site before Einstein came up with the special theory of relativity.
If they still push me into a corner (as has already been done several times) I believe that the MOND theory (change
of Newton's laws) is a start in the right direction. A wide variety of phenomena can be explained by it using a single parameter and nothing is required except the observational information (this is compared to dark matter where for each galaxy a separate calculation must be made which ultimately allows the data to be adjusted). In my opinion, there are several articles by Bekenstein and Milgrom that reinforce that MOND's fit with observations is better than that of the dark matter theory. MOND has several problems, so I don't see it as an alternative to dark matter, but just a step in the right direction. In conclusion, the fact that you have no opposition does not mean that you are right.
Ghost,
I didn't understand what you meant by "neither matter nor radiation". There are clumps of dark matter that interact gravitationally (similarly to normal matter), for example gravitational mixing of light that passes by them.
Chest:
It was really important for me to know what your unreasoned opinion is about dark matter.
I secretly compile statistics on public opinion on the subject.
The deviations you mention are called the "pioneer effect" and still have no satisfactory explanation.
rationalize:
You said that the neutrino is matter and the boson is radiation, is there a possibility that the dark matter somehow connects the radiation to the matter and thus can be neither matter nor radiation?
sympathetic,
What alternative theories do you know of the dark matter theory?
Mich Al,
I also believe that the dark matter thing is a myth.
There are some more legends in physics…
incidentally,
A few years ago there were claims that spaceships that left the solar system behaved in an unexpected way,
Referring to the known laws of physics.
It is likely that the explanation for the "lack of matter" in the universe is the result of laws of physics that are unknown to us...
(What was the reason for those deviations I mentioned?).
sympathetic:
I did not intend to divert the discussion towards the dark matter, but to draw your attention to the tools which in my opinion are legitimate to use during a discussion.
Michael
I noticed that it was not you who brought up the subject of "dark matter", accept my apologies for this subject, but on the other hand you did bring up the subject of the meteor which is from a different story altogether. By the way, I think that the discussion between us was objective and that
It is acceptable to you that there are other legitimate theories besides the "dark matter" legend and that it is currently undecided
Which one is better except by personal or sociological preferences. As for nagging, I don't find anything wrong with it
It is also done in moderation as well as humor and this is again a matter of personal taste in my opinion.
Michael
The gravitational interaction is the only one that may operate between two neutrinos.
Of course, additional interactions operate between them and other particles.
Since I am too little an expert in quantum field theory, and my familiarity with the standard model and its long Granzians is somewhat limited, I cannot contradict your claim, but neither can I rule out the possibility that the energy in question will pass to other particles.
Therefore I will take the usual approach (among the scientists I know, when they are asked a question that is a little too deep for an immediate answer) and be careful with my words.
Chen T,
From my response, by the way, it is not possible to understand what causes the difference between the different nitrites, and that is a definition of "generations" for the charge of the lepton number. The electron is the first generation, the muon second and the tau third. In an interaction involving leptons, the leptonic charge must be preserved according to each generation, so an electron will be created with a positron or with an antineutrino-electron, whose leptonic number is the opposite of its own.
As far as I know, our detectors today are only able to detect the electron neutrinos, hence Ehud's story.
rationalize
I do not believe in the "dark matter" legend and as such do not follow the "dark matter" candidates.
Michael
I'm sorry that you are again diverting the discussion in the direction of dark matter. You aspired to stop the previous discussion because you claimed that it was not leading anywhere. The discussion of dark matter or meteors is not relevant to the topic of the article and confuses you
The respondents…
Chen T,
Thank you, I'm glad that my articles fascinate you.
Neutrinos do not consist of protons and electrons, but they are elementary particles. There are electron neutrinos, ion neutrinos and teutonic neutrinos.
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%95%D7%9F_%D7%94%D7%97%D7%9C%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%A7%D7%99%D7%9D#.D7.97.D7.9C.D7.A7.D7.99.D7.A7.D7.99.D7.9D_.D7.90.D7.9C.D7.9E.D7.A0.D7.98.D7.A8.D7.99.D7.99.D7.9D
Devil's advocate:
Even if the gravitational interaction was very significant - no clumps would still be formed.
The only thing that enables the formation of clumps is energy loss (the conversion of the kinetic energy and the gravitational potential energy into other energy) and when there is only gravitational interaction there is no possibility of energy loss (except for the minuscule loss of gravitational waves if you accept their existence).
Chen T
The estimate today is that they have a mass. Despite this, their mass is so small that our devices do not know how to measure it, so all that remains is to put an upper barrier on it that results from this ability. These particles are released in various decays of elementary particles, and are identified by "missing energy" in the experiment (that is, the energy of the products is less than the energy of the reactants) and not by any other signature in the detector. Since their mass is really small, and they still have to have enough momentum to balance the The disintegrations, it follows that their momentum is always very large, and hence they are released really fast (close to the speed of light). This is what drives them.
"They do not form clumps" the meaning is that the only interaction that can exist between them is gravitational (and not any other known force), since their masses are really small this interaction is really weak and therefore they will not "coagulate".
I didn't understand why you call "proton-electron composition". The neutrinos that are leptons have a quantum property (similar to, say, electric charge or spin) called "lepton charge" and it separates the three neutrinos. The other leptons (electron muon and tau) also have this property, with values similar to those that the neutrinos will receive, which makes us define as "electron neutrino" the neutrino whose "flavor" value is the same as that of the electron.
Yael, as usual your articles are innovative, fascinating and interesting.
It is said here that there are three types of neutrinos and that they do not form clumps. Do they differ from each other according to their "proton-electron" composition? What drives them from place to place?
sympathetic
Do you know of any new dark matter candidates?
sympathetic:
The Machos are irrelevant because they are normal baryonic material and meteors of baryonic material will also fall on us.
The WIMPS are not supposed to create meteors either because if the entire interaction is gravitational there is no grouping of clumps.
Anyway - the whole discussion is unnecessary if you say that the meteor issue was just annoyance on your part, because that's all I was trying to claim in the first place. Of course, the question is what is the place of annoyance in a substantive discussion that should, in my opinion, be decent and not work with the "successful" method based on the hope that the other side will not notice that this is an argument that the writer also knows is wrong.
Yael
The bottom line is the estimated mass of the neutrino is not enough to create the required amount of dark matter
Researchers believe that neutrinos may solve part (about 10%) of the dark mass problem.
Michael
Unlike the "dark matter" the neutrino hardly performs a gravitational interaction, the neutrino-neutrino interaction is completely negligible, therefore even if it has a mechanism to remove heat (kinetic energy) it will not produce clumps.
On the other hand, the proposals for "dark matter" at the time also included proposals such as MACOs and WIMPs, the slides offered in which are very circular. As mentioned, the meteor issue was just annoyance on my part.
Ghost,
The neutrinos are leptons (or fermions = matter), while the Higgs is a boson (radiation). The Higgs boson is hypothesized to give particles their mass.
sympathetic,
Why was the hypothesis that neutrinos are dark matter rejected?
And even this detector (of hundreds of tons) detects only a tiny percentage of the billions of neutrinos that pass through it all the time.
dispatch?
Not a chance!
Wikipedia says
"A neutrino detector contains hundreds of tons of material" it is true that this is impractical to say the least and the neutrino generator will not be able to fit into a compact car even with a hands-free.
But the direction is positive.
And the transmission will also pass through the detector without interference or detection.
If they develop transmitters and compact detectors that use neutrinos because then they will no longer need communication satellites. will be able to transmit the messages directly through the earth comfortably and efficiently without interference.
sympathetic:
It's not the same weight.
You are expressing a joking prophecy that has nothing to do with our discussion.
I showed you that beyond the theoretical explanations I have already given in the past - to the claim that you actually made not only that there is no foundation, but that it should have been claimed by you to the same extent as "proof" that there are no neutrino particles.
Is the Higgs boson related to the neutrino somehow?
By the way, the Nobel Prize in Physics was given to Ray Davis for his neutrino experiment. The first experiment was conducted at the end of the sixties and to discover it from the elusive neutrino they used a tank that contained 600 tons of cleaning fluid (rich in chlorine) and was buried in a mine a kilometer and a half underground. The genius of the experiment was how to find in this huge tank an atom or two of an organization that is The result of the neutrino interaction with chlorine and the organization must be found with such precision that the result can be compared with theoretical estimates!
to a ghost
When they discovered that the neutrino has a mass different from zero, it was hypothesized that it constitutes the dark matter, but in the end this hypothesis was rejected.
To Michael
By the same weight, literally, maybe one day it will also be discovered that the dark mass has no mass...
Is there a connection between neutrinos and dark matter? Or Higgs boson?
I allow myself to point out with a wink that even a meteor made of neutrino particles has not yet fallen on Earth.
https://www.hayadan.org.il/animals-in-danger-1612095/#comment-257522
sympathetic,
You raised points that are new to me. Thanks for the detailed response.
Ehud, thank you.
The neutrino has been at the center of one of the mysteries that has troubled astrophysics for more than forty years. The mystery of the lack of nitrites from the sun. For more than forty years, the number of nitrites that came from the sun and were measured in the KDA was less than what was obtained in the calculation. Various accusations were made on the one hand about the experimentalists who do not know how to measure accurately and on the other hand about the theoreticians who do not know how to properly calculate the number of nitrites formed in the sun.
The mystery was finally resolved and it turned out that neither party was wrong. The neutrinos, unlike what was thought, have a small but not zero mass, which causes the transition between the three types of neutrinos. Since only one type was measured in the CDU, the missing neutrinos became neutrinos of a different type (neutrinos come in three types). It should be noted that for the purpose of explanation a (small) modification of the elementary particle model, the standard model, is required. By the way, one of the world's greatest experts in neutrinos research is here in Israel at the Weizmann Institute Prof. Eli Waxman.
For more information there is a link to the researchers' announcement, and from there there is also a link to Queen Mary University of London.
I didn't understand the facility is built? And if so, what is the size? A little technical specification, including a theoretical explanation of the particle without information. This article is quite pointless. I hope the criticism is received with understanding.