Electron Neutrino Detected! [at a particle collider]

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The thread discusses the recent detection of the electron neutrino at CERN, focusing on the implications of this discovery, the novelty of the measurements, and the historical context of neutrino detection. Participants explore the significance of measuring neutrino interaction cross sections in specific energy ranges and question the accuracy of media representations of the findings.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the electron neutrino was first discovered in 1956, emphasizing that previous detections were indirect.
  • Questions are raised about why the electron neutrino had not been detected in particle accelerators before, with suggestions that it may relate to energy levels compared to cosmic ray detectors.
  • Concerns are expressed regarding the novelty of the recent announcement, with some participants arguing that the measurements pertain specifically to neutrino interaction cross sections in new energy ranges.
  • Participants discuss the potential misleading nature of media headlines, suggesting that they often omit important qualifiers and exaggerate claims about discoveries.
  • One participant mentions their involvement in motivating the measurement, highlighting the relevance of neutrinos as a background in certain searches.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the novelty of the discovery; while some participants acknowledge the significance of the measurements, others argue that the media portrayal is misleading and that the electron neutrino has been detected before, albeit indirectly.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the implications of the findings and the accuracy of media interpretations. The discussion reflects a range of perspectives on the historical context of neutrino detection and the specifics of the recent measurements.

Physics news on Phys.org
the electron neutrino was discovered experimentally in 1956.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: mfb and Vanadium 50
Can you kindly elaborate on why the electron neutrino was never detected before in a particle accelerator. Was it because of lower energy levels than can be detected with neutrinos captured in cosmic ray detectors?


IH
 
Orodruin said:
the electron neutrino was discovered experimentally in 1956.
It was indirectly shown to exist -- within the framework of accepted theory -- by the detection of certain gamma rays.
 
Islam Hassan said:
Can you kindly elaborate on why the electron neutrino was never detected before in a particle accelerator. Was it because of lower energy levels than can be detected with neutrinos captured in cosmic ray detectors?


IH
Particle collider. Neutrino cross sections have been studied in several previous accelerator experiments.
 
Then I don't understand the novelty of this discovery. What exactly is new with this announcement? Maybe the fact that a specific energy range is quoted as indicated by this excerpt from the "Short and Simple" article:

“These are the first measurements of neutrino interaction cross sections in those energy ranges,”

If so, then the thread title is somewhat misleading...


IH
 
Last edited:
Hornbein said:
It was indirectly shown to exist -- within the framework of accepted theory -- by the detection of certain gamma rays.
If you want to hardline it like that, nobody has ever seen a neutrino. Only the indirect effects of neutrinos. And nobody ever will. Or a photon for that matter.

Islam Hassan said:
Then I don't understand the novelty of this discovery. What exactly is new with this announcement? Maybe the fact that a specific energy range is quoted as indicated by this excerpt from the "Short and Simple" article:

“These are the first measurements of neutrino interaction cross sections in those energy ranges,”

If so, then the thread title is somewhat misleading...


IH
As always, things get blown out of proportion when media picks up new discoveries. They tend to omit qualifiers such as “in a particle collider”. Then the whispering game is on. Best thing to do: Go to the original source.

The experimental result is certainly new and interesting, but it is not the first time an electron neutrino has been detected. So yes, the title is misleading.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Motore, Nik_2213 and Hornbein
The article in the link specifies it's the first measurement of the cross section in a specified energy range.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Nik_2213
Mordred said:
The article in the link specifies it's the first measurement of the cross section in a specified energy range.
Which of the links? The second link is the original source. The first is not and is generally quite misleading.
 
  • #11
Mordred said:
https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevLett.133.021802

Last sentence of the abstract

Quote

"These are the first measurements of neutrino interaction cross sections in those energy ranges."
Yes, exactly as I said. That is the original source. Nobody claimed they got it wrong … the issue is the other link with the highly exaggerated claims …
 
  • #12
Agreed I rarely bother reading the pop media links how they describe a paper is rarely accurate. I usually skip those and go directly to the source paper.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: dextercioby
  • #13
Once you click on the link, they have won. They have no need to have the story correct at that point. It only matters insofar as it might make you more or less likely to click next time. "Live forever with this one simple trick..."

I was not involved in this measurement, but I was involved in motivating it. Neutrinos form an irreducible background to certain searches. You would like a data-driven program to constrain them. (The biggest issue is actually with heavy flavor decays - they are low energy, but you get one almost every crossing)
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PhDeezNutz and MidgetDwarf

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
7K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K