If neutrinos are everywhere, why isn't Cherenkov's Radiation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Ralphonsicus
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neutrinos Radiation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the question of why neutrinos do not cause Cherenkov radiation in water, despite their abundance. Participants explore the interactions between neutrinos and matter, the conditions necessary for Cherenkov radiation, and the implications of neutrino detection methods.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that neutrinos interact very weakly with ordinary matter, which is a primary reason they do not produce detectable Cherenkov radiation.
  • It is mentioned that Cherenkov radiation occurs when a charged particle moves faster than light in a medium, and since neutrinos are uncharged, they do not produce this radiation directly.
  • One participant points out that while neutrinos are abundant, their interactions are so rare that any resulting Cherenkov radiation would be negligible and not observable without specialized detectors.
  • Another participant discusses the implications of superluminal neutrinos and references a theoretical argument suggesting that if neutrinos were superluminal, they would emit a different kind of radiation, though this is not the same as traditional Cherenkov radiation.
  • There are inquiries about the feasibility of detecting neutrinos in deep ocean environments, considering potential interference from other sources of light and the logistical challenges of such experiments.
  • One participant mentions ongoing experiments at the South Pole that utilize ice instead of water for neutrino detection, suggesting that similar methods could be applied in different contexts.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the weak interaction of neutrinos with matter and the conditions required for Cherenkov radiation. However, there are differing views on the implications of these interactions and the feasibility of detecting neutrinos in various environments, indicating that the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on the specific conditions under which Cherenkov radiation occurs and the challenges associated with neutrino detection methods. The discussion does not resolve the complexities of these interactions or the practical aspects of experimental design.

Ralphonsicus
Messages
47
Reaction score
0
Why isn't all water being infiltrated by neutrinos and giving off a blue glow?

P.S: I know they're not literally everywhere.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ralphonsicus said:
Why isn't all water being infiltrated by neutrinos and giving off a blue glow?

P.S: I know they're not literally everywhere.

There is no interaction (almost) between the neutrinos and water. More important, they are uncharged.
 
Neutrinos react very weakly with ordinary matter and usually pass through virtually unaffected.


Detection

Main article: Neutrino detector

Neutrinos cannot be detected directly, because they don't ionize the materials they are passing through (they don't carry electric charge and other proposed effects, like the MSW effect, do not produce traceable radiation).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino#Detection
 
Did not realize this volume:

Most neutrinos passing through the Earth emanate from the Sun. About 65 billion (6.5×1010) solar neutrinos per second pass through every square centimeter perpendicular to the direction of the Sun in the region of the Earth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino
 
Ralphonsicus said:
Why isn't all water being infiltrated by neutrinos and giving off a blue glow?

P.S: I know they're not literally everywhere.

Actually, they ARE, pretty much. See the post directly above.
 


So is this video completely wrong then?!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
No. The Cerenkov radiation only happens when a neutrino actually interacts with another particle, and comes from an electron given off by the interaction that moves faster than light in the water. These interactions are very rare. All water would give off occasional blue glows, but so few they're not noticeable without special detectors.
 
The standard understanding of Cherenkov radiation is that it is produced when a (electrically) CHARGED particle passes through a medium at a speed faster the the speed of light in that medium. So neutrinos do not produce this type of radiation simply because they are not charged.

Interestingly however one of the more favoured arguments for why the supposed observation of superluminal neutrinos by the OPERA experiment is wrong is the argument by Cohen and Glashow that if neutrinos did move superluminally they would then emit a kind of cherenkov radiation and thus lose energy and would therefore not arrive at the OPERA experiment with the observed energy. However note that this is not really the same as cherenkov radiation as the dominant radiation is to electron-positron pairs. The details of all this are in the original short paper http://arxiv.org/abs/1109.6562 and also there is a really nice review of all this by Matt Strassler here.
 
AdrianTheRock said:
No. The Cerenkov radiation only happens when a neutrino actually interacts with another particle, and comes from an electron given off by the interaction that moves faster than light in the water. These interactions are very rare. All water would give off occasional blue glows, but so few they're not noticeable without special detectors.

Could you put a really good telescope in the deep ocean and detect it? If it's deep enough wouldn't photons/cosmic rays/etc be blocked leaving only neutrinos? Volcanoes and strange glowing creatures might be a problem. Could they be avoided?

Google search shows I'm not quite as dumb as I think I am:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626276.400-neutrino-detector-reveals-deep-ocean-life.html

And this:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~sdye/CEROS_final_report.pdf

Interesting stuff!
 
  • #10
mal4mac said:
Could you put a really good telescope in the deep ocean and detect it? If it's deep enough wouldn't photons/cosmic rays/etc be blocked leaving only neutrinos? Volcanoes and strange glowing creatures might be a problem. Could they be avoided?

Google search shows I'm not quite as dumb as I think I am:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19626276.400-neutrino-detector-reveals-deep-ocean-life.html

And this:

http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~sdye/CEROS_final_report.pdf

Interesting stuff!

But one also needs to consider the logistic when designing an experiment, and also one other important factor: how much it will cost! If we live in an ideal world, I can easily tell you a bunch of amazing experiments that we can do. But we are not living in that world.

For example, the DUESL lab at the Homestake mine is already having issues with getting funding for LBNL experiment. And this is in a place that's already built (pre-existing mine deep underground) with some existing infrastructure. Think of the hurdle to do such a thing in some place new.

Zz.
 
  • #11
Actually, they're doing a not-all-that-dissimilar experiment at the south pole, but using a stretch of ice-cap rather than liquid water. See http://icecube.wisc.edu/.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K