NOvA shines new light on how neutrinos behave

NOvA shines new light on how neutrinos behave
An illustration of the three neutrino mass states and the three flavors that make them up (electron, muon and tau), as they were previously though to mix. NOvA's new result shows that the third mass state may not have equal amounts of muon (yellow jellybeans) and tau (blue jellybeans) flavors. Credit: Image: Fermilab/Sandbox Studios.

Scientists from the NOvA collaboration have announced an exciting new result that could improve our understanding of the behavior of neutrinos.

Neutrinos have previously been detected in three types, called flavors - muon, tau and electron. They also exist in three mass states, but those states don't necessarily correspond directly to the three flavors. They relate to each other through a complex (and only partially understood) process called mixing, and the more we understand about how the flavors and mass states connect, the more we will know about these mysterious particles.

As the collaboration will present today at the International Conference on High Energy Physics in Chicago, NOvA scientists have seen evidence that one of the three neutrino mass states might not include equal parts of muon and tau flavor, as previously thought. Scientists refer to this as "nonmaximal mixing," and NOvA's preliminary result is the first hint that this may be the case for the third mass state.

"Neutrinos are always surprising us. This result is a fresh look into one of the major unknowns in neutrino physics," said Mark Messier of Indiana University, co-spokesperson of the NOvA experiment.

NOvA shines new light on how neutrinos behave
The NOvA experiment's preliminary result shows an equal possibility that the third neutrino mass state is dominated by either muon or tau flavor. Credit: Image: NOvA collaboration.

The NOvA experiment, headquartered at the U.S. Department of Energy's Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, has been collecting data on neutrinos since February 2014. NOvA uses the world's most powerful beam of , generated at Fermilab, which travels through the Earth 500 miles to a building-size detector in northern Minnesota. NOvA was designed to study , the phenomenon by which these particles "flip" flavors while in transit.

NOvA has been using the oscillations of neutrinos to learn more about their basic properties for two years. The NOvA detector is sensitive to both muon and electron neutrinos and can analyze the number of muon neutrinos that remain after traveling through the Earth and the number of electron neutrinos that appear during the journey.

The data also show that the third mass state might have more muon flavor than tau flavor, or vice versa. The NOvA experiment hasn't yet collected enough data to claim a discovery of nonmaximal mixing, but if this effect persists, scientists expect to have enough data to definitively explore this mystery in the coming years.

"NOvA is just getting started," said Gregory Pawloski of the University of Minnesota, one of the NOvA scientists who worked on this result. "The data sample reported today is just one-sixth of the total planned, and it will be exciting to see if this intriguing hint develops into a discovery."

NOvA will take data with and antineutrinos over the next several years. With both detectors running smoothly and Fermilab's neutrino beam at full strength, the NOvA experiment is well positioned to illuminate many of the remaining neutrino mysteries.


Explore further

Physicists analyze first electron neutrino data from NOvA Experiment

Citation: NOvA shines new light on how neutrinos behave (2016, August 8) retrieved 21 April 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2016-08-nova-neutrinos.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
65 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Aug 08, 2016
Try real physics

Aug 08, 2016
Weird, wild and wonderful. I wonder how this ties in with today's preliminary results about neutrino / anti-neutrino reactions...

Aug 09, 2016
Weird, wild and wonderful. I wonder how this ties in with today's preliminary results about neutrino / anti-neutrino reactions...

If you're referring to asymmetry findings, not much can be done until 4-5σ confidence levels arrive. That's many years away.

Aug 09, 2016
First, why the question? A neutrino is an EM wave, not a jar of jelly beans, so ...

RNP
Aug 10, 2016
Are you serious? Neutrinos are elementary particles in their own right and have nothing to do with EM.

Aug 10, 2016
A neutrino is an EM wave, not a jar of jelly beans, so ...


It isn't EM, it isn't a wave. It is a lepton of the weak force.

Aug 10, 2016
A neutrino is an EM wave, not a jar of jelly beans, so ...


It isn't EM, it isn't a wave. It is a lepton of the weak force.

Give me an acceptable proof. Recall, the SM began with a Glue-On!

Aug 10, 2016
How do we observe and measure their properties if they have nothing to do with EM?


Indirect measurements are, in fact, measurements. I remind again of the trivial example of taking temperature. You do not measure the energy of a container of gas, count the number of particles in the container to find the entropy and calculate temperature. You put a tube of liquid or a metal strip into the container and see how much it expands or contracts by. Material expansion/contraction is an *indirect* measurement of temperature.

Neutrinos, like so many other particles, are detected through such kinds of indirect measurements. Missing energy from nuclear decays, very rare 'bumps' with charged particles that then emit energy of their own corresponding to the bump they received. Modifications to nuclear decay rates in the presence of (assumed) greater neutrino density. Etc.

Aug 10, 2016
The instruments we have in EM only measure dominant mass charge


RNP
Aug 11, 2016
@bscott
How do we observe and measure their properties if they have nothing to do with EM?


We see them only when they interact by the weak nuclear force (as pointed out by danR). As neutral particles they do NOT interact by EM.

Aug 11, 2016
bschott, in pretty much all physics beyond classical, literally the only thing that matters is whether you can predict the outcomes of an experiment. Some people call this the "Shut up and calculate" philosophy of science.

If you take some ideas that are pretty reasonably grounded in classical mechanics(what a field is, Noether's theorem telling us about conservation laws) it turns out you can use the same family of maths to predict experiments that don't have classical analogues. When you work through the maths, you get terms that look *an awful lot like* particles being created and moving about, exchanging momentum from place to place.

So as a bit of shorthand, philosophically, we take the maths at face value and just call the bits that look like particles 'particles.' Now, it turns out that making this assumption is pretty justified, because you can verify that something like these particles exist in different experiments.

Aug 11, 2016
If you don't want to believe that any of this physics is 'real' because you don't understand the experiments or underlying theory, you'll probably be fine for nearly everything in your life. But this is ostensibly a site talking about scientific physics, so we must assume *a priori* that we accept the tools and techniques of modern physics as a part of the discussion.

If you don't want to accept them, again, fine. But you're not tilting at physics then, you're tilting at some mock science you made up with whatever holes you want to include, and again, it's absolutely no wonder you don't believe in it, because it's not logically tenable. But don't for a moment think you're delivering any crushing blows or revolutionary insights about physics because you haven't displayed even the basic understanding to land a solid critique of an actual position within the field.

Aug 11, 2016
Can you even cite the mechanism at play when a neutrino FINALLY does react despite billions per second NOT reacting?
There are two mechanisms, the "neutral current interaction" and the "charged current interaction" – see Neutrino detector > Theory

Aug 11, 2016
You BELIEVE
@bschitt
so, you didn't comprehend a thing Shavera said...
here, this is a very relevant part you missed
you're not tilting at physics then, you're tilting at some mock science you made up with whatever holes you want to include
a major point being:
you've actually brought nothing to the table that threatens any physics or science in general
all you've brought are your *opinions* on a subject backed by your *beliefs* ... and perhaps supported by other crackpots who also don't comprehend physics
http://www.auburn...ion.html

that is, by definition, pseudoscience, not science as you can't actually validate your claims with any reputable evidence but claim it's "real"
https://en.wikipe...oscience

what you're demonstrating is a faith/religion or conspiracy (all related)
http://journals.p....0075637

RNP
Aug 12, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
.......you've actually brought nothing to the table that threatens any physics or science in general all you've brought are your *opinions* on a subject backed by your *beliefs* ... and perhaps supported by other crackpots who also don't comprehend physics
http://www.auburn...ion.html


Well said.

Aug 12, 2016
Well, I might sound like Tweedledee arguing with tweedledum; but, I don't accept modern physics' theories, axiomatically. juz say'n.

1 I can show that the speed of light is not a constant, empirically. Emitted wavelength divided by time to pass a moving object, don't be confused, the wavelet does not change. Silly you would need a stationary measure at the same location for verification, yet still argue space and time changed.
2 The standard model can easily be shown to be unnecessary and insufficient, i.e. proof: False. A neutron is not a particle, it is a proton and an electron combination. Thus the provider of the "glue" for holding the nucleus together.
3 A particle is not defined or demonstrated, only measures that are easily defined with EM.

So none of these arguments are valid. juz say'n again

Aug 12, 2016
@Captain Stumpy
.......you've actually brought nothing to the table that threatens any physics or science in general all you've brought are your *opinions* on a subject backed by your *beliefs* ... and perhaps supported by other crackpots who also don't comprehend physics
http://www.auburn...ion.html


Well said.

You really need a description of Truth?

RNP
Aug 12, 2016
Well, I might sound like Tweedledee arguing with tweedledum; but, I don't accept modern physics' theories, axiomatically. juz say'n.

1 I can show that the speed of light is not a constant, empirically........


OK. Then show it, empirically or any other way you want to try it. The rest is scintific word salad (i.e. meaningless).

2 The standard model can easily be shown to be unnecessary and insufficient, i.e. proof: False. A neutron is not a particle, it is a proton and an electron combination. Thus the provider of the "glue" for holding the nucleus together.


Again, prove it! Random spurious claims are not likely to convince anyone visiting a real scientific website.

3 A particle is not defined or demonstrated, only measures that are easily defined with EM.


I am afraid this last point makes no sense whatsoever, so I am unable to comment.

Aug 12, 2016

1 I can show that the speed of light is not a constant, empirically........
I am afraid this last point makes no sense whatsoever, so I am unable to comment.

I don't see a valid argument. Something like "We are absolutely right about what we do not know, and you are wrong, trying to use known physics and common sense." Are you kidding?

By the way, I have no faith in the Nobel committee. A Nobel for background radiation of the bang when space is filled with plasma. nonsense

Aug 13, 2016
1 I can show that the speed of light is not a constant, empirically
@hyperstupid
get it right: https://en.wikipe...of_light

the speed of light in a vacuum is constant - so if you can prove this to be false with empirical evidence then by all means please do it and go collect your Nobel when it's validated, along with all the cash, glory, homes, cars, travel, fame etc you can handle...
space is filled with plasma
so, what can i get from you if i could take you to any local region of space and demonstrate where it's not "filled with plasma"?

care to put actual money on the table for that one?

... it's not about what you can claim, it's all about what you can prove, and you're making what is called "false claims"
http://www.auburn...ion.html

ya got no evidence, just opinion and delusion

Aug 13, 2016
@Hyperstupid cont'd
A neutron is not a particle, it is a proton and an electron combination
1- I don't see a valid argument, just word salad belief sans evidence

2- you should read more, and stay away from fiction
https://en.wikipe...iscovery

3 A particle is not defined or demonstrated, only measures that are easily defined with EM
nonsensical regurgitation of technobabble
i don't see a valid argument

i also don't see any evidence proving any point you made about anything so far

in science, it's not about how cool you are or how important you think you are, it's about what you can prove with evidence and what you can build upon when you have validated evidence based arguments (like computers, etc from QM)

to leave you with your own words
"So none of these arguments are valid. juz say'n again"

Aug 13, 2016
@Hyperstupid cont'd


You could have just said, "I don't get it." The "I" could be either you or me, reference Conan Doyle, Tweedledee and Tweedledum, i.e. acceptable logic, so the dummy does not accept logic. Therefore the argument continues ad infinitum.

Review the paper, again. Ponder the spherical field about the electron or the proton. At what measured minimum distance is it Not there? Anyway, plasma does not fill space it exist in space and is very plentiful. Did not know I had to use formal logic in my conversational logic for my statements Anyway, try harder, your rebuttal is too emotional.

Aug 13, 2016
@Hyperstupid cont'd A neutron is not a particle, it is a proton and an electron combination 1- I don't see a valid argument, just word salad belief sans evidence

2- you should read more, and stay away from fiction
https://en.wikipe...iscovery

3 A particle is not defined or demonstrated, only measures that are easily defined with EM ]nonsensical regurgitation of technobabble
i don't see a valid argument


So is a particle a solid, liquid, gas plasma, or condensate, and does it occupy space, these are elemental. Show me the proof. My position is all particles are elemental and occupy space exclusively due only to repulsion. But you seem to think each particle has an impenetrable boundary, LOL.

Aug 13, 2016
@Hyperstupid cont'd

By the way, know if what you believe is really true. Don't simply use someone's work as your defense, when in fact that work may be the object of contention. Logic

Try to be scientific, and question, not demand, truth.

Aug 13, 2016
@Hyperstupid cont'd


Think we need to define definitions. In my world a particle is elemental, i.e. may be shown to possess at least one element.

Subatomic particles are not particles at all, a misnomer. The electron and the proton are defined by Maxwell and are called charges, not particles.

But any redefinition that won a Nobel, i.e. Leptons, etc. was last century, forgivable, but not correct.

My proof, or call it a conjecture, is everything is made of electrons and protons, and I consider only the spherical field until an existence proof is given.

Aug 13, 2016
@HF
That does not make any sense at all.


Arguement?

Aug 13, 2016
Arguement?

I'll take a stab at this one:

In my world a particle is elemental, i.e. may be shown to possess at least one element.

This is a self contradiction within the space of one sentence. How can something be elemental if it can have more than one element. Nonsensical.

Subatomic particles are not particles at all, a misnomer. The electron and the proton are defined by Maxwell and are called charges, not particles.

You're just relabeling stuff from the accepted definitions. Nonsensical.

But any redefinition that won a Nobel, i.e. Leptons, etc. was last century, forgivable, but not correct.

Not even a grammatically correct sentence. Nonsense.

is everything is made of electrons and protons, and I consider only the spherical field until an existence proof is given.

You made the conjecture so YOU need to supply the proof. Otherwise (you guessed it): Nonsense.

Aug 13, 2016
You could have just said, "I don't get it
@Hyperstupid
why? the problem isn't me, it's you
... and you aint got evidence for anyone else to "get" at all either
Review the paper, again
Your paper? that link?

1- your link consists of a single page with a title and your name/date: i can review it all day long and it will still be only a single page with a title and your name/date

2- it aint a peer reviewed journal title *or* paper, therefore it is equivalent to opinion and isn't evidence for anything except that you don't know how to get peer reviewed or write a paper (or, apparently, post more than the title page)
Show me the proof
http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

care to recreate all the historical experiments that you seem to be ignoring for your belief and proselytizing of your delusion here?

that is for you to do... no point in me doing it as well, since i accept the validation and evidence
you, however, need some education

2Bcont'd

Aug 13, 2016
@hyperstupid cont'd
Don't simply use someone's work as your defense, when in fact that work may be the object of contention. Logic
in order to get an education in physics, you must learn the reasons for the physics by experimentation

it's not about accepting others work, but accepting the validated experiments that you learn about by also participating in the validation process during the education process, be it high school or college

i can see why you didn't know that as you seem uneducated about the basics, which explains why you're attempting to pass opinion as scientific evidence
My proof, or call it a conjecture
it's conjecture, and it's based upon your belief, not upon evidence

See AA_P above

until you can provide source material (peer reviewed journal studies) then you're simply pushing more pseudoscience like zeph/benji/bschitt and all the eu idiots

you really should have at least read the links i left ya

Aug 14, 2016
...
you really should have at least read the links i left ya

Dude, why do you argue without logic or science and using papers but never supply an axiomatic structure to support any thing you say. It's just trying. We can't talk about science when all you want to do is state denial, without any support, i.e. using what we are trying to correct without any reasons of your own, only denial.

Can't you see Einstein's error, or the error in the standard model. Dr. E has a false axiom, the same axiom everybody uses as defense. I show the axiom as false, but it's denied.

The standard model has an unknown reason for existence, i. e. Glue-Ons hold the nucleus together, completely bogus.

We use words that are not defined axiomatically, only definition of a particle is simply if we talk about crumbs in your plate, not subatomic.

So I can only conclude you don't have the will or maybe the intelligence.

Aug 14, 2016
you really should have at least read the links i left ya
.........why take the bother, even you don't understand the links you Copy & Paste. Ever try having a conversation with walls being the only thing surrounding you?

Aug 14, 2016
you really should have at least read the links i left ya
.........why take the bother, even you don't understand the links you Copy & Paste. Ever try having a conversation with walls being the only thing surrounding you?

What link. Does it give the axiomatic structure of each particle? This way, we can make sense from the data. Do you use Newton's undefined constant, mass; and reconcile where gravity is coming from? Do you define the particle's attributes other than an EM measurement? Do you define a set of objectives, methods, experiment, conclusions? You don't just label data and give it a name, do you? That is a set of things we can apply as the scientific method. What is the proposition? Do we show the contrapositive as false or that there are no other causal effects, i.e. necessary and do we show how holistic, i.e. sufficient. That is per the Formal Logic. Or do you use another logic. Do you define the universe of discourse? Show me something.

RNP
Aug 14, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy
What link. Does it give the axiomatic structure of each particle? This way, we can make sense from the data. Do you use Newton's undefined constant, mass; and reconcile where gravity is coming from? Do you define the particle's attributes other than an EM measurement? Do you define a set of objectives, methods, experiment, conclusions? You don't just label data and give it a name, do you? That is a set of things we can apply as the scientific method. What is the proposition? Do we show the contrapositive as false or that there are no other causal effects, i.e. necessary and do we show how holistic, i.e. sufficient. That is per the Formal Logic. Or do you use another logic. Do you define the universe of discourse? Show me something.


What a load of rubbish you talk! As soon a you are cornered you come out with another load of meaningless nonsense in an attempt to hide it by diverting peoples attention. I does not work!

Aug 14, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy

What a load of rubbish you talk! As soon a you are cornered you come out with another load of meaningless nonsense in an attempt to hide it by diverting peoples attention. I does not work!

OK, you win. I'm an idiot, you are a genius. I should listen to you for all things physics. I have no idea what physics is or am completely without logics. I choose only nonsense as my modus operandi. I must have been born with a lack of oxygen. I'm not human. I'm a monkey that throws $hit to make my point. I have nothing worthwhile to offer. I was kidding myself to think that I even had a chance when I chose to try and run with the big guys. I'm simply lost in a big ball of Higgs Bosons.

Aug 14, 2016
@Hyperstupid cont'd


Think we need to define definitions. In my world a particle is elemental, i.e. may be shown to possess at least one element.

Subatomic particles are not particles at all, a misnomer. The electron and the proton are defined by Maxwell and are called charges, not particles.

But any redefinition that won a Nobel, i.e. Leptons, etc. was last century, forgivable, but not correct.

My proof, or call it a conjecture, is everything is made of electrons and protons, and I consider only the spherical field until an existence proof is given.

Here, elemental refers to the actuality of all real particles. There are no particles that can be defined that do not contain at least one element. Charge is not a particle, it is only a field. This field is a constituent of all particles. A particle has substance and occupies space. A charge does not.

Aug 14, 2016
Mass is an unknown constant. Using mass to define mass is illogical. But what do I know. I'm an idiot.

Aug 14, 2016
Day #6953. They still answer to trolls and crackpots.

Aug 14, 2016
What link
@hyperstupid
Dude, why do you argue without logic or science and never using papers or evidence & never supply an axiomatic structure to support any thing you say? It's just trying. We can't talk about science when all you want to do is state denial, without any support, i.e. using what we are trying to correct without any reasons supported by evidence, only denial

like i said - the cornerstones of the scientific method:
the claim + physical evidence supporting claim + it must be compatible with observation & past validated knowledge

dismissal of a baseless claim is not prejudice or wrong, it is REQUIRED by the scientific method

all ya provide here is your "belief" in something sans evidence
just because you can talk gobbledygoop and technobabble doesn't mean you understand physics, let alone what you yourself are even saying

repeating the same lie also doesn't make it more true

what you're posted is called "pseudoscience" for a reason

Aug 14, 2016
@hyperstupid cont'd
Can't you see Einstein's error, or the error in the standard model
you haven't produced any evidence showing anything to see, only that you see and believe in a delusion
I show the axiom as false, but it's denied
you didn't qualify or produce any argument re: speed of light, nor "show" it false

because you didn't actually prove that C isn't constant in a vacuum

- therefore your argument that you "show" something is invalidated because of your comprehension failure re: physics (as well as literacy and basic science)

is that "axiomatic" enough for ya?
completely bogus
no evidence = dismissed as pseudoscience

So I can only conclude you don't have the will or maybe the intelligence
OK, you win. I'm an idiot,
admission is half the battle and a great first step, but you can change
start here: http://ocw.mit.edu/index.htm

RNP
Aug 14, 2016
@Hyperfuzzy

What a load of rubbish you talk! As soon a you are cornered you come out with another load of meaningless nonsense in an attempt to hide it by diverting peoples attention. I does not work!

OK, you win. I'm an idiot, you are a genius. I should listen to you for all things physics......


I am not the one claiming to be a genius. YOU ARE! If I am not knowledgeable in a subject I trust in the judgments of those that are, or learn more about it. You, on the other hand, claim to know better than ALL the scientists that precede you and refuse to learn more.

Aug 14, 2016
Evidently RNP belongs to the same sockpuppet army as HF.
It joined 5 days ago.

I think it might be LBL

Aug 14, 2016
Can't find any ground, you dis' I'm an idiot; but continue this diatribe. If you're too stupid to see that the emitted wavelength doesn't change and the time to pass yields the speed of the wavelet; then, go back to grade school.

If you think Gluons holds the nucleus together, you become a fool. So please simply leave me alone. You've made your idiot point. Your redundancy is borderline insanity. So give it up. I'm never going to agree with stupidity, no matter who tells me.

So stop. Please.

Aug 14, 2016
Can't find any ground, you dis' I'm an idiot
@hyperstupid
actually, you are demonstrating you're an idiot... there is a big difference
If you're too stupid to see...
if you're too stupid to comprehend basic physics, basic English, or the simple fact that making a claim isn't equivalent to providing evidence or proving anything...
then the only "stupid" here is your regurgitation of what you believe without any regard for science, methodology or evidence

IOW- "you become a fool. So please simply leave everyone else here alone. You've made your idiot point - you don't know WTF is going on.

Your redundancy is borderline insanity. So give it up. I'm never going to agree with stupidity, no matter who tells me.

So stop. Please"

Aug 15, 2016
"What people believe prevails over truth."

Sophocles

Aug 15, 2016
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more