Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Thursday, April 12, 2007 | Science : Physics and Chemistry | print version Print | Comments

Document How Did the Universe Survive the Big Bang? In This Experiment, Clues Remain Elusive

by Kenneth Chang

Reposted from the NYTimes:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/12/science/12neutrino.html?_r=1&ref=science&oref=slogin

An experiment that some hoped would reveal a new class of subatomic particles, and perhaps even point to clues about why the universe exists at all, has instead produced a first round of results that are mysteriously inconclusive.

"It's intellectually interesting what we got," said Janet M. Conrad, professor of physics at Columbia University and a spokeswoman for a collaboration that involves 77 scientists at 17 institutions. "We have to figure out what it is."

Dr. Conrad and William C. Louis, a physicist at Los Alamos National Laboratory, presented their initial findings in a talk yesterday at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, outside Chicago, where the experiment is being performed.

The goal was to confirm or refute observations made in the 1990s in a Los Alamos experiment that observed transformations in the evanescent but bountiful particles known as neutrinos. Neutrinos have no electrical charge and almost no mass, but there are so many of them that they could collectively outweigh all the stars in the universe.

Although many physicists remain skeptical about the Los Alamos findings, the new experiment has attracted wide interest. The Fermilab auditorium was filled with about 800 people, and talks were given at the 16 additional institutions by other collaborating scientists. That reflected in part the hope of finding cracks in the Standard Model, which encapsulates physicists' current knowledge about fundamental particles and forces.

The Standard Model has proved remarkably effective and accurate, but it cannot answer some fundamental questions, like why the universe did not completely annihilate itself an instant after the Big Bang.

The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago created equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Since matter and antimatter annihilate each other when they come in contact, that would have left nothing to coalesce into stars and galaxies. There must be some imbalance in the laws of physics that led to a slight preponderance of matter over antimatter, and that extra bit of matter formed everything in the visible universe.

The imbalance, some physicists believe, may be hiding in the dynamics of neutrinos.

Neutrinos come in three known types, or flavors. And they can change flavor as they travel, a process that can occur only because of the smidgen of mass they carry. But the neutrino transformations reported in the Los Alamos data do not fit the three-flavor model, suggesting four flavors of neutrinos, if not more. Other data, from experiments elsewhere, have said the additional neutrinos would have to be "sterile" — completely oblivious to the rest of the universe except for gravity.

The new experiment is called MiniBooNE. (BooNE, pronounced boon, is a contraction of Booster Neutrino Experiment. "Booster" refers to a Fermilab booster ring that accelerates protons, and "mini" was added because of plans for a second, larger stage to the research.)

MiniBooNE sought to count the number of times one flavor of neutrino, called a muon, turned into another flavor, an electron neutrino. The experiment slams a beam of protons into a piece of beryllium, and the cascade of particles from the subatomic wreckage includes muon neutrinos that fly about 1,650 feet to a detection chamber, a tank 40 feet in diameter that contains 250,000 gallons of mineral oil.

Most of the neutrinos fly through unscathed, but occasionally a neutrino crashes into a carbon atom in the mineral oil. That sets off another cascade of particles, which is detected by 1,280 light detectors mounted on the inside of the tank.

From the pattern of the cascades, the physicists could distinguish whether the incoming neutrino was of muon flavor or electron. To minimize the chances of fooling themselves, they deliberately did not look at any of the electron neutrino events until they felt they had adequately understood the much more common muon neutrino events. They finally "opened the box" on their electron neutrino data on March 26 and began the analysis leading to their announcement yesterday.

For most of the neutrino energy range they looked at, they did not see any more electron neutrinos than would be predicted by the Standard Model. That ruled out the simplest ways of interpreting the Los Alamos neutrino data, Dr. Conrad and Dr. Louis said.

But at the lower energies, the scientists did see more electron neutrinos than predicted: 369, rather than the predicted 273. That may simply mean that some calculations are off. Or it could point to a subtler interplay of particles, known and unknown.

"It's tantalizing," said Boris Kayser, a Fermilab physicist not on the MiniBooNE project. "It could be real. But this remains to be established."

Dr. Louis said he was surprised by the results. "I was sort of expecting a clear excess or no excess," he said. "In a sense, we got both."

Comments 1 - 17 of 17 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #31428 by beelzebub on April 12, 2007 at 4:03 pm

 avatarI thought the matter/anti-matter problem was resolved through Charge-Parity (CP) Violation, in which some particles decay slower than their anti-particle. Not sure where neutrinos come into this. Will look further.
Anyone know more about this?

Other Comments by beelzebub

2. Comment #31431 by beelzebub on April 12, 2007 at 4:27 pm

 avatarI found the original article at
http://www-boone.fnal.gov/publicpages/prl8.pdf
Still not sure what bearing this has on the matter/anti-matter imbalance in the early universe.
Edit: Also this nice detailed presentation of the results.
http://www-boone.fnal.gov/publicpages/First_Results.pdf


Other Comments by beelzebub

3. Comment #31443 by Rtambree on April 12, 2007 at 5:29 pm

If a neutrino is neutral, then what's an anti-neutrino? It can't have opposite charge.

A neutron can have an anti-matter equivalent in the sense of its constituent quarks being the opposite charge but still adding up to 0.

But a neutrino has no substructure, so what gives it its "anti" properties?

Other Comments by Rtambree

4. Comment #31466 by VoxMoose on April 12, 2007 at 8:21 pm

 avatarThere are two "internal" degrees of freedom of the neutrino that distinguish it from its antiparticle: lepton number and handedness. In nature there only seems to be left-handed neutrinos and right-handed antineutrinos. The handedness is closely related to the intrinsic spin of the particle as projected along the direction of motion and can be experimentally determined. One can map out apparently consistent behavior of the neutrinos and antineutrinos in different reactions using this designation.

However, the point you raise is actually very important. Strangely enough, it has never been experimentally demonstrated that the neutrino and antineutrino are distinct particles! They could be, in effect, just two different spin states of the same particle and are reacting differently only because of this property. In this case, the other neutrino property I mentioned, lepton number, turns out to be a "false" property -- which indeed allows you to rethink the matter-antimatter imbalance question from that point of view of a mechanism called "leptogenesis" where lepton number is no longer conserved.

There are a number of major experimental efforts exploring this very issue of the neutrino's "nature". If massive neutrino and antineutrino are distinct, they are known as "Dirac neutrinos" and if they are the same object they are known as "Majorana neutrinos." Keep your eye out in the next few years for announcements along these lines!

Other Comments by VoxMoose

5. Comment #31497 by Rtambree on April 13, 2007 at 1:42 am

4. Comment #31466 by VoxMoose

Thank you VoxMoose - I've often asked physicists this question and I've got so many different answers. At Fermilab someone told me the neutrino is its own antiparticle like the photon, another told me isospin, whatever that is.

In any case, given the ghost-like nature of neutrinos, are they likely to create a matter-antimatter explosion (conversion to gamma rays) if a neutrino and antineutrino collide. It must be rare event? Would Majorana neutrinos annihilate each other?

Yes, I'll keep an eye out for those announcements. I'm sure the headlines will push "Paris Hilton Wardrobe Malfunction" to the back pages.

Other Comments by Rtambree

6. Comment #31577 by karlJ on April 13, 2007 at 10:43 am

 avatar
The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago created equal amounts of matter and antimatter.


I fail to see how true this statement is (the equal part). Isn't it more of an assumption?

Other Comments by karlJ

7. Comment #31648 by VoxMoose on April 13, 2007 at 3:50 pm

 avatarRtambree: yes, the isospin property (so-called "weak isospin"), in this context, is a way to characterize this lepton/handedness mathematically into one parameter.

Your intuition is right on with the neutrino-antineutrino collisions. They do occur, but are very rare (they generate Z-bosons and those decay byproducts rather than gamma rays). A runaway reaction/explosion from bulk quantities of neutrino-antineutrino annihilations is a fun idea, actually. My hunch is it just isn't going to happen in our universe with a meaningful probability.

In the Majorana case, a neutrino can annihilate itself in some sense with only a spin flip. Interestingly, this is one of the main ways it is being investigated: one looks for a reaction called "neutrinoless double beta decay" where the pair of neutrinos that are expected in the reaction actually vanish because of self annihilation. Again, good intuition with that question!

Other Comments by VoxMoose

8. Comment #31653 by VoxMoose on April 13, 2007 at 4:07 pm

 avatarkarlJ: Yes, it is an assumption, but not a bad one. There is no mechanism in our current understanding of physics that would favor matter production over antimatter. Because of this, if you had a vary large, random pool of energy to start things off, it is probably a good starting assumption that the universe would not favor the production of matter over antimatter. This sort of behavior is even seen in our current laboratories. At high enough energies, matter and antimatter are produced in equal amounts.

And yet, we live in a matter dominated universe (as far as we can tell). All the matter in our universe represents the residue of many microscopic reactions in the early universe that each somehow slightly favored matter output. Within our current understanding, it is natural to ask why "matter won" after that initial fireball. Moreover, there should be an identifiable mechanism.

Other Comments by VoxMoose

9. Comment #31670 by Helios G2V on April 13, 2007 at 7:11 pm

 avatarCould it be that, as is hypothsised by a Multiverse Theory, a universe has existed in which anti matter "won", and we happen to live in the universe in which matter "won" by as yet undetermined mechanism?

Perhaps by conducting these experiments within the gravity we experience, the initial conditions of our universe, are not being reproduced accurately enough for a coherent explanation.

Other Comments by Helios G2V

10. Comment #31737 by padster1976 on April 14, 2007 at 3:49 am

 avatar'The birth of the universe 13.7 billion years ago created equal amounts of matter and antimatter'

In Martin Rees' book 'Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape the Universe', he talks about the ratio of anti-matter and matter at the start of the universe.

He concluded that more matter was created than its counter-part with all the anti matter being annihilated. The consequence being that there was surplas material left over to develop into what we know of the universe.

This is why there is matter in the universe and the only antimatter is that created in labs. Which are unstable and therefore decay very quickly.

Other Comments by padster1976

11. Comment #31872 by Snaffle on April 14, 2007 at 7:39 pm

 avatarNo problem, all will be resolved in the next accelerator, planned for some time this century:
It's the Particle Accelerator Tunnelling Booster Neutrino Experiment...


The PAT BooNE!

Other Comments by Snaffle

12. Comment #31964 by chamber on April 15, 2007 at 4:12 am

I am more interested in how perfect system in the universe was designed. I will skip the perfect distance between world and sun not to get burned or frozen, and rotating of the the world around itself and and sun to make us days and nights for us like a ship and I wonder how the Earth is tilted at an angle of twenty-three degrees and we know why it is tilted. Please don't tell me sieve, I feel funny. Thanks.

Other Comments by chamber

13. Comment #46827 by LeeC on June 1, 2007 at 9:38 pm

 avatarThis comment was posted so long ago, I do not know why I am bothering to write a reply – I suppose it is because I do not want the last words on this thread to be stating that the universe was designed.

People make such simple statements and think they are being "clever", yet never clever enough to explain to anyone who designed this so called designer?

I am more interested in how perfect system in the universe was designed.


What perfect system is this then? And what evidence of design do you have I cannot explain with physics, evolution and a "little chance".

I will skip the perfect distance between world and sun not to get burned or frozen,


If it were too close to the sun, the Earth would be too hot, so you would not have lived to ask the question.

Too far anyway, and the Earth would be too cold, so you would not have lived to ask the question.

Is this too difficult to understand?

You are just so lucky to be living on a planet in the right place at the right time…. Enjoy life and be grateful… don't waste this life thinking you have another life in heaven.

This "luck" is not proof of god anymore than many years ago a certain sperm and egg got together to form you… if you parents decided to watch a movie instead of having sex that evening you would not be here asking the question.
The chances of the right sperm and egg coming together to form you are billions to one… so we are lucky you can ask the question.

No god… simple biology.

Enjoy it.

and rotating of the the world around itself and and sun to make us days and nights for us like a ship


No idea what you are talking about…

Sun goes up, Sun goes down.

Very pretty.

and I wonder how the Earth is tilted at an angle of twenty-three degrees


Go and wonder then…

But here is a thought for you… maybe over 4 billion years ago (I hope you are not one of these young Earth fools?) a mars size planet hit the Earth, causing the moon to form and maybe, just maybe caused the Earth to tilt on its axis.

Just a theory of course… but it is better than "God put it there".

And while you are wondering…

wonder why a god create Earth in a galaxy with over a billion other stars, in a universe with billions and billions of other galaxies… and not mention any of this wonder in his autobiography - "the bible"…

Why did he sum up this entire wonderful universe in a simple phrase "and the heavens"?

Maybe I should not question the mind of god? What god?

Maybe, just maybe, the men in the desert who wrote it only knew of the earth they walked on, and star light above them. No god told them about the rest of the universe, because no god exits to do so.


There you go… I have just wasted 30 minutes of my life…

Lee

Other Comments by LeeC

14. Comment #63270 by aquilacane on August 13, 2007 at 6:52 pm

 avatar"Could it be that, as is hypothsised by a Multiverse Theory, a universe has existed in which anti matter "won", and we happen to live in the universe in which matter "won" by as yet undetermined mechanism?"

It's funny that you mentioned Multiverse Theory. My idea of Multiverse is probably different from yours; however, assuming you mean one universe after the other in repitition.

I see Multivers as the existance of many universes at once, like molecules in a hunk of rock, especially when you look at the pattern (atom, molecule... planet, solar system). A multiverse in this sense seems logical. Simply becasue it's beyond our sight, I don't think the pattern would break down, why should it?

It could also provide a good source for the unbalanced matter, anti-matter theory. Matter can escape one universe and enter another causing an excess amount. If blackholes are like intergalactic vacum cleaners, eventually colapsing the galaxy in which they are formed, then all galaxies are doomed to eventually colapse. These collapsed galaxies reform, together with the furthest reaching blackholes of neighbouring universes, ultimately triggering a new big bang that generates a different mix of matter and anti matter. It's a multiverse-multiverse.

I'm ignorant in this stuff, and it's obvious, but that's how I've pictured it most of my life.

Other Comments by aquilacane

15. Comment #109882 by the_ultimate_samurai on January 10, 2008 at 1:57 am

hmm i find colliders to be interesting, the way they find out about the nature of the universe almost seems akin to finding out how a car works by slamming it into a wall and analyzing the pieces.

Other Comments by the_ultimate_samurai

16. Comment #109884 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 2:00 am

 avatar
"Could it be that, as is hypothsised by a Multiverse Theory, a universe has existed in which anti matter "won", and we happen to live in the universe in which matter "won" by as yet undetermined mechanism?"


We have a reasonable idea of the mechanism. There is a very slight assymetry between matter and antimatter, as post (1) indicates.

This is why there is matter in the universe and the only antimatter is that created in labs. Which are unstable and therefore decay very quickly.


Actually, anti-matter is no more stable or unstable than normal matter. It only tends to disappear because it comes into contact with normal.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

17. Comment #185787 by T4Baxter on May 28, 2008 at 2:19 pm

It never fails to inspire a sense of alarmed bemusement when commentators like "chambers" logs in to a site and delivers a slice of deluded 'meta twaddle'. Hard to believe someone could go through the enrollment and login procedure just to make an empty appeal. He clearly hasn't read, watched, listened too: the wealth of information on this site.
Just wish he was still here to read that most his questions have been answered! The answers are here brother! go not into the darkness of ignorance on the leaking boat of stultification! theistic religion is a false prophet. Don't believe me?... thats not like you is it :)

Other Comments by T4Baxter
Reload Comments | Back to Top

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password:

Send a letter to the editor of the original media outlet.
letters@nytimes.com