"Physicists Observe Elusive Neutrino-Nucleus..." Topic

… Interactions for First Time.

"A team of physicists with the COHERENT collaboration is the first to detect and characterize coherent elastic scattering of low-energy neutrinos off atomic nuclei.

Coherent elastic neutrino-nucleus scattering. Image credit: COHERENT Collaboration.
Neutrinos, miniscule subatomic particles that rarely interact with matter, are often described as ‘ghost-like.'

Chargeless and nearly without mass, trillions of neutrinos pass through our bodies every second, but we have no way feeling them.

In 1974, Fermilab physicist Daniel Freedman predicted a novel way for neutrinos to interact with matter.

More than four decades later, the COHERENT collaboration built the world's smallest neutrino detector to observe the elusive interaction — called coherent elastic scattering — for the first time…."

Main page

link

Amicalement
Armand

Wow, that's huge. I want to read more about that instrument when I have the time. That's an astounding degree of sensitivity.

Once we can work with neutrinos we'll be able to observe a lot more about the universe.

Glad you enjoyed the reading my friend!.

Amicalement
Armand

I find the concept of an "overarching mathematical description of the universe" too like Kepler's search for the perfect solids. It's an idea looking for proof.

Neutrinos (gotta name the stuff something I guess) will wind up being nothing more profound than part of the "fabric" of existence, physical existence on a subatomic "level". Since there is no limit to scale, there will be a point where a single neutrino is as large as a universe.

Neutrinos (gotta name the stuff something I guess)

It's aptly named. It's uncharged like a Neutron (neutral, see?) but much smaller, hence neutrino.

…….will wind up being nothing more profound than part of the "fabric" of existence,…..

Thanks for your profound physics analysis. Sort of a "toads are migrating" or "chimps are as dumb as dirt" moment.

…….like Kepler's search for the perfect solids.

Well Plato held a big power over the scientists of that era. A good lesson why not to trust in physically unsubstantiated philosophical nonsense.

link

"nothing more profound than part of the "fabric" of existence"

Um.

Huh?

So, understanding the fabric of existence isn't profound?

If we can observe neutrinos, it's like being able to see a new kind of light – when we can focus and interpret all this new info we get to see the universe all over again. It will be bigger than orbital x-ray telescopes.

There is something profound about peeling back the layers of how things work. How many layers are there? Why do we have these laws of physics instead of different ones?

Last question: answer: we'll never know. You can't know what isn't here to find out. "Other" physics laws or rools of existence can only be imagined. Of course, with math you can cook up anything. But proving/showing it as reality, vis-a-vis this universe, is quite another matter.

Yes, "peeling back the layers", or showing yet further reduction of scale in the microverse, is fascinating, because the idea of infinite scale, micro looking one way, macro looking the other way, is onto something about infinity. But of what practical use is any of it? We live in this scale. We are not going to do a Crichton thing and get small enough to cross over at the quantum foam level and enter the multiverse; or cruise around in the circulatory system of some patient whose brain requires mending from inside.

But of what practical use is any of it?

Does it need a "practical use"?

Some of the groundbreaking research in electromagnetism was done in the 1800s (Faraday 1848, Maxwell 1860); long before any possible practical application could be imagined. So was that useless?

Its all BASIC RESEARCH. It answers questions that may not even been asked. It further refines our understanding of the universe. That is reason enough for me.

Someone slept through high school science classes, and is making up for it here ever since.

You can't know what isn't here to find out.

Deep and meaningless statement. But if you don't do the basic science you'll never know the limitations.

Yes, "peeling back the layers", or showing yet further reduction of scale in the microverse, is fascinating,……… (snipped for brevity)or cruise around in the circulatory system of some patient whose brain requires mending from inside.

This interests you, as it scratches some sort of sci-fi itch. But your fascination with "scale" isn't what draws me into these discoveries. I'm with Charlie 12 on this.

Everybody has a "grabber moment". This one is from my childhood, along with what many are pleased to call "turtles all the way down" as a dismissive statement for "God". If we can't answer the last question then there must not be a reason for asking it in the first place. It can be framed like this, "Who created/caused God then?" And it's pointless objection, because existence itself is inarguable. Unless you are pursuing the answer to it with your FULL imagination, you are ignoring the question. Being off-put by the religious content is a petty objection. Just because religion tries to co-opt "God" doesn't mean that the core question belongs to religion. It is the most fundamental scientific pursuit and is other than religion. There is nothing exclusively religious about the question of existence. It isn't steeped in morals or reward or punishment, etc. The question overarches every lesser question or pursuit.

Just because we can't see our way forward to getting an answer to existence in the first place doesn't mean that the question should be set aside in favor of lesser things. And the implications of a purpose to existence cannot be separated from the question either.

If you point to intelligence as merely another example of complexity arising out of simplicity, and assert that intelligence therefore is merely an evolved trait and not an eternal part of Existence itself, you take a stand without evidence simply because you prefer it that way. Evidence (our own intelligence) of a greater intelligence (we can imagine such with ease) is everywhere. What many are pleased to call coincidences or merely unknowns are, to those who anecdotally experience them, outside of the purview of science, being unreplicable. And yet they point to what I still like to call the "metaphysical". There is nothing of simplicity or complexity about the metaphysical. It rises up in your face and you are forever changed by the experience. We all get many of these throughout a long life. Hand waving answers nothing.