Tagged: Don Lincoln from FNAL Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 10:24 am on October 11, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , , Don Lincoln from FNAL, , , ,   

    From Don Lincoln via CNN: “The ultimate mystery of the universe” 

    From CNN

    September 21, 2018

    FNAL’s Don Lincoln

    This might win an award for “most obvious statement ever,” but the universe is big. And with its size comes big questions. Perhaps the biggest is “What makes the universe, well…the universe?”
    Researchers have made a crucial step forward in their effort to build scientific equipment that will help us answer that fundamental question.

    An international group of physicists collaborating on the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE) have announced that a prototype version of their equipment, called ProtoDUNE, is now operational.
    ProtoDUNE will validate the technology of the much larger DUNE experiment, which is designed to detect neutrinos, subatomic particles most often created in violent nuclear reactions like those that occur in nuclear power plants or the Sun. While they are prodigiously produced, they can pass, ghost-like, through ordinary matter. There are three distinct types of neutrinos, as different as the strawberry, vanilla, and chocolate flavors of Neapolitan ice cream.

    Further, through the always-confusing rules of quantum mechanics, these three types of neutrinos experience a startling behavior — they literally change their identity. Following the ice cream analogy, this would be like starting to eat a scoop of vanilla and, a few spoonfuls in, it magically changes to chocolate. It is through this morphing behavior that scientists hope to explain why our universe looks the way it does, rather than like a featureless void, full of energy and nothing else.

    View of the interior of the ProtoDUNE experiment

    CERN Proto DUNE Maximillian Brice

    Large enough to encompass a three-story house, ProtoDUNE is located at the CERN laboratory, just outside Geneva, Switzerland. Years in the making, ProtoDUNE is filled with 800 tons of chilled liquid argon, which detects the passage of subatomic particles like neutrinos. Neutrinos hit the nuclei of the argon atoms in the ProtoDUNE detector, causing particles with electrical charge to be produced. Those particles then move through the detector, banging into argon atoms and knocking their electrons off. Scientists then detect the electrons.
    It’s similar to how you can know an airplane recently passed overhead because you observe contrails, the white streaks in the sky it briefly leaves behind. The ProtoDUNE detector has now observed particles coming from space — what scientists call cosmic rays — which has validated the effectiveness of the particle detector.

    Though considerably large, ProtoDUNE pales in comparison to the size of the DUNE apparatus, which is still being developed. DUNE will be based at two locations: Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), which is America’s flagship particle physics laboratory located just outside Chicago, and the Sanford Underground Research Facility (SURF), located in Lead, South Dakota.

    FNAL LBNF/DUNE from FNAL to SURF, Lead, South Dakota, USA

    Surf-Dune/LBNF Caverns at Sanford

    The biggest part of the DUNE experiment will ultimately consist of four large modules, each of which will be twenty times larger than ProtoDUNE. Because neutrinos interact very rarely with ordinary matter, bigger is better. And with an eighty times increase in volume, the DUNE detector will be able to detect eighty times as many neutrinos as ProtoDUNE.
    These large modules will be located nearly a mile underground at SURF. That depth is required to protect them from the same cosmic rays seen by ProtoDUNE.
    Fermilab will use its highest energy particle accelerator to generate a beam of neutrinos, which it will then shoot through the Earth to the waiting detectors over 800 miles away in western South Dakota.

    This beam of neutrinos will pass through a ProtoDUNE-like detector located at Fermilab to establish their characteristics as they leave the site. When the neutrinos arrive in South Dakota, the much bigger detectors again measure the neutrinos and look to see how much they have changed their identity as they traveled. It’s this identity-changing behavior that DUNE is designed to study. Scientists call this phenomenon “neutrino oscillations” because the neutrinos change from one type to another and then back again, over and over.
    While investigating and characterizing neutrino oscillations is the direct goal of the DUNE experiment, the deeper goal is to use those studies to shed light on one of those fundamental questions of the universe. This will be made possible because the DUNE experiment not only will study the oscillation behavior of neutrinos, it can also study the oscillation of antimatter neutrinos.

    A strong runner-up in the “most obvious statement ever” award is “our universe is made of matter.” But researchers have long known of a cousin substance called “antimatter.”

    Antimatter is the opposite of ordinary matter and will annihilate into pure energy when combined with matter. Alternatively, energy can simultaneously convert into matter and antimatter in equal quantities. This has been established beyond any credible doubt.

    Yet, with that observation, comes a mystery. Scientists generally accept that the universe came into existence through an event called the Big Bang. According to this theory, the universe was once much smaller, hotter, and full of energy. As the universe expanded, that energy should have converted into matter and antimatter in exactly equal quantities, which leads us to a very vexing question.

    Where the heck is the antimatter?

    Our universe consists only of matter, which means that something made the antimatter of the early universe disappear. Had this not happened, the matter and antimatter would have annihilated, and the universe would consist of nothing more than a bath of energy, without matter — without us.

    Which brings us back to the DUNE experiment. Fermilab will make not only neutrino beams, it will also make antimatter neutrino beams. The exact mix of neutrino “flavors” leaving the Fermilab campus will be established by the closer detector, and then again when they arrive at SURF, so that the changes due to neutrino oscillation can be measured. Then the same process will be done with antimatter neutrinos. If the matter and antimatter neutrinos oscillate differently, that will likely be a huge clue toward answering the question of why the universe exists as it does.

    With the completion of the new ProtoDUNE technology that will be used in the DUNE detector, the race is on to build the full facility. The first of the detector modules is scheduled to begin operations in 2026.

    While Fermilab has long made substantial contributions to the CERN research program, the DUNE experiment marks the first time that CERN has invested in scientific infrastructure in the United States. DUNE is a product of a unified international effort.
    Modern science is truly staggering in its accomplishments. We can cure deadly diseases and we’ve put men on the moon. But perhaps the grandest accomplishment of all is our ability to innovate in our effort to study in detail some of the oldest and most mind-boggling questions of our universe. And, with the success of ProtoDUNE, we’re that much closer to finding the answers.

    See the full article here .


    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

  • richardmitnick 4:18 pm on September 28, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , Dame Burnell discovered Pulsars, Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell awarded a special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics, Don Lincoln from FNAL, , ,   

    From CNN: Women in STEM – “Scientist omitted from Nobel Prize finally gets her due” Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell 


    September 14, 2018

    FNAL Don Lincoln

    A special Breakthrough Prize in Fundamental Physics has been awarded this month to British astronomer Jocelyn Bell Burnell for a distinguished research career, including her key role in the 1967 discovery of pulsars.

    Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell 2009

    Dame Susan Jocelyn Bell Burnell, discovered pulsars with radio astronomy. Jocelyn Bell at the Mullard Radio Astronomy Observatory at Cambridge University, taken for the Daily Herald newspaper in 1968.

    Bell Burnell’s discovery was a very important one in the field of astronomy — one sufficiently impressive to receive the Nobel Prize, although she was not awarded it. Her Ph.D. thesis adviser received that prize instead — a sad, but not uncommon, outcome. Bell Burnell is now receiving her due with the prestigious breakthrough prize.

    The Breakthrough Prize is awarded to “recognize an individual(s) who has made profound contributions to human knowledge.” Each recipient of the prize receives $3 million, more than twice the financial award associated with the older Nobel Prize.

    Although Bell Burnell’s Breakthrough Prize was partially awarded for “a lifetime of inspiring leadership in the scientific community,” she is most known for her crucial contribution to the discovery of pulsars, which are remnants of long-dead stars that emit radio waves in pulses, separated by milliseconds to seconds and detectable on Earth.

    These pulses are kind of like the beeping of the alarm that wakes you up in the morning, but with radio waves instead of sound and with a much faster chirp. Pulsars are too distant and too dim to see by eye. But, as Bell Burnell found, their presence is observable through their rhythmic signal, detectable by a suitable radio.

    In 1967, as a graduate student at the fabled Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge University, Bell Burnell helped build a radio telescope that would be used to scan the sky and pick up radio waves. Once the telescope was operational, she began collection data on the signals coming from the sky (printed on literally miles of old-style continuous printer paper), when she observed a faint and repeating signal of radio waves. She had no idea what it was, as nothing of the sort had been discovered before.

    After considerable cross-checking of her work, she brought it to the attention of her thesis adviser, British radio astronomer Antony Hewish. While they first interpreted her observation as an unwanted signal from somewhere here on Earth, a more careful study revealed that it was actually of extraterrestrial origin. Given that the signal was so faithfully periodic, they jokingly labeled the radio source as LGM-1 (for “little green men”).

    However, an announcement of the discovery of extraterrestrial life was not to be. Instead, Bell Burnell had discovered pulsars.
    For this discovery, her adviser Hewish shared the 1974 Nobel Prize in Physics with Sir Martin Ryle, who was awarded his portion of the Nobel for a different contribution to radio astronomy.

    Much has been written about the fact that Bell Burnell did not share in the Nobel Prize. While there is no question that there are a distressing number of examples of women overlooked for a well-deserved Nobel Prize, it is unclear whether gender played a role in Bell Burnell’s omission from the award. She was a young graduate student working with an established scientist. Historically, in science, the leader of a research group gets both the acclaim and blame for the performance of the group, and this is irrespective of the gender of the students they work with.

    Even Bell Burnell has said that it is very difficult to separate the contribution of student and supervisor and that it would demean the Nobel Prize if it were awarded to students, except in very exceptional cases. She did not believe that this was one of them.

    In many ways, I think she’s right. Students are able to conduct their research because they are educated and mentored by their professors and it is thus appropriate that the professor is recognized for their scientific leadership. Still, I would not have objected if she had been recognized by the Swedish Academy for her work. I would include her name with other overlooked female luminaries, like Lise Meitner, Rosalind Franklin, Vera Rubin, and others.

    However, Nobel Prize aside, Bell Burnell’s life after graduate school has been full of accolades and achievements. She has been a professor at a number of institutions and was president of both the Royal Astronomical Society and the Royal Society of Edinburgh. She was also made a Dame Commander of the British Empire for her astronomical work, the second highest level recognition of the Order of the British Empire, equivalent to Knight Commander.

    Despite the accolades, Bell Burnell has proven that she does what she does not for the prestige or money, but for the sake of science. She has announced that she is donating the entire $3 million dollars to the Institute of Physics to provide scholarships and support to students and scholars from underrepresented groups in science.

    The face of cutting edge science is changing, but not quickly. Women were awarded only about 5% of physics bachelor’s degrees in 1967, when Bell Burnell made her discovery, but has risen to 20% as of last year. And when one looks more broadly at science, technology, engineering and math over the same time period, the percentage of STEM degrees awarded to women has jumped from about 17% to over 35%. Things are getting better, but there is still room for improvement.

    It’s nice to see a brilliant career recognized in this way, and even nicer to see such a magnanimous gesture toward future students. By supporting the next generation of scientists, Bell Burnell’s legacy will include not only her own discoveries, but future ones as well.

    See the full article here .


    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

  • richardmitnick 5:17 pm on August 20, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , , Don Lincoln from FNAL, , , , The scientific theories battling to explain the universe   

    From CNN: “The scientific theories battling to explain the universe” 

    From CNN

    August 17, 2018
    FNAL’s Don Lincoln

    In human history, there have been many interesting and epic feuds — the Hatfields and McCoys, Bette Davis and Joan Crawford, or the Notorious B.I.G and Tupac. Many of us love to read in tabloids or history books about the salacious details of how the bad blood came to be.

    Just like these human characters, scientific theories can also fall into disagreement, causing just as much drama in the science world.

    Recently, a group of scientists claimed to have found a fatal tension between two of the scientific community’s most mind-blowing theories: superstrings and dark energy. If the authors are correct, one of the two theories is in trouble.

    Superstring theory is a candidate theory of everything, with the operative word being “candidate,” meaning it is not yet accepted by the scientific community. It tries to explain all observed phenomena of the universe with a single principle. At its core, it predicts that the smallest building blocks of the cosmos aren’t the familiar atoms and protons, neutrons, and electrons; nor are the smallest building blocks the even-smaller quarks and lepton that my colleagues and I have discovered. Instead, superstring theory suggests that the very smallest building blocks of all are tiny and vibrating “strings.”

    These strings can vibrate in different ways — essentially different notes — with each note looking like one of the known subatomic particles. Waxing slightly poetic, superstring theory explains the universe as a vast and cosmic symphony.

    The other popular theory, called dark energy, is quite different. Astronomers have long known that the universe is expanding. For decades, we thought we understood that, because gravity is an attractive force, this expansion would slow over the lifetime of the universe. It was therefore a surprise when, in 1998, astronomers discovered that not only was the expansion of the universe not slowing down — it was speeding up.

    To explain this observation, astronomers added a type of energy — called dark energy — to Einstein’s equations describing the behavior of gravity. Dark energy is an energy field that permeates the entire universe. And, because the expansion of the universe is accelerating, dark energy must exist and it must be positive. The reason we know that is simple. If the dark energy didn’t exist or was negative, the expansion of the universe would be slowing down.

    So, what is it about these two theories that has caused such a conflict?

    In a nutshell, it’s hard to make a superstring theory with positive energy and yet the accelerating expansion of the universe demands it. If one theory is completely accurate it means that a key aspect of the other is wrong. And, on the face of it, things look bad for superstring theory. This is because while dark energy is still a theory, the accelerating expansion of the universe is not. Thus, dark energy is probably true, while superstring theory still remains only a conjecture.

    But there’s a reason that scientists aren’t rushing to media platforms to spread the news that superstring theory has been disproved.

    It’s because superstring theory is fiendishly complex. Aside from the prediction of subatomic vibrating strings, it also predicts that there are more dimensions of space than our familiar three. In fact, the theory predicts that there are nine in total — 10 if you include time. You’d think that this would be a fatal flaw of the theory, but these additional dimensions are thought to be invisibly small.

    Since these extra dimensions (if they exist) are smaller than our best instrumentation can detect, we don’t know what their shapes are, and scientists must consider all possibilities. But there are a lot of possibilities. In fact, there are more configurations than there are atoms in a million universes just like ours. It’s a crazy big number.

    So, what conclusion can we draw?

    With so many possible configurations, it would seem that superstring theory could predict just about anything, yet the scientists who pointed out the theories’ disagreement are making the bold claim that none of these configurations result in the existence of a positive and constant energy (aka, the theory of dark energy).

    And all the data recorded so far have made scientists feel relatively confident that dark energy not only exists, but is also both positive and nearly constant, making it seem likely that, if only one of these theories can be true, it’s dark energy for the win. Still, it’s premature to make any conclusions about the superstrings. It’s possible that scientists are not right about the nature of dark energy and they are using powerful instruments like the Dark Energy Survey to refine their measurements.

    The bottom line is that physicists are going to have to take this new idea seriously. It’s not quite a WWE cage match, but it’s going to be fun to watch these theories fight it out.

    See the full article here .


    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

  • richardmitnick 7:50 pm on April 10, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Don Lincoln from FNAL, , The Twin Paradox is the most famous of all of the seeming-inconsistencies of special relativity   

    From Don Lincoln at FNAL: “Twin paradox: the real explanation (no math)” Video 

    FNAL II photo

    FNAL Art Image
    FNAL Art Image by Angela Gonzales

    Fermilab is an enduring source of strength for the US contribution to scientific research world wide.

    FNAL’s Don Lincoln

    Don Lincoln

    The Twin Paradox is the most famous of all of the seeming-inconsistencies of special relativity. In this video, Fermilab’s Dr. Don Lincoln explains it without using mathematics. This is a companion video for his earlier one in which the same question was handled mathematically.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    FNAL Icon

    Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory (Fermilab), located just outside Batavia, Illinois, near Chicago, is a US Department of Energy national laboratory specializing in high-energy particle physics. Fermilab is America’s premier laboratory for particle physics and accelerator research, funded by the U.S. Department of Energy. Thousands of scientists from universities and laboratories around the world
    collaborate at Fermilab on experiments at the frontiers of discovery.



    FNAL Muon g-2 studio

    FNAL Short-Baseline Near Detector under construction

    FNAL Mu2e solenoid

    Dark Energy Camera [DECam], built at FNAL

    FNAL DUNE Argon tank at SURF


    FNAL Don Lincoln


    FNAL Cryomodule Testing Facility

    FNAL Minos Far Detector

    FNAL LBNF/DUNE from FNAL to SURF, Lead, South Dakota, USA

    FNAL/NOvA experiment map

    FNAL NOvA Near Detector


    FNAL Holometer

  • richardmitnick 4:08 pm on April 5, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Don Lincoln from FNAL, Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology: Career Achievement Award   

    From Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology: Career Achievement Award – Don Lincoln 

    FNAL’s Don Lincoln

    Donald Lincoln

    Don has worked to make the universe easier to understand since graduating from Rose-Hulman in 1986 with degrees in physics and math. He is now a senior scientist at Fermi National Accelerator Lab, America’s leading particle physics laboratory. He has co-authored more than 1,000 scientific publications ranging from microscopic black holes and extra dimensions to the elusive Higgs boson. He was part of the teams that discovered the top quark and the Higgs boson, and is a Fellow of the American Physical Society and the American Association for the Advancement of Science. Don has authored three books about particle physics, and his fourth book, Alien Universe, combines astrobiology and popular reports of alien visitation to weave together a complete tale of the possibility of life on other planets. He has written a 12 hour long video course, Theory of Everything, for The Great Courses, has authored numerous scientific articles, is a frequent contributor to CNN, and has appeared on the television show NOVA. Don earned the 2013 Outreach Prize from the High Energy Physics Division of the European Physical Society and the 2017 Gemant Award from the American Institute of Physics. Don has given hundreds of lectures across four continents to a broad range of audiences, but his favorite kind of audience is made up of non-scientists who are interested in understanding how the world works.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

  • richardmitnick 10:24 am on April 2, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , Don Lincoln from FNAL, , , , ,   

    From CNN: “Why the universe shouldn’t exist at all” 


    April 1, 2018

    FNAL’s Don Lincoln

    Don Lincoln, a senior physicist at Fermilab, does research using the Large Hadron Collider. He is the author of The Large Hadron Collider: The Extraordinary Story of the Higgs Boson and Other Stuff That Will Blow Your Mind, and produces a series of science education videos. Follow him on Facebook. The opinions expressed in this commentary are his.

    Why is there something, rather than nothing?” could be the oldest and deepest question in all of metaphysics. Long exclusively the province of philosophy, in recent years this question has become one that can be addressed by scientific methods. What’s more, a new scientific advance has made it more likely that we will finally be able to answer this cosmic conundrum. This is a big deal, because the simplest scientific answer to that question is “We shouldn’t exist at all.”

    Obviously, we know that there must be something, because we’re here. If there were nothing, we couldn’t ask the question. But why? Why is there something? Why is the universe not a featureless void? Why does our universe have matter and not only energy? It might seem surprising, but given our current theories and measurements, science cannot answer those questions.

    However, give some scientists 65 pounds of a rare isotope of germanium, cool it to temperatures cold enough to liquify air, and place their equipment nearly a mile underground in an abandoned gold mine, and you’ll have the beginnings of an answer. Their project is called the Majorana Demonstrator and it is located at the Sanford Underground Research Facility, near Lead, South Dakota.

    U Washington Majorana Demonstrator Experiment at SURF

    Science paper om Majorana Demonstrator project
    Initial Results from the Majorana Demonstrator
    Journal of Physics: Conference Series

    SURF-Sanford Underground Research Facility

    SURF Above Ground

    SURF Out with the Old

    SURF An Empty Slate

    SURF Carving New Space

    SURF Shotcreting

    SURF Bolting and Wire Mesh

    SURF Outfitting Begins

    SURF circular wooden frame was built to form a concrete ring to hold the 72,000-gallon (272,549 liters) water tank that would house the LUX dark matter detector

    SURF LUX water tank was transported in pieces and welded together in the Davis Cavern

    SURF Ground Support

    SURF Dedicated to Science

    SURF Building a Ship in a Bottle

    SURF Tight Spaces

    SURF Ready for Science

    SURF Entrance Before Outfitting

    SURF Entrance After Outfitting

    SURF Common Corridior

    SURF Davis

    SURF Davis A World Class Site

    SURF Davis a Lab Site

    SURF DUNE LBNF Caverns at Sanford Lab

    FNAL DUNE Argon tank at SURF

    U Washington LUX Xenon experiment at SURF

    SURF Before Majorana

    U Washington Majorana Demonstrator Experiment at SURF

    To grasp why science has trouble explaining why matter exists — and to understand the scientific achievement of Majorana — we must first know a few simple things. First, our universe is made exclusively of matter; you, me, the Earth, even distant galaxies. All of it is matter.

    However, our best theory for explaining the behavior of the matter and energy of the universe contradicts the realities that we observe in the universe all around us. This theory, called the Standard Model, says that the matter of the universe should be accompanied by an identical amount of antimatter, which, as its name suggests, is a substance antagonistic to matter. Combine equal amounts of matter and antimatter and it will convert into energy.

    And the street goes both ways: Enough energy can convert into matter and antimatter. (Fun fact: Combining a paper clip’s worth of matter and antimatter will result in the same energy released in the atomic explosion at Hiroshima. Don’t worry though; since antimatter’s discovery in 1931, we have only been able to isolate enough of it to make about 10 pots of coffee.)

    An enigma about the relative amounts of matter and antimatter in the universe arises when we think about how the universe came to be. Modern cosmology says the universe began in an unimaginable Big Bang — an explosion of energy. In this theory, equal amounts of matter and antimatter should have resulted.

    So how is our universe made exclusively of matter? Where did the antimatter go?

    The simplest answer is that we don’t know. In fact, it remains one of the biggest unanswered problems of modern physics.

    Just because the question of missing antimatter is unanswered doesn’t mean that scientists are completely clueless. Beginning in 1964 and continuing through to the present day, physicists have studied the problem and we have found out that early in the universe there was a slight asymmetry in the laws of nature that treated matter and antimatter differently.

    Very approximately, for every billion antimatter subatomic particles that were made in the Big Bang, there were a billion-and-one matter particles. The billion matter and antimatter particles were annihilated, leaving the small amount of leftover matter (the “one”) that went on to make up the universe we see around us. This is accepted science.

    However, we don’t know the process whereby the asymmetry in the laws of the universe arose. One possible explanation revolves around a class of subatomic particles called leptons.

    The most well-known of the leptons is the familiar electron, found around atoms. However, a less known lepton is called the neutrino. Neutrinos are emitted in a particular kind of nuclear radiation, called beta decay. Beta decay occurs when a neutron in an atom decays into a proton, an electron, and a neutrino.

    Neutrinos are fascinating particles. They interact extremely weakly; a steady barrage of neutrinos from the nuclear reactions in the sun pass through the entire Earth essentially without interacting. Because they interact so little, they are very difficult to detect and study. And that means that there are properties of neutrinos that we still don’t understand.

    Still a mystery to scientists is whether there is a difference between neutrino matter and neutrino antimatter. While we know that both exist, we don’t know if they are different subatomic particles or if they are the same thing. That’s a heavy thought, so perhaps an analogy will help.

    Imagine you have a set of twins, with each twin standing in for the matter and antimatter neutrinos. If the twins are fraternal, you can tell them apart, but if they are identical, you can’t. Essentially, we don’t know which kind of twins the neutrino matter/antimatter pair are.

    If neutrinos are their own antimatter particle, it would be an enormous clue in the mystery of the missing antimatter. So, naturally, scientists are working to figure this out.

    The way they do that is to look first for a very rare form of beta decay, called double beta decay. That’s when two neutrons in the nucleus of an atom simultaneously decay. In this process, two neutrinos are emitted. Scientists have observed this kind of decay.

    However, if neutrinos are their own antiparticle, an even rarer thing can occur called “neutrinoless double beta decay.” In this process, the neutrinos are absorbed before they get outside of the nucleus. In this case, no neutrinos are emitted. This process has not been observed and this is what scientists are looking for. The observation of a single, unambiguous neutrinoless double beta decay would show that matter and antimatter neutrinos were the same.

    If indeed neutrinoless double beta decay exists, it’s very hard to detect and it’s important that scientists can discriminate between the many types of radioactive decay that mimic that of a neutrino. This requires the design and construction of very precise detectors.

    So that’s what the Majorana Demonstrator scientists achieved. They developed the technology necessary to make this very difficult differentiation. This demonstration paints a way forward for a follow-up experiment that can, once and for all, answer the question of whether matter and antimatter neutrinos are the same or different. And, with that information in hand, it might be possible to understand why our universe is made only of matter.

    For millennia, introspective thinkers have pondered the great questions of existence. Why are we here? Why is the universe the way it is? Do things have to be this way? With this advance, scientists have taken a step forward in answering these timeless questions.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

  • richardmitnick 4:49 pm on July 1, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: Don Lincoln from FNAL, ,   

    From PBS: Quantum Field Theory 

    Quantum Field Theory

    Watch for Don Lincoln of FNAL

    Watch, enjoy learn.

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

Compose new post
Next post/Next comment
Previous post/Previous comment
Show/Hide comments
Go to top
Go to login
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
%d bloggers like this: