Tagged: FNAL NOvA Toggle Comment Threads | Keyboard Shortcuts

  • richardmitnick 2:49 pm on October 26, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , FNAL NOvA, J-PARC accelerator, , , Super Kamiokande experiment, T2K (Tokai to Kamiokande) experiment   

    From Live Science: “Could Misbehaving Neutrinos Explain Why the Universe Exists?” 

    Livescience
    From Live Science

    October 24, 2018

    FNAL’s Don Lincoln

    1
    Credit: Shutterstock

    Scientists revel in exploring mysteries, and the bigger the mystery, the greater the enthusiasm. There are many huge unanswered questions in science, but when you’re going big, it’s hard to beat “Why is there something, instead of nothing?”

    That might seem like a philosophical question, but it’s one that is very amenable to scientific inquiry. Stated a little more concretely, “Why is the universe made of the kinds of matter that makes human life possible so that we can even ask this question?” Scientists conducting research in Japan have announced a measurement last month that directly addresses that most fascinating of inquiries. It appears that their measurement disagrees with the simplest expectations of current theory and could well point toward an answer of this timeless question.

    Their measurement seems to say that for a particular set of subatomic particles, matter and antimatter act differently.

    Matter v. Antimatter

    Using the J-PARC accelerator, located in Tokai, Japan, scientists fired a beam of ghostly subatomic particles called neutrinos and their antimatter counterparts (antineutrinos) through the Earth to the Super Kamiokande experiment, located in Kamioka, also in Japan.

    J-PARC Facility Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex , located in Tokai village, Ibaraki prefecture, on the east coast of Japan

    Super-Kamiokande experiment. located under Mount Ikeno near the city of Hida, Gifu Prefecture, Japan

    This experiment, called T2K (Tokai to Kamiokande), is designed to determine why our universe is made of matter. A peculiar behavior exhibited by neutrinos, called neutrino oscillation, might shed some light on this very vexing problem.

    T2K map, T2K Experiment, Tokai to Kamioka, Japan

    Asking why the universe is made of matter might sound like a peculiar question, but there is a very good reason that scientists are surprised by this. It’s because, in addition to knowing of the existence of matter, scientists also know of antimatter.

    In 1928, British physicist Paul Dirac proposed the existence of antimatter — an antagonistic sibling of matter. Combine equal amounts of matter and antimatter and the two annihilate each other, resulting in the release of an enormous amount of energy. And, because physics principles usually work equally well in reverse, if you have a prodigious quantity of energy, it can convert into exactly equal amounts of matter and antimatter. Antimatter was discovered in 1932 by American Carl Anderson and researchers have had nearly a century to study its properties.

    However, that “into exactly equal amounts” phrase is the crux of the conundrum. In the brief moments immediately after the Big Bang, the universe was full of energy. As it expanded and cooled, that energy should have converted into equal parts matter and antimatter subatomic particles, which should be observable today. And yet our universe consists essentially entirely of matter. How can that be?

    By counting the number of atoms in the universe and comparing that with the amount of energy we see, scientists determined that “exactly equal” isn’t quite right. Somehow, when the universe was about a tenth of a trillionth of a second old, the laws of nature skewed ever-so-slightly in the direction of matter. For every 3,000,000,000 antimatter particles, there were 3,000,000,001 matter particles. The 3 billion matter particles and 3 billion antimatter particles combined — and annihilated back into energy, leaving the slight matter excess to make up the universe we see today.

    Since this puzzle was understood nearly a century ago, researchers have been studying matter and antimatter to see if they could find behavior in subatomic particles that would explain the excess of matter. They are confident that matter and antimatter are made in equal quantities, but they have also observed that a class of subatomic particles called quarks exhibit behaviors that slightly favor matter over antimatter. That particular measurement was subtle, involving a class of particles called K mesons which can convert from matter to antimatter and back again. But there is a slight difference in matter converting to antimatter as compared to the reverse. This phenomenon was unexpected and its discovery led to the 1980 Nobel prize, but the magnitude of the effect was not enough to explain why matter dominates in our universe.

    Ghostly beams

    Thus, scientists have turned their attention to neutrinos, to see if their behavior can explain the excess matter. Neutrinos are the ghosts of the subatomic world. Interacting via only the weak nuclear force, they can pass through matter without interacting nearly at all. To give a sense of scale, neutrinos are most commonly created in nuclear reactions and the biggest nuclear reactor around is the Sun. To shield one’s self from half of the solar neutrinos would take a mass of solid lead about 5 light-years in depth. Neutrinos really don’t interact very much.

    Between 1998 and 2001, a series of experiments — one using the Super Kamiokande detector, and another using the SNO detector in Sudbury, Ontario ­­— proved definitively that neutrinos also exhibit another surprising behavior. They change their identity.

    SNOLAB, a Canadian underground physics laboratory at a depth of 2 km in Vale’s Creighton nickel mine in Sudbury, Ontario


    SNOLAB, Sudbury, Ontario, Canada.

    Physicists know of three distinct kinds of neutrinos, each associated with a unique subatomic sibling, called electrons, muons and taus. Electrons are what causes electricity and the muon and tau particle are very much like electrons, but heavier and unstable.

    The three kinds of neutrinos, called the electron neutrino, muon neutrino and tau neutrino, can “morph” into other types of neutrinos and back again. This behavior is called neutrino oscillation.

    Neutrino oscillation is a uniquely quantum phenomenon, but it is roughly analogous to starting out with a bowl of vanilla ice cream and, after you go and find a spoon, you come back to find that the bowl is half vanilla and half chocolate. Neutrinos change their identity from being entirely one type, to a mix of types, to an entirely different type, and then back to the original type.

    Antineutrino oscillations

    Neutrinos are matter particles, but antimatter neutrinos, called antineutrinos, also exist. And that leads to a very important question. Neutrinos oscillate, but do antineutrinos also oscillate and do they oscillate in exactly the same way as neutrinos? The answer to the first question is yes, while the answer to the second is not known.

    Let’s consider this a little more fully, but in a simplified way: Suppose that there were only two neutrino types — muon and electron. Suppose further that you had a beam of purely muon type neutrinos. Neutrinos oscillate at a specific speed and, since they move near the speed of light, they oscillate as a function of distance from where they were created. Thus, a beam of pure muon neutrinos will look like a mix of muon and electron types at some distance, then purely electron types at another distance and then back to muon-only. Antimatter neutrinos do the same thing.

    However, if matter and antimatter neutrinos oscillate at slightly different rates, you’d expect that if you were a fixed distance from the point at which a beam of pure muon neutrinos or muon antineutrinos were created, then in the neutrino case you’d see one blend of muon and electron neutrinos, but in the antimatter neutrino case, you’d see a different blend of antimatter muon and electron neutrinos. The actual situation is complicated by the fact that there are three kinds of neutrinos and the oscillation depends on beam energy, but these are the big ideas.

    The observation of different oscillation frequencies by neutrinos and antineutrinos would be an important step towards understanding the fact that the universe is made of matter. It’s not the entire story, because additional new phenomena must also hold, but the difference between matter and antimatter neutrinos is necessary to explain why there is more matter in the universe.

    In the current prevailing theory describing neutrino interactions, there is a variable that is sensitive to the possibility that neutrinos and antineutrinos oscillate differently. If that variable is zero, the two types of particles oscillate at identical rates; if that variable differs from zero, the two particle types oscillate differently.

    When T2K measured this variable, they found it was inconsistent with the hypothesis that neutrinos and antineutrinos oscillate identically. A little more technically, they determined a range of possible values for this variable. There is a 95 percent chance that the true value for that variable is within that range and only a 5 percent chance that the true variable is outside that range. The “no difference” hypothesis is outside the 95 percent range.

    In simpler terms, the current measurement suggests that neutrinos and antimatter neutrinos oscillate differently, although the certainty does not rise to the level to make a definitive claim. In fact, critics point out that measurements with this level of statistical significance should be viewed very, very skeptically. But it is certainly an enormously provocative initial result, and the world’s scientific community is extremely interested in seeing improved and more precise studies.

    The T2K experiment will continue to record additional data in hopes of making a definitive measurement, but it’s not the only game in town. At Fermilab, located outside Chicago, a similar experiment called NOvA is shooting both neutrinos and antimatter neutrinos to northern Minnesota, hoping to beat T2K to the punch.

    FNAL NOvA Near Detector


    FNAL/NOvA experiment map


    FNAL NOvA far detector in northern Minnesota


    NOvA Far Detector Block

    And, looking more to the future, Fermilab is working hard on what will be its flagship experiment, called DUNE (Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment), which will have far superior capabilities to study this important phenomenon.


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


    SURF DUNE LBNF Caverns at Sanford Lab

    While the T2K result is not definitive and caution is warranted, it is certainly tantalizing. Given the enormity of the question of why our universe seems to have no appreciable antimatter, the world’s scientific community will avidly await further updates.

    See the full article here .

    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    Advertisements
     
  • richardmitnick 2:02 pm on September 25, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , FNAL NOvA, , LSND, , , ,   

    From Symmetry: “How not to be fooled in physics” 

    Symmetry Mag
    From Symmetry

    09/25/18
    Laura Dattaro

    1
    Illustration by Sandbox Studio, Chicago with Ana Kova

    Particle physicists and astrophysicists employ a variety of tools to avoid erroneous results.

    In the 1990s, an experiment conducted in Los Alamos, about 35 miles northwest of the capital of New Mexico, appeared to find something odd.

    Scientists designed the Liquid Scintillator Neutrino Detector experiment at the US Department of Energy’s Los Alamos National Laboratory to count neutrinos, ghostly particles that come in three types and rarely interact with other matter.

    LSND experiment at Los Alamos National Laboratory and Virginia Tech

    LSND was looking for evidence of neutrino oscillation, or neutrinos changing from one type to another.

    Several previous experiments had seen indications of such oscillations, which show that neutrinos have small masses not incorporated into the Standard Model, the ruling theory of particle physics. LSND scientists wanted to double-check these earlier measurements.

    By studying a nearly pure source of one type of neutrinos—muon neutrinos—LSND did find evidence of oscillation to a different type of neutrinos, electron neutrinos. However, they found many more electron neutrinos in their detector than predicted, creating a new puzzle.

    This excess could have been a sign that neutrinos oscillate between not three but four different types, suggesting the existence of a possible new type of neutrino, called a sterile neutrino, which theorists had suggested as a possible way to incorporate tiny neutrino masses into the Standard Model.

    Or there could be another explanation. The question is: What? And how can scientists guard against being fooled in physics?

    Brand new thing

    Many physicists are looking for results that go beyond the Standard Model. They come up with experiments to test its predictions; if what they find doesn’t match up, they have potentially discovered something new.

    “Do we see what we expected from the calculations if all we have there is the Standard Model?” says Paris Sphicas, a researcher at CERN.

    The Standard Model of elementary particles (more schematic depiction), with the three generations of matter, gauge bosons in the fourth column, and the Higgs boson in the fifth.


    Standard Model of Particle Physics from Symmetry Magazine

    “If the answer is yes, then it means we have nothing new. If the answer is no, then you have the next question, which is, ‘Is this within the uncertainties of our estimates? Could this be a result of a mistake in our estimates?’ And so on and so on.”

    A long list of possible factors can trick scientists into thinking they’ve made a discovery. A big part of scientific research is identifying them and finding ways to test what’s really going on.

    “The community standard for discovery is a high bar, and it ought to be,” says Yale University neutrino physicist Bonnie Fleming. “It takes time to really convince ourselves we’ve really found something.”

    In the case of the LSND anomaly, scientists wonder whether unaccounted-for background events tipped the scales or if some sort of mechanical problem caused an error in the measurement.

    Scientists have designed follow-up experiments to see if they can reproduce the result. An experiment called MiniBooNE, hosted by Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, recently reported seeing signs of a similar excess. Other experiments, such as the MINOS experiment, also at Fermilab, have not seen it, complicating the search.

    FNAL/MiniBooNE

    FNAL Minos map


    FNAL/MINOS


    FNAL MINOS Far Detector in the Soudan Mine in northern Minnesota

    “[LSND and MiniBooNE] are clearly measuring an excess of events over what they expect,” says MINOS co-spokesperson Jenny Thomas, a physicist at University College London. “Are those important signal events, or are they a background they haven’t estimated properly? That’s what they are up against.”

    Managing expectations

    Much of the work in understanding a signal involves preparatory work before one is even seen.

    In designing an experiment, researchers need to understand what physics processes can produce or mimic the signal being sought, events that are often referred to as “background.”

    Physicists can predict backgrounds through simulations of experiments. Some types of detector backgrounds can be identified through “null tests,” such as pointing a telescope at a blank wall. Other backgrounds can be identified through tests with the data itself, such as so-called “jack-knife tests,” which involve splitting data into subsets—say, data from Monday and data from Tuesday—which by design must produce the same results. Any inconsistencies would warn scientists about a signal that appears in just one subset.

    Researchers looking at a specific signal work to develop a deep understanding of what other physics processes could produce the same signature in their detector. MiniBooNE, for example, studies a beam primarily made of muon neutrinos to measure how often those neutrinos oscillate to other flavors. But it will occasionally pick up stray electron neutrinos, which look like muon neutrinos that have transformed. Beyond that, other physics processes can mimic the signal of an electron neutrino event.

    “We know we’re going to be faked by those, so we have to do the best job to estimate how many of them there are,” Fleming says. “Whatever excess we find has to be in addition to those.”

    Even more variable than a particle beam: human beings. While science strives to be an objective measurement of facts, the process itself is conducted by a collection of people whose actions can be colored by biases, personal stories and emotion. A preconceived notion that an experiment will (or won’t) produce a certain result, for example, could influence a researcher’s work in subtle ways.

    “I think there’s a stereotype that scientists are somehow dispassionate, cold, calculating observers of reality,” says Brian Keating, an astrophysicist at University of California San Diego and author of the book Losing the Nobel Prize, which chronicles how the desire to make a prize-winning discovery can steer a scientist away from best practices. “In reality, the truth is we actually participate in it, and there are sociological elements at work that influence a human being. Scientists, despite the stereotypes, are very much human beings.”

    Staying cognizant of this fact and incorporating methods for removing bias are especially important if a particular claim upends long-standing knowledge—such as, for example, our understanding of neutrinos. In these cases, scientists know to adhere to the adage: Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

    “If you’re walking outside your house and you see a car, you probably think, ‘That’s a car,’” says Jonah Kanner, a research scientist at Caltech. “But if you see a dragon, you might think, ‘Is that really a dragon? Am I sure that’s a dragon?’ You’d want a higher level of evidence.”


    Dragon or discovery?

    Physicists have been burned by dragons before. In 1969, for example, a scientist named Joe Weber announced that he had detected gravitational waves: ripples in the fabric of space-time first predicted by Albert Einstein in 1916. Such a detection, which many had thought was impossible to make, would have proved a key tenet of relativity. Weber rocketed to momentary fame, until other physicists found they could not replicate his results.

    The false discovery rocked the gravitational wave community, which, over the decades, became increasingly cautious about making such announcements.

    So in 2009, as the Laser Interferometer Gravitational Wave Observatory, or LIGO, came online for its next science run, the scientific collaboration came up with a way to make sure collaboration members stayed skeptical of their results. They developed a method of adding a false or simulated signal into the detector data stream without alerting the majority of the 800 or so researchers on the team. They called it a blind injection. The rest of the members knew an injection was possible, but not guaranteed.

    “We’d been not detecting signals for 30 years,” Kanner, a member of the LIGO collaboration, says. “How clear or obvious would the signature have to be for everyone to believe it?… It forced us to push our algorithms and our statistics and our procedures, but also to test the sociology and see if we could get a group of people to agree on this.”

    In late 2010, the team got the alert they had been waiting for: The computers detected a signal. For six months, hundreds of scientists analyzed the results, eventually concluding that the signal looked like gravitational waves. They wrote a paper detailing the evidence, and more than 400 team members voted on its approval. Then a senior member told them it had all been faked.

    Picking out and spending so much time examining such an artificial signal may seem like a waste of time, but the test worked just as intended. The exercise forced the scientists to work through all of the ways they would need to scrutinize a real result before one ever came through. It forced the collaboration to develop new tests and approaches to demonstrating the consistency of a possible signal in advance of a real event.

    “It was designed to keep us honest in a sense,” Kanner says. “Everyone to some extent goes in with some guess or expectation about what’s going to come out of that experiment. Part of the idea of the blind injection was to try and tip the scales on that bias, where our beliefs about whether we thought nature should produce an event would be less important.”

    All of the hard work paid off: In September 2015, when an authentic signal hit the LIGO detectors, scientists knew what to do. In 2016, the collaboration announced the first confirmed direct detection of gravitational waves. One year later, the discovery won the Nobel Prize.


    VIRGO Gravitational Wave interferometer, near Pisa, Italy

    Caltech/MIT Advanced aLigo Hanford, WA, USA installation


    Caltech/MIT Advanced aLigo detector installation Livingston, LA, USA

    Cornell SXS, the Simulating eXtreme Spacetimes (SXS) project

    Gravitational waves. Credit: MPI for Gravitational Physics/W.Benger

    ESA/eLISA the future of gravitational wave research

    1
    Skymap showing how adding Virgo to LIGO helps in reducing the size of the source-likely region in the sky. (Credit: Giuseppe Greco (Virgo Urbino group)

    No easy answers

    While blind injections worked for the gravitational waves community, each area of physics presents its own unique challenges.

    Neutrino physicists have an extremely small sample size with which to work, because their particles interact so rarely. That’s why experiments such as the NOvA experiment and the upcoming Deep Underground Neutrino experiment use such enormous detectors.

    FNAL/NOvA experiment map


    FNAL NOvA detector in northern Minnesota


    FNAL NOvA Near Detector

    Astronomers have even fewer samples: They have just one universe to study, and no way to conduct controlled experiments. That’s why they conduct decades-long surveys, to collect as much data as possible.

    Researchers working at the Large Hadron Collider have no shortage of interactions to study—an estimated 600 million events are detected every second.

    LHC

    CERN map


    CERN LHC Tunnel

    CERN LHC particles

    But due to the enormous size, cost and complexity of the technology, scientists have built only one LHC. That’s why inside the collider sit multiple different detectors, which can check one another’s work by measuring the same things in a variety of ways with detectors of different designs.

    CERN ATLAS


    CERN/CMS Detector



    CERN ALICE detector


    CERN LHCb chamber, LHC

    While there are many central tenets to checking a result—knowing your experiment and background well, running simulations and checking that they agree with your data, testing alternative explanations of a suspected result—there’s no comprehensive checklist that every physicist performs. Strategies vary from experiment to experiment, among fields and over time.

    Scientists must do everything they can to test a result, because in the end, it will need to stand up to the scrutiny of their peers. Fellow physicists will question the new result, subject it to their own analyses, try out alternative interpretations, and, ultimately, try to repeat the measurement in a different way. Especially if they’re dealing with dragons.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    Symmetry is a joint Fermilab/SLAC publication.


     
  • richardmitnick 7:44 pm on July 3, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , FNAL NOvA, , , ,   

    From Fermilab: “Fermilab computing experts bolster NOvA evidence, 1 million cores consumed” 

    FNAL II photo

    FNAL Art Image
    FNAL Art Image by Angela Gonzales

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

    July 3, 2018
    No writer credit found

    How do you arrive at the physical laws of the universe when you’re given experimental data on a renegade particle that interacts so rarely with matter, it can cruise through light-years of lead? You call on the power of advanced computing.

    The NOvA neutrino experiment, in collaboration with the Department of Energy’s Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing (SciDAC-4) program and the HEPCloud program at DOE’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, was able to perform the largest-scale analysis ever to support the recent evidence of antineutrino oscillation, a phenomenon that may hold clues to how our universe evolved.

    FNAL/NOvA experiment map


    FNAL NOvA detector in northern Minnesota


    NOvA Far detector 15 metric-kiloton far detector in Minnesota just south of the U.S.-Canada border schematic


    NOvA Far Detector Block


    FNAL Near Detector

    Using Cori, the newest supercomputer at the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center (NERSC), located at Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, NOvA used over 1 million computing cores, or CPUs, between May 14 and 15 and over a short timeframe one week later.

    1
    The Cori supercomputer at NERSC was used to perform a complex computational analysis for NOvA. NOvA used over 1 million computing cores, the largest amount ever used concurrently in a 54-hour period. Photo: Roy Kaltschmidt, Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory
    NERSC CRAY Cori II supercomputerat NERSC at LBNL, named after Gerty Cori, the first American woman to win a Nobel Prize in science

    This is the largest number of CPUs ever used concurrently over this duration — about 54 hours — for a single high-energy physics experiment. This unprecedented amount of computing enabled scientists to carry out some of the most complicated techniques used in neutrino physics, allowing them to dig deeper into the seldom seen interactions of neutrinos. This Cori allocation was more than 400 times the amount of Fermilab computing allocated to the NOvA experiment and 50 times the total computing capacity at Fermilab allocated for all of its rare-physics experiments. A continuation of the analysis was performed on NERSC’s Cori and Edison supercomputers one week later.

    LBL NERSC Cray XC30 Edison supercomputer

    In total, nearly 35 million core-hours were consumed by NOvA in the 54-hour period. Executing the same analysis on a single desktop computer would take 4,000 years.

    “The special thing about NERSC is that it enabled NOvA to do the science at a new level of precision, a much finer resolution with greater statistical accuracy within a finite amount of time,” said Andrew Norman, NOvA physicist at Fermilab. “It facilitated doing analysis of real data coming off the detector at a rate 50 times faster than that achieved in the past. The first round of analysis was done within 16 hours. Experimenters were able to see what was coming out of the data, and in less than six hours everyone was looking at it. Without these types of resources, we, as a collaboration, could not have turned around results as quickly and understood what we were seeing.”

    The experiment presented the latest finding from the recently collected data at the Neutrino 2018 conference in Germany on June 4.

    “The speed with which NERSC allowed our analysis team to run sophisticated and intense calculations needed to produce our final results has been a game-changer,” said Fermilab scientist Peter Shanahan, NOvA co-spokesperson. “It accelerated our time-to-results on the last step in our analysis from weeks to days, and that has already had a huge impact on what we were able to show at Neutrino 2018.”

    In addition to the state-of-the-art NERSC facility, NOvA relied on work done within the SciDAC HEP Data Analytics on HPC (high-performance computers) project and the Fermilab HEPCloud facility. Both efforts are led by Fermilab scientific computing staff, and both worked together with researchers at NERSC to be able to support NOvA’s antineutrino oscillation evidence.

    The current standard practice for Fermilab experimenters is to perform similar analyses using less complex calculations through a combination of both traditional high-throughput computing and the distributed computing provided by Open Science Grid, a national partnership between laboratories and universities for data-intensive research. These are substantial resources, but they use a different model: Both use a large amount of computing resources over a long period of time. For example, some resources are offered only at a low priority, so their use may be preempted by higher-priority demands. But for complex, time-sensitive analyses such as NOvA’s, researchers need the faster processing enabled by modern, high-performance computing techniques.

    SciDAC-4 is a DOE Office of Science program that funds collaboration between experts in mathematics, physics and computer science to solve difficult problems. The HEP on HPC project was funded specifically to explore computational analysis techniques for doing large-scale data analysis on DOE-owned supercomputers. Running the NOvA analysis at NERSC, the mission supercomputing facility for the DOE Office of Science, was a task perfectly suited for this project. Fermilab’s Jim Kowalkowski is the principal investigator for HEP on HPC, which also has collaborators from DOE’s Argonne National Laboratory, Berkeley Lab, University of Cincinnati and Colorado State University.

    “This analysis forms a kind of baseline. We’re just ramping up, just starting to exploit the other capabilities of NERSC at an unprecedented scale,” Kowalkowski said.

    The project’s goal for its first year is to take compute-heavy analysis jobs like NOvA’s and enable it on supercomputers. That means not just running the analysis, but also changing how calculations are done and learning how to revamp the tools that manipulate the data, all in an effort to improve techniques used for doing these analyses and to leverage the full computational power and unique capabilities of modern high-performance computing facilities. In addition, the project seeks to consume all computing cores at once to shorten that timeline.

    The Fermilab HEPCloud facility provides cost-effective access to compute resources by optimizing usage across all available types and elastically expanding the resource pool on short notice by, for example, renting temporary resources on commercial clouds or using high-performance computers. HEPCloud enables NOvA and physicists from other experiments to use these compute resources in a transparent way.

    For this analysis, “NOvA experimenters didn’t have to change much in terms of business as usual,” said Burt Holzman, HEPCloud principal investigator. “With HEPCloud, we simply expanded our local on-site-at-Fermilab facilities to include Cori and Edison at NERSC.”

    3
    At the Neutrino 2018 conference, Fermilab’s NOvA neutrino experiment announced that it had seen strong evidence of muon antineutrinos oscillating into electron antineutrinos over long distances. NOvA collaborated with the Department of Energy’s Scientific Discovery through Advanced Computing program and Fermilab’s HEPCloud program to perform the largest-scale analysis ever to support the recent evidence. Photo: Reidar Hahn

    Building on work the Fermilab HEPCloud team has been doing with researchers at NERSC to optimize high-throughput computing in general, the HEPCloud team was able to leverage the facility to achieve the million-core milestone. Thus, it holds the record for the most resources ever provisioned concurrently at a single facility to run experimental HEP workflows.

    “This is the culmination of more than a decade of R&D we have done at Fermilab under SciDAC and the first taste of things to come, using these capabilities and HEPCloud,” said Panagiotis Spentzouris, head of the Fermilab Scientific Computing Division and HEPCloud sponsor.

    “NOvA is an experimental facility located more than 2,000 miles away from Berkeley Lab, where NERSC is located. The fact that we can make our resources available to the experimental researchers near real-time to enable their time-sensitive science that could not be completed otherwise is very exciting,” said Wahid Bhimji, a NERSC data architect at Berkeley Lab who worked with the NOvA team. “Led by colleague Lisa Gerhardt, we’ve been working closely with the HEPCloud team over the last couple of years, also to support physics experiments at the Large Hadron Collider. The recent NOvA results are a great example of how the infrastructure and capabilities that we’ve built can benefit a wide range of high energy experiments.”

    Going forward, Kowalkowski, Holzman and their associated teams will continue building on this achievement.

    “We’re going to keep iterating,” Kowalkowski said. “The new facilities and procedures were enthusiastically received by the NOvA collaboration. We will accelerate other key analyses.”

    NERSC is a DOE Office of Science user facility.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    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/MINERvA

    FNAL DAMIC

    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/MicrobooNE

    FNAL Don Lincoln

    FNAL/MINOS

    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 ICARUS

    FNAL Holometer

     
  • richardmitnick 3:05 pm on June 21, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , FNAL NOvA, Muon antineutrino oscillation spotted by NOvA, ,   

    From physicsworld.com: “Muon antineutrino oscillation spotted by NOvA” 

    physicsworld
    From physicsworld.com

    07 June 2018
    Hamish Johnston

    FNAL NOvA detector in northern Minnesota

    NOvA Far Detector Block

    The best evidence yet that muon antineutrinos can change into electron antineutrinos has been found by the NOvA experiment in the US. The measurement involved sending a beam of muon antineutrinos more than 800 km through the Earth from Fermilab near Chicago to a detector in northern Minnesota. After running for about 14 months, NOvA found that at least 13 of the muon antineutrinos had changed type, or “flavour”, during their journey.

    The results were presented at the Neutrino 2018 conference, which is being held in Heidelberg, Germany, this week. Although the measurement is still below the threshold required to claim a “discovery”, the result means that fundamental properties of neutrinos and antineutrinos can be compared in detail. This could shed light on important mysteries of physics, such as why there is very little antimatter in the universe.

    Neutrinos and antineutrinos come in three flavours: electron, muon and tau. The subatomic particles also exist in three mass states, which means that neutrinos (and antineutrinos) will continuously change flavour (or oscillate). Neutrino oscillation came as a surprise to physicists, who had originally thought that neutrinos have no mass. Indeed, the origins of neutrino mass are not well-understood and a better understanding of neutrino oscillation could point to new physics beyond the Standard Model.
    Pion focusing

    NOvA has been running for more than three years and comprises two detectors – one located at Fermilab and the other in Minnesota near the border with Canada.

    FNAL Near Detector

    The muon antineutrinos in the beam are produced at Fermilab’s NuMI facility by firing a beam of protons at a carbon target. This produces pions, which then decay to produce either muon neutrinos or muon antineutrinos – depending upon the charge of the pion. By focusing pions of one charge into a beam, researchers can create a beam of either neutrinos or antineutrinos.

    The beam is aimed on a slight downward trajectory so it can travel through the Earth to the detector in Minnesota, which weighs in at 14,000 ton. Electron neutrinos and antineutrinos are detected when they very occasionally collide with an atom in a liquid scintillator, which produces a tiny flash of light. This light is converted into electrical signals by photomultipler tubes and the type of neutrino (or antineutrino) can be worked-out by studying the pattern of signal produced.

    The experiment’s first run with antineutrino began in February 2017 and ended in April 2018. The first results were presented this week in Heidelberg by collaboration member Mayly Sanchez of Iowa State University, who reported that a total of 18 electron antineutrinos had been seen by the Minnesota detector. If muon antineutrinos did not oscillate to electron antineutrinos, then only five detections should have been made.
    “Strong evidence”

    “The result is above 4σ level, which is strong evidence for electron antineutrino appearance,” Sanchez told Physics World, adding that this is the first time that the appearance of electron antineutrinos has been seen in a beam of muon antineutrinos. While this is below the 5σ level normally accepted as a discovery in particle physics, it is much stronger evidence than found by physicists working on the T2K detector in Japan – which last year reported seeing hints of the oscillation.

    In 2014-2017 NOvA detected 58 electron neutrinos that have appeared in a muon neutrino beam. This has allowed NOvA physicists to compare the rates at which muon neutrinos and antineutrinos oscillate to their respective electron counterparts. According to Sanchez, the team has seen a small discrepancy that has a statistical significance of just 1.8σ. While this difference is well within the expected measurement uncertainty, if it persists as more data are collected it could point towards new physics.

    Sanchez says that NOvA is still running in antineutrino mode and the amount of data taken will double by 2019.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    Stem Education Coalition

    PhysicsWorld is a publication of the Institute of Physics. The Institute of Physics is a leading scientific society. We are a charitable organisation with a worldwide membership of more than 50,000, working together to advance physics education, research and application.

    We engage with policymakers and the general public to develop awareness and understanding of the value of physics and, through IOP Publishing, we are world leaders in professional scientific communications.
    IOP Institute of Physics

     
  • richardmitnick 10:55 am on June 4, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , FNAL NOvA, , , ,   

    From Fermilab: “NOvA experiment sees strong evidence for antineutrino oscillation” 

    FNAL II photo

    FNAL Art Image
    FNAL Art Image by Angela Gonzales

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

    June 4th, 2018

    Science contact
    Peter Shanahan, co-spokesperson for NOvA, Fermilab
    shanahan@fnal.gov
    630-840-8378

    Tricia Vahle, NOvA co-spokesperson, William & Mary
    plvahle@wm.edu
    757-221-3559

    Media contact
    Andre Salles, Fermilab Office of Communication,
    asalles@fnal.gov
    630-840-6733

    For more than three years, scientists on the NOvA collaboration have been observing particles called neutrinos as they oscillate from one type to another over a distance of 500 miles. Now, in a new result unveiled today at the Neutrino 2018 conference in Heidelberg, Germany, the collaboration has announced its first results using antineutrinos, and has seen strong evidence of muon antineutrinos oscillating into electron antineutrinos, a phenomenon that has never been unambiguously observed.

    3
    This display shows, from two perspectives, an electron antineutrino appearance candidate in the NOvA far detector. Image courtesy of Evan Niner/NOvA collaboration

    FNAL NOvA Near Detector

    NOvA Far detector 15 metric-kiloton far detector in Minnesota just south of the U.S.-Canada border schematic

    NOvA Far Detector Block

    NOvA, based at the U.S. Department of Energy’s Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory, is the world’s longest-baseline neutrino experiment. Its purpose is to discover more about neutrinos, ghostly yet abundant particles that travel through matter mostly without leaving a trace. The experiment’s long-term goal is to look for similarities and differences in how neutrinos and antineutrinos change from one type – in this case, muon – into one of the other two types, electron or tau. Precisely measuring this change in both neutrinos and antineutrinos, and then comparing them, will help scientists unlock the secrets that these particles hold about how the universe operates.

    NOvA uses two large particle detectors – a smaller one at Fermilab in Illinois, and a much larger one 500 miles away in northern Minnesota – to study a beam of particles generated by Fermilab’s accelerator complex and sent through the earth, with no tunnel required.

    The new result is drawn from NOvA’s first run with antineutrinos, the antimatter counterpart to neutrinos. NOvA began studying antineutrinos in February of 2017. Fermilab’s accelerators create a beam of muon neutrinos (or muon antineutrinos), and NOvA’s far detector is specifically designed to see those particles changing into electron neutrinos (or electron antineutrinos) on their journey.

    If antineutrinos did not oscillate from muon type to electron type, scientists would have expected to record just five electron antineutrino candidates in the NOvA far detector during this first run. But when they analyzed the data, they found 18, providing strong evidence that antineutrinos undergo this oscillation.

    “Antineutrinos are more difficult to make than neutrinos, and they are less likely to interact in our detector,” said Fermilab’s Peter Shanahan, co-spokesperson of the NOvA collaboration. “This first data set is a fraction of our goal, but the number of oscillation events we see is far greater than we would expect if antineutrinos didn’t oscillate from muon type to electron. It demonstrates the impact that Fermilab’s high-power particle beam has on our ability to study neutrinos and antineutrinos.”

    Although antineutrinos are known to oscillate, the change into electron antineutrinos over long distances has not yet been definitively observed. The T2K experiment, located in Japan, announced that it had observed hints of this phenomenon in 2017.

    T2K map, T2K Experiment, Tokai to Kamioka, Japan


    T2K Experiment, Tokai to Kamioka, Japan

    The NOvA and T2K collaborations are working toward a combined analysis of their data in the coming years.

    “With this first result using antineutrinos, NOvA has moved into the next phase of its scientific program,” said Jim Siegrist, Associate Director for High Energy Physics at the Department of Energy Office of Science. “I’m pleased to see this important experiment continuing to tell us more about these fascinating particles.”

    NOvA’s new antineutrino result accompanies an improvement to its methods of analysis, leading to a more precise measurement of its neutrino data. From 2014 to 2017, NOvA saw 58 candidates for interactions from muon neutrinos changing into electron neutrinos, and scientists are using this data to move closer to unraveling some of the knottiest mysteries of these elusive particles.

    The key to NOvA’s science program is comparing the rate at which electron neutrinos appear in the far detector with the rate that electron antineutrinos appear. A precise measurement of those differences will allow NOvA to achieve one of its main science goals: to determine which of the three types of neutrinos is the heaviest, and which the lightest.

    Neutrinos have been shown to have mass, but scientists have not been able to directly measure that mass. However, with enough data, they can determine the relative masses of the three, a puzzle called the mass ordering. NOvA is working toward a definitive answer to this question. Scientists on the experiment will continue studying antineutrinos through 2019, and over the following years will eventually collect equal amounts of data from neutrinos and antineutrinos.

    “This first data set from antineutrinos is a just a start to what promises to be an exciting run,” said NOvA co-spokesperson Tricia Vahle of William & Mary. “It’s early days, but NOvA is already giving us new insights into the many mysteries of neutrinos and antineutrinos.”

    For more information on neutrinos and neutrino research, please visit http://neutrinos.fnal.gov.

    The NOvA collaboration includes more than 240 scientists from nearly 50 institutions in seven countries: Brazil, Colombia, Czech Republic, India, Russia, the U.K. and the U.S. For more information visit the experiment’s website at http://novaexperiment.fnal.gov.

    See the full article here .


    five-ways-keep-your-child-safe-school-shootings

    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/MINERvA

    FNAL DAMIC

    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/MicrobooNE

    FNAL Don Lincoln

    FNAL/MINOS

    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 ICARUS

    FNAL Holometer

     
  • richardmitnick 3:06 pm on January 6, 2018 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: FNAL NOvA, , , , Neutrinos Suggest Solution to Mystery of Universe’s Existence, , , , T2K Experiment/Super-Kamiokande Collaboration   

    From Quanta: “Neutrinos Suggest Solution to Mystery of Universe’s Existence” 

    Quanta Magazine
    Quanta Magazine

    December 12, 2017
    Katia Moskvitch

    1
    A neutrino passing through the Super-Kamiokande experiment creates a telltale light pattern on the detector walls. T2K Experiment/Super-Kamiokande Collaboration, Institute for Cosmic Ray Research, University of Tokyo

    T2K Experiment, Tokai to Kamioka, Japan

    T2K Experiment, Tokai to Kamioka, Japan

    From above, you might mistake the hole in the ground for a gigantic elevator shaft. Instead, it leads to an experiment that might reveal why matter didn’t disappear in a puff of radiation shortly after the Big Bang.

    I’m at the Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex, or J-PARC — a remote and well-guarded government facility in Tokai, about an hour’s train ride north of Tokyo.

    J-PARC Facility Japan Proton Accelerator Research Complex , located in Tokai village, Ibaraki prefecture, on the east coast of Japan

    The experiment here, called T2K (for Tokai-to-Kamioka) produces a beam of the subatomic particles called neutrinos. The beam travels through 295 kilometers of rock to the Super-Kamiokande (Super-K) detector, a gigantic pit buried 1 kilometer underground and filled with 50,000 tons (about 13 million gallons) of ultrapure water. During the journey, some of the neutrinos will morph from one “flavor” into another.

    In this ongoing experiment, the first results of which were reported last year, scientists at T2K are studying the way these neutrinos flip in an effort to explain the predominance of matter over antimatter in the universe. During my visit, physicists explained to me that an additional year’s worth of data was in, and that the results are encouraging.

    According to the Standard Model of particle physics, every particle has a mirror-image particle that carries the opposite electrical charge — an antimatter particle.

    Standard Model of Particle Physics from Symmetry Magazine

    When matter and antimatter particles collide, they annihilate in a flash of radiation. Yet scientists believe that the Big Bang should have produced equal amounts of matter and antimatter, which would imply that everything should have vanished fairly quickly. But it didn’t. A very small fraction of the original matter survived and went on to form the known universe.

    Researchers don’t know why. “There must be some particle reactions that happen differently for matter and antimatter,” said Morgan Wascko, a physicist at Imperial College London. Antimatter might decay in a way that differs from how matter decays, for example. If so, it would violate an idea called charge-parity (CP) symmetry, which states that the laws of physics shouldn’t change if matter particles swap places with their antiparticles (charge) while viewed in a mirror (parity). The symmetry holds for most particles, though not all. (The subatomic particles known as quarks violate CP symmetry, but the deviations are so small that they can’t explain why matter so dramatically outnumbers antimatter in the universe.)

    Last year, the T2K collaboration announced the first evidence that neutrinos might break CP symmetry, thus potentially explaining why the universe is filled with matter. “If there is CP violation in the neutrino sector, then this could easily account for the matter-antimatter difference,” said Adrian Bevan, a particle physicist at Queen Mary University of London.

    Researchers check for CP violations by studying differences between the behavior of matter and antimatter. In the case of neutrinos, the T2K scientists explore how neutrinos and antineutrinos oscillate, or change, as the particles make their way to the Super-K detector. In 2016, 32 muon neutrinos changed to electron neutrinos on their way to Super-K. When the researchers sent muon antineutrinos, only four became electron antineutrinos.

    That result got the community excited — although most physicists were quick to point out that with such a small sample size, there was still a 10 percent chance that the difference was merely a random fluctuation. (By comparison, the 2012 Higgs boson discovery had less than a 1-in-1 million probability that the signal was due to chance.)

    This year, researchers collected nearly twice the amount of neutrino data as last year. Super-K captured 89 electron neutrinos, significantly more than the 67 it should have found if there was no CP violation. And the experiment spotted only seven electron antineutrinos, two fewer than expected.

    3
    Lucy Reading-Ikkanda for Quanta Magazine

    Researchers aren’t claiming a discovery just yet. Because there are still so few data points, “there’s still a 1-in-20 chance it’s just a statistical fluke and there isn’t even any violation of CP symmetry,” said Phillip Litchfield, a physicist at Imperial College London. For the results to become truly significant, he added, the experiment needs to get down to about a 3-in-1000 chance, which researchers hope to reach by the mid-2020s.

    But the improvement on last year’s data, while modest, is “in a very interesting direction,” said Tom Browder, a physicist at the University of Hawaii. The hints of new physics haven’t yet gone away, as we might expect them to do if the initial results were due to chance. Results are also trickling in from another experiment, the 810-kilometer-long NOvA at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory outside Chicago.

    FNAL/NOvA experiment map

    FNAL NOvA Near Detector

    Last year it released its first set of neutrino data, with antineutrino results expected next summer. And although these first CP-violation results will also not be statistically significant, if the NOvA and T2K experiments agree, “the consistency of all these early hints” will be intriguing, said Mark Messier, a physicist at Indiana University.

    A planned upgrade of the Super-K detector might give the researchers a boost. Next summer, the detector will be drained for the first time in over a decade, then filled again with ultrapure water. This water will be mixed with gadolinium sulfate, a type of salt that should make the instrument much more sensitive to electron antineutrinos. “The gadolinium doping will make the electron antineutrino interaction easily detectable,” said Browder. That is, the salt will help the researchers to separate antineutrino interactions from neutrino interactions, improving their ability to search for CP violations.

    “Right now, we are probably willing to bet that CP is violated in the neutrino sector, but we won’t be shocked if it is not,” said André de Gouvêa, a physicist at Northwestern University. Wascko is a bit more optimistic. “The 2017 T2K result has not yet clarified our understanding of CP violation, but it shows great promise for our ability to measure it precisely in the future,” he said. “And perhaps the future is not as far away as we might have thought last year.”

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    Formerly known as Simons Science News, Quanta Magazine is an editorially independent online publication launched by the Simons Foundation to enhance public understanding of science. Why Quanta? Albert Einstein called photons “quanta of light.” Our goal is to “illuminate science.” At Quanta Magazine, scientific accuracy is every bit as important as telling a good story. All of our articles are meticulously researched, reported, edited, copy-edited and fact-checked.

     
  • richardmitnick 3:22 pm on November 21, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , , , , FNAL NOvA, , , , , ,   

    From Symmetry: “Putting the puzzle together” 

    Symmetry Mag
    Symmetry

    11/21/17
    Ali Sundermier

    1
    Photos by Fermilab and CERN

    Successful physics collaborations rely on cooperation between people from many different disciplines.

    So, you want to start a physics experiment. Maybe you want to follow hints of an as yet unseen particle. Or maybe you want to learn something new about a mysterious process in the universe. Either way, your next step is to find people who can help you.

    In large science collaborations, such as the ATLAS and CMS experiments at the Large Hadron Collider; the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE); and Fermilab’s NOvA, hundreds to thousands of people spread out across many institutions and countries keep things operating smoothly. Whether they’re senior scientists, engineers, technicians or administrators, each of them has an important role to play.

    CERN/ATLAS detector

    CERN/CMS Detector

    LHC

    CERN/LHC Map

    CERN LHC Tunnel

    CERN LHC particles

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


    FNAL DUNE Argon tank at SURF


    Surf-Dune/LBNF Caverns at Sanford



    SURF building in Lead SD USA

    FNAL NOvA Near Detector


    FNAL/NOvA experiment map

    Think of it like a jigsaw puzzle: This list will give you an idea about how their work fits together to create the big picture.

    Dreaming up the experiment

    Many particle physics experiments begin with a fundamental question. Why do objects have mass? Or, why is the universe made of matter?

    When scientists encounter these big, seemingly inscrutable questions, part of their job is to identify possible ways to answer them. A large part of this is breaking down the big questions into a program of smaller, answerable questions.

    In the case of the LHC, scientists who wondered about things such as undiscovered particles and the origin of mass designed a 27-kilometer particle collider and four giant detectors to learn more.

    Each scientist in a collaboration brings their own unique perspective and skill set to the table, whether it’s providing an understanding of the physics or offering expertise in operations or detector design.

    Perfecting the design

    Once scientists have an idea about the experiment they want to do and the approach they want to take, it’s the job of the engineers to turn the concepts into pieces of hardware that can be built, function and meet the experiment’s requirements.

    For example, engineers might have to figure out how the experiment should be supported mechanically or how to connect all the electrical systems and make signals available in a detector.

    In the case of NOvA, which investigates neutrino oscillations, scientists needed a detector that was huge and free of dense materials, which made conventional construction techniques unworkable. They had to work with engineers who could understand plastic as a building material so they could be confident about using it to build a gigantic, free-standing structure that fit the requirements.

    Keeping things running

    Technicians come in when the experimental apparatus and instrumentation are being built and often have complementary knowledge about what they’re working on. They build the hardware and coordinate the integration of components. It’s their work that, in the end, pulls everything together so the experiment functions.

    Once the experiment is built, technicians are responsible for keeping everything humming along at top performance. When physicists notice things going wrong with the detectors, the technicians usually have first eyes on it. It’s a vital task, since every second counts when it comes to collecting data.

    Doing the heavy lifting

    When designing and constructing the experiment, the scientists also recruit postdocs and grad students, who do the bulk of the data analysis.

    Grad students, who are still working on their PhDs, have to balance their own coursework with the real-world experiment, learning their way around running simulations, analyzing data and developing algorithms. They also make sure that every part of the detector is working up to par. In addition, they may work in instrumentation, developing new instruments and electronics.

    Postdocs, on the other hand, have already worked on experiments and obtained their PhDs, so they typically assume more of a leadership role in these collaborations. Part of their role is to guide the grad students in a sort of apprenticeship.

    Postdocs are often in charge of certain types of analysis or detector operations. Because they’ve worked on previous experiments, they have a tool kit and experience to draw on to solve problems when they crop up.

    Postdocs and grad students often work with technicians and engineers to ensure everything is properly built.

    Making the data accessible

    The LHC produces about 25 petabytes of data every year, or 25 billion megabytes. If the average size of an MP3 is about one megabyte per minute, then it would take almost 50,000 years to play 25 petabytes of songs. In physics collaborations, computer scientists and engineers have to organize the computing networks to ensure against bottlenecks or traffic jams when this massive amount of data is shared.

    They also maintain the software framework, which takes care of data handling and archiving. Say a scientist wants to know what happened on Feb. 27, 2015, at 3 a.m. Computing experts have to be able to go into the data catalogue and find, among the petabytes of data, where that event is stored.

    Sorting out the logistics

    One often overlooked group is the administrators.

    It’s up to the administrators to sequence all the different projects so they get the funds they need to make progress. They sort the logistics to make sure the right people are in the right places working on the right things.

    Administrators manage a group of people who are constantly coming and going. Is someone traveling to a site from a different institution? The administrators make sure that people get connected, work out itineraries and schedule where visiting scientists will live and work.

    Administrators also organize collaboration meetings, transfer money, and procure and ship equipment.

    Translating discoveries to the public

    While every single person involved in an experiment has a responsibility to effectively communicate with others, it can be challenging to communicate about research in a way that’s relatable to people from different backgrounds. That’s where the professional communicators come in.

    Communicators can translate a paper full of jargon and complicated science into a fascinating story that the rest of the world can get excited about.

    In addition to doing outreach for the public and writing press releases and pitching stories for the media, communicators offer coaching to people in a scientific collaboration on how to relay the science to a general audience, which is important for generating public interest.

    Fitting the pieces

    Now that you know many of the pieces that must fall into place for a large physics collaboration to be successful, also know that none of these roles is performed in a vacuum. For an experiment to work, there must be a synergy of tasks: Each relies on the success of the others. Now go start that experiment!

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    Symmetry is a joint Fermilab/SLAC publication.


     
  • richardmitnick 12:38 pm on March 22, 2017 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , FNAL NOvA, NOvA sees first antineutrino,   

    From FNAL: “NOvA sees first antineutrino” 

    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.

    March 21, 2017


    NOvA

    On Feb. 20, the NOvA neutrino experiment observed its first antineutrino, only two hours after the Fermilab accelerator complex switched to antineutrino delivery mode. The NOvA collaboration saw the antineutrino in the experiment’s far detector, which is located in northern Minnesota.

    NOvA scientists hope to learn more about how and why neutrinos change between one type and another. The three types, called flavors, are the muon, electron and tau neutrino. Over longer distances, neutrinos can flip between these flavors. NOvA is specifically designed to study muon neutrinos changing into electron neutrinos. Unraveling this mystery may help scientists understand why the universe is composed of matter and why that matter was not annihilated by antimatter after the Big Bang.

    1
    This plot shows the tracks of particles resulting from an antineutrino interaction inside the NOvA far detector. Image: NOvA collaboration

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    FNAL Icon
    Fermilab Campus

    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.

     
  • richardmitnick 5:13 pm on August 23, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , , FNAL NOvA, Hyper-Kamiokande, , , ,   

    From Physics Today: “Six reasons to get excited about neutrinos” 

    Physics Today bloc

    Physics Today

    23 August 2016
    Andrew Grant

    Extra Dimensions: New results and upcoming experiments offer hope that neutrinos hold the key to expanding the standard model.

    The headlines from the recent International Conference on High Energy Physics (ICHEP) in Chicago trended sad, focused on the dearth of discoveries from the Large Hadron Collider. (See, for example, “Prospective particle disappears in new LHC data.”) Yet there was some optimism to be found in the Windy City, particularly among neutrino physicists. Here are six reasons to believe that neutrinos might provide the window into new physics that the LHC has not:

    Neutrinos are proof that the standard model is wrong. Sure, we know that dark matter and dark energy are missing from the standard model. But neutrinos are standard-model members, and the theoretical predictions are wrong. Prevailing theory says that neutrinos are massless; the Nobel-winning experiments at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory and Super-Kamiokande demonstrated definitively that neutrinos oscillate between three flavors (electron, muon, and tau) and thus have mass. André de Gouvêa, a theoretical physicist at Northwestern University, deems neutrinos the “only palpable evidence of physics beyond the standard model.” Everything we learn about neutrinos in the coming years is new physics.

    1
    This signal from May 2014 denotes the detection of an electron neutrino by Fermilab’s NOvA experiment. Credit: NOvA Neutrino Experiment.

    FNAL/NOvA experiment
    FNAL/NOvA experiment map

    Neutrinos’ ability to morph from one flavor to another is only now starting to be understood. Each of neutrinos’ three flavors is actually a quantum superposition of three different mass states. By understanding the interplay of the three mass states, characterized by parameters called mixing angles, physicists can pin down how neutrinos transform between flavors. Fresh data from the NOvA experiment at Fermilab near Chicago suggest that neutrino mixing may not be as simple as most theories predict.

    Neutrinos may exhibit charge conjugation–parity (CP) violation. All known examples of CP violation, in which particle decays proceed differently with matter than with antimatter, take place in processes involving quark-containing particles like kaons and B mesons. But at the Neutrino 2016 meeting in London and at ICHEP, the T2K experiment offered fresh data hinting at matter–antimatter asymmetry for neutrinos.

    T2K Experiment
    Super-Kamiokande
    T2K map
    T2K Experiment

    After firing beams of muon neutrinos and antineutrinos at the Super-Kamiokande detector in Japan, scientists expected to detect 23 electron neutrinos and 7 electron antineutrinos; instead they have spotted 32 and 4, respectively. T2K isn’t anywhere close to achieving a 5 σ result, but the evidence for CP violation seems to be growing as the experiment acquires more data.

    Neutrinos may be the first fundamental particles that are Majorana fermions. Because the neutrino is the only fermion that is electrically neutral, it is also the only one that could be a Majorana fermion, a particle that is identical to its antiparticle. Learning whether neutrinos are Majorana particles or typical Dirac fermions would provide invaluable insight as to how neutrinos acquired mass at the dawn of the universe, de Gouvêa says. To determine the nature of neutrinos, physicists are hunting for a process called neutrinoless double beta decay. In typical double beta decay, two neutrons transform into protons and emit a pair of antineutrinos. If those antineutrinos are Majorana particles, they could annihilate each other. A 16 August paper from the KamLAND-Zen experiment in Japan reports the most stringent limits for the rate of neutrinoless double beta decay, further constraining the possibility that neutrinos are Majorana particles.

    Another neutrino flavor may be waiting to be discovered. The discovery of a fourth neutrino flavor, the sterile neutrino, would make every particle physicist forget about the LHC’s particle drought. Such a neutrino could enable physicists to explain dark matter or the absence of antimatter in the universe. The Antarctic detector IceCube just reported a negative result in the hunt for a sterile neutrino, but results from prior experiments still leave some wiggle room for the particle’s existence.

    Multiple powerful neutrino experiments are on the horizon. The NOvA experiment is up and running and delivering data that, at least so far, seem to complement T2K’s hints of CP violation. Fermilab scientists are already excited about the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment, which should come on line around 2025.

    FNAL LBNF/DUNE from FNAL to SURF
    FNAL LBNF/DUNE from FNAL to SURF

    Hyper-Kamiokande, a megadetector in Japan with a million-ton tank of water for neutrino detection, should start operations around the same time.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    “Our mission

    The mission of Physics Today is to be a unifying influence for the diverse areas of physics and the physics-related sciences.

    It does that in three ways:

    • by providing authoritative, engaging coverage of physical science research and its applications without regard to disciplinary boundaries;
    • by providing authoritative, engaging coverage of the often complex interactions of the physical sciences with each other and with other spheres of human endeavor; and
    • by providing a forum for the exchange of ideas within the scientific community.”

     
  • richardmitnick 2:11 pm on August 8, 2016 Permalink | Reply
    Tags: , FNAL NOvA, , ,   

    From FNAL: “NOvA shines new light on how neutrinos behave” 

    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.

    August 8, 2016
    Media contact:
    Andre Salles, Fermilab Office of Communication, media@fnal.gov, 630-840-3351

    Science contacts:
    Mark Messier, Indiana University, NOvA co-spokesperson, messier@indiana.edu, 812-855-0236
    Peter Shanahan, Fermilab, NOvA co-spokesperson, shanahan@fnal.gov, 630-840-8378

    New result indicates that the flavor and mass correlation may be more complex than previously thought.

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

    FNAL/NOvA experiment
    FNAL/NOvA experiment map

    FNAL NOvA Near Detector
    FNAL NOvA Near Detector

    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.

    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 muon neutrinos, generated at Fermilab, which travels through the Earth 500 miles to a building-size detector in northern Minnesota. NOvA was designed to study neutrino oscillations, 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.”

    2
    The NOvA experiment’s preliminary result shows an equal possibility that the third neutrino mass state is dominated by either muon or tau flavor. Image: NOvA collaboration.

    NOvA will take data with neutrinos 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.

    The NOvA experiment is funded by the U.S. Department of Energy Office of Science, the National Science Foundation and other institutions worldwide.

    For more information on NOvA, visit their website. To read a public presentation on this result, please visit this link.

    See the full article here .

    Please help promote STEM in your local schools.

    STEM Icon

    Stem Education Coalition

    FNAL Icon
    Fermilab Campus

    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.

     
c
Compose new post
j
Next post/Next comment
k
Previous post/Previous comment
r
Reply
e
Edit
o
Show/Hide comments
t
Go to top
l
Go to login
h
Show/Hide help
shift + esc
Cancel
%d bloggers like this: