Slashdot Mirror


Scientists May Have Detected Neutrinos From Another Galaxy

The Bad Astronomer writes "A experiment called IceCube — consisting of sensitive light detectors buried deep in the Antarctic ice — has detected two ultra-high-energy neutrinos, each with over a peta-electronVolt of energy (a quadrillion times the energy of a visible light photon), the highest energy neutrinos ever seen. The two events, nicknamed Bert and Ernie, have a 99% chance of originating outside our galaxy, likely created either by a supermassive black hole or an exploding gamma-ray burst."

151 comments

  1. An exploding gamma-ray burst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Really? Perhaps a little edit is in order?

    1. Re:An exploding gamma-ray burst? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A GRB results from an explosion, so that's perfectly accurate. It's like saying "an exploding flash of light." Just a tiny bit of poetry, nothing wrong with it.

  2. in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    What will it be in joules, 1 peta electronVolt?
    Could I boil a kettle on this neutrino (potentially)?

    1. Re:in joules. please by click2005 · · Score: 5, Informative

      FTA:
      Out of the countless detections it’s seen, two of them—nicknamed, seriously, Bert and Ernie—were phenomenally, unbelievably energetic: Each had an energy over one thousand trillion times the energy of a visible light photon. That’s huge, far larger energies than even the Large Hadron Collider can create. It’s very roughly equivalent to the energy of a raindrop hitting you on the head which may not sound like much, but remember we’re taking about a single subatomic particle with that much energy

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    2. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This type of physics doesn't use joules. They use electronVolts. If you want it in units that aren't useful to the particular science, then convert it yourself.

    3. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wouldn't you prefer it in BTUs?

    4. Re:in joules. please by P-niiice · · Score: 5, Funny

      are you not familiar with the upside the head measurement of force? measured in FredSanfords

    5. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      you big dummy.

    6. Re:in joules. please by loufoque · · Score: 1

      But can we harness that power to make magic?

    7. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Posting AC (after modding you up in a different browser). Shit is funny. Almost discharged coffee through my nostrils. Thank you, sir/madam!

    8. Re:in joules. please by Rene+S.+Hollan · · Score: 3, Informative

      160 uJ, give or take.

      --
      In Liberty, Rene
    9. Re:in joules. please by DougOtto · · Score: 2

      Not without, at least, dinner and drinks. (tits would be a big help too)

      --
      Solving Unix problems since 1989...
    10. Re:in joules. please by trum4n · · Score: 1

      But what is that in m/s?

    11. Re:in joules. please by dimeglio · · Score: 1

      Interesting. So if one of these neutrinos hits me, will I feel it? I understand due to electroweak unification (of these very high energy neutrinos) it will cause interaction with our body.

      --
      Views expressed do not necessarily reflect those of the author.
    12. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      You're too young.

    13. Re:in joules. please by hpa · · Score: 1

      1 PeV is approximately 160 microjoule.

    14. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I feel sorry for you if you never got to watch Sanford and Son.
      Perhaps you're too young, in which case, get off my lawn!

    15. Re:in joules. please by macraig · · Score: 4, Funny

      Not only is he young, he doesn't know how to use the Internet to find out about this "obscure" Fred Sanford.

    16. Re:in joules. please by macraig · · Score: 5, Informative

      The comment modding system exists precisely so you can register your admiration without the rest of us having to hear about your nostriladamus incident.

    17. Re:in joules. please by K.+S.+Kyosuke · · Score: 1

      It’s very roughly equivalent to the energy of a raindrop hitting you on the head

      Does that mean that hitting people repeatedly with PeV neutrinos is a form of torture, too? Damn, the current administration won't be amused.

      --
      Ezekiel 23:20
    18. Re:in joules. please by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Because a peta-electronvolt is such a handy unit to work with.

      This is actually one of the few kinds where converting it to another unit makes sense, because we're already dealing with a force that the average person can "understand", or "grasp", if I may be so idiomatic. Yes, we may be nerds here, but not everyone is into astronomy.

      The feeling of a raindrop hitting your hand is something most people could relate to. And the rest of us can at least go outside the basement next time it rains to find out.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    19. Re:in joules. please by ceoyoyo · · Score: 1

      Lots. You'd have to know the neutrino mass to calculate it precisely.

    20. Re:in joules. please by trum4n · · Score: 1

      Lots as in near light speed?

    21. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      And "here comes the big one" means something completely different to him too...

    22. Re:in joules. please by PhamNguyen · · Score: 1

      Yes. Preferably in a Hank Hill voice.

    23. Re:in joules. please by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Actually, rounding to the nearest 10^-20 m/s, it would be 299,792,458 m/s.

      We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light ( 10^15. Thus beta = v/c = sqrt(1-1/gamma^2) 1-0.5*10^-30: the neutrino is moving at a velocity within 1 part in 10^30 of the speed of light.

    24. Re:in joules. please by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      D'oh, formatting ate my math symbols. Above should read:
      We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light (m < 1 eV / c^2). Thus, a neutrino with total energy E = 10^15 eV has a Lorentz factor of gamma = E/m*c^2 > 10^15. Thus beta = v/c = sqrt(1-1/gamma^2) > 1-0.5*10^-30: the neutrino is moving at a velocity within 1 part in 10^30 of the speed of light.

    25. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      I'm 40 and live in the UK so I watched Sanford and Son when it was called Steptoe and Son.

    26. Re:in joules. please by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light (m
      Not quite - IceCube looks for muon neutrinos and these have a mass limit of 0.19 MeV/c^2. The lowest mass constraint is actually 2 eV/c^2 for electron anti-neutrinos from tritium decay spectrum measurements.

    27. Re:in joules. please by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      I prefer it in horsepower minute.

    28. Re:in joules. please by ceoyoyo · · Score: 3, Informative

      Yup. If you want a number, 3 x 10^8 m/s (i.e. the speed of light in a vacuum) works pretty well. A neutrino with that much energy must be going at 99.many-nines % of the speed of light. The actual number of nines depends on the mass.

      Even regular solar neutrinos go at essentially the speed of light, as far as the m/s scale goes, and they have energies that are far lower.

    29. Re:in joules. please by newcastlejon · · Score: 1

      To this day I'm still sure that Dot from Eastenders is secretly Albert Steptoe in drag.

      --
      If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
    30. Re:in joules. please by femtobyte · · Score: 3, Informative

      We've got poor direct limits on muon neutrino mass from muon neutrino experiments; however, there are other sources of much stronger constraints on neutrino masses. See the "summed mass" limits a few pages down in your reference.
      From a Borexino neutrino experiment page at Princeton:

      The current limits from cosmological considerations are less than about 0.5 eV (one millionth of the electron mass!) for the sum of the masses of all three neutrino types. The known values of the mass-squared differences imply that the heaviest neutrino type cannot be less massive than about 0.05 eV.

    31. Re:in joules. please by meglon · · Score: 2

      Peta-burro-hectares by centon.

      --
      Fascism: An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization. See also: NAZI's
    32. Re:in joules. please by wonkey_monkey · · Score: 1

      We don't know what the mass of a neutrino is, but we do know they're light

      I thought that was photons.

      --
      systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
    33. Re:in joules. please by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      10^15 eV is approximately 3.6 nano-horsepower-minutes. Happy now?

    34. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      How about newtons per diopter or watts per hertz?

    35. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      if /. allowed AC to do it, i'd mod you more than 50 megaFonzies

    36. Re:in joules. please by marcosdumay · · Score: 1

      Yeah, now that you explained it on usual and unambiguous units, yes, I'm happy.

      You did the calculation on English horsepower, at a standard gravity and the international pound, right? I'm asking that's because I'm at 1100m of altitude, so I must apply some corrective factors before I'm really sure what exactly that value means.

    37. Re:in joules. please by femtobyte · · Score: 4, Funny

      Ah yes, please excuse me for not fitting in all the details of my result above. I'm really more an experimentalist than a theorist, so I didn't feel up to calculating the conversion from first principles. But I did have a bit of spare beam time on the schedule. Finding appropriate nano-horses was a bit tricky. My first attempt started with a pony (just a small horse to first order), but its energy output didn't scale very linearly when I chopped it into pieces. I finally ended up using fetal sea-horses for the comparison, though the first couple batches didn't fare well during pumpdown, and left a bit of a mess on the scintillator calorimeters. Anyway, I don't want to bore you with all the sticky details, which I've got to get back to scrubbing off the inside of our vacuum chamber.

    38. Re:in joules. please by tehcyder · · Score: 1

      I'm 40 and live in the UK so I watched Sanford and Son when it was called Steptoe and Son.

      You dirrrty old man.

      --
      To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
    39. Re:in joules. please by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It exists so idiots can moderate an offtopic but funny comment "+5 informative". Mods, two things: First, "funny" now gains karma. Second, don't worry about the karma of the person you're modding; if a freak or foe makes a good comment, mod him up. If a friend or fan makes a bad comment, mod him down. Good posters are immune from the occasional downmod.

      Oh, and 3: modbombing seldom works, is wrong, JUST DON'T DO IT!

      As to your comment, he posted AC because he moderated in this thread. If he'd posted logged in, it would have undone all of his moderations.

      OK, mods, no up or down karma here since I'm logged out and AC, how are you going to moderate this offtopic yet informative and insightful comment?

    40. Re:in joules. please by mbone · · Score: 1

      MKS units are always appropriate, especially for something aimed at the popular level.

    41. Re:in joules. please by RockDoctor · · Score: 1

      To this day I'm still sure that Albert Steptoe is secretly Dot from Eastenders in drag.

      FTFY

      I find it somewhere between amusing and slightly worrying that I'm not sure if the Dot character is dead yet ; but it's probably a couple of decades since I sat through an episode, deliberately or accidentally.

      --
      Birds are not dinosaur descendants;birds are dinosaurs, for all useful meanings of "birds", "are" and "dinosaurs"
  3. Stargate by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

    It was obviously the explosion created from the enormous energy from a supergate in the galaxy Atlantis lives in.

    Those pesky Wraith, they got desperate. A little too desperate. They took out an entire arm.

    Such a shame, we'd never see such a thing possibly happen because the show was killed so early.
    Seeing such a catastrophic event happen would have been huge, it'd be a pretty huge step up from planets exploding to supernova consuming a planetary system to that. Wait, I forgot that weapon the Ancients created, the one that sucked energy out of our space time I believe, the one that absolutely wrecked an entire planetary system because it went out of control.
    The recession left behind such a huge wreck of an industry when it began. Things being cancelled left, right and center, horribly rating agencies delivering obviously skewed viewership numbers because they never calculated the difference between viewership groups. (you expect actual geeks to be out there announcing everything ever, compared to those who watch reality TV religiously? Hell no, not even remotely similar groups)
    And then of course, the geeks complain, "but if I let them spy on me the terrorists win." ...
    I would honestly love to see one country go "hey no taxes everyone", just to prove a point. People are stupid. I wish that supergate, that never exploded, exploded next to Earth.

    Well that sure was a tangent. Tune in next time to your regularly scheduled oddities on Slashdot. Same batshit-insane time, same batshit-insane website.

    1. Re:Stargate by click2005 · · Score: 3, Informative

      It was obviously the explosion created from the enormous energy from a supergate in the galaxy Atlantis lives in.

      That would be our galaxy. It moved here in the final episode (San Francisco I think).

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
  4. IceCube? by excelsior_gr · · Score: 4, Funny

    WORD! That's a fly name for an experiment dawg!

    1. Re:IceCube? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yeah, Fuck the Pole-Ice!

  5. ID Tags on the particles? by BenJeremy · · Score: 0

    Seriously, I'm getting very annoyed when particles or chunks of meteorites are somehow identified as coming from some specific place... WTF?

    A Neutrino is a Neutrino. It has no identifying characteristic. The nature of a single variable, the charge, may describe the sort of event the particle originated from, but hardly any specificity of the actual event or where that event took place. At least a chunk of space rock might be comprised of minerals that are similar to those from a neighboring planet (though that hardly means it was likely to have come from that place).

    I'm also a bit puzzled why such a neutrino would require a "super black hole" - which is kind of like saying "super dead" - anything happening inside the event horizon of a black hole doesn't really matter... and anything happening outside of the event horizon is the same regardless of the size of the black hole (just covering a larger area)

    1. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Jicehix · · Score: 1

      anything happening inside the event horizon of a black hole doesn't really matter...

      Are you saying matter doesn't matter ?

      --
      Jicehix
    2. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      So many words for all of them to be so wrong.

    3. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It has no identifying characteristic

      Identifying no. But it does have energy, momentum (direction), flavor and spin. All of which are clues about the process that created it, and from that its origin. And "outside our galaxy" is not really that specific.

    4. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      >A Neutrino is a Neutrino. It has no identifying characteristic.

      Except, perhaps, it energy?

    5. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      A Neutrino is a Neutrino. It has no identifying characteristic.

      Way to be oblivious there. If they are detecting a passing neutrino, then the particle has a velocity, right? So, a finite mass moving at a finite velocity has an energy, which is different than that of the same particle moving at a different speed (independent of direction). And if the energy of two identical particles can be different, then you can identify a difference between them. Which is kinda the whole point of TFA, and the IceCube experiment itself. The scientists try to understand all the data they collect, not just what some pedant wants them to look at. As TFA states, the energy of the detected neutrinos is what scientists are using to infer where the neutrino came from. There are certain events which can give a neutrino such energy, and these events haven't been observed in our galaxy. And just like that, someone who chooses to think can understand a bit more :)

    6. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It's a pair of extremely high-energy neutrinos. These seem to be very uncommon, and there do not seem to be any sources for such neutrinos in our galaxy, or at least none that appear to be pointing in our general direction. So, 99% certainty that this wasn't "local."

      As for a "super black hole," never quite heard that term, but it does sound much like "supermassive black hole," which happens to be in the summary. In case you missed those astronomy articles on Slashdot, they will be recycled in a couple weeks, but the shortform is that there are black holes that were spawned from stars a little more massive than those that became neutron stars, but there are also black holes that have dramatically more mass than a single star system could be expected to contain. Current models state that the core of each galaxy is a supermassive black hole, and since the energies released from the core of our galaxy seem to be (pleasantly) pointed in directions that don't include earth, that again is one of the arguments that the photons came from another galaxy.

    7. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by interval1066 · · Score: 2

      Its the nrg. The point of origin can be norrowed down by eliminating sources that don't have that amount of nrg. Simple.

      --
      Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
    8. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      As for meteorites, I expect a geologist could make a rather compelling case that composition actually does function as a reliable ID tag.

    9. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by tnk1 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Neutrinos, as matter, have plenty of characteristics that could be used to identify them. And saying that it comes from a specific place is not really that difficult since things coming in from space don't take U-turns or pit stops. They come at us in a straight line only perturbed by gravity or other objects that we can observe and compensate for. So if a particle has a certain energy level and direction that does not match anything inside the galaxy, you can do a pretty reasonable job of figuring out where it came from.

      As for black holes, yes, nothing is coming out of a black hole's singularity, but the black hole does affect matter outside its event horizon and it is expected that certain black holes will cause matter to be accelerated in such a way that it attains highly energetic characteristics. This is what they mean, or they mean that the neutrino was created in the initial supernova/hypernova that generated the black hole to begin with. Probably the former, as most large black holes are probably generated by accretion over time, and not sudden stellar compression.

    10. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Giant+Electronic+Bra · · Score: 5, Insightful

      While the angular resolution of IceCube is not GREAT it DOES detect the direction from which the particles it detects came. This happens because, as others pointed out, the neutrino has a momentum. When it slams into a nucleus in the dectector the resulting collision debris carries away that momentum, thus the velocities of those particles, which are easily determined allows an estimate of the velocity of the original neutrino and thus its point of origin in the sky.

      Of course the distance it came from is not readily determined, but if there's nothing terribly energetic nearby, then presumably you're looking at something from further away, and when we're talking about PeV neutrinos it has to be VERY energetic, not something we'd likely miss if it was nearby. Remember, we detected 2 neutrinos, that means there were literally trillions more (well, far more than that probably) that simply passed on through the detector with the same energies.

      --
      "Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
    11. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      In geology, composition is a very reliable ID tag. Specicifically, trace element percentages tell the story about the origin of a set of rocks. However, once those rocks have been weathered, or if the source is only know through detrital sources, then the origin of the rocks is not certain.

    12. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Eowaennor · · Score: 2

      The surrounding ice around the detector array acts as a scintillator which generates a minute track of light as the particle passes thru the area. That immediately gives directionality, and energy in eV is computed by summing the light response from the entire detector array during that "event".

    13. Re:ID Tags on the particles? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And saying that it comes from a specific place is not really that difficult since things coming in from space don't take U-turns or pit stops. They come at us in a straight line only perturbed by gravity or other objects that we can observe and compensate for.

      Actually ... this isn't always the case. And that's the reason for the IceCube experiment in the first place.

      It starts with cosmic rays, which are charged particles flying through space. Since they're charged, they follow curved paths (U-turns, pit stops, etc.) in magnetic fields. Since we don't have a good enough map of extrasolar magnetic fields, we can't compensate for this, and when we see these cosmic rays we have no idea where they're coming from.

      Theorists say, though, that whatever produces cosmic rays should be producing high-energy neutrinos too. And neutrinos are uncharged, and travel in straight lines. So if we detect high-energy neutrinos, and figure out where they're coming from, that tells us where cosmic rays are coming from too.

      Unfortunately, this type of detection doesn't give you a very good idea of where it came from. But there are ways that neutrinos can interact that give you a much better idea. So if IceCube really has seen two high-energy neutrinos, then within the next few years it should see a bunch more, including one or two that interact in the right way to show us where they came from.

  6. Finally, by medv4380 · · Score: 2

    but doesn't it correlate to any possible event yet, or are we just guessing about were it came from?

    1. Re:Finally, by PhxBlue · · Score: 3, Informative

      If it's a supernova event, hopefully we'll spot it in the next day or two.

      --
      !#@%*)anks for hanging up the phone, dear.
    2. Re:Finally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I can't tell if this is a misinformed comment or an FTL neutrino joke.

    3. Re:Finally, by femtobyte · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, neutrinos do arrive slightly faster than light from supernovae. Space isn't completely empty --- tiny amounts of interstellar gas give it a refractive index slightly higher than "perfect" vacuum, which ever-so-slightly slows down light. Neutrinos interact far less than light with matter; so, a supernova neutrino going at very nearly the speed of light can outrun a photon through space. In Supernova 1987A, neutrino detectors saw neutrinos about three hours before light reached earth's telescopes.

    4. Re:Finally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Actually, neutrinos do arrive slightly faster than light from supernovae. Space isn't completely empty --- tiny amounts of interstellar gas give it a refractive index slightly higher than "perfect" vacuum, which ever-so-slightly slows down light.

      While I'm sure that effect plays a part, the more obvious reason is that a supernova releases a burst of neutrinos long before the light produced can escape.

    5. Re:Finally, by TheInternetGuy · · Score: 1

      Actually, neutrinos do arrive slightly faster than light from supernovae. Space isn't completely empty --- tiny amounts of interstellar gas give it a refractive index slightly higher than "perfect" vacuum, which ever-so-slightly slows down light. Neutrinos interact far less than light with matter; so, a supernova neutrino going at very nearly the speed of light can outrun a photon through space. In Supernova 1987A, neutrino detectors saw neutrinos about three hours before light reached earth's telescopes.

      Very informative, thank you. (No mod points today)

      --
      If my comment didn't sound as good in your head as it did in mine, then I guess we all know who's to blame
    6. Re:Finally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It won't be a supernova. Supernovas produce lower-energy neutrinos, unlike the high-energy neutrinos detected by IceCube. Supernova *remnants* might produce higher-energy neutrinos, as might gamma-ray bursts.

    7. Re:Finally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The neutrinos arrived before the light, because the neutrinos come directly from the centre of the collapsing star and the photons came from the surface once the shockwave arrived there. The difference is not due to the interstellar medium. Which is of course also written in the wikipedia article you linked.

    8. Re:Finally, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And quantum interactions are 10,000 times faster than the speed of light.

      http://science.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/03/15/17327430-quantum-interaction-10000-times-faster-than-light#.UVbu2wmxnOU.reddit

  7. Re:not so good with numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    In my country a person like you would be called an ant-fucker. Because ant-fuckery is the only way to describe this level of pedantry. Don't get me wrong, it's not meant as a grave insult. Polite people use the term in casual conversation and nobody is offended.

  8. Re:not so good with numbers... by MozeeToby · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So if I flip a coin and cover it up, and ask you "What are the chances it is heads?" you would answer back "it's either 100% or 0%"? What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?

  9. these neutrino's by zlives · · Score: 2

    These neutrino's were not the neutrinos they were looking for

  10. Re:not so good with numbers... by l0ungeb0y · · Score: 2

    I believe it is Sithic philosophy that states you are either absolutely for or absolutely against something.
    So I would not argue with Troyusrex, unless you want to get force choked.

  11. I gotta say by Oxdeadface · · Score: 1

    it must have been a good day.

  12. Re:not so good with numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    Troyusrex: I'm familiar with this use of probability, so allow me to clarify:

    There's no need for quantum anything. Probability is simply how one quantifies uncertainty. Here's an example: suppose I flip a coin and you do not see it. I might see it come up heads, and so I would assign a 100% probability that it came up heads. You would assign a probability of 50% to each possible outcome. Who's right? We both are: we're both describing our personal states of awareness about what happened, and they are different.

    In this case, the scientists who conducted the experiment are 99% sure that they originated outside our galaxy, presumably because they were able to reject most in-galaxy source explanations. But they cannot be 100% sure.

    If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.

  13. Re:not so good with numbers... by BryanL · · Score: 2

    I have moderation points but unfortunately there is not a +1 Pedant mod.

  14. Please explain : aren't neutrinos, ah...'neutral'? by Altesse · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Please explain for the layman that I am, how can these neutrinos be so energetic ? I thought neutrinos were very elusive particles that don't interact much with matter, and that's why they're so difficult to detect. With that much energy, these neutrinos should interact with matter and do heavy 'damage', à la cosmic particles, no ?

  15. well.. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Monkeys MAY have flown out of Rob Malda's ass.

  16. Illegal immigrant neutrinos! Tell the GOP! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These are taking jobs from domestic neutrinos!

    1. Re:Illegal immigrant neutrinos! Tell the GOP! by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      LOL, i agree with you. We should set a quota for these nasty mexi...i mean aliens. Like, no more than 50% foreign neutrions...

  17. depends by spectrokid · · Score: 1

    The neutrino is going to go straight through you with a 99.99999% probability. But if it does stop inside your body and deliver its energy, it should give of one hell of a whack. Wonder if you would be able to feel that?

    --

    10 ?"Hello World" life was simple then

    1. Re:depends by femtobyte · · Score: 2

      If the neutrino does interact inside your body, it's highly unlikely that much of the energy will stay there. The neutrino would transfer some chunk of its 10^15 eV of energy to another particle, such as a proton, in your body. A 10^15 eV proton will also shoot right through you --- smashing up nuclei and creating a big cascading shower of ionizing radiation (the signal this scientific experiment is looking for in the antarctic ice), most of which will escape your body. The "impact" will thus not be a "localized" nudge that you'd feel (like a raindrop), but distributed as radiation damage (not much above background levels, so pretty much harmless) to a large volume of flesh.

  18. Re:Please explain : aren't neutrinos, ah...'neutra by Gary+Perkins · · Score: 2

    I can't explain completely, but I can say the energy level has most to do with the momentum of the particle. The faster a particle goes, the more energetic it is. It's a very simplistic explanation, and only one facet of what energizes a particle, but should work for laymen such as us. As for the interaction: if I remember right, neutrinos are very small. They tend to fly between the atoms, which at that scale are very far apart.

  19. Re:not so good with numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's ok, because it would have to be a -5, "Why are you so annoying and/or boring at parties" mod on the OP, anyway.

  20. Re:not so good with numbers... by Tarlus · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Only a Sith deals in absolutes."

    Therefore, Obi Wan is a Sith.

    --
    /* No Comment */
  21. Re:Please explain : aren't neutrinos, ah...'neutra by Altesse · · Score: 1

    Thanks ! It's a bit clearer now.

  22. does not compute by slashmydots · · Score: 1

    So why would a neutrino from a gamma ray burst in a galaxy far far away have more energy than one from a gamma ray burst within our own galaxy? And then there's the probability of being in the path of one in our own galaxy vs outside....

    1. Re:does not compute by medv4380 · · Score: 1

      A gamma ray burst in our galaxy would probably kill us.

  23. Re:Please explain : aren't neutrinos, ah...'neutra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    One of the properties that IceCube takes advantage of is that at higher energies, neutrinos are much more likely to interact with matter and produce particles that it can detect. There's actually a specific energy close to the observed energy of these particles for an electron anti-neutrino where there is a spike in the probability to interact with electrons (6.3 PeV, the Glashow resonance).

  24. Re:not so good with numbers... by Brucelet · · Score: 2

    Or a -1 Pedant mod

  25. Could dark matter be super low-energy neutrinos? by Thagg · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Back when it was thought that neutrinos were massless, it was impossible to believe that there were huge masses of neutrinos surrounding galaxies, as they would have to travel at the speed of light. But now that we know that neutrinos have mass, maybe they could travel a lot more slowly, slow enough to be captured by a galaxy.

    Think about it; there are a huge amount of neutrinos created every microsecond in every star in every galaxy, and they hardly interact with anything. They've been accumulating since the big bang.

    What happened to the early photons? Those created as the universe first became transparent initially were very high energy indeed, but as the universe has expanded they've lost energy, to the point that they correspond to a temperature of just 3 degrees kelvin. What happens to neutrinos of a similar vintage?

    --
    I love Mondays. On a Monday, anything is possible.
  26. Re:not so good with numbers... by ceoyoyo · · Score: 2

    Chance. I do not think that word means what you think it means.

  27. IceCube? by GodfatherofSoul · · Score: 1

    From the galaxy called, Neutrinos With Attitude!

    --
    I swear to God...I swear to God! That is NOT how you treat your human!
  28. Re:Please explain : aren't neutrinos, ah...'neutra by Brucelet · · Score: 1

    Because neutrinos don't interact much, there are very few ways for them to release their kinetic energy, even when there is a lot of it. Neutral refers to the fact that neutrinos don't interact electromagnetically. They also don't interact via the strong force, and gravitational interaction of anything on this scale is negligible (although neutrinos are believed to have very small but nonzero masses). That leaves only weak nuclear interactions, which happened to occur twice in this detector.

  29. Neutrinos??? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

    Since when we do know for sure that neutrionos exists?

    1. Re:Neutrinos??? by marcosdumay · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Well, ok. Welcome to the XXI century, I have some news for you:

      1 - We didn't spray nuclear bombs through the Earth at the 60's. You didn't have to hide in that shelter.
      2 - You must have noticed that technology evolved a bit. Unfortunately, space exploration and nuclear fusion didn't move as fast as expected.
      3 - We know that neutrinos exist, that they have mass, and that they come in 3 different flavours (and oscilate between them).
      4 - But, no, they are not responsible for the dark mass. We still don't know WTF is that.

    2. Re:Neutrinos??? by stanlyb · · Score: 1

      And 5 - No, there were so many attempts to "catch" the elusive neutrino, with zero results.
      Sorry pal, you are apparently too old and are taking the wet dreams for reality.

    3. Re:Neutrinos??? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Uhh. . . neutrinos were first directly detected in 1956.

    4. Re:Neutrinos??? by gstoddart · · Score: 1

      Since when we do know for sure that neutrionos exists?

      Since 1987 when they measured it?

      These two guys share a Nobel for it.

      Seriously, we've known they have mass for 25 years now. And you're asking how we know we know they even exist?

      --
      Lost at C:>. Found at C.
  30. A guy with a name like "Dar waiter" called by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    The scary part is when those galaxies insist we return them.

  31. Intergalactic Neutrino Detector by H0p313ss · · Score: 2

    From now on in all job interviews I shall state my hobby as "Intergalactic Neutrino Detector" and refuse to work for anyone who doesn't giggle or laugh.

    --
    XML is a known as a key material required to create SMD: Software of Mass Destruction
  32. Re:Could dark matter be super low-energy neutrinos by Baloroth · · Score: 4, Informative

    Same thing happened to the neutrinos as happened to the photons. They cooled down. Currently, the neutrino background is ~1.7K, I believe (they're a bit cooler than photons as photons decoupled from matter much later in the early universe than neutrinos did). Neutrinos are, on cosmological scales, treated mostly the same way photons are (they behave in a similar fashion). In any case, the current energy in neutrinos is about ~60% of that in photons, and photons are about 4 orders of magnitude below the energy in dark matter.

    We can also predict how the universe would evolve if neutrinos made up the bulk of dark matter. Since it didn't evolve that way, dark matter has to be something else.

    --
    "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
  33. Re:Please explain : aren't neutrinos, ah...'neutra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    iirc from physics lectures on astronomy the rest mass of a neutrino is ~20eV/c^2

    please correct me if I'm wrong as it was only a 'middle of the lecture' calculation.

  34. bzzzzthankyouforplaying,,,, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Your snobbish elitism loses it's luster when it brings your ignorant stupidity to light.

  35. Re:not so good with numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Note that this is different than an aunt-fucker, which is sort of like a cross-eyed mother fucker.

  36. Not your "everyday" Neutrino by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 5, Informative

    The neutrino is going to go straight through you with a 99.99999% probability.

    Actually that is probably not quite true. For the vast majority of neutrinos you encounter on a daily basis (from radioactive decay, relic Big Bang neutrinos, solar etc.) you are completely correct. Indeed for these, as the article states, they will pass through the earth without blinking.

    However PeV neutrinos are NOT your everyday neutrino. These guys have such an incredible energy (over 100 times the proton energy in the LHC) that the earth is actually opaque to them. In fact if you look at the IceCube analysis they look for down going neutrino i.e. ones coming in from above despite the problems with the back grounds from cosmic rays. This is because they cannot look for neutrinos which have passed through the earth because, at these energies, there will be none!

    The reason for this is that neutrinos interact with matter through W and Z bosons. These have a mass ~80 to 90 times the mass of a proton. The reason that normally neutrinos do not interact is that there is insufficient energy to make a "real" W or Z in the interaction and this heavily suppresses the chance of it happening (due to quantum mechanics it can till occur though). Above a PeV the energy becomes high enough that this energy suppression effect gets a lot smaller and so the chance of interacting becomes a lot higher - eventually becoming slightly stronger than electromagnetism at really high energy when real W's and Z's can be created.

    So the upshot of this is that a really high energy neutrino might actually have a reasonable chance of interacting in your body and the article is completely wrong when it describes the earth as basically transparent to these neutrinos...although it is an understandable mistake given that it is transparent to most neutrinos.

    1. Re:Not your "everyday" Neutrino by femtobyte · · Score: 1

      Putting some rough numbers on this:
      At lower energies, neutrino cross sections scale roughly proportional to energy with sigma/E ~ 10^-38 cm^2 / GeV. At high energy, the cross section at 10^15 eV is around 10^-33 cm^2. Thus, compared to an ~1MeV neutrino with a cross section on the order of 10^-41 cm^2, the PeV neutrino has ~10^8 greater cross section. You are about 10^-7 the thickness of the earth. Thus, you are roughly 10x more likely to be hit by a PeV neutrino passing through than the earth is to be hit by an MeV neutrino passing through (a rather good chance of being missed in either case).

    2. Re:Not your "everyday" Neutrino by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      Yes - you have to go a above 1 PeV to get a decent chance of an interaction in a human - I did say "really high"!

    3. Re:Not your "everyday" Neutrino by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Why does the neutrino cross-section vary with its energy? Is there a web reference you would recommend I peruse to learn more? Thanks.

    4. Re:Not your "everyday" Neutrino by edumacator · · Score: 3, Funny

      I have no idea what this means, but I will memorize it and use it at a party. I might not walk away with the ladies, but if people think I'm smarter than them after repeating this, then maybe the next time I say something stupid, they might just think it was over their heads.

    5. Re:Not your "everyday" Neutrino by FishOuttaWater · · Score: 1

      For maximum effect, make sure the subject is politics or the weather when you do this. They will be *extra* impressed.

    6. Re:Not your "everyday" Neutrino by Roger+W+Moore · · Score: 1

      I tried to explain it without maths in the post above - the more energy you have the easier it is to make a W or Z boson which is how the neutrino interacts with matter. Think of it like a the neutrino being trapped in a valley and in order to interact it has to get over the valley sides. Fortunately it can tunnel so it does not have to clear the peak but the more energy it has, the higher up the valley side it can get and the easier it is to tunnel through. If it does have enough energy to clear the peak then no tunnelling is required and interactions become very easy.

      For a fully detailed, mathematical explanation as to why you need to be able to do simple Feynman diagram calculations. I don't know of a webpage with this on it but Griffiths has an excellent book "Introduction to Elementary Particle Physics" aimed at the senior physics undergrad level and Perkins has a similar one which is slightly lower level.

  37. Re:not so good with numbers... by Chris+Burke · · Score: 1

    What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?

    Internet-pedantry, where either 1) pedantry is misapplied because the word in question does not have a single, precise definition to be pedantic over, and both the the original and the "pedant's" "pedantic" correction are correct or 2) pedantry is possible because the word does have a precise technical definition, but the "pedant" has no idea what that is and is wrong while the original usage was correct.

    --

    The enemies of Democracy are
  38. Re:not so good with numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Hey, my wife is actually a aunt... does it make me a aunt fucker??

  39. Re:Could dark matter be super low-energy neutrinos by evilviper · · Score: 3, Informative

    Could dark matter be super low-energy neutrinos?

    Nope.

    Or at least, they could still only account for a small fraction of observed dark-matter.

    http://www.astro.princeton.edu/~dns/MAP/Bahcall/node6.html

    --
    Slashdot gets worse every day... Pipedot: News for nerds, without the corporate slant
  40. Re:not so good with numbers... by rasmusbr · · Score: 3, Funny

    Mark your preferred definition of probability
    [ ] Bayesianism
    [ ] Frequentism
    [x] Ridiculous frequentism

  41. Hulk? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Or that or aliens are making a HULK!

  42. Re:not so good with numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Funny

    No, your wife being an aunt doesn't make you an aunt fucker. You would also need to fuck your wife.

  43. Re:not so good with numbers... by martas · · Score: 1

    If you want to learn more, read about Bayesian probability theory.

    Not to get into a Bayesian vs. frequentist debate here, but note that this is not the only interpretation of probability out there. The frequentist interpretation is, in spirit, a statement "in hindsight". Troyusrex's point is that it's meaningless to talk about probabilities of things that are fixed quantities; the frequentist interpretation gets around that by making statements about quantities that have yet to be determined. So one only speaks of probabilities before an experiment has been performed and a measurement made. In practice of course we give things like p-values and confidence intervals based on actual observations, but we interpret all probabilities in terms of an infinite number of identical hypothetical experiments.

  44. How do we know where they come from? by WillAffleckUW · · Score: 1

    At best we can only detect vector and derived energy, but we don't know where they came from or if they actually came from dark matter space in an area we don't traditionally think of as an origin point.

    --
    -- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
  45. Re:Please explain : aren't neutrinos, ah...'neutra by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The bigger question is how did a chargeless neutrino particle get accelerated to that energy. Most current theories like 2nd order Fermi acceleration act on charged particles bouncing among moving plasma shock waves. Imagine a ping pong ball bouncing between between two walls in a cubic room that are approaching each other. There's no limit to how fast the ball can go because upon each bounce it gains a bit more speed from the wall and it doesn't matter that the ball speed is greatly higher than the wall speed. The walls (standing in for the shock waves) have infinite mass in comparison to the ball (the particle) so they don't effectively slow down much with each reflection.

    Probably what happened was there was another particle with charge, it was accelerated to high energy via the standard ways like 2nd order Fermi acceleration and moving in Earth's general direction, then on the way here that particle decayed to produce a neutrino among its products. That's the neutrino that got detected.

  46. Direction by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How do we know the direction of something as hard to detect (i.e. "rare") as a neutrino?

    1. Re:Direction by chihowa · · Score: 3, Informative

      When a neutrino impacts a particle in the detector, it creates a cascade of new particles. Since the momentum of the neutrino is conserved in the cascade of particles that can be more easily detected, the direction that the neutrino came from can be determined.

      --
      If you want a vision of the future, imagine a youtube comments section scrolling - forever.
  47. the unreal real by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    i really really wish that neutrinos are REAL particles, but alas ... matter of fact
    the notion that energy conservation can be violated is much more interesting.
    also considering the fact that these detectors are inside a massive rigid solid
    block of ice .. well with the forces and strains at work in said block, it might
    just be a hydrogen or oxygen atom being squeezed ENORMOUSLY and
    then spontaneously emitting some really energetic light?

  48. IceCube is on Slashdot! \o/ by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I've been reading Slashdot for many years and it's pretty amazing to see one of my projects actually featured.

  49. Re:these apostrophe's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    These apostrophe's are not the punctuation marks you are looking for.

  50. 99% FAIL by mbone · · Score: 1

    Say WHAT? There isn't even consensus that these cosmic neutrinos are either neutrinos or cosmic, much less where they come from. Extra-galactic is reasonable, but I would put it more in the 20-30% range, not 99%.

    From the ABSTRACT of the actual paper:

    Though the two events could be a first indication of an astrophysical neutrino flux, the moderate significance and the uncertainties on the expected atmospheric background from neutrinos produced in the decay of charmed mesons do not allow for a firm conclusion at this point.

  51. Re:not so good with numbers... by gl4ss · · Score: 1

    well he lives in a cave and his favorite past-time is scaring the natives... sure sounds like sith to me.

    --
    world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
  52. Re:not so good with numbers... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    In my country a person like you would be called an ant-fucker. Because ant-fuckery is the only way to describe this level of pedantry. Don't get me wrong, it's not meant as a grave insult. Polite people use the term in casual conversation and nobody is offended.

    Welcome fellow citizen of Kazakhstan! How much for sister?

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  53. Re:not so good with numbers... by tehcyder · · Score: 1

    So if I flip a coin and cover it up, and ask you "What are the chances it is heads?" you would answer back "it's either 100% or 0%"? What kind of pedantic choice of interpretation is that?

    A mathematically correct, but absolutely useless one. The guy's obviously an actuary.

    --
    To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
  54. Re:not so good with numbers... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    You don't actually know anything about probability, do you?

    In which case, STFU.

  55. Energy = Mass by Droog57 · · Score: 1

    If the detected Neutrino's actually do have PeV energies, doesn't that essentially give them Mass? And if so, Dark Matter Candidate # 1

    --
    "If the only tool that you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail." Donny Rumsfeld
  56. Re:not so good with numbers... by Tarlus · · Score: 1

    I like how that got modded insightful. Only on Slashdot does one earn praise for arguing Star Wars on a science news post. =)

    --
    /* No Comment */
  57. How did they get... by kmoser · · Score: 1

    Wait, how did scientists get to another galaxy?

  58. It's ET... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...trying to establish a carrier signal before calling home

  59. Wikipedia article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    if not done yet, i get to create an article, and categorize it under: Category:individual subatomic particles. thats cool. way cool. now every subatomic particle has hope that they too might be notable one day. no more anonymity, being just a face in the crowd. bring socialist revolution to the mass!

  60. i will never get the part by KingBenny · · Score: 1

    where light is the absolute limit. I have always and will always with my limited capabilities and understanding feel and think that it is the framework, the theoretical limit in the framework used by people today when trying to understandd the all and everything of reality as it is perceived, not just the absolute limit because einstein said so, did he actually say so, or did he just pone it as an IF ... THEN conditional statement from which all others were derived ?
    i have a picture here of the man but he doesn't do much more than just sit there and smile this buddha smile like 'i know something you will never understand and if i explain then you will never understand since when you dont figure it out yourself, you will miss all the heavenly glory that comes with it, like a finger, pointing away at the moon'
    i sometimes get confused, i can always blame it on one of the brands they labelled me with that's not the problem but why is this so absolute ?
    i have seen and read about a few things that surpass light speed so , sometimes i think me as the guy who doesn't get it gets it better than some who do
    but i dont have the math to slap others around with so
    i just shut up
    and sit there
    smiling ...
    (lol)
    carry on now

    --
    Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?