Slashdot Mirror


Experiments Create Particles Out of a Vacuum Using Neutrinos

BarbaraHudson writes: In a new series of experiments, scientists report (abstract) that neutrinos, notable for how infrequently they interact with matter, can strike a glancing blow on an atom's nucleus, and the side effect is the generation of a new particle out of a vacuum. Professor Kevin McFarland says the creation of the new particle is what shields the nucleus from being blown apart by the collision. "Producing an entirely new particle – in this case a charged pion – requires much more energy than it would take to blast the nucleus apart – which is why the physicists are always surprised that the reaction happens as often as it does. McFarland adds that even painstakingly detailed theoretical calculations for this reaction 'have been all over the map.'"

86 comments

  1. New ways to generate... gravity? by sinij · · Score: 1

    Is this a way to generate... gravity? I am not a theoretical physicist, but aren't pions once-removed from gravitons? I remember reading and failing to understand something about pion-graviton scattering.

    1. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      A quick look at wiki shows that gravitons are still unproven.

      Pions are appareantly mesons (they have a quark and an antiquark) and decay to muons or gamma rays.

      I'm not sure if there's any proposed relationship between pions and gravitons, though for that matter I'm not quite sure what a pion or a graviton is.

      I will say that conversion of enery to matter and vice-veresa, in and of itself, seems to be old news.

    2. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Gravitons are a force-mediating particle - if they exist. Completely different from pions. They are also near-impossible to observe directly - they make neutrinos look solid. There's no experimental confirmation they even exist, but certain theories far beyond my understanding predict them.

    3. Re: New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      IANATP either but, if gravity is nothing but bent spacetime, then gravitons are not needed. I, jumping up and down on earth, am following a straight path through space.

    4. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by nospam007 · · Score: 1

      "Is this a way to generate... gravity?"

      It doesn't matter. It literally makes stuff out of 'thin air', that's the cool part.

    5. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by lkcl · · Score: 5, Informative

      pions are basically made up of quarks just like the neutron and the proton: there's nothing magical about it, and has absolutely nothing to do with gravitons (if such even exist except as a mathematical concept). the difference is that pions only contain two quarks (rather than three) and so they're not stable. imagine throwing two magnets into the air very very carefully and having them spin around each other for a very brief period of time. if they fly apart, splat no more particle: if they touch, splat no more particle. but for that incredibly short duration where the two quarks successfully spin around each other in close orbit, there you have a "pion".

    6. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 1

      The thing that's interesting isn't the energy-to-matter conversion, but the fact that the impact should blow the atom to smitherines. When we come across stuff like that (that makes you go "Hmm, that's strange") it's worth investigating to learn more.

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    7. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by joe_frisch · · Score: 1

      This isn't really related to gravity. Neutrinos are (as far as we know) fundamental particles. They are creating pairs of quarks (as far as we know fundamental) bound together to for a pion.

      Gravitons are a different fundamental particle and interact much more weekly than do neutrinos. In principal there is probably some cross section for neutrinos interacting to produce gravitons, but the probability is exceptionally tiny.

      Gravitons are part of the quantum description of gravity, but they have not been directly detected as particles - the interaction is so weak that it is difficult to imagine an experiment that could do that .

    8. Re: New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought gravitons were what was needed to communicate from the matter to spacetime to tell it to bend? Similar to muons and gluons.

    9. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      No, it makes stuff out of energy - nothing new to see there. Happens in particle accelerators all the time - throw enough energy around and the distinction between mass and energy gets blurry.

      The cool part is that it's making something out of the impact energy instead of the atom being blown apart. That's something that wasn't expected, and it sounds like they have yet to figure out how/why it happens according to the theory - suggesting that we're on the verge of discovering some new physics, or at least some new insights into existing physics. The entire field of quantum mechanics was itself born of investigating such a relatively minor anomaly unexplained by the existing theories.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    10. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Immerman · · Score: 2

      It's also worth mentioning that discovering the existence of gravitons would blow a hole in General Relativity - it's one of the areas where quantum mechanics and relativity stand in stark opposition. So unlike the Higgs Boson, gravitons aren't something where the theory all agrees that it should exist, but we just haven't (hadn't) actually spotted it yet.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    11. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You've been blown to smithereens by apk again BarbaraHudson for the 100th time http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... hahahahaha

    12. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      and you are stalking again oh but you never stalk noooooo

    13. Re: New ways to generate... gravity? by ClickOnThis · · Score: 1

      IANATP either but, if gravity is nothing but bent spacetime, then gravitons are not needed. I, jumping up and down on earth, am following a straight path through space.

      IAAP, although not a specialist in gravitons. However, I can tell you that they are hypothetical bosons that are introduced in theories that attempt to link gravity with quantum mechanics (or quantum chromo-dynamics if you prefer.) They mitigate the gravitational force in a quantum setting in much the same way as photons do for electromagnetism, gluons do for the strong force, and W+, W- and Z bosons do for the weak force.

      You can find more information on them here.

      --
      If it weren't for deadlines, nothing would be late.
    14. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme." - by tomhudson (43916) > on Sunday May 09, 2010 @07:29PM (#32150544) Journal

      Barb admits stalking: See that quote of BarbaraHudson + fact Tom's Barb too TomHudson http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... = BarbaraHudson http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... (since the fucked up freak couldn't accept himself as a man, & chopped off his balls, lmao!)

    15. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Barbarahudson started with apk. Apk finished it and her with it (look for yourself in post parent to his link apk posted above, here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...)

    16. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by bitSmiter · · Score: 1

      "Graviton" is just a working name for the virtual 'particles' (really mathematical points) that you move through equations and computer models. They have nothing to do with the actual mechanical reality of gravity, which we still have no clue about.

    17. Re:New ways to generate... gravity? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Graviton" is just a working name for the virtual 'particles' (really mathematical points) that you move through equations and computer models.

      Replace "Graviton" with photon or electron, etc., and you get the basis for pretty much any physics theory. Regardless of how accurate a theory appears to be, and how much evidence you have, you'll never be able to say whether it has anything to do with the "actual" mechanism at the fundamental level. Having a clue or not can only come down to how useful the theory is at predicting things.

  2. get Particles out of a vacuum by rossdee · · Score: 3, Funny

    Its probably best to read the instructions

    Its better with to ones that have a bag. Those ones with just a cylindrical plastic container that you just tip into the garbage can - even if you don't spill it, some of the smaller particles are going to get back into the air that you breathe.

    1. Re:get Particles out of a vacuum by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      PROTIP: Not if you do it outside.

    2. Re: get Particles out of a vacuum by Dynedain · · Score: 1

      You don't breathe when you go outside? I guess that explains the basement dwelling tendencies.

      --
      I'm out of my mind right now, but feel free to leave a message.....
  3. Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I thought a vacuum was a "space" devoid of particles. How do you get something from nothing? I'm not inclined to say their vacuum leaked and this is stray contamination.

    1. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The Universe is just a simulation. The pion was an attempt to throw more "CPU" cycles at the problem. Now where did that energy come from? And, when will the double-A batteries that run it set to expire?

          ( \ / )
          ( x ')
          ( [ ] )
        ( )_( )

    2. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Experimental vacuum with a single particle and then the neutrino passed through the area (and all of the earth) creating another particle.

    3. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      That "nothing" is really something. Vacuum quantum fluctuations are physically real, cfr the Casimir effect.
      So yeah, if the energy is right you can create particles out of the vacuum.

    4. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Tough+Love · · Score: 3, Informative

      Where did you get the idea that vaccum is nothing? Actually, vacuum is a very busy place

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    5. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Tough+Love · · Score: 1

      ...and that reply was meant for the GP

      --
      When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
    6. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Electricity+Likes+Me · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Rendering artifacts due to floating point precision!

    7. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Presumably the enegry to create the new particle comes from the neutrino.

    8. Re:Getting something from nothing? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      That would explain the uncertainty principle. A little aliasing noise to mask the quantization artifacts.

    9. Re: Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Vacuum is like an ironed sheet of linen. A basic particle is like a wrinkle in the fabric. Kinetic energy can transform to wrinkles and vise versa.

    10. Re: Getting something from nothing? by jovius · · Score: 1

      There's no "nothing" anywhere in the universe. The only nothingness could be said to have preceded the universe.

    11. Re: Getting something from nothing? by Immerman · · Score: 1

      And that only if the universe is finite. If the universe is infinite (and the evidence suggests that it might well be) then it was probably *always* infinite, and the "big bang" was something that happened within it.

      In fact one theory of the nature of the "big bang" is that the original universe was a completely empty false vacuum (i.e. the vacuum energy was stable but at a non-minimum energy) and eventually one point in the vacuum decayed to a lower energy state, spawning normal mass-energy in the process and triggering a chain reaction that expanded through the universe at nearly the speed of light, creating a new "bubble universe" filled with mass-energy. In essence the "big bang" wasn't an explosion of "stuff", it was an explosion of the creation of stuff.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    12. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I thought a vacuum was a "space" devoid of particles. How do you get something from nothing? I'm not inclined to say their vacuum leaked and this is stray contamination.

      It's more like a market. If you have energy you can buy whatever you can afford.

    13. Re:Getting something from nothing? by billstewart · · Score: 1

      So the neutrino (i.e. something other than vacuum) hit another particle (also something other than vacuum), which grabbed some nearby nothingness to create a third particle? Sorry, but to me, the first two parts of it mean you're not creating stuff out of vacuum.

      --

      Bill Stewart
      New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
    14. Re:Getting something from nothing? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      And there's so much energy around that astronomers have to invent bizarre concepts like directed gamma-ray bursts, because they can't stomach the amounts of energy that exist if they don't find ways to throttle it with their theories. The real problem is with our thinking that energy has to be scarce.

  4. Peons by Tablizer · · Score: 2

    It's just like work: a bunch of pions popping in and out of a corporate vacuum.

    1. Re:Peons by gtall · · Score: 1

      Isn't this how upper level managers are created? A corporate officer has vacuum for a brain and sees something whizzy on his computer screen. The whizzy thing is a neutrino, normally it is innocuous and rarely interacts with anything. However, in special circumstance the corporate officer accepts the neutrino and a new upper level manager is born.

    2. Re:Peons by Tablizer · · Score: 1

      Dilbertian Physics, the next frontier.

  5. Non-paywalled version by amaurea · · Score: 4, Informative

    As usual for physics articles, a non-paywalled version is available on arXiv, and has been so for more than a month before it appeared behind the paywall. Why do people who submit physics stories to slashdot aloways link to the useless paywalled version?

    1. Re:Non-paywalled version by phazemstr · · Score: 0

      Where's the money in that?

      --
      Nothing to see.
    2. Re:Non-paywalled version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I dunno, I think I heard about it on the "New /. deals" or maybe Beta (tm).

    3. Re:Non-paywalled version by thegarbz · · Score: 1

      Linking to the published Journal does have it's benefits. Rather than just being some random PDF we at least know that this appeared in some kind of useful publication and wasn't just made up and posted.

      Now before someone says something about Journals accepting fake articles etc. Yes there are exceptions, but that's all, just exceptions. For the most part journals are good arbiters of solid science.

    4. Re:Non-paywalled version by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 4, Informative

      The GP is wrong. The article I linked to is NOT pay-walled, and contains the link to the arXiv.org paper. Either they didn't read the article (so they didn't know that there was already a link to arXiv) or they're just trying to make something out of nothing - kind of like this experiment did :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    5. Re:Non-paywalled version by rmdingler · · Score: 3, Funny
      Right.

      If you keep that shit up, people will start skipping the articles entirely.

      --
      Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.

      Ernest Hemingway

    6. Re:Non-paywalled version by amaurea · · Score: 1

      You linked to two articles. The first one is "Reanalysis of bubble chamber measurements of muon-neutrino induced single pion production", which was paywalled. The second one is "Researchers show neutrinos can deliver not only full-on hits but also ‘glancing blows’", which isn't paywalled, and which further links to the arXiv article "Measurement of Coherent Production of $^\pm$ in Neutrino and Anti-Neutrino Beams on Carbon from $E_$ of $1.5$ to $20$ GeV". I was in a bit of a hurry and didn't read all the articles when I posted, but unless I'm very confused here there was one, prominent paywalled-only link in the summary.

    7. Re:Non-paywalled version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Because it's the people who run the paywall who submit them?

    8. Re:Non-paywalled version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Offtopic, you stalking asshole.

    9. Re:Non-paywalled version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Wait until he starts on another kick, then reply to him as an AC. It's the new meme." - by tomhudson (43916) > on Sunday May 09, 2010 @07:29PM (#32150544) Journal

      Barb's the stalker: See subject, the quote of BarbaraHudson + fact Tom's Barb too TomHudson http://slashdot.org/~tomhudson... = BarbaraHudson http://slashdot.org/~BarbaraHu... (since the fucked up freak couldn't accept himself as a man, & chopped off his balls, lmao!)

    10. Re:Non-paywalled version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      So, basically, you clicked on the links to check if they were paywalled, in readiness to post an article about your personal bug-bear: paywalled articles. The rest of what you say is just... coverage.

    11. Re:Non-paywalled version by amaurea · · Score: 1

      So, basically, you clicked on the links to check if they were paywalled, in readiness to post an article about your personal bug-bear: paywalled articles.

      Mostly, but with two differences. My personal bug-bear is not just paywalled articles. It is linking to paywalled articles when the same article is available in a non-paywalled form also. If you look closely, the article I linked to was not about paywalled articles. It was a link to the non-paywalled version of the first article mentioned in the summary. So I had two motivations: 1: To complain about unnecessary paywalling, and 2: To help people actually get at the paywalled article.

    12. Re:Non-paywalled version by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You're always wrong vs apk BarbaraHudson http://tech.slashdot.org/comme...

  6. Creation Ex Nihilo! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Well, we can now create something from just energy and the something that is nothingness.
    Now if we can just figure out how use glancing blows from particle accelerators to create "good" where there's just "elected officials".

    1. Re:Creation Ex Nihilo! by Immerman · · Score: 2

      Well, enough glancing blows and you can at least generate hamburger where there used to be elected officials, and that might be an improvement. But the particle accelerator would need to be quite small so that you could swing it effectively.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  7. The link in summary goes to the wrong paper by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The link in the summary goes to the wrong paper.
    This is the link to the right pre-print paper: http://arxiv.org/abs/1409.3835

  8. Scientists create hydrogen... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    out of vacuum using water.

  9. Horrible Summary by forand · · Score: 4, Insightful

    The summary is horribly incorrect. There are no new experiments, only new analysis of old experiments. The authors didn't actually do the experiments but "digitize and reanalyze data from both experiments." The summary didn't include the non-paywalled version of the article on arXiv. The summary sensationalizes the results with phrases like "[p]roducing an entirely new particle." (ok it is a quote) which leads non-physicist readers to think this is a new particle as yet unseen when in fact all particles involved are well known. Furthermore, pulling a particle out of the vacuum, especially near such massive and charged objects a nuclei is not at all uncommon. Sure it is a non-electromagnetic process but it isn't odd.

    1. Re:Horrible Summary by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

      (sigh) You're doing it wrong - that link you gave is the wrong one . The article the summary links to has a link to the correct (and non-paywalled) article at arXiv.org. Have a nice day :-)

      --
      "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
    2. Re:Horrible Summary by Baloroth · · Score: 1

      (sigh) You're doing it wrong - that link you gave is the wrong one . The article the summary links to has a link to the correct (and non-paywalled) article at arXiv.org. Have a nice day :-)

      The link the GP gave is to the paper linked directly to by the summary (the direct link to the abstract), so some confusion is understandable. In the future, maybe make submissions discuss one and only one paper (or make it obvious they're two papers)?

      --
      "None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
    3. Re:Horrible Summary by MillionthMonkey · · Score: 1

      There are no new experiments, only new analysis of old experiments.

      Whew, I heard gunfire last night and at first thought some thug physicist was firing neutrinos down the street. "What if one strikes a nucleus and releases a positron?" I wondered. That's weak!

  10. You omitted the relevant arXiv article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Interesting

    TFS's topic of "Experiments Create Particles Out of a Vacuum Using Neutrinos" is not discussed in the paper

    of 18 Nov which you linked, but in McFarland's 25 Nov paper

    From the latter,

    In conclusion, the coherent production of pions on carbon nuclei for both neutrino and anti-neutrino beams is precisely measured by isolating a sample with no visible nuclear breakup and low |t| transferred to the nucleus.

  11. Re:Uh-oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Actually, to be on the safe side, while you don't understand what you're doing, could you please do it in Alpha Centauri?

    If you find a way to block high energy neutrinos from space reaching Earth, then moving equipment to Alpha Centauri should be easy by comparison...

  12. Re:Uh-oh... by BarbaraHudson · · Score: 2

    Scientists were surprised with penicillin.

    --
    "Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
  13. Tea, by PPH · · Score: 3, Funny

    Earl Grey, hot.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
    1. Re:Tea, by Grog6 · · Score: 1

      Are you sure this isn't Darjeeling? :)

      --
      Truth isn't Truth - Guliani
    2. Re:Tea, by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Darjeeling is better; it wouldn't be a problem.

  14. Also... by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Pretty sure the title of TFS should have been:

    Experiments Create New Particles From Atom and Neutrino Interaction

    ...the implication that the particle arose from vacuum is what I read; but it arose consequent to an energy to matter conversion, it seems to me. Ol' Albert had something to say about this, IIRC.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  15. Vetting the results by fyngyrz · · Score: 1

    Toto's on his way to be tutored. They caught him playing with unleashed atoms, now they have to figure out who's going to take all the little pions.

    --
    I've fallen off your lawn, and I can't get up.
  16. Re:Uh-oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    > If you find a way to block high energy neutrinos from space reaching Earth

    Good point, and a tranquilizing one at that... let's hope the scientists just don't do anything that doesn't happen naturally...

  17. Re:Uh-oh... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ...the Curie couple (both radiation poisoned).

    While he probably was radiation poisoned, he actually died from a wagon wheel running over his head.

  18. Solar neutrino panels by jfdavis668 · · Score: 1

    Now they can create solar neutrino panels so I can get power at night.

  19. How does this process not generate a cascade? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    The charged pion decays to a muon neutrino that goes off to interact with another nucleus that spawns another charge pion and so on.

    Wouldn't the universe fill up with neutrinos eventually?

  20. Barbarahudson started it with apk by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Barbarahudson started it with apk. Apk finished it and her with it (look for yourself in post parent to his link apk posted above, here http://tech.slashdot.org/comme... ) and since we know you troll and stalk by ac posts Barb, by your own admittance quoted here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... and then you try to hide it by downmods (which most here see anyway since they browse below the -1 moderation threshold default) your attempt at hiding it here http://slashdot.org/comments.p... is moot. This is nothing new. You do this to yourself all the time.