Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The Search For Neutrons That Leak Into Our World From Other Universes

Posted by Soulskill on from the why-you-always-stain-before-putting-on-the-finish dept.

KentuckyFC writes: One of the more exciting predictions from "braneworld" theories of high energy physics is that matter can leak out of other universes into our own, and vice versa. The basic idea is that our three-dimensional universe or brane is embedded in a much larger multi-dimensional cosmos. These branes can become coupled so that a quantum particle such as a neutron can exist in a superposition of states in both universes at the same time. When the neutron collides with something, the superposition collapses and the particle must suddenly exist in one brane or the other. That means neutrons from our universe can leak into other branes and then back again. Now physicists are devising an experiment to look for this neutron leakage. They plan to put a well shielded neutron detector next to a shielded nuclear reactor that produces neutrons at a research facility in France. All this shielding means the detector should not see any neutrons from inside the reactor. However, if the neutrons are leaking into another brane and then back into our world, they can bypass this shielding and trigger the detector. The team has not yet set a date for the experiment but the discovery of neutrons (or anything else) leaking into our universe would be huge.

11 of 212 comments (clear)

  1. Aha by ISoldat53 · · Score: 5, Funny

    So that's where my car keys go.

  2. What if... by Ultra64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    What if the other brane also has a reactor shield in the same spot?

    1. Re:What if... by TechyImmigrant · · Score: 4, Insightful

      So do they need all the stars to quit fusing and fissioning as well?

      --
      I should use this sig to advertise my book ISBN-13 : 978-1501515132.
    2. Re:What if... by Immerman · · Score: 4, Informative

      You've got it almost exactly, except for the bad attitude. We have theories that are experimentally more accurate than classical physics (relativity, quantum mechanics), but those theories are mathematically inconsistent, plagued by apparently arbitrary "magic numbers", and make some predictions that we see no evidence of: i.e. they create holes where we *know* our knowledge is incomplete, and even more where we reasonably *suspect* there's more to be known. So, we try to come up with new theories to plug those holes. But because the holes are very strange, the patches must be very strange as well, and the patches we've come up with make few or no testable predictions, or at least none testable with current technology. So we keep trying to come up with ever-more-outlandish scenarios where the "patches" predict the potential for different outcomes than the widely accepted, but known-broken, theories. Because until we find an experiment that decisively disagrees with the known-broken theories, how are we ever going to know if we're on the right track, or just inflating a donkey with combustion byproducts?

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    3. Re:What if... by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Well, we don't really have any reason to expect alternate universes to exist at all, except that the theories don't preclude them.

      The real problem is that we have some really huge gaping holes in established theory*, places that we *know* our understanding is flawed, and all the "patches" we've dreamed up are so outlandish that we need even more outlandish experiments to test them, where we've even managed to dream up potential experiments at all.

      * for example - General Relativity requires that the base energy of empty space be exactly zero, while Quantum Mechanics requires that it have a definite non-zero value. (the so-called vacuum energy field) Both cannot be the case, so clearly one or both theories must be flawed.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
  3. What! by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 4, Funny

    We need to build a fence to keep these undocumented neutrons out of our Universe and from taking jobs from our neutrons. # IAmNotAScientist

    --
    It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
  4. Genuine Neutron Pads by Scottingham · · Score: 4, Funny

    Is neutron leakage ruining your day?

    Well, no more! Now with my patented genuine neutron pads neutron leakage will be a thing of the past!

    We use only the purest boron from the banks of Rio Tinto to absorb your stray neutrons*.

    *Neutrons from other universes are not covered by this product. If the neutron flux is higher than the OHSA limits, bend over and kiss your ass goodbye.

  5. Re:Hmmm... by Znork · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I think the idea is to have a huge source of neutrons in physical proximity to increase the chances of one leaking into the other universe first so it can leak back on the other side of the shielding.

  6. Re:What did I miss? by disposable60 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Except that the baseline expectation is derived from experience with previous, presumably brane-leaky, shielding.

    --
    You're looking for quotes? See my journal.
  7. Re:Am I looking at my calendar wrong? by ConceptJunkie · · Score: 4, Informative

    I guess you haven't been keeping up with physics lately, but this kind of thing has been seriously discussed for decades, and has gained a lot of momentum in the last 10 years or so. The only thing slowing down the development of the science of alternate universes is inability to make falsifiable predictions. While not finding neutrons we can't account for wouldn't disprove anything, finding them could be the biggest science news since the prediction of and then discovery of the Cosmic Microwave Background.

    It's a weird world out there and the possibilities of what reality really consists of are getting weirder and weirder and yet more plausible at the same time.

    --
    You are in a maze of twisty little passages, all alike.
  8. Re:Hmmm... by slew · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Correct me if I'm wrong, but does this mean that the neutrons literally flow across a fourth dimensional axis, and then somehow bounce back after they've moved some distance on one of the other axes, landing in the trap while within our plane of the fourth dimension?

    Not exactly, the quirk they are testing is effectively the neutron travelling through both "branes" in a superposition state (well, it's actually a bit more subtle than that, but that's the easiest way to explain it).

    If so, how are they supposed to spot the neutrons the moment they cross into our brane but before they move into another one?

    They aren't tracking specific neutrons, they are making a statistical assumption about a collection of neutrons.

    More specifically, by running the experiment multiple times with the neutron source a different distance away from their shielded measurement chamber and at different times of year (to account for different magnetic vector contribution from the sun), they can potentially statistically isolate neutrons detection events that are expected to spontaneously appear (e.g., as a result of cosmic rays originating outside of experimental parameters) from those neutrons that supposedly move in and out of our "brane" as a result of superposition which are sourced locally (whose flux depends on the distance from the source).

    We'll see how it goes. They haven't done the experiment yet...