swansont Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Some folks are probably excited about this... https://phys.org/news/2022-06-results-anomaly-elementary-particle.html New scientific results confirm an anomaly seen in previous experiments, which may point to an as-yet-unconfirmed new elementary particle, the sterile neutrino, or indicate the need for a new interpretation of an aspect of standard model physics, such as the neutrino cross section, first measured 60 years ago. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Moontanman Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Interesting, does this indicate any real world consequences or is it too soon to really say? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NTuft Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Agreed, definitely interesting. Quote BEST used 26 irradiated disks of chromium 51, a synthetic radioisotope of chromium and the 3.4 megacurie source of electron neutrinos, to irradiate an inner and outer tank of gallium, a soft, silvery metal also used in previous experiments, though previously in a one-tank set-up. The reaction between the electron neutrinos from the chromium 51 and the gallium produces the isotope germanium 71. The measured rate of germanium 71 production was 20–24% lower than expected based on theoretical modeling. That discrepancy is in line with the anomaly seen in previous experiments. Magic numbers: Quote In nuclear physics, a magic number is a number of nucleons (either protons or neutrons, separately) such that they are arranged into complete shells within the atomic nucleus. As a result, atomic nuclei with a 'magic' number of protons or neutrons are much more stable than other nuclei. The seven most widely recognized magic numbers as of 2019 are 2, 8, 20, 28, 50, 82, and 126 If they're nucleating the gallium with radioactive chromium to produce germanium I'd bet they know what it's possible to produce. If it's not a particularly stable configuration, it makes sense to me that there would be losses in the energy they're using to do it. I have to think they're aware of such considerations, and would account for that to make their expected theoretical model. Matches prior results, more experiments needed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
exchemist Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 1 hour ago, Moontanman said: Interesting, does this indicate any real world consequences or is it too soon to really say? I understand it could shed light (haha) on dark matter. If it's confirmed and has the right mass, or something, ........................ 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MigL Posted June 21, 2022 Share Posted June 21, 2022 Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. Does this possibly make neutrinos a dark matter candidate again ? 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
joigus Posted October 9, 2022 Share Posted October 9, 2022 On 6/21/2022 at 9:27 PM, exchemist said: I understand it could shed light (haha) on dark matter. If it's confirmed and has the right mass, or something, ........................ On 6/21/2022 at 9:39 PM, MigL said: Yeah, I was thinking along the same lines. Does this possibly make neutrinos a dark matter candidate again ? Yes, according to Hossenfelder. http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2021/09/the-physics-anomaly-no-one-talks-about.html Thinking about neutrinos again... Could it be that very heavy leptons corresponding to an extended family of flavours were copiously produced in early stages of the universe, but decayed so long ago there are no traces of them to be found? Being very massive, they could be out of reach in laboratories. But their flavours would still be there, potentially explaining the anomaly, and their slight masses accounting for dark matter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts