You shall not pass!

With neutrinos back where they belong - behind the massless photons in vacuum - a lot of the excitement generated by the strange incidents reported last year has died down. After the OPERA experiment announcement on September 23 last year, many observatories, labs and accelerators set about trying to recreate the experiments as well as assisting the Italian Gran Sasso National Lab, the home of OPERA, check for errors with the detection system. Following at their heels were theoretical physicists and mathematicians with different hypotheses each aimed at refuting the results.

On October 18, 2011, another experiment at Gran Sasso, the ominously named ICARUS, published a preprint paper completely contradicting the OPERA results. The ICARUS physicists' conclusion was underpinned by a simple concept: whenever a particle moves, it loses some energy. The rate of energy lost is dependent in a fixed way on the speed at which the particle is moving, and when the particle is moving at a speed greater than that of light's in vacuum, its energy loss must be a specific fraction of its overall energy.

The CERN produced neutrinos at 28.2 GeV, and by the time they reached the OPERA and the ICARUS, they should have had an energy of 12.1 GeV. Unlike ICARUS, OPERA had used a clocking mechanism to determine that the neutrinos were moving faster than light. The ICARUS result, however, showed that there were no neutrinos that had 12.1 GeV of energy, nor that neutrinos possessed any energy in the neighbourhood of that value. Instead, the plot it obtained - of neutrino energy versus number of events - conformed perfectly to the hypothesis that the neutrinos were travelling at the speed of light, no more.

[caption id="attachment_21656" align="aligncenter" width="640" caption="The ICARUS energy-event plot"][/caption]

An important theoretical result inspired the experimental ICARUS result: a paper by Andrew Cohen and Sheldon Glashow contested that superluminal neutrinos could decay into sub-luminal speeds by losing energy in the form of fermions, usually electron-positron pairs. The rate of pair formation, they calculated, was proportional to the sixth power of the neutrinos' energy and the rate of energy decay, proportional to the fifth power. With this, they arrived at a value of around 12.5 GeV as the terminal energy of the neutrinos. OPERA, however, had measured something much higher than this, which meant the energy decay was slow, which meant that they couldn't have been travelling as fast as had been claimed.

At the same time, it wasn't as if the announcement was without supporters: a host of papers were published whose authors seemed determined to validate superluminal travel. Some interesting ones among them are available here, here and here.

Such experiments and solutions, those that sought to prove as well as those that sought to refute the OPERA announcement, are indicative of the spirit of science: that even when an anomalous or conclusively contradictory finding is made, the scientific community utilizes the impetus of the discovery to learn more, to create more knowledge. Even in the case of the the multi-billion dollar hunt for the Higgs boson, all set to be taken to another level in 2012, evidence of the particle's nonexistence will matter as much as its existence. And just was the case when news emerged that neutrinos were well-behaved, after all.

When a certain sphere paid a visit

On September 27, 2011, when an innocuous neutrino started its short journey from the Large Hadron Collider in CERN on the Franco-Swiss border, the world rested comfortably on the shoulders of a certain Albert Einstein. The Universe tottered on the verge of becoming completely explicable, string theorists were retreating into the shadows whence they had come, and particle physicists did what they always have done: relax and wait for more results to prove them more right.

That neutrino proved them wrong. Even though all it did was beat a ray of light by 60 nanoseconds, it had managed to defy a lifetime’s work in physics by a physicist everyone considered the greatest of all time. By travelling faster than light, it had utterly disproved the monumental theory of relativity. Suddenly, things began to turn around: the Universe was suddenly shrouded in mystery, the space-time continuum was being re-examined, particle physicists began to doubt their education… and the string theorist was suddenly in the limelight.

What does this have to do with a book on Victorian sociology? Almost everything. Rewind back to 1884, when the schoolmaster of the small Philological School in Marylebone, Edwin Abbott Abbott, published a novella called Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions. The book was about a fictitious world inhabited by two-dimensional people, rather two-dimensional shapes that represented people: women were straight lines and men were polygons. It was a satire that mocked the Victorian way of life. Women were line-segments and therefore essentially one-dimensional, as was reflected by the limited roles they were allowed to play in the society. Men, on the other hand, had many sides to them, and therefore dominated the two-dimensional world.

[caption id="attachment_20765" align="aligncenter" width="370" caption="Flatland: A Romance of Many Dimensions, 1884"][/caption]

When, one day, a nameless sphere decides to pay a visit to the narrator, a humble square, it is unable to convince him of the existence of the third dimension. However, after the square is chosen as an apostle to taken to Spaceland, the three-dimensional world, he is convinced that solids exist. Upon his return, again, he is condemned in Flatland as a madman and nobody is inclined to take him seriously.

The book is a powerful allegory in that it describes with an oft-sardonic mathematical simplicity the plight of those who perpetuate prejudices and yet suffer from the prejudice of others. The plot itself is linear, unassuming and provides the reader with no distractions but only the thrill of a Kafkaesque fantasy. The nameless sphere and his divine visitations, the humble square and his naïve suppositions, even the monarch of Pointland and his solipsistic musings – all touch close to the everyman’s experiences.

In fact, were Flatland to be mired in reality at the outset by the author himself, the book would long have lost its charmingly experimental texture, condemned to spend its life like its narrator did. No; in being the only known work of mathematical fiction, the book has managed to survive more than a century of tireless scrutiny by portraying itself as an examination of dimensions and nothing more.

While Abbott himself could not have imagined its scope when he wrote it, the morals of Flatland were soon found to be applicable in a variety of settings, including those of the string theorist. Imagine his plight as he attempted desperately to convince his colleagues of the existence of 10, 18, even 23 dimensions, but failed miserably each time. Imagine, then, his exclamation when a certain sphere paid the particle physicists a visit.

It is not known whether Abbott was writing as a historian or as a misogynist: both roles become evident in the literature as the realm’s women, being lines, have to survive many ignominies, some metaphorical, some plainly derisive, to coexist with the freer men. However, such analyses can today safely be sidelined: Abbott’s views on feminism are hardly considered as such, whereas his prophetic insight into the role of time as a fourth dimension was considered by Einstein himself to be an inspiration. And to think the book that spelled the rise of the particle physicist also has come to spell the rise of the string theorist!

Star of the Orient

India’s first particle physics observatory is to be constructed in the district of Theni in Tamil Nadu at an expense of Rs. 1,200 crore (USD 250 million). Called the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO), the entire experiment will be situated 1.3 km under a hill to keep other radiations and cosmic rays from interfering with the study. This is because the neutrinos that the detector will be studying rarely interact with matter and pass through it at the rate of three or four interactions per nearly 85 trillion trillion trillion. The gouging of a tunnel 7m wide and 1.9km long for accessing the cavern that will house the systems was commenced on October 14, Friday, and is expected to take a year.

Twenty-seven days ago, a startling discovery set off tremors across the scientific community when the Gran Sasso National Laboratory inItalyreported that certain fundamental particles called neutrinos had been observed moving faster than light. The reason this observation caused such dissonance and a flurry of excitement is that, according to the physics megagiant Albert Einstein, the Universe would allow nothing to travel faster than light.

Then again, conclusive proof was not presented by the physicists at the lab—at least, not anything that was within the infamous six-sigma accuracy tolerance limit: 99.99999 per cent. It was little surprise, then, that within a week of the report, engineers were working in full-swing atJapan's Kamioka reactor, at theUSA's dreaded Fermilab, at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory inCanada, to recreate the conditions at Gran Sasso. Far away, in India, a country that had until then been the principle centre for processing second-hand information, a 22-year old plan was finally being mobilized.

With just a 29-year old history, the energy frontier of physics research was supposed to last at least until 2018—the year of the Super Large Hadron Collider. With such unprecedented discoveries, however, a shift away from high-energy research and toward ultra-rare processes has become conspicuous. For the INO, the timing couldn’t have been better.

The decision to locate the observatory at Theni was finalized after evaluating the local topography, seismic stability, environmental disturbance, rock quality, availability of electricity and water, and rain patterns. In order to further minimize the impact of the project’s logistical and infrastructural operations, an extant but little-used road is being re-laid for the trucks and earthmovers to use, instead of having them move through five villages.

Funded by the government of India and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), and coordinated by the Institute of Mathematical Sciences (IMS), the INO will host a supersensitive static detector called the Iron Calorimeter (ICAL), incorporating a magnet exactly four times as large as the one in use at the Large Hadron Collider. Such an effort will involve the INO-industry interface in a big way, drawing heavily on available industrial infrastructure, in issues related to mechanical structure, electronics and detector-related technology.

The detector will consist of a stack of alternating plates of iron and borosilicate glass, each totally numbering 30,000 and measuring 12m to a side. The glass plates, in turn, will consist of glass sheets with a noble gas sandwiched in between—an arrangement referred to collectively as a resistive plate chamber (RPC). When a neutrino interacts with iron, it will knock out an electron from its orbit around an atom and send it into the RPC. Once there, the electron will be picked up by positively charged electrodes sewn into the glass, translated into a signal, and sent to the data processors.

The source of the neutrinos will be the sun, supernovae, cosmic rays and other intergalactic phenomena, and the output will correspond to the particle’s mass, position of interaction, velocity, type, degree of oscillation and charge.

There are two reasons the INO stands out from its peers: the first is that the ICAL is going to be devoted to studying neutrinos and neutrinos only, and the second is that the ICAL will study them continuously without stopping (except for scheduled maintenance). Because of such principled and technical dedication, physicists expect the detector to shine light on some of the more elusive characteristics of neutrinos, such as flavour oscillations and neutrino-neutrino interactions.

These are boom times for Indian science. The national spending on science and technology has gone up in the last five years and is inching towards two per cent ofIndia's GDP. Hordes of new institutes are coming up in the nook and corner of the country—30 new central universities, 5 new Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, 8 new Indian Institutes of Technology and 20 new Indian Institutes of Information Technology are in various stages of conception and completion.

However, simply increasing the number of institutes will not lead to better scientific prowess. The education system needs a complete rethink in order to attract more students to science and produce world class scientists (the last home-grown scientist to win a Nobel Prize was Sir C. V. Raman in 1930). In this direction, the INO is a giant leap forward because of its capacity to sustain research in subjects at the energy and cosmic frontiers, because of the special and exotic experimentation environments it will support, and because of the invaluable access it will provide to the Indian scientific community to cutting-edge information.

Star of the Orient

India’s first particle physics observatory is to be constructed in the district of Theni in Tamil Nadu at an expense of Rs. 1,200 crore (USD 250 million). Called the India-based Neutrino Observatory (INO), the entire experiment will be situated 1.3 km under a hill to keep other radiations and cosmic rays from interfering with the study. This is because the neutrinos that the detector will be studying rarely interact with matter and pass through it at the rate of three or four interactions per nearly 85 trillion trillion trillion. The gouging of a tunnel 7m wide and 1.9km long for accessing the cavern that will house the systems was commenced on October 14, Friday, and is expected to take a year.

Twenty-seven days ago, a startling discovery set off tremors across the scientific community when the Gran Sasso National Laboratory inItalyreported that certain fundamental particles called neutrinos had been observed moving faster than light. The reason this observation caused such dissonance and a flurry of excitement is that, according to the physics megagiant Albert Einstein, the Universe would allow nothing to travel faster than light.

Then again, conclusive proof was not presented by the physicists at the lab—at least, not anything that was within the infamous six-sigma accuracy tolerance limit: 99.99999 per cent. It was little surprise, then, that within a week of the report, engineers were working in full-swing atJapan's Kamioka reactor, at theUSA's dreaded Fermilab, at the Sudbury Neutrino Observatory inCanada, to recreate the conditions at Gran Sasso. Far away, in India, a country that had until then been the principle centre for processing second-hand information, a 22-year old plan was finally being mobilized.

With just a 29-year old history, the energy frontier of physics research was supposed to last at least until 2018—the year of the Super Large Hadron Collider. With such unprecedented discoveries, however, a shift away from high-energy research and toward ultra-rare processes has become conspicuous. For the INO, the timing couldn’t have been better.

The decision to locate the observatory at Theni was finalized after evaluating the local topography, seismic stability, environmental disturbance, rock quality, availability of electricity and water, and rain patterns. In order to further minimize the impact of the project’s logistical and infrastructural operations, an extant but little-used road is being re-laid for the trucks and earthmovers to use, instead of having them move through five villages.

Funded by the government of India and the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research (TIFR), and coordinated by the Institute of Mathematical Sciences (IMS), the INO will host a supersensitive static detector called the Iron Calorimeter (ICAL), incorporating a magnet exactly four times as large as the one in use at the Large Hadron Collider. Such an effort will involve the INO-industry interface in a big way, drawing heavily on available industrial infrastructure, in issues related to mechanical structure, electronics and detector-related technology.

The detector will consist of a stack of alternating plates of iron and borosilicate glass, each totally numbering 30,000 and measuring 12m to a side. The glass plates, in turn, will consist of glass sheets with a noble gas sandwiched in between—an arrangement referred to collectively as a resistive plate chamber (RPC). When a neutrino interacts with iron, it will knock out an electron from its orbit around an atom and send it into the RPC. Once there, the electron will be picked up by positively charged electrodes sewn into the glass, translated into a signal, and sent to the data processors.

The source of the neutrinos will be the sun, supernovae, cosmic rays and other intergalactic phenomena, and the output will correspond to the particle’s mass, position of interaction, velocity, type, degree of oscillation and charge.

There are two reasons the INO stands out from its peers: the first is that the ICAL is going to be devoted to studying neutrinos and neutrinos only, and the second is that the ICAL will study them continuously without stopping (except for scheduled maintenance). Because of such principled and technical dedication, physicists expect the detector to shine light on some of the more elusive characteristics of neutrinos, such as flavour oscillations and neutrino-neutrino interactions.

These are boom times for Indian science. The national spending on science and technology has gone up in the last five years and is inching towards two per cent ofIndia's GDP. Hordes of new institutes are coming up in the nook and corner of the country—30 new central universities, 5 new Indian Institutes of Science Education and Research, 8 new Indian Institutes of Technology and 20 new Indian Institutes of Information Technology are in various stages of conception and completion.

However, simply increasing the number of institutes will not lead to better scientific prowess. The education system needs a complete rethink in order to attract more students to science and produce world class scientists (the last home-grown scientist to win a Nobel Prize was Sir C. V. Raman in 1930). In this direction, the INO is a giant leap forward because of its capacity to sustain research in subjects at the energy and cosmic frontiers, because of the special and exotic experimentation environments it will support, and because of the invaluable access it will provide to the Indian scientific community to cutting-edge information.

Clear and present danger

“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.

His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.

With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.

Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.

Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.

Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.

Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.

(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)

A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.

Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?

We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.

So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.

Clear and present danger

“Revolutions in information and communication technologies have always been based on small findings in solid state physics” quips Dr. G. Baskaran, firmly establishing both the place and scope of technology. Affiliated with the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Canada, Dr. Baskaran is a renowned theoretical physicist. He recently delivered a short lecture at the Asian College of Journalism, speaking on everything from the role of science and the ongoing battle to explain super-luminary neutrinos to the future of science.

His statement couldn’t have come at a better time to remind the world of the necessity of science – and its techniques that we call technology. In the face of looming budget cuts in the USA and Europe, politicians and policy-makers have been raising serious questions about the necessity of everything from privately-owned small research labs to proposed upgrades to the Large Hadron Collider (LHC) at CERN.

The evolution of science and technology has been associated with greater unity amongst peoples, Dr. Baskaran said, and better health, wealth, education and opportunities to preserve our culture. “There is some responsibility also”, he adds with a confidence mature with experience.

With likely the greatest ICT revolution at its peak, his words suggest that the technology fuelling it is also maturing in the sense of its acceptance and social penetration. Perhaps it is time for the world to get on the wagon, increase its investments in R&D, and start saving up. The future it seems can stand only to gain because historical ties are snapping in the face of a rupture that is allowing previously-lagging nations like India and China give past-leader USA a run for its money. Increased capitalist traction in the form of tablet computers and smartphones should be thanked for this.

Perhaps the best example of such an opportunity is the increasing feasibility of multi-state-owned research laboratories. The pioneer in this regard is CERN, which was funded and built by 12 countries in 1954, a number that has increased to 20 since, and currently receives funding from 69 countries worldwide. Next in line are the soon-to-come International Linear Collider (ILC) quartered in Japan and the ITER (International Thermonuclear Experimental Reactor) in France, as brought to light by Dr. Baskaran.

Such projects ease the burden on countries that wish they had the data from experiments but can’t provide the land to build the lab in the first place. In the case of CERN, the land belongs to two countries, the running costs to 69 nations, the responsibility to more than 7,300 physicists and engineers, and the experimental data to 6.6 billion people. Such overwhelming benefits require only a distributed investment model and cross-border trust to encash it. Alas, the last factor is the most impeding.

Consider the discovery of the super-luminary muon neutrinos detected at the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy on September 23. In the absence of a unifying agency, the data would have been consumed by Italian researchers alone, keeping the world at bay for howsoever long it took to verify the results and get them published.

Now, a Puerto Rican or a Chilean has as much chance of explaining the phenomenon as does a Pakistani or Indian scientist. In fact, not only does the entire scientific community benefit by the sharing, but the chances of discovering something that will define the next big revolution are also increased.

(When asked about the strange occurrence, Dr. Baskaran asserted that owing to the small mass and low interactivity of the neutrinos, the existing energy generation technologies would not change as much our perceptions of the Universe. That, in turn, he said, will present new possibilities to produce more energy.)

A persisting sign of hope for India is its assistance with the construction of superconducting magnets at the LHC that even now are energizing beams of protons, and its significant contribution to the establishment of ITER. Further, Dr. Baskaran also revealed the news of a proposed Indian Neutrino Observatory (INO) at Theni, to be run by the government of India.

Alright, enough of taking comfort from the successes of the present; where are we headed? What does the future of science look like? The Tevatron has been closed, the baton has been passed to Europe to continue to look for the Higgs boson, the INO is under construction, and scientific representation is on the up. What about nanotechnology? It’s common knowledge that the Indians didn’t pay sufficient heed to Mr. Feynman. Is there still some space at the bottom?

We wouldn’t know, or, as Dr. Baskaran says, “There is nanomoney being spent on nanotechnology.” Employing India’s rise as an important centre for cheap but good medical care, he points out the important sectors our industries can capitalize on if it only took nanotech to the common man, akin to Gandhi’s talisman. There’s drug delivery, magnetic-resonance imaging, NEMS (nano-electromechanical systems), and, on another note, quantum computing. With continuing failure to look into these sectors, we're not only losing out on the international arena but we are also denying our citizens the opportunities to employment, to knowledge, to possibility.

So, are we again looking at the dearth of planning that has failed to incentivize the study of science in the country? Yes, at least in part. However, initiatives like InSPIRE – which is a 5-week long immersion program that reconnects Indians abroad to Indians at home – bear promise. On a final note, Dr. Baskaran insists that instead of continuing to depend on the government, which in turn depends on internally available resources, it is time to utilize the abundance of intellectual property within the nation and trust in the democracy of science.

My kingdom for a neutrino

In 1982, when the construction for CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment was given the go-ahead, physics entered a very exciting period. It promised them the answers to their biggest questions and, in the event that that didn’t happen, it promised them ample evidence to come to a conclusion of their own.

Two decades later, with the device in full operation, results are emerging, some more improbable than the rest. The project was put in place to attempt to create the conditions of the Big Bang so physicists could detect the Higgs boson. However, nobody anticipated such a thing as evidence of super-luminary travel by neutrinos.

The existence of neutrinos was first proposed by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to account for the excess mass and energy left behind after a neutron disintegrated into a proton and an electron. The first direct observation was to be made only in the 1970s, more than 40 years later. The neutrino is one of the many indivisible particles of this Universe, and is of neutral charge and very little mass. In fact, amongst all the particles that have any mass, a neutrino is the lightest. This means that according to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, the mass of the particle will hit infinity only when it travels at speeds terribly close to that of light. And by terribly close, I’m talking 99.9999% close.

Such neutrinos were generated by the LHC over the course of some of its experiments and sent to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy for study. Located 730 km south of the LHC and almost a kilometre under Mt. Gran Sasso, the laboratory receives the particles in a massive tank of ultra-pure water.

Once a neutrino comes in contact with a proton of a water molecule, they react to form a neutron and a positron. The positron collides with an electron, its anti-particle, to annihilate each other, releasing two gamma rays. The neutron is captured by another nucleus to release a third gamma ray. Therefore, the signature of a neutrino capture is the release of three gamma rays.

[caption id="attachment_20371" align="aligncenter" width="439" caption="The Super-KamiokaNDE experiment in Japan contains a tank of 50,000 litres of water, fit with an array of tens of thousands of photo-multiplier tubes (as above) to detect the release of energy in case of a neutrino capture. The cylindrical container has other systems in place to detect the position of a capture, too."][/caption]

At the laboratory, as scientists waited for the neutrinos to arrive and set off the reactions, they were hardly prepared when the release of the gamma rays was detected precisely 60 nanoseconds before it was due. While such a small difference might seem trivial, the implication is that the neutrinos arrived before any other kind of electromagnetic radiation did. Since electromagnetic radiations possess the fastest speed attainable in this Universe according to Einstein, the speeding neutrinos have possibly defied the greatest physicist of the last century.

Where does that leave the world of physics?

Centuries of hypothesizing and experimenting by scientists have ingrained the importance of reasoned scepticism in their minds. While the Gran Sasso National Laboratory has claimed that 16,000 such instances have been recorded and documented, they haven’t ruled out any errors. For now, physicists the world over await similar conclusions, and so confirmations, from the two other colliders capable of replicating such conditions.

One of them is the J-PARC in Japan. Located along the coast of the Tohoku prefecture, the device was damaged and unable to operate for the next 12 months, at least, by the earthquake in March 2011 in nearby Fukushima. The other collider is the Fermilab Tevatron, an atom-smasher of considerable reputation, in the USA. After close to three decades of operation, the facility is scheduled to shut down permanently on September 30, 2011.

Collaboration rather than competition seems to be the emerging mantra. The shadow of CERN is beginning to loom large on most particle physics labs, and they’re finding it difficult to compete with CERN and its flagship project. Further, in these days of ballooning fiscal deficits and bond rating downgrades in the US, funding is hard to come by for such "creamy" projects.

Unsurprisingly, physicists are prepared to wait. Why won’t they when the speed of light – a form of electromagnetic radiation – has been the definitive cornerstone of some of the most important foundations of our understanding of this Universe? By defying that limit, neutrinos have brought upon them the scrutiny of the entire scientific community.

For one, by being faster than light, neutrinos speeding toward Earth from distant stars get here before the image of the star does, making it possible for astrophysicists to peek farther back into history. Second, the particle that carries electromagnetic energy, the photon, was thought to be massless so it wouldn’t violate the theory of relativity. However, the neutrino has mass, and that means all of Einstein’s works will have to be disrobed and studied. The larger consequence of this is that almost all high-energy installations on this planet, ranging from nuclear power plants (NPPs) that power cities to radio-telescopes searching for extra-terrestrial life, become available for changes as much as at the design level.

(In an NPP, the flow of single-phase coolants in pressurized water reactors is assumed to flow not faster than the speed of light. Even if the fluid dynamics of single-phase coolants has already been modelled on luminary principles, how could there be any changes at the design level?

If the speed of the coolants can be increased even higher, then the critical discharge, i.e., the maximum flow rate permissible, will also go higher. This translates into enhanced cooling, and this obviously means that fuel rods can be made even thicker and more power could be generated.*)

Similarly, the way the world works also is not going to change since the neutrino has always been working the same way for billions of years irrespective of how we thought it worked. But what is going to change is the way we understand electromagnetic concepts. The Standard Model of particle physics, the Big Daddy of all the theories of physics, won’t have to be tweaked so much as twisted around to accommodate this yet-unsubstantiated phenomenon.

Physicists will wait, and while they wait, they’ll debate. They’ll conduct more experiments, record more data, hypothesize more, refute more, argue more, all the while hoping that the Tevatron will be fired up for one last battle, that the J-PARC will be resuscitated for a one-of-a-kind challenge. In my opinion, no overbearing modifications will have to be made to the pool of knowledge we possess regarding physics as such. Even if the neutrinos did travel at super-luminary speeds - which I highly doubt and attribute to minute measurement errors adding up to cause the spike - it won't be long before the concept of the phenomenon is quickly subsumed by the search for other even greater truths. Yes, our perspectives are going to change, but more than anything, the discovery's original role as a tool with which to discover more about nature will not.

Let's not get carried away, though. After all, disproving the greatest minds of physics in history requires a future of its own.

*On the other hand, for example, the speed at which the gravitational force acts on any body is limited to the speed of electromagnetic radiations, but that doesn't mean discovery of a higher speed in this Universe is going to change anything. It's only a role reversal at the most (although the massiveness of the neutrino is going to make a difference) because the practically achievable velocity is going to remain the same.

My kingdom for a neutrino

In 1982, when the construction for CERN’s Large Hadron Collider (LHC) experiment was given the go-ahead, physics entered a very exciting period. It promised them the answers to their biggest questions and, in the event that that didn’t happen, it promised them ample evidence to come to a conclusion of their own.

Two decades later, with the device in full operation, results are emerging, some more improbable than the rest. The project was put in place to attempt to create the conditions of the Big Bang so physicists could detect the Higgs boson. However, nobody anticipated such a thing as evidence of super-luminary travel by neutrinos.

The existence of neutrinos was first proposed by Austrian physicist Wolfgang Pauli in 1930 to account for the excess mass and energy left behind after a neutron disintegrated into a proton and an electron. The first direct observation was to be made only in the 1970s, more than 40 years later. The neutrino is one of the many indivisible particles of this Universe, and is of neutral charge and very little mass. In fact, amongst all the particles that have any mass, a neutrino is the lightest. This means that according to Albert Einstein’s theory of relativity, the mass of the particle will hit infinity only when it travels at speeds terribly close to that of light. And by terribly close, I’m talking 99.9999% close.

Such neutrinos were generated by the LHC over the course of some of its experiments and sent to the Gran Sasso National Laboratory in Italy for study. Located 730 km south of the LHC and almost a kilometre under Mt. Gran Sasso, the laboratory receives the particles in a massive tank of ultra-pure water.

Once a neutrino comes in contact with a proton of a water molecule, they react to form a neutron and a positron. The positron collides with an electron, its anti-particle, to annihilate each other, releasing two gamma rays. The neutron is captured by another nucleus to release a third gamma ray. Therefore, the signature of a neutrino capture is the release of three gamma rays.

[caption id="attachment_20371" align="aligncenter" width="439" caption="The Super-KamiokaNDE experiment in Japan contains a tank of 50,000 litres of water, fit with an array of tens of thousands of photo-multiplier tubes (as above) to detect the release of energy in case of a neutrino capture. The cylindrical container has other systems in place to detect the position of a capture, too."][/caption]

At the laboratory, as scientists waited for the neutrinos to arrive and set off the reactions, they were hardly prepared when the release of the gamma rays was detected precisely 60 nanoseconds before it was due. While such a small difference might seem trivial, the implication is that the neutrinos arrived before any other kind of electromagnetic radiation did. Since electromagnetic radiations possess the fastest speed attainable in this Universe according to Einstein, the speeding neutrinos have possibly defied the greatest physicist of the last century.

Where does that leave the world of physics?

Centuries of hypothesizing and experimenting by scientists have ingrained the importance of reasoned scepticism in their minds. While the Gran Sasso National Laboratory has claimed that 16,000 such instances have been recorded and documented, they haven’t ruled out any errors. For now, physicists the world over await similar conclusions, and so confirmations, from the two other colliders capable of replicating such conditions.

One of them is the J-PARC in Japan. Located along the coast of the Tohoku prefecture, the device was damaged and unable to operate for the next 12 months, at least, by the earthquake in March 2011 in nearby Fukushima. The other collider is the Fermilab Tevatron, an atom-smasher of considerable reputation, in the USA. After close to three decades of operation, the facility is scheduled to shut down permanently on September 30, 2011.

Collaboration rather than competition seems to be the emerging mantra. The shadow of CERN is beginning to loom large on most particle physics labs, and they’re finding it difficult to compete with CERN and its flagship project. Further, in these days of ballooning fiscal deficits and bond rating downgrades in the US, funding is hard to come by for such "creamy" projects.

Unsurprisingly, physicists are prepared to wait. Why won’t they when the speed of light – a form of electromagnetic radiation – has been the definitive cornerstone of some of the most important foundations of our understanding of this Universe? By defying that limit, neutrinos have brought upon them the scrutiny of the entire scientific community.

For one, by being faster than light, neutrinos speeding toward Earth from distant stars get here before the image of the star does, making it possible for astrophysicists to peek farther back into history. Second, the particle that carries electromagnetic energy, the photon, was thought to be massless so it wouldn’t violate the theory of relativity. However, the neutrino has mass, and that means all of Einstein’s works will have to be disrobed and studied. The larger consequence of this is that almost all high-energy installations on this planet, ranging from nuclear power plants (NPPs) that power cities to radio-telescopes searching for extra-terrestrial life, become available for changes as much as at the design level.

(In an NPP, the flow of single-phase coolants in pressurized water reactors is assumed to flow not faster than the speed of light. Even if the fluid dynamics of single-phase coolants has already been modelled on luminary principles, how could there be any changes at the design level?

If the speed of the coolants can be increased even higher, then the critical discharge, i.e., the maximum flow rate permissible, will also go higher. This translates into enhanced cooling, and this obviously means that fuel rods can be made even thicker and more power could be generated.*)

Similarly, the way the world works also is not going to change since the neutrino has always been working the same way for billions of years irrespective of how we thought it worked. But what is going to change is the way we understand electromagnetic concepts. The Standard Model of particle physics, the Big Daddy of all the theories of physics, won’t have to be tweaked so much as twisted around to accommodate this yet-unsubstantiated phenomenon.

Physicists will wait, and while they wait, they’ll debate. They’ll conduct more experiments, record more data, hypothesize more, refute more, argue more, all the while hoping that the Tevatron will be fired up for one last battle, that the J-PARC will be resuscitated for a one-of-a-kind challenge. In my opinion, no overbearing modifications will have to be made to the pool of knowledge we possess regarding physics as such. Even if the neutrinos did travel at super-luminary speeds - which I highly doubt and attribute to minute measurement errors adding up to cause the spike - it won't be long before the concept of the phenomenon is quickly subsumed by the search for other even greater truths. Yes, our perspectives are going to change, but more than anything, the discovery's original role as a tool with which to discover more about nature will not.

Let's not get carried away, though. After all, disproving the greatest minds of physics in history requires a future of its own.

*On the other hand, for example, the speed at which the gravitational force acts on any body is limited to the speed of electromagnetic radiations, but that doesn't mean discovery of a higher speed in this Universe is going to change anything. It's only a role reversal at the most (although the massiveness of the neutrino is going to make a difference) because the practically achievable velocity is going to remain the same.

Employment opportunities for the neutrino!

With the discovery of (a possible case of) superluminary travel, physics is surely set to change. At the same time, the volume of physical information we are capable of perceiving and interacting with can't change. Our communication systems will continue to be modeled with photonic properties in mind. Time machines will continue to languish in the cells of science fiction because of the elusive nature of the neutrino. What I'm really excited about are:

1. The "tweaks" that will be made to the Standard Model to accommodate this para-relativity phenomenon,


2. Possible new explanations for the information paradox associated with black holes,


3. The resurgence of and boost for neutrino telescopy


4. Detectors based on superluminary sensors, and


5. The rise of the string theorist!

Employment opportunities for the neutrino!

With the discovery of (a possible case of) superluminary travel, physics is surely set to change. At the same time, the volume of physical information we are capable of perceiving and interacting with can't change. Our communication systems will continue to be modeled with photonic properties in mind. Time machines will continue to languish in the cells of science fiction because of the elusive nature of the neutrino. What I'm really excited about are:

1. The "tweaks" that will be made to the Standard Model to accommodate this para-relativity phenomenon,


2. Possible new explanations for the information paradox associated with black holes,


3. The resurgence of and boost for neutrino telescopy


4. Detectors based on superluminary sensors, and


5. The rise of the string theorist!