If you are too far from the source, the mixing you might be measuring might have happened already happened. You can build a detector right next to the source, and also far away, and correlate the differences.
External interference can be excluded on energy range, direction, and “timing” - you know exactly when the pulse happened in the source and can exclude things outside that window (as the neutrinos all travel at the speed of light to within measurement error).
Things like neutrinos from the sun can and have been measured, but for many things you want to measure you need more careful control.
That's part of the problem. Which Neutrinos are you measuring? The ones from your experiment, the ones from the Sun, the ones from the environment? They're exceptionally light particles, so effective shielding is difficult.
It's why a lot of these experiments are deep underground. The one I visited was in northern Minnesota in an old abandoned Mine placed half a mile under the surface and positioned in such a way to receive a neutrino beam all the way from Fermilab in Chicago.
The smaller and lighter the phenomenon, the larger your laboratory needs to be come.
So you're detecting all neutrinos, but you're looking in an energy range where the signal you're interested in rises above the background levels.
Genuinely curious here, why is the travelled distance important?
The second thing you might want to do: "filter" neutrinos ... well that just doesn't work at all. Nothing stops (a decent amount of) neutrinos. So you can't filter them and create a known point with, say, only electron neutrinos like you can with light. There are also no known astronomical objects that filter neutrinos. They fly right through a star, so that's no good either.
Third you could filter observations. But again you hit the filter problem. You can focus neutrinos measurements (even if you can't focus the neutrinos themselves), but that lowers the amount of neutrinos you measure further. And you're only measuring like maybe 50 per cubic meter of water, so you don't have much to work with.
I guess you could wait for things to get especially good for your measurement but you'll be waiting a long time.
> the three types of neutrino-flavors mix into each other. That means, if you start with, say, only electron-neutrinos, they’ll convert into muon-neutrinos as they travel. And then they’ll convert back into electron neutrinos. So, depending on what distance from a source you make a measurement, you’ll get more electron neutrinos or more muon neutrinos.
Neutrinos are not directly detected. What happens is that they interact with matter in a medium and produce muons or electrons that are moving faster than the speed of light in that medium. That's only possible because the speed of light in said medium is less than the speed of light in vaccuum by the way. These fast-moving, charged particles lead to the generation of a cone of cherenkov radiation, not unlike a supersonic object is producing a mach cone. From that cone, the direction of the particle motion can be inferred.
One could also keep the detector running while switching the source on and off to establish a baseline and calculate the excess of detected particles while the source was switched on.
Indeed it’s the child-particles of the interactions that are observed, so, electrons muons and Tau particles. Depending how you are measuring, (many approaches) these interactions are generally separable - and usually you can get some directionality out of your measured event - so you know the direction it came from.
Combining the direction with timing - with an accelerator you know exactly when the pulse of neutrinos were produced - this means you can exclude a very large amount of background.
Some background does get through, but you can measure it with e.g. the source turned off as you suggest, or the times when you know the source isn’t otherwise producing (like in between pulses) to get a background rate. You then generate enough data from the source to effectively “drown out” the background.
Much the same can be done with reactor sources - very often when building an experiment with a reactor as a source, there will be some government-level agreement to allow knowledge of what power the reactor is being run at, as well as shutdowns.
Along with Cherenkov, there are and have been scintillator, chemical-energy-deposition, Photographic film and even ocean-audio based methods of detection. Probably some more exotic ones I am forgetting also.
(I did a PHD in neutrino physics, although been out of the field a few years)
I did not know that "ocean-audio based methods of detection" for neutrinos are even possible and will certainly look that up later.
It always seemed a neat idea, that you could instrument absolutely gigantic volumes with.
If there are sterile neutrinos... they are a possible dark matter particle.
> we have three flavors of neutrinos and these mix into each other as they travel….There are natural sources like the sun, and neutrinos that are created in the upper atmosphere when cosmic rays hit. And then there are neutrinos from manmade sources, particle accelerators and nuclear power plants. In all of these cases, you know how many neutrinos are created of which type at what energy. And then after some distance you measure them and see what you get.
1) As _Microft says in a sibling reply, the reason is because for this type of experiment, the researchers were studying short-baseline oscillations. A curious property of neutrinos is that they oscillate -- we interact with them through their "flavor", but they propagate through space in a mixture of flavor eigenstates, so a neutrino that is created as an electron-type neutrino can interact later as a muon-type (or tau-type) neutrino.
LSND and MiniBooNE study short-baseline oscillations, where L/E (the distance travelled divided by the particle energy) is very small, a few meters on a ~1MeV neutrino. By comparison, almost all the (vast number!) neutrinos that pass through each of us each second come from much farther away. Most of them come from the Sun, so their origin is distributed over a sphere 100x the diameter of the Earth (and, to make matters worse, something called the MSW-effect scrambles things further). So, people who study these effects either build an accelerator or snuggle up next to a reactor.
In principle, one could use the existing neutrinos from the Sun to do this sort of experiment, but one would need a material capable of blocking all of, say, the electron-type neutrinos from the Sun. If such a thing existed, we could place a detector a few meters away from that filter and watch for electron-type neutrinos to reappear. Alas, the only known material perhaps capable of achieving such a task exists for a fraction of a second inside core-collapse supernovae -- the extremely dense infalling matter is so dense that it can actually trap some of the outgoing neutrinos.... until the neutrino pressure blows it apart.
2) In this specific case, the experiments were originally done with muon anti-neutrinos. The easiest way to get those is with a particle accelerator.
3) One can also attempt to get at this sort of thing (though the approach has different sensitivity/systematics) through reactor-neutrino experiments, as one of the downvoted posts below suggests. For the shortest baselines, though, there's probably really nothing like a beam-experiment.
4) (an aside) One thing that Hossenfelder doesn't really address in the article: There are still systematic-uncertainty questions around LSND and Mini/MicroBooNE. The modern experiment has addressed many of them, but not all. The experiments are difficult and the anomalies have their quirks. Yes, the combined result reaches a statistical power of ~6-sigma, but I don't think you'll have to look too far to find credible experimentalists who have concerns about the result.
This is in contrast to something like the Higgs, where the discovery was fairly clean and simultaneously confirmed by two groups. LSND was huge news back in the day, but the difficulty/expense of replication and the substantial experimental challenges mean that the situation remains fairly murky.
Secondly, she mentions LSND which was a big tub of liquid that would interact with neutrinos that passed through it. Flashes from those interactions would be picked up by photo detectors (hence “scintillation”). The most famous such setup in a mine in Japan, but there are several such “neutrino telescopes”.
A bit larger. :-)
Easy to get confused.