[HN Gopher] Evidence of Antineutrinos from Distant Reactors Usin...
       ___________________________________________________________________
        
       Evidence of Antineutrinos from Distant Reactors Using Pure Water at
       SNO+
        
       Author : PaulHoule
       Score  : 35 points
       Date   : 2023-04-12 19:34 UTC (3 hours ago)
        
 (HTM) web link (phys.org)
 (TXT) w3m dump (phys.org)
        
       | LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
       | ISTR something about that from a few years ago, and thinking
       | about the eventual possibility about triangulating nuclear subs
       | and carriers with a network of such 'sensors'. Through the whole
       | earth, maybe. In real-time.
       | 
       | Wouldn't that be something?
        
         | lapetitejort wrote:
         | Governments can easily guard against this by encasing their
         | nuclear subs in a 11 trillion km diameter lead sphere.
        
           | treeman79 wrote:
           | Trick is getting it to stay a 11 trillion km sphere. Has a
           | habit of turning into a black hole.
        
             | [deleted]
        
           | matthewdgreen wrote:
           | More seriously I assume there's a team at a US National
           | Laboratory working out the parameters for building such a
           | sensor, and (if they're even remotely practical) another team
           | figuring out how many false sources would be needed to
           | hopelessly confuse it.
        
         | openasocket wrote:
         | To do that you would need the sensor to provide either the
         | distance or direction of the "signal," right? Does this
         | actually do that? Given how unreactive neutrinos are I can't
         | imagine there being much decay or defraction or distortion over
         | distance. Can this experimental sensor produce a direction that
         | the neutrinos are coming from?
        
           | dragonwriter wrote:
           | > To do that you would need the sensor to provide either the
           | distance or direction of the "signal," right?
           | 
           | It was specifically called out that one of the things this
           | relied on is that their detector method provides an estimated
           | direction. OTOH, when you have to integrate a half year of
           | data to detect _any_ signal, triangulation of non-stationary
           | sources, especially if there is more than one potential
           | source, is going to be...beyond difficult.
        
             | jjk166 wrote:
             | You can integrate the same amount of data in less time by
             | increasing the size of the detector. With a detector 182.5
             | times greater in volume (which is only 6 times the radius),
             | you only need a day's worth of data - still probably not
             | useful for targeting but now you know the search area to
             | look within. You can also build a network of multiple
             | detectors, which in addition to increasing the amount of
             | data you collect also makes it easier to differentiate
             | signals. For a nation state this would be chump change.
        
               | dragonwriter wrote:
               | > With a detector 182.5 times greater in volume (which is
               | only 6 times the radius), you only need a day's worth of
               | data
               | 
               | Oh, okay, so you just want to scale this up ~200 times,
               | and build multiple of them (deep underground, because the
               | water is shielding for the ambient radiation from the
               | rock, which it has a couple km of shielding it from
               | _external_ radiation):
               | 
               | "The heart of the SNO+ detector is a 12m diameter acrylic
               | sphere filled with 780 tonnes of liquid scintillator that
               | is surrounded by 7000 tonnes of ultrapure water which
               | serves as shielding from external ambient radioactivity.
               | This volume is monitored by nearly 10,000 photomultiplier
               | tubes (PMTs) that are very sensitive light detectors."
               | [0]
               | 
               | > You can also build a network of multiple detectors
               | 
               | Well, yes, you can't triangulate with only one detector,
               | you _have_ to do that at a minimum. That's not an "also
               | you can" option, its a minimum requirement because you
               | need multiple _simultaneous_ (or close enough) signals
               | from the same source to triangulate.
               | 
               | [0] https://snoplus.phy.queensu.ca/about.html
        
           | jjk166 wrote:
           | Yes, when neutrinos do react (rare though that is) it
           | produces electrons that move in the same direction as the
           | neutrino, and which move at extremely high speed, faster than
           | the speed of light in the medium in fact, which produces
           | cherenkov radiation. This radiation is what the sensors
           | actually detect. Essentially they are giant cameras looking
           | for brief streaks of light. By seeing how long and in what
           | direction the streak is, you can determine both the direction
           | and energy of the incoming neutrino.
        
             | snophysics wrote:
             | In this case they are detecting inverse beta decay events.
             | The antineutrino interacts with a proton producing a
             | positron and a neutron. The positron annihilates with an
             | electron producing two gamma rays and the neutron then
             | captures on a proton and releases a 2.22 MeV gamma ray
             | which is what is being detected. I think the only realistic
             | way to determine the direction is by looking at the
             | direction of the neutron, but typically the neutron
             | scatters so much in these detectors that it is not possible
             | to do on an event by event basis (although see [0] for a
             | possible detector that could).
             | 
             | What you're talking about is elastic scattering and I think
             | this may be possible (see [1]), but I don't know of anyone
             | who is able to do this at these low energies.
             | 
             | As a side note, the WATCHMEN collaboration has been
             | studying the ability to monitor nuclear reactors using
             | these sorts of detectors for a while.
             | 
             | [0] https://arxiv.org/pdf/1410.8530.pdf [1]
             | https://www.osti.gov/servlets/purl/1332127
        
         | bumby wrote:
         | By any chance, do you have any suggestions for further reading
         | on this topic?
        
           | LargoLasskhyfv wrote:
           | Not exactly. I can't even remember where I've read that. Most
           | probably on some (pop-)science aggregator like phys.org, or
           | similar. About a few times, popping up again several years
           | later. Then somewhere else on some blogs, maybe even scmp.com
        
         | firstlink wrote:
         | It would indeed be something. Neutrino-based sensors are seen
         | sometimes in hard science fiction. I always assumed that was a
         | little implausible because of the compounding problem of
         | neutrinos interacting poorly with the target and with the
         | sensor. But here we are, a stone's throw from making such
         | sensors a reality, albeit looking for sources rather than
         | shadows.
        
           | PaulHoule wrote:
           | This turns up in Vernor Vinge's
           | https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Peace_War
        
           | dragonwriter wrote:
           | We've had neutrino sensors for a half century. They just tend
           | to be inconveniently sized and located.
        
       | PaulHoule wrote:
       | Popular article here: https://phys.org/news/2023-04-sno-
       | collaboration-evidence-ant...
        
         | dang wrote:
         | Thanks! It's great to have both links, but in cases like this
         | where the material is highly specialized (and not on a topic
         | like computing that the audience here is familiar with), it's
         | usually better to submit the best available popular article and
         | then link to the paper in the comments. I've switched to that
         | from https://arxiv.org/abs/2210.14154 now.
        
       ___________________________________________________________________
       (page generated 2023-04-12 23:01 UTC)