“Seeing” Double: Neutrinos and Photons Observed from the Same Cosmic Source

There has long been a question as to what types of events and processes are responsible for the highest-energy neutrinos coming from space and observed by scientists.  Another question, probably related, is what creates the majority of high-energy cosmic rays — the particles, mostly protons, that are constantly raining down upon the Earth.

As scientists’ ability to detect high-energy neutrinos (particles that are hugely abundant, electrically neutral, very light-weight, and very difficult to observe) and high-energy photons (particles of light, though not necessarily of visible light) have become more powerful and precise, there’s been considerable hope of getting an answer to these question.  One of the things we’ve been awaiting (and been disappointed a couple of times) is a violent explosion out in the universe that produces both high-energy photons and neutrinos at the same time, at a high enough rate that both types of particles can be observed at the same time coming from the same direction.

In recent years, there has been some indirect evidence that blazars — narrow jets of particles, pointed in our general direction like the barrel of a gun, and created as material swirls near and almost into giant black holes in the centers of very distant galaxies — may be responsible for the high-energy neutrinos.  Strong direct evidence in favor of this hypothesis has just been presented today.   Last year, one of these blazars flared brightly, and the flare created both high-energy neutrinos and high-energy photons that were observed within the same period, coming from the same place in the sky.

I have written about the IceCube neutrino observatory before; it’s a cubic kilometer of ice under the South Pole, instrumented with light detectors, and it’s ideal for observing neutrinos whose motion-energy far exceeds that of the protons in the Large Hadron Collider, where the Higgs particle was discovered.  These neutrinos mostly pass through Ice Cube undetected, but one in 100,000 hits something, and debris from the collision produces visible light that Ice Cube’s detectors can record.   IceCube has already made important discoveries, detecting a new class of high-energy neutrinos.

On Sept 22 of last year, one of these very high-energy neutrinos was observed at IceCube. More precisely, a muon created underground by the collision of this neutrino with an atomic nucleus was observed in IceCube.  To create the observed muon, the neutrino must have had a motion-energy tens of thousand times larger than than the motion-energy of each proton at the Large Hadron Collider (LHC).  And the direction of the neutrino’s motion is known too; it’s essentially the same as that of the observed muon.  So IceCube’s scientists knew where, on the sky, this neutrino had come from.

(This doesn’t work for typical cosmic rays; protons, for instance, travel in curved paths because they are deflected by cosmic magnetic fields, so even if you measure their travel direction at their arrival to Earth, you don’t then know where they came from. Neutrinos, beng electrically neutral, aren’t affected by magnetic fields and travel in a straight line, just as photons do.)

Very close to that direction is a well-known blazar (TXS-0506), four billion light years away (a good fraction of the distance across the visible universe).

The IceCube scientists immediately reported their neutrino observation to scientists with high-energy photon detectors.  (I’ve also written about some of the detectors used to study the very high-energy photons that we find in the sky: in particular, the Fermi/LAT satellite played a role in this latest discovery.) Fermi/LAT, which continuously monitors the sky, was already detecting high-energy photons coming from the same direction.   Within a few days the Fermi scientists had confirmed that TXS-0506 was indeed flaring at the time — already starting in April 2017 in fact, six times as bright as normal.  With this news from IceCube and Fermi/LAT, many other telescopes (including the MAGIC cosmic ray detector telescopes among others) then followed suit and studied the blazar, learning more about the properties of its flare.

Now, just a single neutrino on its own isn’t entirely convincing; is it possible that this was all just a coincidence?  So the IceCube folks went back to their older data to snoop around.  There they discovered, in their 2014-2015 data, a dramatic flare in neutrinos — more than a dozen neutrinos, seen over 150 days, had come from the same direction in the sky where TXS-0506 is sitting.  (More precisely, nearly 20 from this direction were seen, in a time period where normally there’d just be 6 or 7 by random chance.)  This confirms that this blazar is indeed a source of neutrinos.  And from the energies of the neutrinos in this flare, yet more can be learned about this blazar, and how it makes  high-energy photons and neutrinos at the same time.  Interestingly, so far at least, there’s no strong evidence for this 2014 flare in photons, except perhaps an increase in the number of the highest-energy photons… but not in the total brightness of the source.

The full picture, still emerging, tends to support the idea that the blazar arises from a supermassive black hole, acting as a natural particle accelerator, making a narrow spray of particles, including protons, at extremely high energy.  These protons, millions of times more energetic than those at the Large Hadron Collider, then collide with more ordinary particles that are just wandering around, such as visible-light photons from starlight or infrared photons from the ambient heat of the universe.  The collisions produce particles called pions, made from quarks and anti-quarks and gluons (just as protons are), which in turn decay either to photons or to (among other things) neutrinos.  And its those resulting photons and neutrinos which have now been jointly observed.

Since cosmic rays, the mysterious high energy particles from outer space that are constantly raining down on our planet, are mostly protons, this is evidence that many, perhaps most, of the highest energy cosmic rays are created in the natural particle accelerators associated with blazars. Many scientists have suspected that the most extreme cosmic rays are associated with the most active black holes at the centers of galaxies, and now we have evidence and more details in favor of this idea.  It now appears likely that that this question will be answerable over time, as more blazar flares are observed and studied.

The announcement of this important discovery was made at the National Science Foundation by Francis Halzen, the IceCube principal investigator, Olga Botner, former IceCube spokesperson, Regina Caputo, the Fermi-LAT analysis coordinator, and Razmik Mirzoyan, MAGIC spokesperson.

The fact that both photons and neutrinos have been observed from the same source is an example of what people are now calling “multi-messenger astronomy”; a previous example was the observation in gravitational waves, and in photons of many different energies, of two merging neutron stars.  Of course, something like this already happened in 1987, when a supernova was seen by eye, and also observed in neutrinos.  But in this case, the neutrinos and photons have energies millions and billions of times larger!


16 responses to ““Seeing” Double: Neutrinos and Photons Observed from the Same Cosmic Source

  1. Yes I remember the supernova in 1987 and wrote a ‘pop-science’ article about it. After mentioning that I’d like to say: Thanks for this piece Matt, you just made my day!

  2. Pingback: Ein Erfolg der „Multi-Messenger“-Astronomie | Skyweek Zwei Punkt Null

  3. Jyri Tynkkynen

    “…one in 100,000 hits something…”

    Really that many? I thought it would be more rare an instance.

  4. On oktober 16, 2017 there was a press release on the observations, at the same time from the same source, of gravitational waves and optical effects.

  5. Abraham Sternlieb

    These high energy events may contribute to the corroboration of Hawking ‘s
    theory on the radiation or “evaporation” of black holes,whose rate depends on the BH mass.The maximum theoretically possible energy of the elementary particles created this way is Plack’s mass which is consistent with the cosmic particles energies detected in the mentioned experiments

    Abraham Sternlieb

  6. I have the same question as Jyri. You wrote that in Ice Cube, 1 in 100,000 neutrinos hits something. I thought that on average a neutrino could pass through a few light years of material without interacting, and that there are enormous numbers passing through every square meter every second, so I would have expected only one in a few million or billion or more to hit something in Ice Cube. Do these high energy neutrinos interact more than “normal” ones?

  7. Pingback: Waarom is die multi-messenger ontdekking van blazar TXS 0506+056 zo bijzonder?

  8. Pingback: Conferences Are Work! Who Knew? | 4 gravitons

  9. Dr.Strassler:
    Another excellent article, I enjoy your articles very much. I don’t mean to “highjack” this thread, but I have a question about another article you wrote some years back about virtual particles. That article really cleared up a lot on the nature of virtual particles as being really a disturbance in the field. My question is this: if I force two electrons together, the work I do forcing them together appears as energy in the field between them.
    It is then often said that the “force” being mediated between the particles is done thru virtual photons, that temporarily violates energy conservation. My question is why is this a violation of energy conservation? The energy is there, in the field, I put it there when I forced the two particles together doing work.
    I can see in free space that the popping into existence of two particles and subsequent annilation temporary vilolates energy conservation. But how would that apply to two particles I just “worked” on forcing them together? The particles are already in existence, and I forced them together. I apologize again for highjacking the topic of this thread, I posted this question on the other thread, but I think that thread was already closed.

    • The concept of temporary energy conservation violation often arises due to oversimplifying the situation and regarding virtual particles as real particles that appear separate from anything else. This is most obvious in ’empty space’. This idea runs into all sorts of problems when dealing with virtual particles with a rest mass. (Since it demands they all be ‘on shell’)

      A better, though still inaccurate analogy is the ‘borrows energy from the universe’ one. This still runs into the issues of the ‘violation model’ but gives the more accurate impression that there must be an energy source to produce the particles. In empty space this can be vacuum energy while in the case of your particles it is their potential energy and\or that of the field between them.

      So in your case we can imagine the virtual particles as shortlived actual particles that form at a specific point, requiring energy to do so, travel then are annihilated, returning their energy to the system. Good enough for pop-science.

  10. Thanks for the message, Professor.
    I have just read an article of NYT as of July 13 on the same subject.
    Yours is much more specific. As I understood, the mechanism(s) of generating neutrinos by blazers are still unknown,
    Please clarify.
    Your long time reader, bob-2

  11. Our universe is infinite by many side (different types of infinity) numbers are infinite, size is infinite ,time is infinite
    Three are many lops available most is time loop ,
    String theory also show that infinite strings and emptyness .
    There are same event repeated by the cosmos and particles and I am sure many univers available in highper space .
    Every thing is expanding with this univers
    Every time empty space is expand every second .and matter also expand with this .
    Because if atoms are stop for just millisecond so there are no energy no matter
    Because energy and matter is joint with loop
    Energy (string) vibration start creation of matter And matter movement recharge it for more creation of matter.matter wants infiniti motion for energy creation so its move every where. Matter is start motion in inside of atom and its continued motion to formation of planets star and galaxies.
    Elementary partial is born every nano seconds
    matter but we don’t feel about this becous we are so large. and motion of matter in space is so large .but
    I am shure James Webb telescope prove my theory is 100% true
    Contact me ±91 7400641608 or +91 9691209196

  12. Thank you so much Pr Strassler, always a pleasure to read you.

  13. So, if one assumes the neutrino is first in the transition from bosons to fermions since both the photons and neutrinos were created at the same time then what converts the neutrino into a stable electron? Or is the creation of electrons totally independent of the collisions that created the neutrino?

    Here’s another outrageous idea. Is gravity a pseudo force? The assumption here is that space and energy are the same “thing”. And that Space ~ Energy, as one observes small spaces the energies in that volume increases. So, gravity is the inertial force created by the distortions of space caused by the different energies of the particles in any given space.

    That’s it for me now, I got a headache. Cheers.

  14. An experiment needs a concrete question for its conception. If the question is the result of a mathematical formalism, the result of the experiment is correspondingly theoretically loaded. If, then, the measurable results are preselected and only “indirectly” connected with the postulated objects of the theory, then there is nothing to oppose to the arbitrariness of interpretation. “Invented” science is nothing more than a dogmatic process.

    There is no single direct neutrino detection.

    Neutrino mass change the phenomenological conditions fundamentally.

    Beta-Minus-Decay…, remember: If the anti-electron neutrino, with whatever lower mass limit, gets the “missing” energy from the laboratory system and “act” only through the weak interaction, then that simply means that already in the process of weak interaction a kinetic energy continuum of the postulated neutrino had to be present. Because after this process there is no further interaction possibility according to postulate. But how should this be explained phenomenologically?

    The statement of the SM that the beta-minus decay of the neutron, according to the conversion of a d-quark into a u-quark, takes place via negatively charged W bosons does not say anything about the concrete process, how, where and why the anti-Electron neutrino now during the weak interaction absorbs different amounts of energy to compensate for the “missing” energy in the electron spectrum.

    On closer inspection, the situation is far more complex, since both the quark-based neutron and the quark-based proton have ~ 99% of undefined binding energy, and thus the weak interaction (energetically) affects only ~ 1% of the decay process.

    So in the image of the SM we have 1 u quark and 2 d quarks in the meantime, a W boson and ~ 99% binding energy (whatever that phenomenologically means) and after the conversion 2 u quarks, 1d quark, 99% binding energy, 1 anti-electron neutrino, 1 electron and additionally ~ 0.78 MeV energy. No matter what the ~ 0.78 MeV energy distribution capabilities on proton (2 u quarks, 1d quark, 99% binding energy), electron and anti-electron neutrino may look like, the weak interaction process should already be such that these distribution possibilities are ensured because after the weak interaction no energy release of the neutrino to the proton and electron is possible. But this means that there can not be a discrete conversion process of a d-quark into a u-quark.

    Detached from this problem, for the sake of completeness, it should also be remembered that experimentally it is not a matter of individual objects, but of many-body objects (more than one neutron), and that accelerated charges radiate energy. It is unlikely that the resulting protons and electrons are “suddenly” at a constant velocity. “Where” is the associated photon spectrum of beta-minus decay? How does it look like?

    Furthermore: The concept of the de Broglie matter wave provides some very interesting aspects. The concept of the matter wave and its “measurability” are experimentally secured and experimentally reproducible compared to neutrino existence and neutrino interaction postulates.

    There was no real-object phenomenology for the massless neutrino, and even the “mixed calculation” for neutrino masses is nothing more than a formalized fiction.

    Moving masses produce mass-inherent matter waves. Since the de Broglie matter wave depends only on the rest mass and the velocity of the “particle”, the concept of the matter wave generally applies. Here it would be, with regard to SM postulated theory objects and interaction scenarios, to note that the postulated complex (encapsulated) quarks-gluon-xxx structure has no influence on the de Broglie matter wave, proofs: de Broglie matter waves of the neutron-, proton-, molecules- and Fullerene-de Broglie matter waves. A neutrino with mass has a de Broglie matter wave dependent on the total energy. All moving neutrinos, regardless of their postulated origin, “have” matter waves.

    The only possibility to escape from this phenomenological neutrino-desaster is to explain why and how the de Broglie matter-wave for moving neutrino-masses is non-existent.

    A basic standard model fiction consists in the assumption that mass carriers must follow different mathematical rules. These rules are then summarized in supposedly physical theories. The Standard Model is a collection of philosophical* model ideas, the extension of the Standard Model, whereby neutrino masses must be understood as a brute expansion and supersymmetry as a “standard model killer”, exacerbates this aspect. The “standard concept view” was and is doomed epistemologically to failure because, simply speaking, no consistent phenomenology of mass, space or electric charge exists.

    *In today’s standard-model-oriented thinking “findings” are theoretically postulated which are then selectively searched for, using computer-simulated “experimental setups”. This theory-based search has no direct evidence and can be allways somehow interpreted. 25 free parameters, variable coupling constants, several dozen postulated essential theoretical objects, various substructuring theses, confinement thesis, … create any kind of “needed” results. You don’t have to be a phycisist to understand that the postulated “fragmentation of matter” leads to irrelevant knowledge. Instead of simplification, this formal postulation and “refining theories” obviously do not end in the growth of knowledge but in scientific arbitrariness.

    One more thing:
    To generate the fermion masses by coupling the fermions to the Higgs field, the following conditions must be met: The masses of the right-handed and left-handed fermions must be the same. The neutrino must remain massless. This basic condition stands in a blatant contradiction to neutrino oscillations (Nobel Prize 2015), which necessarily presuppose neutrino masses. Consequence: One either abandons the standard model of particle physics (SM) or of mass neutrinos. A magnetic moment of neutrinos is “forbidden” for mathematical reasons within the framework of the standard model. (Does this mean anything? Obviously formerly forbidden masses are now “just fine”.) But there are no experiments that exclude a magnetic moment of the neutrino.
    The consideration of a magnetic moment of a neutrino with mass and the fundamental interaction aspects are buried under a mountain of arbitrary mathematics. A magnetic moment of a neutrino would not be measurable in the isolated laboratory experiment due to the postulated “smallness”, but in the context of cosmic dimensions it would encounter a multitude of interaction partners.

    Dirk Freyling

  15. Michael John Sarnowski

    A good day for science!