Many galaxies, including our own, have a central supermassive black hole. In certain galaxies, gas becomes ensnared in the black hole’s gravitational pull and collects in a disk that feeds the black hole, forming an active galactic nucleus (AGN). An AGN can feast on this disk of gas and dust for millions to billions of years — glowing across the electromagnetic spectrum, brandishing relativistic jets, and creating a brilliant, variable light show visible from billions of light-years away.
Today’s Monthly Roundup investigates the connection between AGNs and neutrinos, considers the question of AGN variability, and explores modeling techniques for relativistic environments.
A Search for Neutrinos from X-Ray-Bright AGNs
Where do neutrinos — neutral, nearly massless elementary particles — come from? AGNs have emerged as one likely source; in 2022, the IceCube collaboration reported evidence for neutrinos from the nearby galaxy Messier 77, which hosts an X-ray-bright AGN, and earlier observations potentially linked a neutrino to the blazar TXS 0506+056.
To investigate the possible connection between neutrinos and X-ray-bright AGNs, the IceCube collaboration performed a dedicated search for neutrinos toward a collection of X-ray-bright AGNs in the northern sky. The team’s initial analysis confirmed that Messier 77 is the strongest source of neutrinos in that area. Focusing specifically on X-ray-bright AGNs with hard X-ray fluxes at least 20% of Messier 77’s flux — 47 AGNs in total — the team found evidence for a possible neutrino excess toward 11 of the galaxies, with NGC 7469 being the strongest candidate.
This result suggests that X-ray-bright AGNs are indeed a plausible source of neutrinos. As for the specific physical origin of these AGN-generated neutrinos, the data provide a few clues. The X-ray emission of an AGN is thought to arise from a billion-degree cloud of plasma called the corona. The interaction of coronal X-rays with high-energy protons is thought to produce neutrinos in the energy range of 1–10 teraelectronvolts — roughly the energies of the neutrinos associated with Messier 77 in this study. However, NGC 7469 was associated with neutrinos more energetic than this range, suggesting that not all AGN-produced neutrinos have a coronal origin. Thus, though the body of evidence suggesting that X-ray-bright AGN are a source of neutrinos, the precise mechanism through which these neutrinos are produced remains unknown.
A diagram of the unified model of active galactic nuclei, showing an accretion disk, dusty torus, and jets. Click to enlarge. [B. Saxton NRAO/AUI/NSF; CC BY 4.0]
Disk or Jet: Which Varies More?
If there’s one constant when it comes to AGNs, it’s change; observations show that the emission from active galaxies varies on timescales from minutes to decades. Though both the accretion disk and the jet contribute to the overall multiwavelength behavior of an AGN, it’s not yet clear which of these structures is a greater contributor to an AGN’s variability.
Vineet Ojha (Peking University) and coauthors considered AGN variability at optical and mid-infrared wavelengths. Ojha’s team collected a sample of AGN that lie at similar redshifts and fall into one of three categories: narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies detected in gamma rays, narrow-line Seyfert 1 galaxies not detected in gamma rays, and broad-line Seyfert 1 galaxies detected in gamma rays. These three classes are distinguished by the presence or absence of relativistic jets as well as their accretion rate; gamma-ray-detected Seyfert 1s likely host jets, and narrow-line Seyfert 1s likely have higher accretion rates than broad-line Seyfert 1s.
Using optical data from the Zwicky Transient Facility and mid-infrared data from the Wide-field Infrared Survey Explorer, the team separated statistical wiggles from true variability and determined which sample of AGNs was most variable. They found that broad-line AGNs detected in gamma rays are the most variable, suggesting that jets are major contributors to AGN variability. Narrow-line AGNs detected in gamma rays are next in line, likely because these AGNs have jets but also have a strong thermal emission component from their accretion disks due to their high rate of accretion. Narrow-line AGNs not detected in gamma rays are the least variable, lacking a jet and dominated by thermal emission. Taken together, these results suggest that AGN variability is mostly jet driven, with some contribution from accretion disk instabilities.
More on AGN Jets: The Slow-Light Effect
The galaxy Messier 87 (M87) hosts one of the most studied AGN jets. M87’s jet is visibly structured, and it exhibits superluminal motion, in which the relativistic plasma appears to move faster than the speed of light. Because the plasma accelerated by an AGN moves so quickly, researchers attempting to model this plasma may opt to use the slow-light approach, in which the evolution of the ambient plasma is modeled simultaneously with the propagation of light through the medium. Though more computationally intensive than the fast-light approach, in which photons zip through a static medium, slow-light techniques are needed in regions of relativistic flows or strong acceleration.
Comparison of the jet morphology from the slow-light (top row) and fast-light (bottom row) methods. [Adapted from Tsunetoe et al. 2026]
Yuh Tsunetoe (Chinese Academy of Sciences; University of Tsukuba) and collaborators demonstrated their use of the slow-light approach in models of M87’s jet-launching region, where plasma is accelerated to relativistic velocities. The team performed general relativistic magnetohydrodynamics simulations of the accretion disk and jet from M87’s supermassive black hole and compared the results from slow-light and fast-light methods.
The team found that slow-light images tended to be smoother, lacking the looping, helical structures within the jet seen in fast-light images. Slow-light images show more evidence for the superluminal motion that is observed in relativistic jets like M87’s, as well as greater limb brightening and less wobbling motion. The team also investigated the effects of changing the black hole spin, finding greater wobbling in the jet for slow black hole spins and a straighter, wider jet for rapid black hole spins. Overall, Tsunetoe and coauthors found that the slow-light approach generated images that are more consistent with the properties of M87’s jet, demonstrating that the slow-light approach is necessary to capture the behavior of relativistic jets.
Citation
“Evidence for Neutrino Emission from X-Ray-Bright Active Galactic Nuclei with IceCube,” R. Abbasi et al 2026 ApJL1000 L26. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae4aad
“The Relative Contributions of Accretion Disk Versus Jet to the Optical and Mid-Infrared Variability of Seyfert Galaxies,” Vineet Ojha et al 2025 ApJ994 84. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae0a38
“Slow-Light Effect in the Jet-Launching Region of M87,” Yuh Tsunetoe et al 2026 ApJ1000 29. doi:10.3847/1538-4357/ae43e7
Where do the mysterious cosmic messengers called neutrinos come from? Researchers search for a connection between neutrinos and accretion flares from black holes.
Neutrinos — neutral, nearly massless elementary particles — are generated by natural particle accelerators across the universe. Facilities like the IceCube Neutrino Observatory, which employs detectors buried a mile deep in Antarctic ice, spot neutrinos from distant astrophysical sources, but matching these neutrinos to their sources is no easy task.
Thus far, researchers have discovered a compelling connection between neutrinos and distant active galactic nuclei, which are powered by the accretion of gas onto supermassive black holes. The active galactic nucleus phase of a black hole tends to be long lived, with activity lasting hundreds of thousands of years or more, making these nuclei lasting sources of neutrinos.
Sampling Flares
Recently, researchers have found tentative evidence for coincident neutrinos from short-lived accretion events like tidal disruption events, in which a star is torn apart and accreted by a black hole. These studies have uncovered a potential connection between neutrinos and tidal disruption events with mid-infrared echoes, signaling the presence of obscuring dust.
A map of the locations of the neutrinos (yellow diamonds) and black hole flares (blue circles) on the sky. Click to enlarge. [Wang et al. 2026]
To investigate whether there is any connection between neutrinos and short-lived accretion events, Megan Wang (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) and collaborators first compiled a sample of 99 black hole flares observed by NEOWISE. These flares were selected for their strong mid-infrared emission, location in the nuclei of galaxies, and a fast rise and slow decline. The team applied additional selection criteria to remove other bright transients, such as supernovae, and retain only tidal disruption events and active galactic nucleus accretion flares.
For the neutrino side of the equation, Wang’s team turned to IceCube’s most recent catalog of neutrino events from astrophysical sources. In total, they compiled a sample of 68 events for which the odds of the source being astrophysical was greater than 50%, and for which the directional uncertainty was below 50.
No Coincidences
For a flare and a neutrino to be considered spatially and temporally coincident, the neutrino must arrive within one year of the flare, and the flare must fall within the 90% certainty contours of the neutrino. Ultimately, Wang’s team found no neutrinos that fulfilled both criteria and only one that was spatially but not temporally coincident with a black hole flare.
This result appears to be at odds with previous studies that found several neutrinos that were coincident with tidal disruption events. Wang and collaborators noted that while this work finds no association between neutrinos and black hole flares, it’s possible that the team is studying a different population of accretion events.
Infrared fluxes of the flares sampled in this study (magenta), optically identified flares (gray), and the tidal disruption events thought to have coincided with neutrino detections (green and gold dashed lines). [Wang et al. 2026]
For example, while the previous neutrino-associated flares were flagged for having strong mid-infrared emission, they differ from the current sample in that they were detected at optical wavelengths. The flares sampled in this work were detected in the mid-infrared and have little to no optical emission, potentially highlighting intrinsic differences compared to previous samples.
Future work, including studies that leverage upcoming datasets from the Vera C. Rubin Observatory, the Roman Space Telescope, and the NEO Surveyor, can address this question further and search for connections with specific populations of black hole flares.
Citation
“Testing the Association of Supermassive Black Hole Infrared Flares and High-Energy Neutrinos,” Megan Wang et al 2026 ApJL998 L29. doi:10.3847/2041-8213/ae3f90
Editor’s Note:Astrobites is a graduate-student-run organization that digests astrophysical literature for undergraduate students. As part of the partnership between the AAS and astrobites, we occasionally repost astrobites content here at AAS Nova. We hope you enjoy this post from astrobites; the original can be viewed at astrobites.org.
On Galentine’s Day this year, an ultra-high-energy neutrino attempted to sneak through the Mediterranean Sea, likely expecting she wouldn’t be caught. The odds were in her favor; neutrinos, ghostly particles with no electric charge and infinitesimal mass, only very rarely interact with matter. However, what she failed to account for was the awaiting undersea neutrino detector, KM3NeT, and the clever lepton within who would finally notice her. She slammed into the lepton, spewing charged particles everywhere at speeds greater than the speed of light in the water. While no particle can outrun a photon in a vacuum, water slows light down, giving us the familiar effect of refraction; similar to supersonic jets creating a boom when they break the sound barrier, these charged particles produced a distinctive blue light, known as Cherenkov light, exposing the neutrino’s position to astronomers and physicists everywhere. Busted.
The Investigation Begins
However, the neutrino was only the messenger; of even more interest is the astrophysical object that produced her. It’s not easy to generate such a high-energy particle, and no one can create a neutrino from thermal emission alone, indicating that wherever she originated, something extreme was going on. To date, only three astrophysical sources have been caught emitting neutrinos at all, and none of them are extragalactic: the Sun, although this is old news (in the 1960s, detections of solar neutrinos showed definitively that the Sun is powered by nuclear fusion, resolving the issue of how the Sun has burned long enough for life to evolve on Earth); the nearest core-collapse supernova to our galaxy in modern times, SN 1987A; and the galactic plane.
Theoretical models predict a much wider variety of objects, including extragalactic sources, to produce neutrinos, usually via cosmic-ray production: supernova remnants, star-forming galaxies, gamma-ray bursts, supermassive black holes (which are found at the centers of most galaxies), active galactic nuclei (a particularly fussy subset of supermassive black holes that are eating their host galaxies), and blazars (an extreme subset of active galactic nuclei that emit jets of radio light directly at Earth). The reason we have not detected their predicted neutrino emission is that neutrino astronomy is a new field, extragalactic sources are super far away, and neutrinos are both difficult to detect and difficult to trace back to their origin.
Rounding Up Suspects
With this in mind, today’s authors embark on a quest to catch the culprit, starting in the radio band. Radio emission, like neutrino emission, is usually an indicator of non-thermal radiative processes, and one such process, synchrotron radiation (emitted by relativistic electrons getting spun around in powerful magnetic fields), can be distinguished from other types of radiation based on its radio characteristics. Conveniently, the region our neutrino hails from is spanned by multiple radio surveys conducted with the Very Large Array (VLA) and the Australian Sub-Kilometer Compact Array Pathfinder (ASKAP), and so our authors use these surveys to round up all the radio riffraff. Unfortunately, the long wavelengths of radio photons and the scarcity of neutrinos result in reduced resolution for both compared to traditional optical telescopes, and our authors find over a thousand radio emitters in the region. Of course, no one can question that many sources, so our authors limit their investigation to objects with at least two radio brightness measurements, which can be used to calculate the brightness as a function of radio wavelength (the spectral energy distribution, which tells us about what type of radiation we see) and/or as a function of time (a light curve, which tells us if our source is variable). Our authors settle on a lineup of 10 likely blazars, any of whom could have emitted our ultra-high-energy neutrino, as well as a shortlist of prime suspects warranting further investigation: Phaedra, a spiral galaxy; Hebe, a radio galaxy; and Narcissus, an unusual compact radio emitter (see Figure 1).
Figure 1: Radio emission detected by ASKAP in the region of the sky in which the neutrino originated. Every yellow dot should be considered suspect, but the three colored squares identify the primary guilty parties: Phaedra (in blue), Hebe (in yellow), and Narcissus (in pink). [Filipović et al. 2025]
Phaedra: A Spiral Galaxy with a Secret?
Phaedra (Figure 2), the most radio-luminous in the area, exhibits plenty of behavior typical of a galaxy guilty of neutrino emission. For starters, she has two regions of highly concentrated radio emission, and these regions are offset from her center, making them look suspiciously like active galactic nucleus jets, which are excellent particle accelerators. Furthermore, infrared observations suggest she is a starburst galaxy, churning out stars faster than a bestselling author with a team of ghostwriters churns out books. This intense star formation could have easily been triggered by jet activity. Even more suspiciously, she is closely associated with an X-ray binary, and where there are high-energy photons, there are likely to be other high-energy particles like neutrinos and cosmic rays. Phaedra’s prospects of beating the neutrino emission allegations are not looking good; these high-energy phenomena produce buckets of high-energy particles, and even if they produce only cosmic rays, the cosmic rays are bound to crash into the surrounding dense gas and photons, creating neutrinos anyway.
Figure 2: Radio image of Phaedra, one of our suspects. The east and west components are the likely radio jets, and the third bright blob is the radio counterpart to the X-ray binary, SXPS J062657.7-082939. [Adapted from Filipović et al. 2025]
Hebe: A Simple Radio Galaxy, or Something More?
Hebe (Figure 3), the nearest extended radio source, isn’t exactly innocent-looking either. She is one of a triplet of galaxies sharing a common envelope, like peas in an extragalactic pod. Galaxies, unlike peas, however, are so massive that they can’t help but interact dynamically in such close quarters, causing a commotion that could totally produce ultra-high-energy neutrinos. She likely also has an active galactic nucleus jet, giving her the same neutrino-wielding powers as Phaedra.
Figure 3: An infrared image of Hebe that clearly shows the common envelope surrounding the triplets. The white contour lines denote levels of polarized intensity, which indicate the presence of a magnetic field. [Adapted from Filipović et al. 2025]
Narcissus: Double Active Galactic Nucleus?
Our final suspect, Narcissus (Figure 4), consists of not one, but two active galactic nuclei. One appears to exhibit the classic synchrotron spectral energy distribution, and the other is likely a blazar, based on his notable radio variability and infrared observations.
Figure 4: Infrared image of Narcissus, with the purple contours outlining the two radio sources that are likely active galactic nuclei. [Adapted from Filipović et al. 2025]
Solving the Mystery
So, who really emitted the ultra-high-energy neutrino? For now, our authors can’t jump to any firm conclusions — they’d never risk condemning an innocent galaxy — but they will continue to closely monitor the suspects and gather more evidence. In the meantime, Phaedra, Hebe, and Narcissus should find themselves a good defense attorney experienced in neutrino emission cases.
Original astrobite edited by Sandy Chiu.
About the author, Chloe Klare:
I’m a PhD student in astronomy and astrophysics at Penn State (with a physics minor, so I get to use my semester spent in QFT for something!). I study active galactic nuclei (in the radio!), and I’m currently looking for baby synchrotron jets in active galactic nuclei.
Particle physics is the epitome of ‘big science’. To answer our most fundamental questions out about physics requires world class experiments that push the limits of whats technologically possible. Such incredible sophisticated experiments, like those at the LHC, require bigfacilities to make them possible, bigcollaborations to run them, big project planning to make dreams of new facilities a reality, and committees with big acronyms to decide what to build.
Enter the Particle Physics Project Prioritization Panel (aka P5) which is tasked with assessing the landscape of future projects and laying out a roadmap for the future of the field in the US. And because these large projects are inevitably an international endeavor, the report they released last week has a large impact on the global direction of the field. The report lays out a vision for the next decade of neutrino physics, cosmology, dark matter searches and future colliders.
P5 follows the community-wide brainstorming effort known as the Snowmass Process in which researchers from all areas of particle physics laid out a vision for the future. The Snowmass process led to a particle physics ‘wish list’, consisting of all the projects and research particle physicists would be excited to work on. The P5 process is the hard part, when this incredibly exciting and diverse research program has to be made to fit within realistic budget scenarios. Advocates for different projects and research areas had to make a case of what science their project could achieve and a detailed estimate of the costs. The panel then takes in all this input and makes a set of recommendations of how the budget should be allocated, what should projects be realized and what hopes are dashed. Though the panel only produces a set of recommendations, they are used quite extensively by the Department of Energy which actually allocates funding. If your favorite project is not endorsed by the report, its very unlikely to be funded.
The P5 report also created an awesome graphic that contains symbolism for the different aspects of the plan. The left side depicts oscillating neutrinos and the shape of the Higgs potential. The right side depicts dark matter and the large scale structure of the universe. The central ball of light is supposed to represent discoveries of the unknown. Source
Particle physics is an incredibly diverse field, covering sub-atomic to cosmic scales, so recommendations are divided up into several different areas. In this post I’ll cover the panel’s recommendations for neutrino physics and the cosmic frontier. Future colliders, perhaps the spiciest topic, will be covered in a follow up post.
The Future of Neutrino Physics
For those in the neutrino physics community all eyes were on the panels recommendations regarding the Deep Underground Neutrino Experiment (DUNE). DUNE is the US’s flagship particle physics experiment for the coming decade and aims to be the definitive worldwide neutrino experiment in the years to come. A high powered beam of neutrinos will be produced at Fermilab and sent 800 miles through the earth’s crust towards several large detectors placed in a mine in South Dakota. Its a much bigger project than previous neutrino experiments, unifying essentially the entire US community into a single collaboration.
DUNE is setup to produce world leading measurements of neutrino oscillations, the property by which neutrinos produced in one ‘flavor state’, (eg an electron-neutrino) gradually changes its state with sinusoidal probability (eg into a muon neutrino) as it propagates through space. This oscillation is made possible by a simple quantum mechanical weirdness: neutrino’s flavor state, whether it couples to electrons muons or taus, is not the same as its mass state. Neutrinos of a definite mass are therefore a mixture of the different flavors and visa versa.
Detailed measurements of this oscillation are the best way we know to determine several key neutrino properties. DUNE aims to finally pin down two crucial neutrino properties: their ‘mass ordering’, which will solidify how the different neutrino flavors and measured mass differences all fit together, and their ‘CP-violation’ which specifies whether neutrinos and their anti-matter counterparts behave the same or not. DUNE’s main competitor is the Hyper-Kamiokande experiment in Japan, another next-generation neutrino experiment with similar goals.
A depiction of the DUNE experiment. A high intensity proton beam at Fermilab is used to create a concentrated beam of neutrinos which are then sent through 800 miles of the Earth’s crust towards detectors placed deep underground South Dakota. Source
Construction of the DUNE experiment has been ongoing for several years and unfortunately has not been going quite as well as hoped. It has faced significant schedule delays and cost overruns. DUNE is now not expected to start taking data until 2031, significantly behind Hyper-Kamiokande’s projected 2027 start. These delays may lead to Hyper-K making these definitive neutrino measurements years before DUNE, which would be a significant blow to the experiment’s impact. This left many DUNE collaborators worried about its broad support from the community.
It came as a relief then when P5 report re-affirmed the strong science case for DUNE, calling it the “ultimate long baseline” neutrino experiment. The report strongly endorsed the completion of the first phase of DUNE. However, it recommended a pared-down version of its upgrade, advocating for an earlier beam upgrade in lieu of additional detectors. This re-imagined upgrade will still achieve the core physics goals of the original proposal with a significant cost savings. With this report, and news that the beleaguered underground cavern construction in South Dakota is now 90% complete, was certainly welcome holiday news to the neutrino community. This is also sets up a decade-long race between DUNE and Hyper-K to be the first to measure these key neutrino properties.
Cosmic Implications
While we normally think of particle physics as focused on the behavior of sub-atomic particles, its really about the study of fundamental forces and laws, no matter the method. This means that telescopes to study the oldest light in the universe, the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB), fall into the same budget category as giant accelerators studying sub-atomic particles. Though the experiments in these two areas look very different, the questions they seek to answer are cross-cutting. Understanding how particles interact at very high energies helps us understand the earliest moments of the universe, when such particles were all interacting in a hot dense plasma. Likewise, by studying the these early moments of the universe and its large-scale evolution can tell us about what kinds of particles and forces are influencing its dynamics. When asking fundamental questions about the universe, one needs both the sharpest microscopes and the grandest panoramas possible.
The most prominent example of this blending of the smallest and largest scales in particle physics is dark matter. Some of our best evidence for dark matter comes analyzing the cosmic microwave background to determine how the primordial plasma behaved. These studies showed that some type of ‘cold’, matter that doesn’t interact with light, aka dark matter, was necessary to form the first clumps that eventually seeded the formation of galaxies. Without it, the universe would be much more soup-y and structureless than what we see to today.
The “cosmic web” galaxy clusters from the Millenium simulation. Measuring and understanding this web can tell us a lot about the fundamental constituents of the universe. Source
To determine what dark matter is then requires an attack from two fronts: design experiments here on earth attempting directly detect it, and further study its cosmic implications to look for more clues as to its properties.
The panel recommended next generation telescopes to study the CMB as a top priority. The so called ‘Stage 4’ CMB experiment would deploy telescopes in both the south pole and Chile’s Atacama desert to better characterize sources of atmospheric noise. The CMB has been studied extensively before, but the increased precision of CMS-S4 could shed light on mysteries like dark energy, dark matter, inflation, and the recent Hubble Tension. Given the past fruitfulness of these efforts, I think few doubted the science case for such a next generation experiment.
A mockup of one of the CMS-S4 telescopes which will be based in the Chilean desert. Note the person for scale on the right (source)
The P5 report recommended a suite of new dark matter experiments in the next decade, including the ‘ultimate’ liquid Xenon based dark matter search. Such an experiment would follow in the footsteps of massive noble gas experiments like LZ and XENONnT which have been hunting for a favored type of dark matter called WIMP’s for the last few decades. These experiments essentially build giant vats of liquid Xenon, carefully shield from any sources of external radiation, and look for signs of dark matter particles bumping into any of the Xenon atoms. The larger the vat of Xenon, the higher chance a dark matter particle will bump into something. Current generation experiments have ~7 tons of Xenon, and the next generation experiment would be even larger. The next generation aims to reach the so called ‘neutrino floor’, the point as which the experiments would be sensitive enough to observe astrophysical neutrinos bumping into the Xenon. Such neutrino interactions would look extremely similar to those of dark matter, and thus represent an unavoidable background which would signal the ultimate sensitivity of this type of experiment. WIMP’s could still be hiding in a basement below this neutrino floor, but finding them would be exceedingly difficult.
A photo of the current XENONnT experiment. This pristine cavity is then filled with liquid Xenon and closely monitored for signs of dark matter particles bumping into one of the Xenon atoms. Credit: XENON Collaboration
WIMP’s are not the only dark matter candidates in town, and recent years have also seen an explosion of interest in the broad range of dark matter possibilities, with axions being a prominent example. Other kinds of dark matter could have very different properties than WIMPs and have had much fewer dedicated experiments to search for them. There is ‘low hanging fruit’ to pluck in the way of relatively cheap experiments which can achieve world-leading sensitivity. Previously, these ‘table top’ sized experiments had a notoriously difficult time obtaining funding, as they were often crowded out of the budgets by the massive flagship projects. However, small experiments can be crucial to ensuring our best chance of dark matter discovery, as they fill in the blinds pots missed by the big projects.
The panel therefore recommended creating a new pool of funding set aside for these smaller scale projects. Allowing these smaller scale projects to flourish is important for the vibrancy and scientific diversity of the field, as the centralization of ‘big science’ projects can sometimes lead to unhealthy side effects. This specific recommendation also mirrors a broader trend of the report: to attempt to rebalance the budget portfolio to be spread more evenly and less dominated by the large projects.
A pie chart comparing the budget porfolio in 2023 (left) versus the projected budget in 2033 (right). Currently most of the budget is being taken up by the accelerator upgrades and cavern construction of DUNE, with some amount for the LHC upgrades. But by 2033 the panel recommends a much more equitable balance between different research area.
What Didn’t Make It
Any report like this comes with some tough choices. Budget realities mean not all projects can be funded. Besides the pairing down of some of DUNE’s upgrades, one of the biggest areas that was recommended against were ‘accessory experiments at the LHC’. In particular, MATHUSULA and the Forward Physics Facility were two experiments that proposed to build additional detectors near already existing LHC collision points to look for particles that may be missed by the current experiments. By building new detectors hundreds of meters away from the collision point, shielded by concrete and the earth, they can obtained unique sensitivity to ‘long lived’ particles capable of traversing such distances. These experiments would follow in the footsteps of the current FASER experiment, which is already producing impressive results.
While FASER found success as a relatively ‘cheap’ experiment, reusing detector components from and situating itself in a beam tunnel, these new proposals were asking for quite a bit more. The scale of these detectors would have required new caverns to be built, significantly increasing the cost. Given the cost and specialized purpose of these detectors, the panel recommended against their construction. These collaborations may now try to find ways to pare down their proposal so they can apply to the new small project portfolio.
Another major decision by the panel was to recommend against hosting a new Higgs factor collider in the US. But that will discussed more in a future post.
Conclusions
The P5 panel was faced with a difficult task, the total cost of all projects they were presented with was three times the budget. But they were able to craft a plan that continues the work of the previous decade, addresses current shortcomings and lays out an inspiring vision for the future. So far the community seems to be strongly rallying behind it. At time of writing, over 2700 community members from undergraduates to senior researchers have signed a petition endorsing the panels recommendations. This strong show of support will be key for turning these recommendations into actual funding, and hopefully lobbying congress to even increase funding so that more of this vision can be realized.
For those interested the full report as well as executive summaries of different areas can be found on the P5 website. Members of the US particle physics community are also encouraged to sign the petition endorsing the recommendations here.
And stayed tuned for part 2 of our coverage which will discuss the implications of the report on future colliders!
Every year since 1966, particle physicists have gathered in the Alps to unveil and discuss their most important results of the year (and to ski). This year I had the privilege to attend the Moriond QCD session so I thought I would post a recap here. It was a packed agenda spanning 6 days of talks, and featured a lot of great results over many different areas of particle physics, so I’ll have to stick to the highlights here.
FASER Observes First Collider Neutrinos
Perhaps the most exciting result of Moriond came from the FASER experiment, a small detector recently installed in the LHC tunnel downstream from the ATLAS collision point. They announced the first ever observation of neutrinos produced in a collider. Neutrinos are produced all the time in LHC collisions, but because they very rarely interact, and current experiments were not designed to look for them, no one had ever actually observed them in a detector until now. Based on data collected during collisions from last year, FASER observed 153 candidate neutrino events, with a negligible amount of predicted backgrounds; an unmistakable observation.
A neutrino candidate in the FASER emulsion detector. Source
This first observation opens the door for studying the copious high energy neutrinos produced in colliders, which sit in an energy range currently unprobed by other neutrino experiments. The FASER experiment is still very new, so expect more exciting results from them as they continue to analyze their data. A first search for dark photons was also released which should continue to improve with more luminosity. On the neutrino side, they have yet to release full results based on data from their emulsion detector which will allow them to study electron and tau neutrinos in addition to the muon neutrinos this first result is based on.
New ATLAS and CMS Results
The biggest result from the general purpose LHC experiments was ATLAS and CMS bothannouncing that they have observed the simultaneous production of 4 top quarks. This is one of the rarest Standard Model processes ever observed, occurring a thousand times less frequently than a Higgs being produced. Now that it has been observed the two experiments will use Run-3 data to study the process in more detail in order to look for signs of new physics.
Candidate 4 top events from ATLAS (left) and CMS (right).
ATLAS also unveiled an updated measurement of the mass of the W boson. Since CDF announced its measurement last year, and found a value in tension with the Standard Model at ~7-sigma, further W mass measurements have become very important. This ATLAS result was actually a reanalysis of their previous measurement, with improved PDF’s and statistical methods. Though still not as precise as the CDF measurement, these improvements shrunk their errors slightly (from 19 to 16 MeV). The ATLAS measurement reports a value of the W mass in very good agreement with the Standard Model, and approximately 4-sigma in tension with the CDF value. These measurements are very complex, and work is going to be needed to clarify the situation.
CMS had an intriguing excess (2.8-sigma global) in a search for a Higgs-like particle decaying into an electron and muon. This kind of ‘flavor violating’ decay would be a clear indication of physics beyond the Standard Model. Unfortunately it does not seem like ATLAS has any similar excess in their data.
Status of Flavor Anomalies
At the end of 2022, LHCb announced that the golden channel of the flavor anomalies, the R(K) anomaly, had gone away upon further analysis. Many of the flavor physics talks at Moriond seemed to be dealing with this aftermath.
Of the remaining flavor anomalies, R(D), a ratio describing the decay rates of B mesons in final states with D mesons and taus versus D mesons plus muons or electrons, has still been attracting interest. LHCb unveiled a new measurement that focused on hadronically taus and found a value that agreed with the Standard Model prediction. However this new measurement had larger error bars than others so it only brought down the world average slightly. The deviation currently sits at around 3-sigma.
A summary plot showing all the measurements of R(D) and R(D*). The newest LHCb measurement is shown in the red band / error bar on the left. The world average still shows a 3-sigma deviation to the SM prediction
An interesting theory talk pointed out that essentially any new physics which would produce a deviation in R(D) should also produce a deviation in another lepton flavor ratio, R(Λc), because it features the same b->clv transition. However LHCb’s recent measurement of R(Λc) actually found a small deviation in the opposite direction as R(D). The two results are only incompatible at the ~1.5-sigma level for now, but it’s something to continue to keep an eye on if you are following the flavor anomaly saga.
It was nice to see that the newish Belle II experiment is now producing some very nice physics results. The highlight of which was a world-best measurement of the mass of the tau lepton. Look out for more nice Belle II results as they ramp up their luminosity, and hopefully they can weigh in on the R(D) anomaly soon.
A fit to the invariant mass the visible decay products of the tau lepton, used to determine its intrinsic mass. An impressive show of precision from Belle II
Theory Pushes for Precision
The focus of much of the theory talks was about trying to advance our precision in predictions of standard model physics. This ‘bread and butter’ physics is sometimes overlooked in scientific press, but is an absolutely crucial part of the particle physics ecosystem. As experiments reach better and better precision, improved theory calculations are required to accurately model backgrounds, predict signals, and have precise standard model predictions to compare to so that deviations can be spotted. Nice results in this area included evidence for an intrinsic amount of charm quarks inside the proton from the NNPDF collaboration, very precise extraction of CKM matrix elements by using lattice QCD, and twodifferent proposals for dealing with tricky aspects regarding the ‘flavor’ of QCD jets.
Final Thoughts
Those were all the results that stuck out to me. But this is of course a very biased sampling! I am not qualified enough to point out the highlights of the heavy ion sessions or much of the theory presentations. For a more comprehensive overview, I recommend checking out the slides for the excellent experimental and theoretical summary talks. Additionally there was the Moriond Electroweak conference that happened the week before the QCD one, which covers many of the same topics but includes neutrino physics results and dark matter direct detection. Overall it was a very enjoyable conference and really showcased the vibrancy of the field!
Login
