Scientists have measured antineutrino emissions from spent nuclear fuel for the first time, demonstrating that monitoring efforts need not stop when the reactors do. This is important because although independent nuclear safeguarding agencies have long used antineutrino emissions to glean information on reactor operations, previous detection schemes only worked when the reactors were running. Now, however, members of the Double Chooz collaboration have shown that it is possible to detect residual antineutrino emissions during a complete reactor shutdown – including from spent fuel stored in cooling pools.

Like neutrinos, antineutrinos are tiny, nearly massless fundamental particles that come in three flavours: electron, muon and tau. The largest human-made sources of electron antineutrinos are the reactor cores of nuclear power plants, which produce them via beta decay of neutron-rich fragments that are primarily generated during the fission of heavy elements such as uranium and plutonium.

Because antineutrinos interact so rarely with other particles, their emissions cannot be shielded and their signatures cannot be altered. They can also be detected some distance from the power plant itself. All these features make them valuable for nonintrusive nuclear reactor monitoring. Indeed, the idea of using antineutrinos to provide real-time information about the fissile content of a reactor core – and thereby detect illicit production of material that could be used in nuclear weapons manufacturing – dates back to the 1970s.

When a reactor is shut down, long-lived fission products (found in burnt fuel assemblies that remain in the reactor core, as well as assemblies that were previously removed and stored in nearby cooling pools) continue to decay, producing a residual neutrino flux. However, this residual signal is only around 1% as strong as the signal from an operating reactor. It also lies in a region of the energy spectrum that is strongly affected by background activities.

Measuring the residual neutrino flux and its energy spectrum

In the new work, which is detailed in Physical Review Letters, a team led by Thierry Lasserre and Anthony Onillon from the Max-Planck-Institut für Kernphysik (MPIK) in Heidelberg, Germany, succeeded in measuring the residual neutrino flux and its energy spectrum despite these difficulties. They obtained their data from the Double Chooz neutrino detection experiment, which is located near the two 4.25 GWth cores of the Chooz B nuclear power plant in the French Ardennes. This experiment uses a pair of detectors – labelled “near” and “far” and located around 400 m and 1.05 km from the cores – to study a fundamental parameter called the 𝜃₁₃ neutrino mixing angle that describes how neutrinos transform between different types as they travel.

The Chooz plant uses a pair of pressurized water reactors, each of which contains 205 fuel assemblies consisting of roughly 600 kg of enriched uranium dioxide (mainly ²³⁸U with a few percent of ²³⁵U). During operation, these reactors also produce additional fissile isotopes, ²³⁹Pu and ²⁴¹Pu, through neutron capture and subsequent decay processes involving ²³⁸U. In a typical cycle, they operate at full power for over a year and are then shut down for six to eight weeks for refuelling. During this time, some of the spent fuel assemblies are removed and transferred to storage pools in a nearby building.

The Double Chooz neutrino detector consists of more than 30 m³ of liquid scintillator, which is a material that emits short, double flashes of light when an antineutrino hits it. The outer part of the detector is shielded from the background radiation of the surrounding mountain rocks by 15 cm of demagnetized steel for the far detector and 1 m of water for the near detector. The inner part of the detector is shielded by a thick layer of mineral oil. Finally, an outer “muon veto” consisting of segmented scintillator modules positioned above the detector eliminates contributions from cosmic muons that can mask the signal from the antineutrinos.

Over 100 events observed

The researchers collected their data in 2017 when both of Chooz’s reactors were simultaneously shut down for 24.4 days for refuelling and maintenance. This unusual double shutdown was long enough for the team to obtain the statistics and low background signals needed to extract, for the first time, a quantitative residual reactor antineutrino spectrum.

After accounting for muon veto-induced dead time, the researchers clocked up 17.2 days of measurements for the near detector and 22.2 days for the far detector. While they analysed data from both, they mainly focused on the near detector because it is closer to the reactor cores and spent fuel pools and is therefore more sensitive to the residual antineutrino flux.

In the 1–3 MeV range, where the residual neutrino signal is strongest, the researchers observed 106 ±18 events, which represents a 5.9 σ excess over the background. This value, they say, is in very good agreement with the 88 ±7 events predicted by detailed simulations of the remaining nuclear fuel inventory and the decay of long-lived fission products.

According to the researchers, this result had a long gestation period: “In 2003, the IAEA safeguards met with the neutrino community and raised a question: could antineutrinos also provide information on spent nuclear fuel?

“The main difficulty has been detecting the faint residual antineutrino signal. This meant obtaining data during periods when both Chooz reactors were simultaneously off, very low and well-controlled detector backgrounds, and a detailed simulation of the irradiation and cooling history of relevant fuel assemblies.”

The researchers hope that their result will become a robust benchmark for agencies and experimenters designing detectors for specific spent-fuel monitoring applications. “Such monitoring is feasible and could provide an independent, non-intrusive complement to reactor-status and spent fuel inventory,” they tell Physics World, though they add that “it will not necessarily be easy, compact or inexpensive to implement.”

The post Antineutrino detector could monitor spent nuclear fuel for clandestine activity appeared first on Physics World.

Could a mirror world – in which every type of elementary particle has a corresponding mirror particle – exist in parallel to our ordinary world? For now, the answer is probably no, but in exploring this question, physicists at the Ultracold Neutron (UCN) Physics Group at the Paul Scherrer Institute (PSI) in Switzerland, say they have refuted this hypothesis with the best precision yet. Their work, which involved looking for so-called neutron-to-mirror-neutron transitions, also excludes mirror neutrons as potential components of dark matter, the mysterious substance thought to make up over 25% of the universe’s mass. Dark matter has never been detected directly, but its existence is inferred through observed gravitational interactions.

Theoretical physicists put forward the idea of a mirror world as long ago as the 1950s to address problems related to parity symmetry conservation in particle physics. Here, a set of mirror particles would exist as exact duplicates of their ordinary particle counterparts except that their so-called handedness would be reversed. In this picture, particles like the electron e, proton p and neutron n have mirror partners denoted by e′, p′ and n′. These mirror particles would have almost the same mass as the ordinary particles.

Not easy to detect

Finding proof for the existence of this mirror matter is important as it could account for dark matter – provided that during the evolution of the universe mirror matter was cooler than ordinary matter. Mirror matter is not easy to detect, however, because mirror particles are predicted to interact with ordinary matter in only two ways. The first is via the force of gravity and the second is through the rare oscillation of neutral particles such as neutrons that “mix” with their mass-degenerate mirror partners. This, explains Bernhard Lauss, one of the physicists at the PSI’s Center for Neutron and Muon Sciences who led this new study, means that ordinary neutrons might, on very rare occasions, turn into their mirror particles and simply “vanish” from our world. The time period up to this event is known as the n−n′ oscillation time, and afterwards a neutron could even reappear as if out of nowhere.

Neutron-to-mirror-neutron mixing has been predicted to have an n−n′ oscillation time as small as few tens of seconds, but it is not easily detectable because it is suppressed by environmental factors such as the presence of ordinary and/or mirror matter or of ordinary and/or mirror magnetic fields.

In recent years, researchers have been trying to reduce these environmental effects by studying neutrons cooled to extremely low temperatures. There are only a few laboratories around the world that can produce such ultracold neutrons at high regular flux. One is the Institut Laue–Langevin (ILL) in Grenoble, France, and another is the PSI.

Unexplored regions

The results from a series of experiments at the ILL in the past 20 years conducted at various magnetic fields were interpreted as being anomalous signals in the range of magnetic fields at which n−n′ oscillations could take place, thereby rekindling interest in the existence of mirror neutrons. More recently, the nEDM collaboration at PSI excluded a big part of this magnetic field range, but some magnetic field regions remain unexplored.

In the latest work, Lauss together with his colleague Géza Zsigmond and co-workers from PSI, the ETH Zurich and the Jagiellonian University in Krakow used ultracold neutrons from the PSI UCN source produced via a technique called superthermal moderation in a deuterium crystal cooled down to a temperature of 5 K. The researchers trapped these neutrons in a non-magnetic vessel made of stainless steel under vacuum. They were able to trap an unprecedented number of neutrons – on the order of 25 billion in all – something that allowed them to significantly improve the sensitivity of such experiments. A set of eight rectangular coils surrounding the storage vessel was used to generate a magnetic field that could be precisely controlled and scanned over two orders of magnitude, from 5–109 µT.

The team released around 1.5 million neutrons from the storage vessel into a gas-electron-multiplier based UCN-detector every six minutes to count how many neutrons remained in the tank after being stored there for 200 s. The researchers repeated the process over a period of several months, gradually varying the strength and flipping the direction of the magnetic field to scan all the relevant fields over which oscillations between neutrons and mirror neutrons are expected to occur. Finally, they performed complex computational simulations on the EULER cluster at the ETH Zurich to predict theoretical probabilities of n-n’ transitions that they then compared with the neutron losses they measured.

New limits set

The result? The researchers say they saw no evidence for such oscillations under the tested conditions. This finding, explains Lauss, means that there is a “very high probability” that previous speculations about the transformation of neutron particles into their mirror counterparts can be ruled out and that new limits for the n−n′ oscillation time constant have now been set. “Indeed, we have excluded the parameter space previously claimed for potential signals to 99.98 %,” he explains.

“The result therefore also excludes mirror neutrons as relevant dark matter particles,” Lauss tells Physics World.

Despite the existing limits already being very tight, Lauss, Zsigmond and their colleagues say they now plan to study the n−n′ transitions theoretically expected at zero mirror-magnetic fields to establish even more stringent limits. “Improving sensitivity further will be very challenging though, and perhaps even impossible,” admits Zsigmond. “A twofold increase, for example, will require 16 times more neutrons because the sensitivity of the experiment scales with the fourth root of the neutron counts.”

The post No show again for mirror neutrons appeared first on Physics World.

Particles such as protons and neutrons are more accurately represented as “baryon junctions” than as simple collections of three quarks, say physicists. This finding, which is based on studies of heavy-ion collisions, is at odds with textbook descriptions, but it confirms a longstanding belief among many nuclear physicists that these descriptions are over-simplified.

Like charge and energy, baryon number is conserved in all experimentally observed reactions. This conservation law was first articulated in 1938, long before physicists developed the theory of quantum chromodynamics (QCD) to explain the behaviour of nuclei. It also predates the coinage of the term “quark” by Murray Gell-Mann in 1963.

Initially, theorists working on QCD felt that the simplest way to incorporate baryon number conservation was to assign a baryon number of 1/3 to every quark and -1/3 to every antiquark. As bound states of three quarks, protons and other baryons therefore have a baryon number of +1, antibaryons are -1, and quark-antiquark pairs, or mesons, are 0. However, this association of the baryon number with the quark – known as the valence quark model – is not fundamental to QCD, and as early as the 1970s theorists were already considering alternatives. In 1996, for example, Dmitri Kharzeev of Stony Brook University in New York, US proposed a model in which the baryon number was assigned not to the quarks themselves but to the Y-shaped junction in the gluon field that mediates their interactions.

At high-energy accelerators such as the LHC, collisions are usually modelled in the high-energy “perturbative QCD” regime. Here, quarks can be treated as isolated particles, and the two models are effectively equivalent. Inside a proton or in a quark-gluon plasma, however, quarks are more deeply immersed in the gluon field. This makes perturbative calculations such as those used in the theory of quantum electrodynamics (QED) impossible. “You can’t do these Feynman-like calculations anymore,” explains Anselm Vossen, an experimental nuclear physicist at Duke University in North Carolina, US. “Every diagram you write out has the same importance.” Within this so-called “lattice QCD” regime, the two models’ predictions can differ.

Discrepancies between models

In the new work, the STAR collaboration – which studies particles produced in quark-gluon plasmas generated at Brookhaven National Laboratory’s Relativistic Heavy Ion Collider (RHIC) in New York, US – homed in on these differences. By comparing predictions from the baryon junction model with those from the valence quark model in various scenarios, and matching them against experimental results, they hoped to find evidence to support one model over another.

First, they studied head-on collisions of gold nuclei, plus near-misses that led to the exchange of a virtual photon and the break-up of one nucleus. They found that the proportion of particles scattered varied sharply with the energy of the incoming nuclei, but not as the valence quark model predicted.

“The net baryons scattered decreases as the beam energy increases – that is expected – because the higher the energy the more things will just move straight through without being scattered to a large angle,” explains Chun Yuen Tsang, a STAR project leader who is now at Argonne National Laboratory in Illinois. However, he adds that the rate of decline “is actually slower than the existing valence quark model would have you believe”. A baryon junction should scatter more easily than a valence quark, so the fact that a simulation designed using the latter model underpredicts scattering at high energies points towards the baryon junction model.

A charged result

The researchers also compared fragments produced in collisions with zirconium-96 and rubidium-96 nuclei. Since both particles contain the same number of nucleons, they have the same baryon number. However, the ruthenium-96 nucleus has 44 protons, whereas the zirconium-96 nucleus has only 40, giving them different electric charges.

In a nuclear collision, both charge and baryon number – while being conserved overall – are rearranged among the fragments. The charge is localized to the quarks, so, according to the valence quark model, charge and baryon number should move approximately the same amount. Because the colliding nuclear pairs in this experiment differed only in their charge, the outcomes of collisions could be predicted relatively well across a range of energies. However, these predictions were strongly violated, with baryon number moving much more easily than electric charge. “This is evidence for quarks not being the carriers of both baryon number and electric charge,” Tsang says.

The researchers now wish to study collisions from other experiments. They also hope that the Electron-Ion Collider currently planned to replace RHIC will provide a more precise baryon probe and yield a definitive answer.

Vossen, who was not involved in the research, says that in some sense, its conclusions are “not that surprising”. His own research has examined the so-called “proton spin crisis” precipitated by the discovery that the proton’s spin cannot be explained by the spin of its constituent quarks, while the proton’s mass is much greater than the sum of the quark masses. “It’s part of this general picture that shows that a proton is much more complex than three valence quarks,” he says. Nevertheless, he says the STAR findings are not trivial: “It’s still a very interesting result,” he concludes.

The work is published in Science.

The post Protons and neutrons are more than just groups of three quarks appeared first on Physics World.

A new measurement of the ground-state hyperfine splitting in antihydrogen shows that it is identical to that of normal hydrogen to within four parts per million – two orders of magnitude more precise than previous experiments. Although the measurement by CERN’s ALPHA collaboration did not reveal any asymmetries between matter and antimatter, the result is nevertheless a milestone in the search for reasons why the universe appears to be made up almost entirely of matter, with only minute amounts of antimatter.

According to the Standard Model of particle physics, all matter particles have a corresponding antimatter particle that is identical to them in every way apart from their charge and magnetic properties, which are reversed. If this model is correct, then the Big Bang that formed our universe nearly 14 billion years ago should have generated equal amounts of antimatter and matter. But in that case, neither we nor almost everything else we observe should exist, because pairs of antimatter and matter particles annihilate each other whenever they collide.

“This apparent lack of antimatter in the universe remains one of the biggest mysteries in modern physics and suggests there is something about antimatter and matter that we do not understand,” says Timothy Friesen of the University of Calgary, Canada, one of the lead authors of a Nature paper on the new measurement.

Measuring antihydrogen

To look for subtle asymmetries that might explain why matter triumphed and antimatter all but disappeared, ALPHA is performing precise measurements on the simplest antimatter atom: antihydrogen, which consists of an antiproton bound to an antielectron, or positron.

These measurements take place at the CERN Antiproton Decelerator Facility using the ALPHA-2 antihydrogen apparatus, which is designed to prevent antihydrogen from coming into contact with normal matter. It does this by confining the antimatter within a cylindrical Penning–Malmberg trap under an extremely high vacuum and surrounded by strong superconducting magnets. These magnets suspend the antimatter in the trap so that it does not touch the walls of the container it is held in, preventing it from annihilating before measurements can take place.

In the latest work, the ALPHA collaboration focused on a parameter known as hyperfine splitting. This splitting occurs because magnetic interactions between the spins of the antiproton and positron cause the positronic ground state in antihydrogen to split into four sublevels, which the researchers label |a⟩, |b⟩, |c⟩ and |d⟩.

In hydrogen, the magnitude of this hyperfine splitting has been measured extremely precisely – we know its value to within a few parts per trillion – and it is particularly sensitive to the structure of the proton. Measuring this splitting in antihydrogen with the same precision would therefore be an excellent way of searching for differences between matter and antimatter. Previously, however, the most sensitive measurements only managed a precision of 400 parts per million (ppm).

In pursuit of precision

To push beyond this level, the ALPHA researchers applied pulses of microwaves at frequencies between 28 GHz and 31 GHz to induce the positron spin flip transitions |c⟩ → |b⟩ and |d⟩ → |a⟩ between the hyperfine levels of ground-state (2S and 1S) antihydrogen atoms. By measuring the frequencies at which these transitions occurred, they could then calculate the hyperfine splitting energy.

“At a magnetic field of 1 Tesla, we measured the hyperfine splitting for antihydrogen to a precision of 4 ppm – a result that has allowed for one of the best comparisons of matter-antimatter symmetry in antihydrogen ever,” Friesen says.

While the new measurement is precise enough to push experiments into a regime that is sensitive to the structure of the antiproton, Friesen notes that it is still five orders of magnitude less precise than comparable measurements in ordinary hydrogen. “The comparisons at this level of precision with matter hydrogen are identical, and our current models of physics therefore still hold,” he says.

The team does have some ideas for further improvements. “To push the measurement to improved precisions we are aiming to induce antiproton spin flip transitions, since these can be less sensitive to magnetic field inhomogeneities, which are our biggest systematic uncertainty,” Friesen explains. “This, combined with laser cooling the antihydrogen samples to reduce the width of our spectroscopic line-shapes, could help improve the precision by at least another factor of 100.”

The post Matter-antimatter symmetry measurement sets new precision record appeared first on Physics World.

The Nobel-prize-winning Belgian theoretical physicist François Englert, whose work led to the discovery of the Higgs boson, died on 18 June at the age of 93.

Englert’s studies, which he carried out in the early 1960s with his colleague Robert Brout, demonstrated that fundamental particles can acquire mass by interacting with a field that permeates the universe. The work set in motion a decades-long hunt for the Higgs boson, which was finally discovered at the CERN particle-physics lab near Geneva in 2012.

For the work, Englert shared half of the 2013 Nobel Prize for Physics together with the British theoretical physicist Peter Higgs, who died in 2024.

Born in Brussels, Belgium, on 6 November 1932, Englert studied electrical engineering at the Free University of Brussels (ULB) before switching to physics and completing a PhD at the university in 1959.

For two years he then worked at Cornell University before returning to ULB in 1961, where he remained for the rest of his career.

New particle

“Spontaneous symmetry breaking” is a well-known concept in condensed-matter physics where it had been used to explain how, for example, unordered regions of a magnetic material could suddenly align themselves in a specific direction.

In the early 1960s, the Japanese–American particle physicist Yoichiro Nambu adapted the phenomenon into quantum field theory.

Working at the ULB, Englert and Brout took inspiration from Nambu’s work and in 1964 the pair proposed that the weak and electromagnetic interactions could be united by spontaneous symmetry breaking.

Higgs, who independently came to the same conclusion as Brout and Englert, showed that the particles that carried the weak force acquired their mass through interactions with an all-pervasive field, now known as the Higgs field with the interactions occurring via the Higgs boson.

In 2012 at CERN’s Large Hadron Collider, physicists working on the LHC’s giant ATLAS and CMS detectors discovered the Higgs boson with a mass of about 125 GeV.

The following year, Englert shared half of the 2013 Nobel Prize in Physics with Higgs “for the theoretical discovery of a mechanism that contributes to our understanding of the origin of mass of subatomic particles, and which recently was confirmed through the discovery of the predicted fundamental particle, by the ATLAS and CMS experiments”.

Brout died in 2011 so was not given the Nobel prize as it is not awarded posthumously.

As well as the Nobel prize, Englert won many other awards including the Francqui Prize, awarded by the Francqui Foundation in 1982, the Wolf Prize in Physics (2004) and the American Physical Society J J Sakurai Prize (2010). In 2013, he was ennobled a baron by King Albert II of Belgium.

Particle physicist John Ellis from King’s College London, who has spent most of his career at CERN, told Physics World that he will remember Englert for his “his modest and polite demeanour, despite his evident and justified pride in his ground-breaking work”.

“His memory lives on as one of the founders of the Standard Model and an originator of one of its greatest puzzles, the Brout-Englert-Higgs mechanism for breaking symmetries and generating particle masses,” adds Ellis. “How long will it be before we understand this remarkable, yet crucial, aspect of Nature?”

The post Belgian Nobel-prize-winning theoretical physicist François Englert dies aged 93 appeared first on Physics World.

The most precise calculation of the muon’s anomalous magnetic moment to date has put to rest the possibility of that property revealing new physics beyond the Standard Model – at least for now. The new result, from an international team of physicists, was obtained using a new method to calculate this anomaly that is based on lattice quantum chromodynamics (QCD).

In the Standard Model (SM) of particle physics, which is currently our best theory of the fundamental forces of nature (barring gravity), the muon is an elementary particle. It belongs to the same family (of quarks and leptons) as the electron, but is more than 200 times heavier. The muon interacts with other SM particles via two of the fundamental forces – electromagnetism and the weak force.

Quarks and leptons all possess a magnetic moment that comes from their intrinsic angular momentum, or spin, and quantum theory posits that this magnetic moment is related to the spin by the “g-factor”. This quantity was originally calculated to be equal to exactly two for both the electron and muon.

Experiments over the last 50 years have detected minute deviations from this number, however. This difference, of roughly 0.1 %, is known as the “anomalous g-factor”, a_µ = (g – 2)/2, and it comes from so-called radiative corrections – the continuous emission and re-absorption of short-lived “virtual particles” by electrons and muons.

Measuring such discrepancies is very important for physicists because the g-factor could point to the existence of other particles – both known and as-yet undiscovered – so hinting at physics beyond the SM. They can do this thanks to the muon. Since this particle is so heavy compared to the electron, the impact of virtual particles acting on it is significantly greater. This enhanced sensitivity means that measuring the muon g−2 is better for searching for new physics than the electron g−2.

Difficult measurements and calculations

The problem is that such calculations are not easy – all the more so because the muon’s magnetic moment also receives contributions from the strong force as well as the electromagnetic and weak interactions (even though the muon does not itself partake in strong interactions). These strong contributions come from the muon interacting with the photon, which in turn interacts with quarks that then themselves interact via the gluon — the mediator of the strong-force.

The strong force (which is responsible for binding quarks into protons, neutrons and other hadrons) is notoriously difficult to integrate into theoretical calculations, however, because it is so strong.

In the new work, the researchers overcame this problem using lattice QCD of the most uncertain theoretical contribution to the muon g−2 – the “leading-order hadronic vacuum polarization” (LO-HVP), which has been traditionally determined using experimental data. Lattice QCD, they explain, is a computational technique that simulates the strong force on supercomputers by dividing space-time into a fine grid or lattice of small cells. The equations of the strong interaction are then solved on this lattice.

To reach the level of precision required to calculate the muon g−2, the researchers improved on their previous lattice calculation using finer grids and also combined it with experimental data in the very long-distance interaction region. This hybrid approach dramatically reduced errors, so allowing for the most precise value of the muon magnetic moment ever.

“Our result together with the other contributions yields a prediction that combines three interactions (the electromagnetic, weak and strong forces), each of which require vastly different theoretical tools, into a single calculation that differs from the recent experimental measurement of a_μ by only 0.5 standard deviations,” says Kalman Szabo of Penn State University in the US, who is a lead researcher on the team. “This provides a notable validation of the Standard Model to 11 digits.”

The original goal in their latest work, he explains, was to have an unambiguous and ab initio pure theoretical work to calculate the magnetic moment of the muon. “When we started, there were very strong signs that there was a tension between experiment and theory in this quantity, which would mean the presence of a new interaction.”

No tension and no new interaction

“Confirming this tension would have been – with some bias from our side – the ‘fundamental discovery of the century’”, he says. “In the end, however, our study shows that there is no tension. Thus, we did not find the new interaction but proved that quantum theory holds with an unprecedented accuracy.”

The result does not mean that new physics has been ruled out, however, he adds. Future experiments and calculations will help clarify the picture, but for now, the Standard Model holds strong.

“We now have a beautiful proof of quantum field theory and this gives credibility to any further work based on this theory,” he tells Physics World. “The accuracy is astonishing, which gives hope to answer other questions related to the strong interaction with similar or even better accuracies.

“Indeed, other groups are now racing to try to validate (or refute) our result, something that can only beneficial for the advance of our field in general.”

The research is described in Nature.

The post Muon g−2 calculation sets precision record and backs the Standard Model appeared first on Physics World.