Banner
    ICARUS Up And Running, Rubbia Announces
    By Tommaso Dorigo | May 27th 2010 05:28 PM | 16 comments | Print | E-mail | Track Comments
    About Tommaso

    I am an experimental particle physicist working with the CMS experiment at CERN and the CDF experiment at Fermilab. In my spare time I play chess...

    View Tommaso's Profile
    In a mail message sent to the INFN president Roberto Petronzio and a few other distinguished particle physicists (not me, I got it third-hand), Carlo Rubbia announced today at 3.53 PM that the ICARUS experiment has begun operations. Below is the unamended text, which I excuse myself if I distribute freely, given the scientific value of the information and my conviction that I am not harming in any way the experiment nor the people involved (leave alone my own employer, INFN):

    "We have the pleasure to announce that today at 12:14. immediately after turn on of the detector, tracks have been observed by one of the cryostats of T600 triggered by the internal phototube counters.
    Purity is not yet optimal since purification of the liquid has started only 24 hours ago, but visible track lengths exceed already several tens of cm in the drift direction.
    The high voltage on the cathode was 40 kV and it is now brought to the 70 kV nominal, corresponding to the field of 500V/cm.
    Both a single vertical track and a large horizontal shower have been observed. The data collection continues at the rate of several events/hour in half of the T600 mass.
    This is the beginning of the ICARUS operation.

    We congratulate for this important achievement.

    The ICARUS collaboration."

    First of all, I must congratulate the ICARUS physicists for this long-sought goal. ICARUS has been in construction for a long time, and I am quite happy to see the detector finally starting to deliver the measurements it promised.

    Second, I need to provide you with some background about what the experiment is about. You are perfectly well excused if, while trying to remain up-to-date with the major scientific endeavours in particle physics and particle astrophysics, the imminent start-up of Icarus escaped you. But Icarus is a big project, and we need to fill that information gap now.

    ICARUS: 1 - the concept

    The idea on which the Icarus detector is based was conceived by the volcanic Carlo Rubbia well before his discovery of the weak neutral bosons. It was 1977, and Carlo was coming out of a strong involvement in bubble chambers for the study of neutral currents, moving into the craziness of antiproton production to discover W and Z bosons -the sort of craziness that will win you Nobel prizes, if your balls are bigger than those of two or three lab directors.

    Only four years before then, the first neutral interactions of neutrinos with electrons had been observed by the Gargamelle experiment at CERN (see picture, right). Unfortunately, that was not his experiment.

    His own bubble-chamber experiment at Fermilab had been competing to find the first evidence of neutrino interactions mediated by neutral currents. When a muon neutrino, produced by secondary decays from an accelerator beam, hits an electron of the material in the chamber through the emission of a Z boson, it leaves unseen as it arrived, and the only observable result is the emergence of a energetic electron, apparently recoiling against nothing. This signature, although exceedingly rare, it is quite striking, and hardly faked by anything else. One of the first historical pictures that constituted evidence for neutral currents is shown on the left below. Note that the curly track traveling upwards is quite characteristic of an electron, which emits bremsstrahlung photons  (which later materialize as furher electron-positron pairs) as it travels through the liquid.

    Due to the experimental challenges and maybe a worse experimental setup, the Fermilab group had had more trouble seeing their first candidates, so when Rubbia started to hear news that Gargamelle was being luckier, he cast enough smoke in the air to confuse matters, preventing the clear identification of a winner of that particular race.

    That story is told elsewhere so I will abstain from pasting what I mostly learned there, but the bottomline is in all textbooks: neutral currents were shown to exist, W and Z bosons became an acclaimed triplet of massive gauge fields, Weinberg and Salam's 1967 paper was fished off dusty shelves and they got a ticket to Stockholm; on the contrary, nobody won a Nobel prize for the experimental discovery of neutral currents. Yet the idea of detecting neutrinos or other interesting physical processes within large, uniform volumes of heavy liquids which both provided a suitable target and a sensitive material was by no means going to die away!

    2 - The detector

    Rubbia's idea was indeed to improve that promising concept further. Taking pictures of bubbles in a liquid was going to become an obsolete technology with the development of fast electronics: more precise and efficient identification methods could be envisioned to detect charged tracks produced by particle collisions in large volumes.

    Let us take liquid Argon: it is a quite desirable substance for a particle physicist. It is heavy enough to contain a large number of nuclei per unit volume; it is transparent to light of the same wavelength at which it scintillates when traversed by charged particles; and it constitutes no hindrance to the drift of ionization electrons, if purified with care.

    And now let us take a time-projection chamber (TPC): it is basically a volume lined with vertical planes of wires at high electrostatic potential on both sides. Electrons created by ionizing tracks drift in the electric field, get collected by the wires, read out by suitable electronics, and interpreted in terms of the position of the track in the volume. In order to do that, you need to know the exact time when the electrons got created by the ionization: this is provided by photomultiplier tubes which capture the scintillation light left by the charged particle. Photomultipliers are fast, and they provide a natural trigggering system for interactions within the volume of liquid.

    The bottomline is simple: couple a large tank of liquid Argon with a sensitive TPC and a set of phototubes, design a proper electronics and data-acquisition system, and you get a very neat detecting tool. And if you think big enough, you can imagine very large devices: scalability is not a big issue, as long as you can manage to obtain and keep a high-purity liquid (electrons get eaten up by impurities such as oxygen), and if your setup allows scintillation light to be detected with high efficiency.

    Rubbia had in mind a multi-kiloton detector, but in the end the ICARUS detector is for the time being "only" a 600-ton tank. It is still a large device! It is hosted in the cavern under the Gran Sasso mountain, in the Italian Appennines. The rock above it provide the necessary shielding from cosmic rays. The layout of the detector and its location are shown in the picture on the right.

    I know I am not doing justice to this exciting experiment with the quite general and short description above. Unfortunately, I am neither an expert of neutrino physics, nor do I have the time to provide a more detailed explanation today. I have twice invited a recently graduated Ph.D. from my University to talk here about her thesis, with poor results... I will try again! In the meantime, I just provide below a couple of pictures of the cavern which lodges the experiment, and the construction of the large vessel.







    3 - The Physics

    What games can we play with such a huge device ? Many exciting ones! Besides detecting and studying in detail atmospheric and solar neutrinos, supernova neutrinos, and maybe even other possible signals from exotic particles pouring down from the cosmos, the ICARUS experiment may detect proton decays by observing its large mass for a time long enough that one or few of the 10^33 protons in the liquid decide to turn into lighter particles. That would be quite a discovery!

    The most interesting project, however, has nothing to do with passively waiting for something to rain down or disintegrate spontaneously. It involves the directing of a beam of muon neutrinos straight at the Gran Sasso cavern from 730 kilometers away: a certain place at the France-Switzerland border, CERN. The relevant project is called "CNGS", and its aim is to study neutrino oscillations, understanding more of the physics of these fascinating particles.

    After the discovery of atmospheric neutrino oscillations by the SuperKamiokande experiment in Japan (but even since much earlier, when a deficit of solar neutrinos was studied by the Gallex and Sage experiments), the attempt at understanding the details of the mixing matrix of these enigmatic bodies has been all the rage. And ICARUS has the potential to break ground in this territory.

    So it is a fine day today. We impatiently await the first physics results from ICARUS. Is it too much to ask for a meaningful measurement in time for ICHEP 2010 ? We will know it quite soon!

    Comments

    Was it Carlo Rubbia or his son Andre Rubbia who made the ICARUS announcement?

    Andre Rubbia (at ETH) was an author of an ICARUS paper at arxiv hep-ex/0103008
    which described the ability of ICARUS to observe proton decay etc
    and,
    looking to the future, he recently wrote arxiv 1003.1921 in which he said:
    "... LAGUNA (Large Apparatus studying Grand Unification and Neutrino Astrophysics ...
    aims at a significant improvement in ... search for proton decays .... extending the proton
    (and bound neutron) lifetime sensitivities up to 10^35 years ...".

    Tony Smith

    dorigo
    Make no mistake Tony, this is Carlo. He is very active despite his mature age -still volcanic.

    Cheers,
    T.
    Sorry if this is a double post. The identification system didn't work properly.

    The Nobel Price Committee is impeding the progress of physics. They are in the unique position to tell politicians, what is supposed to be great physics. And in the area of fundamental physics, they focus strongly on theory people.
    I'm quite sure, that the fact, that the discovery of the gluon was not rewarded with such a prize, weakened DESY's position in Germany, leading to the premature shut down of HERA, and perhaps the end of TESLA.
    Luckily Kobayahsi has worked for a long time at KEK, so the prize to Kobayashi & Maskawa could be interpreted very favourable for the Belle experiment, but BABAR, the experiment with the better physics results will most likely not have a follow up.

    Experimental physics is much more expensive than theoretical physics. The gov'ts want to see, that the money they spend yields international recognition. The Nobel Prize Committee takes this recognition away.
    And actually, looking how much models for new physics exist, it is hardly reasonable to assume, that the only the most brilliant theory people will be the ones with the correct theory. It are the lucky ones. So what should be the reason not to give the Nobel Prize to some spokesperson of an experiment, that actually leads to the acceptance of such theories? (As well the experiment measuring direct CP violation in the Kaon system, that killed the idea of a superweak theory was never rewarded with a nobel prize).

    dorigo
    I disagree Anon. The Nobel prize is what it is, and we cannot use it as a stick to gauge the value of this or that experiment. Nobel prizes have been given in the past for a variety of reasons having little to do with the effective achievement of the recipients, but I do not believe we should give it too much importance. It is a personal recognition, not anything else.

    Cheers,
    T.
    lumidek
    I disagree, Tommaso. While I dislike awards in general, the physics Nobel prize is arguably the most meritocratic award on the whole Earth. It's been always awarded for particular "effective achievements", and they always belonged among top 1,000 of the most important achievements in the history of physics....

    It's not true that it's a "personal recognition": every physics Nobel prize has to be given with an explanation what particular discovery earned it. And indeed, sometimes people get Nobel prizes even if they have contributed only to 1 really important thing in their life. It may be enough if it is important enough.


    Unlike the anonymous person, I think that it is experimental physics that is somewhat overrated by the physics Nobel committee, but it's not too bad.

    Finally, the anonymous commenter argues that physicists are only "lucky" to guess the right model. Well, some of them might be, but the top ones surely aren't. It's been calculated what was the probability that e.g. Edward Witten was just lucky to write the papers that have led to his 90,000 citations, and the resulting probability was 10^{-200} or so. It's not possible.

    It was not possible with the top physicists in the past, either. For example, Einstein - until the late 1910s - would write almost exclusively papers that turned out to be correct - either groundbreaking theories or inevitable steps to find them. He never wrote those "hundreds of wrong papers" that would be needed to get a right paper by chance.

    Although someone will dislike this assertion, this is what can be said about all good theoretical physicists. Good theoretical physicists just almost never write complete rubbish.
    dorigo
    Come on Lubos, if you are seriously standing by your statement that "the Nobel prize is the most meritocratic award in the whole Earth", please take a minute here to explain the prize to president Barack Obama.

    And if you care, also please explain the one to Al Gore. I do not argue against the latter, but since you probably do, I leave you the floor.

    Cheers,
    T.
    lumidek
    Dear Tommaso, please improve your reading skills. I was extremely careful to write "physics Nobel prize", exactly because of the likes of Obama, Gore, Arafat, almost Hitler, Stalin, and others.
    Hank
    That's some list.  At least they didn't give a Nobel peace prize to Gandhi.  That would have been just crazy.
    dorigo
    Ouch, you got me. Yes, my speed-reading skills are not as good as I need them -I tend to save my time when I read not-critically-important stuff, to have time for my critically-important writings ;-)

    In any case, you seemed to give a high regard to the decisions of the academics of Stockholm, which after all are the same who pick all prize recipients...

    Cheers,
    T.
    Unfortunately it is not in my, and probably not your hands to decide which new experiments get funding. To quite some degree, this is about advertising the projects to people, who have not the slightest clue, what can be measured with them.
    The solid state physicists have tons of prizes they give to people, which then are used in applications at the gov't to get funding for some projects. It doesn't matter, that they build their success as well on the work and help of other people. The prizes are not for the insiders, that can evaluate results themselves, but to get a face for the field for outsiders. In Japan the experimental scientific community profits pretty much from the Nobel Prizes to Kobayashi & Maskawa in order to get an upgrade of KEKB, but as well to Masatoshi Koshiba to strengthen the field of neutrino physics. This is not so, because I wish it to be so, but it just is so.

    (If you're the same anonymous) you probably have to go through a quick history of physics nobel prizes. Every single person who took them (and I don't think theory has the largest share) deserved it, but many people seem to miss the fact that there can be only three of them each year. For sure there've been political choices, but they're impeding progress only to people using prizes as their only compass.

    "Finally, the anonymous commenter argues that physicists are only "lucky" to guess the right model. Well, some of them might be, but the top ones surely aren't. It's been calculated what was the probability that e.g. Edward Witten was just lucky to write the papers that have led to his 90,000 citations, and the resulting probability was 10^{-200} or so. It's not possible." LOL Am I the only one who sees huge logical gaps in this paragraph?

    lumidek
    Dear tupoid, nope, you are not the only tupoid in the world who sees gaps where there are no gaps. By the way, if you want to know, "tupoid" means a "dimwitted humanoid" in Czech.
    LOL again, the word still evades interpretation... I didn't expect more arguments on why "widely sited" means right anyway.

    lumidek
    String theory has already predicted the results of Icarus two years ago. See the 2008 report by Brian Greene, Icarus at the Edge of Time:
    http://www.amazon.com/dp/B001UVUUQC?tag=lubosmotlsref-20


    The book costs just $115 if you buy a used one.
    Hank
    Or you could just ask him at the World Science Festival in a few weeks.   YoYo Ma will be there violin'ing about string theory while he talks.
    Because of some not radiopure material of its cryostat, ICARUS is not able to detect solar neutrinos.
    furthermore, its mass is not so big to have a proton decay signal in a reasonable time scale.

    ICARUS is only liquid argon technology; no exciting physics is possible at the present with this detector.

    Add a comment

    The content of this field is kept private and will not be shown publicly.
    • Allowed HTML tags: <sup> <sub> <a> <em> <strong> <center> <cite><TH><ul> <ol> <li> <dl> <dt> <dd> <img> <br> <p> <blockquote> <strike> <object> <param> <embed> <del> <pre> <b> <i> <table> <tbody> <div> <tr> <td> <h1> <h2> <h3> <h4> <h5> <h6> <hr> <iframe><u><font>
    • Web page addresses and e-mail addresses turn into links automatically.
    CAPTCHA
    If you register, you will never be bothered to prove you are human again. And you get a real editor toolbar to use instead of this HTML thing that wards off spam bots.