New Issue: Orbital Catastrophe Ahead? Read Now

Sterile Neutrinos Still Theoretical

Seven-month long neutrino experiment finds no signs of the rumored sterile neutrino

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

Neutrinos come in three types, or flavors: electron, muon and tau. But physicists suspect that others may be out there and that they will be weird—almost never interacting with other particles. These “sterile” neutrinos may resolve some of physics' biggest mysteries. For example, they could contribute to the befuddling dark matter that apparently pervades the universe and exerts a gravitational pull on regular matter.

Despite decades of looking, however, sterile neutrinos remain elusive, and the latest attempt to catch them in action recently turned up empty, too. Physicists running the international Daya Bay Reactor Neutrino Experiment in China, which studies neutrino behavior, found no evidence for sterile neutrinos after a seven-month-long hunt.

This particular search took place underground: Daya Bay's neutrino detectors are buried at various depths below a group of nuclear power reactors in the province of Guangdong. That is because the fission reactions that take place at the plant naturally produce lots of the antimatter counterparts of electron-flavored neutrinos. Neutrinos, strangely enough, can switch flavors in a process called oscillation, so as these antimatter particles go flying, some of them change into muon or tau antineutrinos, hitting the detectors along the way. Scientists know roughly how many of the electron antineutrinos should change into the other flavors, and they use this calculation to figure out if any electron antineutrinos are missing at the deepest detectors. Missing particles would mean the originals probably turned into sterile neutrinos.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


The absence of missing neutrinos at Daya Bay “leaves no room open in this particular territory for having a sterile neutrino,” says Brookhaven National Laboratory physicist Milind Diwan, a member of the experiment's team. The results, published in October in Physical Review Letters, rule out the particles only in a certain range of masses and characteristics, however, so the ultimate truth about sterile neutrinos is still out there. Physicists at the site will continue looking for the particles within a broader range of characteristics. After all, the first 30 years' worth of searches for the Higgs boson turned up nothing.

Clara Moskowitz is chief of reporters at Scientific American, where she covers astronomy, space, physics and mathematics. She has been at Scientific American for more than a decade; previously she worked at Space.com. Moskowitz has reported live from rocket launches, space shuttle liftoffs and landings, suborbital spaceflight training, mountaintop observatories, and more. She has a bachelor’s degree in astronomy and physics from Wesleyan University and a graduate degree in science communication from the University of California, Santa Cruz.

More by Clara Moskowitz
Scientific American Magazine Vol 312 Issue 1This article was published with the title “Theoretical Particles, Still Theoretical” in Scientific American Magazine Vol. 312 No. 1 (), p. 16
doi:10.1038/scientificamerican0115-16

Subscribe to Support Independent Journalism

Great science journalism requires human expertise, time, effort and creativity. And it costs money. That’s why I and the journalists here at Scientific American hope you’ll join our community.

When you subscribe, you are supporting staff and freelance journalists who are passionate about telling science stories that are true, important and compelling. Our editors and reporters are often experts in their fields, which means they understand the nuances of big discoveries and can untangle the breakthroughs from the hype. With a subscription, you are also supporting rigorous fact-checking to ensure the words we publish are precise and accurate. And you’re supporting original illustrations, graphics and photos that bring you closer to an advanced laboratory, an ice sheet in Antarctica or a space mission in orbit. You’re helping us craft other types of high-quality journalism as well: Our newsletters are carefully written, edited and curated by staffers you have or will come to know and love. Our Science Quickly podcast is based on original reporting, collaboration with editors and scientists and exacting production.

Subscriptions keep this engine running so we can continue to deliver thoughtful, rigorous and independent science journalism to you. In an era of viral misinformation, this work is crucial. If you value what we do, I hope you’ll consider joining us as a subscriber

Thank you,

Jeanna Bryner, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe