Neutrino Mass Upper Limit Estimated by Galactic Distribution

Astrophysicists put the upper limit of the mass of the neutrino at 0.28 electron volt, based on the distribution of galaxies according to the 3-D Mega Z map. Steve Mirsky reports

Illustration of a Bohr atom model spinning around the words Science Quickly with various science and medicine related icons around the text

Join Our Community of Science Lovers!

“Six thousand billion of them are going through your body every second.” That’s physicist Lawrence Krauss on neutrinos, on the June 15th weekly Science Talk podcast. “Neutrinos are the lightest elementary particles we know of. The name comes from the fact that they had to be neutral because we couldn’t see them in detectors. But they had to be light. So Enrico Fermi called them "a little neutron," in Italian is neutrino. So they were baby neutrons, which were the only other neutral particles at the time that were known.”

Now astrophysicists [Shaun Thomas, Ofer Lahav and Filipe Abdalla] have put a best-guess upper limit on the mass of the neutrino. The research is being reported this week at the Weizmann U.K. conference at University College London and will appear in an upcoming issue of Physical Review Letters.

The work took advantage of the huge 3-D galaxy map called Mega Z. Because there are so many neutrinos, their tiny masses add up to influence the overall distribution of galaxies. And the researchers say the galactic map depends on a neutrino’s mass being no more than 0.28 electron volts, less than a billionth of the mass of an atom of hydrogen, the lightest element. “These are the most interesting particles in nature.”


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.


—Steve Mirsky

[The above text is an exact transcript of this podcast.]

It’s Time to Stand Up for Science

If you enjoyed this article, I’d like to ask for your support. Scientific American has served as an advocate for science and industry for 180 years, and right now may be the most critical moment in that two-century history.

I’ve been a Scientific American subscriber since I was 12 years old, and it helped shape the way I look at the world. SciAm always educates and delights me, and inspires a sense of awe for our vast, beautiful universe. I hope it does that for you, too.

If you subscribe to Scientific American, you help ensure that our coverage is centered on meaningful research and discovery; that we have the resources to report on the decisions that threaten labs across the U.S.; and that we support both budding and working scientists at a time when the value of science itself too often goes unrecognized.

In return, you get essential news, captivating podcasts, brilliant infographics, can't-miss newsletters, must-watch videos, challenging games, and the science world's best writing and reporting. You can even gift someone a subscription.

There has never been a more important time for us to stand up and show why science matters. I hope you’ll support us in that mission.

Thank you,

David M. Ewalt, Editor in Chief, Scientific American

Subscribe