|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
On 11/24/10 8:25 AM, Joe Snodgrass wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Generation 1 Electron neutrino νe 2.2 eV Electron antineutrino νe 2.2 eV Generation 2 Muon neutrino νμ 170 keV Muon antineutrino νμ 170 keV Generation 3 Tau neutrino ντ 15.5 MeV Tau antineutrino ντ 15.5 MeV |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
On 24/11/2010 14:56, Sam Wormley wrote:
On 11/24/10 8:25 AM, Joe Snodgrass wrote: Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Generation 1 Electron neutrino νe 2.2 eV Electron antineutrino νe 2.2 eV Generation 2 Muon neutrino νμ 170 keV Muon antineutrino νμ 170 keV Generation 3 Tau neutrino ντ 15.5 MeV Tau antineutrino ντ 15.5 MeV I have to say I find it hard to reconcile the table of numbers given above with the paper summarised in Science that put a rough bound on the sum of the (rest) masses of the three types of neutrino at 0.28eV. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712115104.htm Regards, Martin Brown |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
Martin Brown ) writes:
On 24/11/2010 14:56, Sam Wormley wrote: On 11/24/10 8:25 AM, Joe Snodgrass wrote: Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. Background http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutrino Generation 1 Electron neutrino νe 2.2 eV Electron antineutrino νe 2.2 eV Generation 2 Muon neutrino νμ 170 keV Muon antineutrino νμ 170 keV Generation 3 Tau neutrino ντ 15.5 MeV Tau antineutrino ντ 15.5 MeV I have to say I find it hard to reconcile the table of numbers given above with the paper summarised in Science that put a rough bound on the sum of the (rest) masses of the three types of neutrino at 0.28eV. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...0712115104.htm Well there's no actual inconsistency, since the numbers quoted were all upper bounds. I think it's harder to put a limit on the mass of one species in isolation than to estimate the total mass of all species (particle physics vs astrophysics?). --John Park |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
The neutrino was "invented" to keep false theory from falling apart.
Another phantom particle, made to fit establishment particle physics, that has impossible qualities, and really doesn't exist in our reality, but keeps Big Bang lovers happy. ߃--¹¹ |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
On Nov 24, 8:25*am, Joe Snodgrass wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? *TIA. What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons, including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like. Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless, then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different. Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino *mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will occur between mass states; and vice versa. PD |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
Joe Snodgrass wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. Paul "PD" wrote: What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons, including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like. Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless, then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different. Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino *mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will occur between mass states; and vice versa. hanson wrote: .... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha.. and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is. TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
On Nov 24, 12:53*pm, "hanson" wrote:
Joe Snodgrass wrote: Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. Paul "PD" wrote: *What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons, including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like. Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless, then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different. Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino *mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will occur between mass states; and vice versa. hanson wrote: ... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha.. and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is. TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson I don't think that was his question, hanson. If you want to know what mass fundamentally means, why don't you make a new post with that question? |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
"PD" wrote in message ... On Nov 24, 12:53 pm, "hanson" wrote: Joe Snodgrass wrote: Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. Paul "PD" wrote: What we know is that neutrinos oscillate between "flavors" -- muon neutrinos to electron neutrinos and vice versa, tau neutrinos to muon neutrinos and vice versa, etc. We have seen such behavior in hadrons, including K mesons containing strange quarks, and mesons containing charm and bottom quarks. You can google "K-long K-short" if you like. Quantum mechanically, the oscillation is expected from a mixture of states being produced, and the oscillation rate is proportional to the difference between the squares of the neutrino masses, and so this is the quantity that's been measured. If all the neutrinos were massless, then the difference would be zero, and the oscillation rate would be zero. This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different. Technically, the situation is a bit more muddled, because the neutrino *mass* states are not identical to neutrino *flavor* states. One is a mixture of the other. Thus, if you form a specific *mass* state, then you are producing a mix of flavor states, and an oscillation will occur between mass states; and vice versa. hanson wrote: ... ahahaha...Paul, you write "This, however, doesn't tell you what the masses are, only that they are different."... ahahaha.. and then you go and write a lengthy tripe around it, instead of explaining what "mass" FUNDAMENTALLY means. Bad pedagogic, Paul...Now, explain to Joe what "mass" here is. TFTLIA... ahahahaha... ahahahahanson I don't think ==================== We already know that, Duck. No need to repeat it. |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
Do I understand this correctly?
On 11/24/10 8:25 AM, Joe Snodgrass wrote:
Am I correct in my understanding that, although it was discovered in 1998 that the neutrino does indeed have mass, people still don't know what that mass is? TIA. Using cold atoms to measure neutrino mass http://george.ph.utexas.edu/papers/neutrino_mass.pdf |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
everyone correctly witness outside Chester when the systematic youths present onto the alive rear | [email protected] | Amateur Astronomy | 0 | August 14th 07 10:19 AM |
Let's see if I understand this correctly | FB | Astronomy Misc | 1 | March 20th 07 10:38 PM |
Do we really understand the Sun? | SuperCool Plasma | Misc | 0 | May 25th 05 02:48 PM |
Saturn's moons, now named correctly | Chris Taylor | UK Astronomy | 10 | November 16th 04 12:21 AM |