Neutrino Oscillations

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

Most of the time, minor modifications in a theory or model are
sufficient to allow it to accomodate new data. Is that bad science
or a sign that we are learning something?

g Repeat all of the above argument of yours, but replace "Standard
g Model" with "Ptolemaic system." Your argument is unchanged. Why
g *should* those folks have junked their model? All they ever had to
g do was make occasional, minor modifications every time they got a
g new observation.

Ah, but that's the point. That's exactly what happened, for
centuries.

Yep. And it's worked for 30 years for the SM.

Until somebody came up with extremely high precision data
(Tycho) and a new way of looking at things (Kepler).

Wrong again. First off, Tycho and Kepler were AFTER Copernicus. Tycho died
a staunch Ptolemaic. There was no discrepancy between the model and
observation. There's this method where you always add another 'wheel' to
the model...

Kepler's "way" of looking at things was indeed important:

"It was (Kepler's) INTRODUCTION OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY INTO THE FORMAL
GEOMETRY OF THE SKIES which made it impossible for him to ignore the eight
minutes (of) arc. So long as cosmology was guided by purely geometrical
rules of the game, regardless of physical causes, discrepancies between
theory and fact could be overcome by inserting another wheel into the
system. In a universe moved by real, physical forces, this was no longer
possible."

"The reason why nobody before him had asked the question is that nobody had
thought of cosmological problems in terms of actual physical forces. So
long as cosmology remained divorced from physical causation in the mind, THE
RIGHT QUESTION COULD NOT OCCUR IN THAT MIND." (italics in originals as
capitals in ascii)
-- Arthur Koestler ("Kepler -- Eight Minutes of Arc," 1959)

Is this a bad thing?

Yes. It's not science. The SM does not follow Kepler's way of looking at
things -- it follows the Ptolemaic method. For it abjures physical
causality, and uses pure cookbook.


Well, as you pointed out, epicycles did explain the available
data, and what's the purpose of a scientific model but to explain the
available data? (Of course the monks and others who developed and
maintained the Ptolemaic system were not conducting science in the way
we understand the term today, but their actions were equivalent to
what I describe.)

Obviously, you don't understand "science."

Only when extraordinary evidence was accumulated,
did the extraordinary explanation finally come to be accepted.

LOL! The "precision" of the data still supported the Ptolemaic system over
the Copernican system. The Ptolemaic precisions were not recovered until
after LeVerrier, in the late 1800's. What changed was the addition of the
scientific method and physical causation -- which the SM abandons (like much
of the Positivist futility of the 1900's).

Moreover, the other point that you don't seem to understand (and it's
the reason I continue to use "model" rather than "theory") is that one
has to be very clear about what the Standard Model of particle physics
and the Big Bang model predict.

The big bang is not under discussion here.

The Big Bang model predicts that the
Universe was hotter and denser in the past, regardless of whether the
Hubble constant is 50 km/s/Mpc, 75 km/s/Mpc, 100 km/s/Mpc, or 500
km/s/Mpc.

Well, yeah. But Velikovsky also predicted that Venus would be 'hot.' But
since he had no actual numeric prediction, he could not be disproved. Since
the BB has no real prediction other than 'space has a temperature' (and we
assume it was hotter in the past) -- it also is not science.

The Standard Model of particle physics predicts particle
interactions, regardless of whether the electron mass is 0 eV, 250
keV, 511 keV, or 2000 keV (I think).

Not surprising at all -- since those interactions were used to set the SM
constants.

The task of experiments is to
measure or constrain these model parameters (and the hope is that
someday a theory will be developed that allows one to predict what
these various model parameters are).

I'm sure the Ptolemaic monks had similar hopes.

g Why the 'invisible' snipping Lt. Lazio?

Because I recognize that not everybody reads Usenet over high-speed
links. Thus, I try to snip points that I find redundant, that I
believe I address elsewhere, or that I find too silly to bother
wasting my time addressing.

Why do you ignore the highlighted word "invisible?" So why the INVISIBLE
snipping, Lt. Lazio?


"Neutrino oscillations ARE a theoretical explanation. Not data."

Bjoern "O.k., then let's word it in another way: Do you have another
Bjoern explanation, besides neutrino oscillations, for the
Bjoern experimental facts that 1) Superkamiokande measured more
Bjoern atmospheric neutrinos from above than from below, with a
Bjoern systematic dependence on zenith angle, and 2) the total
Bjoern neutrino flux from the sun matches nicely the predicted
Bjoern electron neutrino flux from the standard solar model?
Bjoern There are some more experiments which show similar things, but
Bjoern these are the best known."

I'd add to the list the observations of neutrino oscillations from
Earth-bound reactors. No solar model uncertainties added.

g There's no 'list' to add to. I said I wasn't referring to Solar
g measurements.

I see that you haven't addressed the question that Bjoern asked,
though, what's your explanation for the data?

Too bad I did. You seem to have invisibly 'snipped' my answer without
reading it.


g And perhaps you'd care to provide your personal favorite experiment
g citation on the reactor experiment.

I'm not sure I have a favorite, and, in any event, search engines do
exist.

Your point would be what? I wanted to know why *you* believe what you claim
is *true.*

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...
greywolf42 wrote:

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

Bjoern "Neutrino oscillations are clear evidence for neutrino
masses."


[snip]


Take the Standard Model of particle physics. Originally it put
the mass of the neutrino at 0 eV. Why?

The neutrino (and its zero mass) were postulated 40 years prior
to the first theory with the name "Standard Model".

First, I doubt that when the neutrino was postulated to exist, it was
postulated that it has zero mass. "a very small mass" is more likely. Do
you have a reference to the original article?

Already provided in parallel thread.

Second, this does in no way contradict what Joseph said above!

It wasn't intended to 'contradict' Joseph's statement -- but to point out
that the 'standard model' incorporated prior theory into the framework. The
mass of the neutrino was not developed first in the standard model.

Well, it was certainly consistent
with all observations, but I don't think it was predicted ab
inito from the Model.

In which case, the Standard Model cannot be said to explain
anything about the neutrino.

Nonsense. Only because the SM didn't say anything about masses of
neutrinos doesn't imply that it can't say anything about them! For
example, it described their interactions quite well.

Well, yes -- in the same manner that the Ptolemaic system described the
motions of the planets -- in a completely ad hoc manner.

After all, particle physicists still struggle to
understand why the various particles have the masses that they
do.

Maybe after 30 years of wasting their time with a "model" that
doesn't help them understand anything about the masses of
particles, they should try other approaches.

Err, if you haven't noticed, the SM does tell us *lots* about the
properties of matter. For example, it tells us which interactions can
take part between the particles, it explains the various ranges of the
different forces, and so on.

Those are all backfits -- not explanations.

And particle physicists *do* try other approaches than the SM of
particle physics. Ever heard of string theory, for example? Or
noncommutative geometry? Unfortunately, both don't have any experimental
evidence for them so far; we'll have to wait until new data comes in.

Why don't we wait before using the SM, then? The SM has no predictions for
us, either.

Nevertheless, the SM of particle physics does describe properties of and
interactions between elementary particles with amazing accuracy.

Since all of those 'properties' are set by said experimental interactions,
this is not 'amazing' at all.

I know
of no discrepancies between this model (with the slight modification of
included neutrino masses) and experiments; do you?

Yes. Remember the 'blind' studies, that the SM failed?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...-2001Nov8.html

I must say that the "spin" on this site is most amusing. The earlier
discussion (based on the initial announcement last summer)* was on the
experimental failure of the standard model. The current spin is that
(because the standard model is so "precise") this is a "discovery" of a new
force!

*summer of 1991

So the "regulars" dropped the thread as quickly as possible. Now that the
proper "spin" has been found, the regulars wonder why we aren't all talking
about the wonderful discovery.

What was interesting about the experiments was that they were the first
physics experiments that were "blinded" before the answer was calculated.
In prior experiments, any such "errors" (differences between theory and
experiment) were worked out before publication.


So
what happens when it turns out that the neutrinos do have mass?

Nothing, of course. Neutrinos are what neutrinos are. Nothing
happens to them when we change our minds.

Obviously what Joseph meant was "What happens to the SM?", not "What
happens in nature?"

Nothing happens to the SM, either -- unless somebody adds another epicycle
to it. Of course, that will happen and the name won't change, and we can
all happily chant "see how great the SM is!"


There's a well-developed mechanism for handling particle
masses.

Not in the Standard Model -- according to your prior statement.

He said nothing like that. He said that in the original standard model,
neutrinos were postulated to have no mass. This does contradict in no
way the statement here that there is a well-developed mechanism for
handling particle masses.

What he said is that the Standard Model has no mechanism for handling
(predicting) particle masses.

Should one junk the entire Standard Model, simply because it
didn't
predict something, particularly given that it can't predict any
particle masses?

If a model has no predictive power, then is it unscientific.

Err, the SM has lots of predictive power!!!

Out of those "lots," name three correct mass predictions of the SM (made
before experiment and ad hoc fixing of masses).

For it cannot be disproved.

Right. Hint: there were and are still lots of experiments done to test
the SM. So far, astonishing accuracy was found; the experimental results
agree with the theoretical predictions sometimes up to 10 decimal
places! (so, for example, the anomalous magnetic moments of the electron
and the muon).

Weren't those the predictions that were disproved by the 'blind' experiments
in 2001?

So, yes, a "model" that can't predict such should be
scrapped.

Fortunately this doesn't apply to the SM.

Are you now claiming that the SM can 'predict' all of the particle masses?


or do you adjust the Model slightly? Only very
rarely do wholesale paradigm shifts (like quantum mechanics)
occur.

The Standard Model is not a paradigm. Junking it would not be a
paradigm shift.

Thanks for showing again that you don't know what you are talking about.
If I've ever seen a paradigm, the SM of particle physics is one!

Not according to Kuhn. Care to wager? (Hint: Paradigms are ideas and ways
of looking at the world. A theory is just a theory.)


Most of the time, minor modifications in a theory or model are
sufficient to allow it to accomodate new data. Is that bad
science or a sign that we are learning something?

Repeat all of the above argument of yours, but replace "Standard
Model" with "Ptolemaic system." Your argument is unchanged.

Complete nonsense. Did the Ptolemaic system make predictions which
agreed with observation up to 10 decimal places? Obviously not.

They agreed to as good a precision as they could measure. Unlike the
Standard model.

Did it
describe a huge amount of data with very great accuracy? Obviously not
again.

You are merely ignorant, here. The Ptolemaic model described a huge amount
of data with as good an accuracy as they could measure. And far more
accurately than the Copernical heresy.

Why *should* those folks
have junked their model? All they ever had to do was make
occasional, minor
modifications every time they got a new observation.

Which made the Ptolemaic system more and more complicated and unnatural.

Just like the SM. To quote Michio Kaku ("Hyperspace", p124-7), 1994:
=======================================
"...The most interesting feature of the Standard Model is that it is based
on symmetry. ..."

"Each of these three symmetries {strong, weak and electromagnetic force} is
simple and elegant. However, the most controversial aspect of the Standard
Model is that it 'unifies' the three fundamental forces by simply splicing
all three symmetries into one large symmetry, SU(3) x SU(2) x U(1), which is
just the product of the symmetries of the individual forces. ..."

"(The Standard Model) is very ugly because it crudely splices three very
different interactions together. Personally, I think that the Standard
Model can be compared to crossing three entirely dissimilar types of
animals, such as a mule, an elephant, and a whale. In fact, it is so ugly
and contrived that even its creators are a bit embarrassed. They are the
first to apologize for its shortcomings and admit that it cannot be the
final theory." {i.e. It cannot be physically 'correct.'}

"This ugliness is obvious when we write down the details of the quarks and
leptons. To describe how ugly the theory is, let us list the various
particles and forces within the Standard Model:

"1. Thirty-six quarks, coming in six 'flavors' and three 'colors,' and their
antimatter counterparts to describe the strong interaction.

"2. Eight Yang-Mills fields to describe the gluons, which bind the quarks.

"3. Four Yang-Mills fields to describe the weak and electromagnetic forces.

"4. Six types of leptons to describe the weak interactions (including the
electron, muon, tau lepton, and their respective neutrino counterparts).

"5. A large number of mysterious 'Higgs' particles necessary to fudge the
masses and the constants describing the particles.

"6. At least 19 arbitrary constants that describe the masses of the
particles and the strengths of the various interactions. These 19 constants
must be put in by hand; they are not determined by the theory in any way."

"Worse, this long list of particles can be broken down into three 'families'
of quarks and leptons, which are practically indistinguishable from one
another. In fact these three families of particles appear to be exact
copies of one another, giving a threefold redundancy in the number of
supposedly 'elementary' particles. ..."
=======================================

OTOH, neutrino masses in the SM are a minor, very natural modification.

But not a prediction. Merely another epicycle.

All the other elementary fermions have masses, hence it's rather natural
for the neutrinos to have masses, too!

It wasn't 'natural' before!

Why the 'invisible' snipping Lt. Lazio?

Because he wanted to comment only on parts of what you wrote?

Then there was no need to snip the other parts. 'Invisible' snipping marks
a coward.


{replacing the portions that relate to Lazio's later comments on
'solar.'}
==========================================
Bjoern:
When you say "theory", do you mean the standard solar model?

No. I mean the theory of the operation of the SuperK and
neutrinos that pass through the Earth.

If yes,
then you are wrong - neutrino oscillations weren't postulated
only because of the observations of solar neutrinos which
contradicted this model.

Good thing that I wasn't referring to the solar model.

Bjoern:
"Do you have another explanation for neutrino oscillations
which fits all of the data?"

greywolf42:
"Neutrino oscillations ARE a theoretical explanation. Not
data."
==========================================

Bjoern "O.k., then let's word it in another way: Do you have
another
Bjoern explanation, besides neutrino oscillations, for the
experimental
Bjoern facts that 1) Superkamiokande measured more atmospheric
neutrinos
Bjoern from above than from below, with a systematic
dependence on zenith
Bjoern angle, and 2) the total neutrino flux from the sun
matches nicely
Bjoern the predicted electron neutrino flux from the standard
solar model?
Bjoern There are some more experiments which show similar
things, but
Bjoern these are the best known."

I'd add to the list the observations of neutrino oscillations
from
Earth-bound reactors. No solar model uncertainties added.

There's no 'list' to add to.

Err, two points compromise a list, don't they?

Joseph was referring to the 'solar model uncertainties.' But since the
solar model was not under discussion, there was no 'list' of solar model
uncertainties. Just as I clarified with the very next sentence:

I said I wasn't referring to Solar measurements.

He added to *my* list above. The list containing evidence for neutrino
oscillations.

There are no solar model uncertainties in your evidence, either.

And perhaps you'd care to provide your personal favorite
experiment citation on the reactor experiment.

I don't have a "favorite" citation, but rather new results can be found
here, for example:
Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., vol.118, April 2003 p.15-22

Do you accept and support this citation? (Please learn to give author names
in your citations!) Or will you back away immediately, if a problem is
found?


{Lazio makes another 'invisible' snip. Apparently because he
doens't want to stick his neck out.}

He doesn't want to comment on some things, what's your problem with
that?

The 'invisible' part. That is the mark of a coward.


{I'll replace just the request for a statement of position.}
================
Before we get into explaining "all the data," I want you to
identify the
specific model that YOU claim explains it all. Per Bahcall
(1997),

"Theoretical physicists have fertile imaginations; they have
provided us
with a smorgasbord of explanations based upon new particle
physics,
including vacuum neutrino oscillations, resonant oscillations in
matter (the
MSW effect), resonant magnetic-moment transitions, sterile
neutrinos,
neutrino decay, and violation of the equivalence principel by
neutrinos.
Most of these explanations can account for the existing
experimental data if
either two or three neutrinos are involved in the new physics
beyond the
standard electroweak model. All thses pareticle physics
explanations, and
other that I have not listed, can account for the existing data
from solar
neutrino experiments without conflicting with established laws of
physics or
with other experimental constraints."

"The number of proposed particle physics explanations exceeds the
diagnostic
power of the existing solar neutrino experiments. I think it is
unlikely
that the next generation of solar neutrinos experiments will be
able to
eliminate all but one possible particle physics explanation."
================

I see you still avoid taking a position, or even acknowledging the issue.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

greywolf42 wrote:

Joseph Lazio wrote in message
...
"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

Most of the time, minor modifications in a theory or model are
sufficient to allow it to accomodate new data. Is that bad science
or a sign that we are learning something?

g Repeat all of the above argument of yours, but replace "Standard
g Model" with "Ptolemaic system." Your argument is unchanged. Why
g *should* those folks have junked their model? All they ever had to
g do was make occasional, minor modifications every time they got a
g new observation.

Ah, but that's the point. That's exactly what happened, for
centuries.

Yep. And it's worked for 30 years for the SM.

The SM explains a far greater amount of data with far greater precision
than the Ptolemaic model ever did. And besides the (rather natural)
adding of terms for neutrino masses and oszillations in the last few
years, it didn't need any modification in the last 30 years in order to
explain the data. So, what on earth has this to do with the Ptolemaic
model?



Until somebody came up with extremely high precision data
(Tycho) and a new way of looking at things (Kepler).

Wrong again. First off, Tycho and Kepler were AFTER Copernicus.

And Copernicus's system was, IIRC, not better at explaining the
available data than Ptolemaic's model. Only after Tycho's new data came
in could it be shown that the heliocentric model is right.


Tycho died a staunch Ptolemaic.

Wrong, he made up a model on his own, which was somehow between the
Ptolemaic and the Copernican model.


There was no discrepancy between the model and observation.

Well, the Ptolemaic model used different methods, different sets of
parameters, to explain different phenomena. I *would* call this a
discrepancy between the model and the observation: depending on what
phenomena you wanted to describe, you had to choose different parameters
(for orbital radii etc.)! It wasn't a unified model, it was a set of
tools for calculating. OTOH, the SM is a well tested model with a unique
set of parameters which describes a vast amount of data with astonishing
precision.


There's this method where you always add another 'wheel' to
the model...

What "wheels" were added to the SM of particle physics, in your opinion,
beside neutrino masses, in the 30 years since it was set up?


Kepler's "way" of looking at things was indeed important:

"It was (Kepler's) INTRODUCTION OF PHYSICAL CAUSALITY INTO THE
FORMAL
GEOMETRY OF THE SKIES which made it impossible for him to ignore
the eight
minutes (of) arc. So long as cosmology was guided by purely
geometrical
rules of the game, regardless of physical causes, discrepancies
between
theory and fact could be overcome by inserting another wheel into
the
system. In a universe moved by real, physical forces, this was
no longer
possible."

"The reason why nobody before him had asked the question is that
nobody had
thought of cosmological problems in terms of actual physical
forces. So
long as cosmology remained divorced from physical causation in
the mind, THE
RIGHT QUESTION COULD NOT OCCUR IN THAT MIND." (italics in
originals as
capitals in ascii)
-- Arthur Koestler ("Kepler -- Eight Minutes of Arc,"
1959)

Nice. And why do you think this is a problem for the SM?


Is this a bad thing?

Yes. It's not science.

What is not science? That neutrino masses were added to the SM in order
to accomodate for the observations? This makes no sense at all! A
priori, the neutrino masses are simply free parameters in the theory;
when the SM was set up, these parameters were (based on the little
evidence available back then) to zero - rather arbitrarily. Now that we
have evidence that the masses aren't zero, we see that these parameters
in the SM aren't zero.

You could as well claim that if it were discovered that one of the
planets had a slightly other mass than previously believed, this would
disqualify the whole science of orbital mechanics!


The SM does not follow Kepler's way of looking at
things -- it follows the Ptolemaic method.

Complete nonsense. Kepler deduced his model from discrepancies between
theory and observation (the eight arc minutes you mentioned above, for
example); adding neutrino masses to the SM is very similar to this.


For it abjures physical causality, and uses pure cookbook.

Huh? Why is it "cookbook" to determine the values of some parameters in
the model?


Well, as you pointed out, epicycles did explain the available
data, and what's the purpose of a scientific model but to
explain the
available data? (Of course the monks and others who developed
and
maintained the Ptolemaic system were not conducting science in
the way
we understand the term today, but their actions were equivalent
to what I describe.)

Obviously, you don't understand "science."

ROTFL!!! No comment.


Only when extraordinary evidence was accumulated,
did the extraordinary explanation finally come to be accepted.

LOL! The "precision" of the data still supported the Ptolemaic
system over the Copernican system.

Err, that was his point! Only after the precision data of Tycho and the
calculations of Galilei became available, the Copernican system got a
chance to get accepted!


The Ptolemaic precisions were not recovered until
after LeVerrier, in the late 1800's. What changed was the
addition of the
scientific method and physical causation -- which the SM abandons
(like much of the Positivist futility of the 1900's).

Why do you think that the SM abandons the scientific method and physical
causation?


Moreover, the other point that you don't seem to understand
(and it's
the reason I continue to use "model" rather than "theory") is
that one
has to be very clear about what the Standard Model of particle
physics and the Big Bang model predict.

The big bang is not under discussion here.

The Big Bang model predicts that the
Universe was hotter and denser in the past, regardless of
whether the
Hubble constant is 50 km/s/Mpc, 75 km/s/Mpc, 100 km/s/Mpc, or
500 km/s/Mpc.

Well, yeah. But Velikovsky also predicted that Venus would be
'hot.' But
since he had no actual numeric prediction, he could not be
disproved. Since
the BB has no real prediction other than 'space has a
temperature' (and we
assume it was hotter in the past) -- it also is not science.

Oh, what a heap of nonsense! Like every model in science, the BBT has a
set of parameters which have to be determined by observation. After
these parameters are determined, it makes exact predictions about any
temperature of the universe at any time. And lots more predictions.


The Standard Model of particle physics predicts particle
interactions, regardless of whether the electron mass is 0 eV,
25 keV, 511 keV, or 2000 keV (I think).

Not surprising at all -- since those interactions were used to
set the SM constants.

Err, right. Again, this is "determining the parameters of the model from
observations". What you apparently don't understand is that *after* the
parameters have been determined, the SM, like any other model in
science, can make lots of predictions (for decay rates, cross sections,
anomalous magnetic moments, bound states, and so on - even masses for
the hadrons!).


The task of experiments is to
measure or constrain these model parameters (and the hope is
that
someday a theory will be developed that allows one to predict
what these various model parameters are).

I'm sure the Ptolemaic monks had similar hopes.

*yawn*

This silly argument is really becoming boring.


g Why the 'invisible' snipping Lt. Lazio?

Because I recognize that not everybody reads Usenet over
high-speed
links. Thus, I try to snip points that I find redundant, that
I
believe I address elsewhere, or that I find too silly to bother
wasting my time addressing.

Why do you ignore the highlighted word "invisible?" So why the
INVISIBLE snipping, Lt. Lazio?

Laziness?


"Neutrino oscillations ARE a theoretical explanation. Not
data."

Bjoern "O.k., then let's word it in another way: Do you have
another
Bjoern explanation, besides neutrino oscillations, for the
Bjoern experimental facts that 1) Superkamiokande measured
more
Bjoern atmospheric neutrinos from above than from below, with
a
Bjoern systematic dependence on zenith angle, and 2) the total
Bjoern neutrino flux from the sun matches nicely the predicted
Bjoern electron neutrino flux from the standard solar model?
Bjoern There are some more experiments which show similar
things, but
Bjoern these are the best known."

I'd add to the list the observations of neutrino
oscillations from
Earth-bound reactors. No solar model uncertainties added.

g There's no 'list' to add to. I said I wasn't referring to
Solar measurements.

I see that you haven't addressed the question that Bjoern
asked, though, what's your explanation for the data?

Too bad I did.

So far, you only tried to address the SK data - with the rather lame
argument of "measurement errors". You completely ignored that the
various experiments which try to measure neutrino oscillations give
results which are consistent with each other, and with the predictions
of the Standard Solar Model.


[snip rest]


Bye,
Bjoern

greywolf42 wrote:

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in
message ...
greywolf42 wrote:

This post is a followup to comments made by Bjoern
Feuerbacher in
another
thread. The other thread was getting terribly long - and was on
another
subject (the book, The Big Bang Never Happened, and Ned Wright's
webpage on same).

Bjoern:
"Neutrino oscillations are clear evidence for neutrino
masses."

greywolf42:
Neutrino 'oscillations' are postulated to explain a
discrepancy between theory and observation.

Bjoern:
When you say "theory", do you mean the standard solar
model?

No. I mean the theory of the operation of the SuperK and
neutrinos that pass through the Earth.

In other words, the theory of weak interactions? Or what do you
mean exactly?

The theory used to 'explain' the data and plotted curves. The
theory of neutrino oscillations.

Sorry, this makes no sense at all! Above you said
"Neutrino 'oscillations' are postulated to explain a
discrepancy between theory and observation."

Now you say that the theory you meant when you said this was the theory
of neutrino oscillations.

So, in essence we have now this statement from you:
"Neutrino 'oscillations' are postulated to explain a
discrepancy between the theory of neutrino oscillations and
observation."

Do you *really* think that this statement makes any sense?


If yes,
then you are wrong - neutrino oscillations weren't
postulated
only
because of the observations of solar neutrinos which
contradicted this model.

Good thing that I wasn't referring to the solar model.

Well, then what do you think why neutrino oscillations were
postulated?
You seem to think they were postulated because of some
discrepancies in
the results of SuperKamiokande. If yes, then you are obviously
wrong - they were postulated before SK even existed.

There are any number of ad hoc speculations about any number of
things in the social structure of academics.

Why do you call the idea of neutrino oscillations an "ad hoc
speculation"? There were clear (theoretical) motivations for it: first,
there was reason to suspect that neutrinos have non-zero masses (because
all the other elementary fermions have masses - why should neutrinos,
which are connected to the other non-hadronic fermions by a SU(2)
symmetry even, have no masses then?), and second, there was reason to
suspect a mixing between the neutrinos (because the same sort of mixing
is observed in the quark sector; ever heard of the
Cabbibo-Kobayashi-Maskawa-Matrix?).


This does not affect what I was talking
about. Which, specifically, was your claim that "Neutrino
oscillations are clear evidence for neutrino masses."

Nevertheless, you implied that neutrino oscillations were postulated
because of a "discrepancy between theory and experiment". You still
haven't answered the question what discrepancies that were, in your
opinion! (the measurements at SK were no discrepancy between theory and
experiment, because neutrino oscillations were already expected at that
time)


And today, this discrepancy has disappeared: when measuring
*all*
neutrinos (the SNO measurements), it turns out that the
result
agrees well with the predictions of the solar model.

That wouldn't explain the discrepancies that *existed* in
other detectors.

For example?

All non-clorine detector results.

Please give a specific example of an experimental result which couldn't
be explained by neutrino oscillations, using the parameters determined
in the last two years (see the references I gave).


AFAIK, all neutrino observations obtained in the last decade(s)
agree
today with the theoretical model we have today. And again,
AFAIK, there
weren't any discrepancies in detectors which couldn't have been
explained by neutrino oscillations.

For example?

For what do you want to have an example here???


IIRC, the detectors in which these so-called "discrepancies"
were
detected were even *built* in order to detect the oscillations,
hence
what was detected weren't really discrepancies, but the
*signal* one was looking for!

For example?

The LSND experiment, for example. The Borexino experiment, for example.
The Gallex experiment, for example. SuperKamiokande, for example. More?


Do you have a counter example?

Hint: Not K or super-K.

Nice. Then what *is* your counter example? Which detector gave a
"discrepancy between theory and experiment"? And again, which theory are
you talking about specifically?


Got a reference for 'the SNO measurements'? My detailed
information was all design (1993, "Neutrino Astrophysics,"
Bahcall).

Oh, that's absolutely outdated!

Duh. That's why I asked for your favorite SNO paper. (As SNO
didn't come online until mid-2001.

Well, I hope you have read up a bit on SNO in the meantime?


There have been lots of new discoveries
in neutrino physics in the last two or three years! (didn't you
notice the Nobel prize last year?)

Did you have a relevant point to make?

Well, I made my point already above: that you reference is outdated.


The SNO results can be found e.g. in this article:
Int. J. Mod. Phys. A, vol.17, no.24, 30 Sept. 2002 p.3378-92

But there are lots more relevant articles! Try doing a web
search.

Of course I can. But I'd rather work with the same reference as
your favorite. Do you have an author for "THE" SNO results?

I don't have a "favourite" reference. However, the one above is a review
article which gives relevant data from SNO and discusses also some other
experiments.


Another, more recent article about the SNO results is the following:
Nucl. Phys. B, Proc. Suppl., vol.118, April 2003 p.87


In 1997, "Unsolved Problems in Astrophysics," Bahcall and
Ostriker, ed, there are "three solar neutrino problems:"

Also outdated.

1) Calculated versus observed chlorine rate,
2) Incompatibility of Chlorine and Water (Kamiokande)
experiments,
3) Gallium experiments: No room for 7Be neutrinos.

I don't know so much about this, but try looking at the
reference I gave above.

If you don't know much about this, why do you claim it's
"outdated?"

Because it was published in 1997, and lots of new data came in in the
meantime.


Bjoern:
"Do you have another explanation for neutrino oscillations
which fits all of the data?"

greywolf42:
"Neutrino oscillations ARE a theoretical explanation. Not
data."

Bjoern:
"O.k., then let's word it in another way: Do you have another
explanation, besides neutrino oscillations, for the
experimental facts that 1) Superkamiokande measured more
atmospheric
neutrinos from above than from below, with a systematic
dependence on zenith
angle, and 2) the total neutrino flux from the sun matches
nicely the
predicted electron neutrino flux from the standard solar
model? There are
some more experiments which show similar things, but these
are the best known."

I think you somehow garbled #2. Read it again, and let me
know if you really meant it just that way.

Yes, I really meant it this way.

Total detected neutrino flux from the sun is the same as emitted
electron
neutrinos? What happened to neutrino oscillations?

Err, this *is* neutrino oscillation!!!

The electron neutrino emitted from the sun can oscillate to mu and tau
neutrinos, and therefore the *total* neutrino flux we measure here on
earth should be equal to the emitted electron neutrino flux. And a
comparison of the prediction of the Standard Solar Model for the emitted
electron neutrino flux with the results for the total neutrino flux
measured by SNO indeed agrees quite nicely.

How do you explain that the total neutrino flux from the sun is equal to
the electron neutrino flux predicted by the Standard Solar Model?


Let's limit the discussion to the SuperK (#1), for now.

Be advised that my understanding of the SuperK experiments on
'neutrino
oscillation' comes solely from a Scientific American article,
a couple of years back.

*sigh* As I suspected: like everyone who doubts scientific
results, you
have read only pop science accounts and nevertheless think you
are
qualified to judge the validity of the experiments and the
conclusions.

I am qualified to judge the evidence presented. The authors of
the SciAm
piece are the same as the authors of the peer-reviewed papers.

So what? You can't expect to get all the details in a pop-science
article! Hence judging only the evidence presented in pop-science
articles makes little sense; if you really want to know how reliable the
experiments are, you have to go to the primary literature!


And the
SciAm papers often provide additional information not allowed in
the peer-reviewed papers.

For example?


Oh, and I don't read 'only' SciAm.

So, what else have you read on neutrino oscillations?


I haven't stirred myself to more serious study of the
experiment.

But nevertheless, you think that neutrino oscillations don't
exist?

Correct.

Well, then explain why the total neutrino flux from the sun is equal to
the predicted electron neutrino flux from the Standard Solar Model.
Where do the mu and tau neutrinos come from, and why do they add up so
nicely with the electron neutrinos, so that the result agrees with the
theoretical prediction?

And explain the various appearance and disappearance experiments (using
accelerators or reactors for producing the neutrinos).
You can dig up the references for yourself; there are plenty. I don't
want to do all of the work for you!


I'd appreciate hearing your personal favorite reference of
same, so that we can work from the same pages.

Discussions about neutrino oscillations can be found in most
modern
textbooks about particle physics. My favourite one "An
Introduction to
Quantum Field Theory" by Peskin and Schroeder; IIRC, they
discuss
neutrino oscillations. About the SK experiment itself, I don't
know so
much; I heard some technical talks about it, but I don't
remember any actual reference, sorry.

Then you have no more basis for your opinion than I do.

The basis for my opinion is
1) the results of various detectors are consistent with each other and
with theoretical predictions
2) I have no reason to doubt the competence of the people doing the
measurements.


At least I read a
"Sci Am" paper about it. You haven't done even that much.

As I already said, I heard several talks about it. Not pop-science, real
scientific talks.


My primary recollections of the experimental problems in
SuperK were as follows:

Where did you get these "problems" from? Did you discover them for
yourself? Or where they listed somewhere in an article you read?


1) The discrimination between an electron Cerenkov ring and a
muon Cerenkov
right was totally subjective (qualitative, not quantitative).
Narrow rings
(those with a vertex originating near the detection wall)
would be almost
impossible to differentiate. The dependence of the result
upon
this discrimination was quite strong. Should this human
discrimination be in
error by as much as only 10% (which is easy to do) the
'effect' would have disappeared.

I don't know about this, sorry. But bear in mind that this was
already some years ago and probably the methods have improved
so far!

LOL! This *IS* the experimental SK results we are discussing!

You mean, the results which agree so well with the results of other
independent experiments and with theoretical predictions?

And are you talking here about the preliminary data or about the later
ones, which underwent a lot of testing?


I remember, too, that when the first results of SK came up,
they were met
with lots of skepsis, but later, when they improved there
measurements
and more data came in, they were accepted.

LOL!

I don't see what's so funny about this? Do you accuse all the physicists
who examined the data and tested their validity of incompetence? Or do
you suspect a conspiracy?



Also bear in mind that the results of SK agree with the results
of other experiments.

How do you know, since you've admitted you haven't read any
references --
only talks and a few theoretical textbooks?

Err, in the talks, the results were presented and compared with results
from other experiments. Do you think the speakers lied or what?


2a) The dependence on zenith angle was assumed to mark a
difference in distance travelled through the Earth.

Well, isn't this a quite natural assumption???

It's not a bad starting assumption. If you read the next
sentence you'll
see it was contradicted by experiment -- geometrically.

Again, that's new for me. Do you have a reference for that?


But the curve did not follow the
curve that would be expected with increasing distance -- it
followed an
angular dependence that indicated an instrument effect.

That's new to me. I saw some diagrams with predicted
theoretical curves
(where the theoretical prediction was based on the traveled
distance)
and measured values, which agreed quite nicely within their
errors
bounds (I must mention that these weren't the preliminary
results, but
the later, improved ones, with more data included).
Unfortunately, IIRC,
I saw these diagrams in a talk and therefore don't have a
reference available for them, sorry.

In the SciAm article, IIRC, the 'predicted' curves weren't really
'predicted,' but fitted over the data points.

Obviously a fit was needed - because the parameters for the neutrino
oscillations weren't known! But nevertheless, the general shape of the
curve (for example, the dependence on zenith angle) could be predicted,
and IIRC, this agreed with the measurements.


2b) This dependence on angle is the one that one would expect
if
there were some difference in sensitivity of the detectors to
angle or location in the tank.

Where should this dependence come from?

Keep reading, you'll get there.

And don't you think they have
checked for this possibility?

No. Because they got the answer they wanted.

In other words, you accuse several hundreds of physicists of gross
incompetence and even dishonesty, although you apparently never read a
real technical paper about the experiment.


Such as depth, or some other difference between top and
bottom of the tank.

How should have this has an influence on the sensitivity of the
detectors?

Keep reading.

The pressure of the fluid at the top of the SuperK is
several
times less than the pressure in the bottom of the tank.

How should this affect a photomultiplier???

Keep reading.

Which could have resulted
in bubbles messing with the discrimination between electron
and muon signatures.

I don't know enough about the actual experimental methods, but
I think that such bubbles would have been noticed!

How?

By looking into the water tank, for example???

And don't you think that the detector was calibrated before the actual
experiment started, and that during the calibration process, such a
systematic dependence on depth would have been noticed?


In short, my current view is that the SuperK 'neutrino
oscillations' are observer or instrument artifacts.

And all of the physicists who disagree with you on this and
think the
results are genuine were duped somehow? You, the layman, can
judge this
better than the physicists who were actually involved in the
experiment? Sorry, doesn't sound credible to me.

The classic special plead fallacy.

Nice snide comment. Don't you have more to say about this?


Before we get into explaining "all the data," I want you to
identify the specific model that YOU claim explains it all.

I think a comprehensive discussion can be found e.g. in
Physics Letters B, vol.543, no.1-2, 5 Sept. 2002 p.38-40

What is the model therein?

Why don't you go and read the paper to find this out?


Per Bahcall (1997),

"Theoretical physicists have fertile imaginations; they have
provided us
with a smorgasbord of explanations based upon new particle
physics,
including vacuum neutrino oscillations, resonant oscillations
in matter (the MSW effect),

AFAIK, these first two are sufficient to explain the data.

Which model? Which data, specifically?

For the model, see the paper above. The data: SK, SNO, LSND, and several
new reactor experiments.


resonant magnetic-moment transitions, sterile neutrinos,

The latter are still in discussion, but AFAIK not absolutely
necessary to explain the data.

OK.

I think you noticed Big Bird's comment that sterile neutrinos were ruled
out?


neutrino decay, and violation of the equivalence principel by
neutrinos.
Most of these explanations can account for the existing
experimental data if
either two or three neutrinos are involved in the new physics
beyond the
standard electroweak model. All thses pareticle physics
explanations, and
other that I have not listed, can account for the existing
data from solar
neutrino experiments without conflicting with established
laws of
physics or with other experimental constraints."

Well, that's right.

OK.

"The number of proposed particle physics explanations exceeds
the diagnostic
power of the existing solar neutrino experiments.

That's unfortunately still right, too. The possible
explanations have
been greatly reduced, but there are still uncertainties.

Then you have no basis for stating that experiments have
determined the 'correct' explanations.

Did I ever state this? I only said that all the experiments so far are
consistent with a specific model for neutrino oscillations, IIRC, and
gave a reference for that model (which you didn't bother to look at).


I think it is unlikely
that the next generation of solar neutrinos experiments will
be able to
eliminate all but one possible particle physics explanation."

Right.

I'll summarize my own explanation as simply that the central
temperature of
the Sun is just a bit lower than our current simulations
predict

Well, that doesn't explain that the *total* neutrino flux from
the sun,
measured by SNO, fits nicely with the theoretically predicted
value for
the number of electron neutrinos which are produced in the sun.

SNO cannot -- by definition -- measure the total neutrino flux
from the Sun.
Only what arrives at the Earth.

Obviously right. By "total" I didn't mean *all* neutrinos emitted by
the sun - I meant the sum of electron, mu and tau neutrinos measured by
SNO. This sum is equal to the predicted number of electron neutrinos
which should be measured according to the Standard Solar Model, if there
were no oscillations. How do you explain this?


Which is one reason I asked for an SNO reference.

Which I gave above, and which you didn't bother to look at with the lame
argument that you wanted to see my "favourite" reference.


-- due to
the deposition of gravitational energy into the Sun amounting
to about 1% of
the measured output (which is not included in current
simulations).

What do you mean by "deposition of gravitational energy"? That
the sun
is shrinking and thereby gravitationally energy is converted
into
electromagnetic energy? I doubt that this isn't included in
current simulations!

Had I meant gravitational contraction, I would have said so.
Heating by gravitational action. Per LeSage.

I don't know about this; could you give me a hint where I can read up on
this?


The
'slightly lower temperature' solution was found sufficient to
explain all differences in the past
-- but no suitable mechanical explanation for the
energy source (i.e. differential rotation of the Sun) could
be found. The
'low' 8B (chlorine) measurements are thus explained (due to
the very strong
temperature dependence of the 8B reaction) -- simultaneously
with
with the minimal change in neutrinos from other chains.

Well, it doesn't explain the new SNO results.

I've now heard your claim, and I await evidence from SNO.

Which was given above, and ignored by you. Big surprise!


Bye,
Bjoern

greywolf42 wrote:

Big Bird wrote in message
om...
Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message
...

That's new to me. I saw some diagrams with predicted theoretical curves
(where the theoretical prediction was based on the traveled distance)
and measured values, which agreed quite nicely within their errors
bounds (I must mention that these weren't the preliminary results, but
the later, improved ones, with more data included). Unfortunately, IIRC,
I saw these diagrams in a talk and therefore don't have a reference
available for them, sorry.


At the recent International Cosmic Ray Conference in Tsukuba, Japan,
Masatoshi Koshiba (the guy who got the nobel prize for the Kamioka NDE
stuff) himself gave a lecture about "The birth of Neutrino
Astrophysics". The PDF of his slides can be found he

http://www-rccn.icrr.u-tokyo.ac.jp/i...3/program.html

At the very top of the "plenary" sessions. Some of the "usual" graphs
are in there.

For much more detail, you could look at Yoichiro Suzuki's talk on
"Neutrino Oscillations" but I don't think the slides will be terribly
useful to the layperson without verbal explanations.

So, greywolf, did you look at these references in the meantime?


greymatter42 wrote:
In short, my current view is that the SuperK 'neutrino
oscillations' are observer or instrument artifacts.

I don't mind that you are ignorant: Ignorance is merely the natural
state of the uninformed.

And I don't mind that you are a pretentious ass.

Well, I agree with him. You *are* obviously ignorant about neutrino
oscillations, as is nicely shown by your failing to understand how the
results from SNO (total neutrino flux agrees with predicted electron
neutrino flux) are strong evidence for neutrino oscillations. And even
more by your lack of knowledge of the SNO results themselved!


I don't even mind that you are *intentionally* ignorant: all
the
information of the world is accessible to you and all you have
to do
is bother to look. But there's no law against lazyness and
you're free
to remain ignorant to the end of your life.

My view was not formed from 'ignorance.' But from data
presented.

You have only looked at outdated data and so far ignored every reference
to newer data, which shows a nice consistency.


But making *judgements* about something from a position of
ignorance is stupid.

I don't consider others' opinions as data.

But you consider hundreds of physicists to be grossly incompetent.


And making such judgements in contradiction of a large number
of
people who have actually spent years of their lives expending a
LOT of
effort on removing themselves from the state of ignorance is at
the very least an insult to those people.

The classic special plead fallacy.

Pointing out that people who have studied a subject for years are better
qualified to judge it than a layman has little to do with special
pleading.


A judgement is based on data -- not popularity or the number of
letters
after someone's name -- or on the basis of the number of years
spent feeding at the public trough.

Well, then *LOOK* at the data instead of keeping ignoring it!!!


resonant magnetic-moment transitions, sterile neutrinos,

The latter are still in discussion, but AFAIK not absolutely
necessary to explain the data.

Sterile neutrinos have been excluded by several experiments for
a couple of years now -- they went down before SMA solutions.

The point being that there is no end to the number of ad hoc
speculations available.

Wrong, the end is near: as already pointed out, vacuum oscillations and
the MSW effect alone are able to explain the data. And none of these
effects is an "ad hoc speculation"; both are grounded in sound physics.


Bye,
Bjoern

Starblade Darksquall wrote:

[snip lots]


Just a question... why would quark flavor be conserved but lepton
flavor not be conserved?

Err, quark flavor isn't conserved, so what are you talking about?


It seems natural to me that there is only one true lepton number.

Well, apparently this is so, but why does this seem natural to you?


By,
Bjoern

greywolf42 wrote:

Starblade Darksquall wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

[snip]



Just a question... why would quark flavor be conserved but
lepton flavor not be conserved?

It seems natural to me that there is only one true lepton
number.

Non-sequiteur. Neither quarks nor flavors are involved in the
theory.

ROTFL!!! Thanks for showing your ignorance again. Neutrino oscillations
is about neutrinos changing their flavor, so *obviously* flavor is
involved in the theory!


Bye,
Bjoern

"g" == greywolf42 writes:

g Joseph Lazio wrote in message
g ...

g Yes. It's not science. The SM does not follow Kepler's way of
g looking at things -- it follows the Ptolemaic method. For it
g abjures physical causality, and uses pure cookbook.

As others have pointed out, you might consider reviewing your history
of Kepler, Tycho, and Copernicus.

Well, as you pointed out, epicycles did explain the available data,
and what's the purpose of a scientific model but to explain the
available data? (...)

g Obviously, you don't understand "science."

I suspect I do not understand what you consider to be "science." It's
not clear to me that anybody but yourself understands what you
consider to be "science." As for my part, I'm going to continue to
publish papers in astronomical journals, observe with some of the best
telescopes on the planet, and to be part of the great scientific
establishment (I hope! .

--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"greywolf42" wrote in message ...
Starblade Darksquall wrote in message
om...
"greywolf42" wrote in message
...

{snip}

I'll summarize my own explanation as simply that the central temperature
of
the Sun is just a bit lower than our current simulations predict -- due
to
the deposition of gravitational energy into the Sun amounting to about
1% of
the measured output (which is not included in current simulations). The
'slightly lower temperature' solution was found sufficient to explain
all
differences in the past -- but no suitable mechanical explanation for
the
energy source (i.e. differential rotation of the Sun) could be found.
The
'low' 8B (chlorine) measurements are thus explained (due to the very
strong
temperature dependence of the 8B reaction) -- simultaneously with with
the
minimal change in neutrinos from other chains.

Just a question... why would quark flavor be conserved but lepton
flavor not be conserved?

It seems natural to me that there is only one true lepton number.

Non-sequiteur. Neither quarks nor flavors are involved in the theory.


I meant to say it the other way around.

I meant, why would quark flavor NOT be conserved but lepton flavor be conserved?

It was a typo, you see.

greywolf42
ubi dubium ibi libertas

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)

Bjoern Feuerbacher wrote in message ...
Starblade Darksquall wrote:

[snip lots]


Just a question... why would quark flavor be conserved but lepton
flavor not be conserved?

Err, quark flavor isn't conserved, so what are you talking about?


Okay, I MEANT that quark flavor ISN'T conserved while lepton flavor
IS.


It seems natural to me that there is only one true lepton number.

Well, apparently this is so, but why does this seem natural to you?


Well, for one thing, there is a symmetry between leptons and quarks,
and if quark generation number was not conserved, then why should
lepton generation number be conserved?

That is what I am thinking.


By,
Bjoern

(...Starblade Riven Darksquall...)