>Maybe people just don’t like neutrinos?
My sentiment exactly.
The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
11–20 of 75 posts
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#12It’s weird I submitted this yesterday. I wonder why it let the same submission in. Different urls somehow?
Several hours later is usually treated as a new submission. You can submit yourself again the next day (or later the same day).
Thanks. And to the other commenter. That’s probably what happened. No biggy.
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#13It’s weird I submitted this yesterday. I wonder why it let the same submission in. Different urls somehow?
Several hours later is usually treated as a new submission. You can submit yourself again the next day (or later the same day).
It seems like that’s normally the case but I’ve had certain articles I can resubmit for 10 days or more.
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#14Why do we need a particle accelerator to run experiments on neutrinos, given their apparent abundance? Is there any other way to observe neutrinos without a particle accelerator?
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#15>Maybe people just don’t like neutrinos? My sentiment exactly.
There's a poem about that https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/february-2011/decon...
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#16I'm surprised Sabine did not bring her usual drama and controversy to this one and talk about the fact that there is, shall we say, "extreme tension" between the results from LSND/MiniBooNE and those of other experiments. https://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.11... The 4th figure is the money shot.
Unpaywalled https://escholarship.org/content/qt496002sb/qt496002sb.pdf
I don't have the background to interpret these figures, and based on a quick search for MiniBooNE mentions in the paper, the authors don't seem to say that MiniBooNE is an outlier relative to all the other experiments. Where does the paper talk about the tension?
EDIT: based on the comments below, it sounds like the tension is between appearance-based and disappearance-based experiments, and isn't necessarily about a single experiment being an outlier relative to others?
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#17Why do we need a particle accelerator to run experiments on neutrinos, given their apparent abundance? Is there any other way to observe neutrinos without a particle accelerator?
We don’t. E.g. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sudbury_Neutrino_Observatory.
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#18Why do we need a particle accelerator to run experiments on neutrinos, given their apparent abundance? Is there any other way to observe neutrinos without a particle accelerator?
Results can be better controlled this way
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#19Why do we need a particle accelerator to run experiments on neutrinos, given their apparent abundance? Is there any other way to observe neutrinos without a particle accelerator?
There are lots of experiments that do not require particle accelerators but if you want to observe neutrinos after they have travelled only a few dozen meters, you need a source at that distance.
Re: The physics anomaly no one talks about: What’s up with those neutrinos?
#20The probable boring answer, mentioned near the end, is that at a detection rate of 500 events per 15 years of experiment runtime, statistical power comes slowly.
But, as noted, that already happened . Six sigma is six sigma. To demand better than that amounts to special pleading. It looks like people just wish this would go away, like the failure of the galactic rotation curves. What is strange is that this might be a place to park dark matter, catnip nowadays. Usually when this sort of thing happens in cosmology, astrophysics, or particle physics, it is because most physicis…
we have a confirmed discrepancy at six sigma, sure.
wanna bet how long it'll take to figure out _how_, at such a low detection rate?
We're at "we've confirmed there's a bug", not "here's the repro, traceback, and by the way if you fix these four lines it'll work again".