This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jpeterkin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding a particular class of beyond-SM proposals, the text stated that "These models have little predictive power and are not able to provide a cold dark matter candidate but they are considered interesting since they would be compatible with new observable signals in particle colliders." Since "they are considered interesting since they would be compatible with new observable signals in particle colliders" seems confusing and more or less meaningless, I removed it. (If it means "would be testable", then the models would have predictive power.) Harold f ( talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a request by knowledgeable non-physicists for explanation of theory. If the 3 neutrinos are of different mass, how can they interchange without violating the conservation of mass
I would like WP to reject all "simulated" or "artist renditions" of scientific matters. This is biased or speculative storytelling and nothing more. -- 71.10.145.116 ( talk) 02:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
If this is correct, I'd like to add it to the article, because it was a major "aha!" moment for me.
The oscillation curves are a function of distance/energy. So you don't need lots of experiments with different baselines; if you receive neutrinos of different but known energy, then you can explore different points on the oscillation curve with a fixed baseline by varying the energy. So oscillation experiments are looking for the energy at which flavor change is maximum, which identifies the peak of the curve. As long as the baseline is known, the value may vary as much as the energy of the source neutrinos does.
I realized this while staring at the axis labels in the "Theory, graphically" charts, but perhaps an explicit statement would fit well in the "Observations" section. Or perhaps it fits best in "Propagation and interference"? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 13:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Mssgill For verification purposes, how are you pulling "between -2 and -178 degrees" out of the referenced Science paper? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 04:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
From what I have seen, the convention seems to be that
instead of
as it is written in this article. If someone can confirm this, please change it.
Physicist-turned-lawyer here. I'm working on an infographic, just for fun, and was hunting around for the neutrino oscillation lifetime, but couldn't find it anywhere in anything published. Then I noticed that the neutrino oscillation function on this page is given as an energy-dependent wavelength of around 1,067 km/GeV. I also noticed that this page gave some exemplary measurements of neutrino velocities relating particle energy to the measured speed deviation from c. Curious, I calculated the oscillation wavelength for each of the exemplary neutrino energies and then solved for the oscillation period in coordinate time. Then, using the Lorentz factor for each, I solved for the oscillation period in proper time (think atmospheric muon experiment)...and they all came out to the exact same time, 5.01e-12 seconds.
This seems to very strongly suggest that the neutrino oscillation has a constant period, and that period is readily ascertainable as 5.01e-12 seconds. It seems like a very, very obvious thing that ought to be noted on Neutrino, but I couldn't find it anywhere on the wiki or anywhere in anything published. I don't want to break WP:OR, though, by adding this without some sort of backing. Does anyone have any idea where I could look for confirmation of this?
Sevenperforce ( talk) 20:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)
This
level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
|
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jpeterkin.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 05:11, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
Regarding a particular class of beyond-SM proposals, the text stated that "These models have little predictive power and are not able to provide a cold dark matter candidate but they are considered interesting since they would be compatible with new observable signals in particle colliders." Since "they are considered interesting since they would be compatible with new observable signals in particle colliders" seems confusing and more or less meaningless, I removed it. (If it means "would be testable", then the models would have predictive power.) Harold f ( talk) 16:17, 26 July 2013 (UTC)
This is a request by knowledgeable non-physicists for explanation of theory. If the 3 neutrinos are of different mass, how can they interchange without violating the conservation of mass
I would like WP to reject all "simulated" or "artist renditions" of scientific matters. This is biased or speculative storytelling and nothing more. -- 71.10.145.116 ( talk) 02:06, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
If this is correct, I'd like to add it to the article, because it was a major "aha!" moment for me.
The oscillation curves are a function of distance/energy. So you don't need lots of experiments with different baselines; if you receive neutrinos of different but known energy, then you can explore different points on the oscillation curve with a fixed baseline by varying the energy. So oscillation experiments are looking for the energy at which flavor change is maximum, which identifies the peak of the curve. As long as the baseline is known, the value may vary as much as the energy of the source neutrinos does.
I realized this while staring at the axis labels in the "Theory, graphically" charts, but perhaps an explicit statement would fit well in the "Observations" section. Or perhaps it fits best in "Propagation and interference"? 71.41.210.146 ( talk) 13:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@ Mssgill For verification purposes, how are you pulling "between -2 and -178 degrees" out of the referenced Science paper? Rolf H Nelson ( talk) 04:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
From what I have seen, the convention seems to be that
instead of
as it is written in this article. If someone can confirm this, please change it.
Physicist-turned-lawyer here. I'm working on an infographic, just for fun, and was hunting around for the neutrino oscillation lifetime, but couldn't find it anywhere in anything published. Then I noticed that the neutrino oscillation function on this page is given as an energy-dependent wavelength of around 1,067 km/GeV. I also noticed that this page gave some exemplary measurements of neutrino velocities relating particle energy to the measured speed deviation from c. Curious, I calculated the oscillation wavelength for each of the exemplary neutrino energies and then solved for the oscillation period in coordinate time. Then, using the Lorentz factor for each, I solved for the oscillation period in proper time (think atmospheric muon experiment)...and they all came out to the exact same time, 5.01e-12 seconds.
This seems to very strongly suggest that the neutrino oscillation has a constant period, and that period is readily ascertainable as 5.01e-12 seconds. It seems like a very, very obvious thing that ought to be noted on Neutrino, but I couldn't find it anywhere on the wiki or anywhere in anything published. I don't want to break WP:OR, though, by adding this without some sort of backing. Does anyone have any idea where I could look for confirmation of this?
Sevenperforce ( talk) 20:57, 9 April 2021 (UTC)