Quantum gravity and planck scales.

[wolram]

april 2004 paper

http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0404014

Decoherence has the potential to explain all existing neutrino data including LSND results, without enlarging the neutrino sector. This particular form of CPT violation can preserve the equality of masses and mixing angles between particle and antiparticle sectors, and still provide seizable differences in the oscillation patterns. A simplified minimal model of decoherence is sufficient to explain the existing neutrino data quite neatly, while making dramatic predictions for the upcoming experiments. Some comments on the order of the decoherence parameters in connection with theoretically expected values from some models of quantum-gravity are given. In particular, the quantum gravity decoherence as a primary origin of the neutrino mass differences scenario is explored, and even a speculative link between the neutrino mass-difference scale to the dark energy density component of the Universe today is drawn.

 

[wolram]

this maybe the wrong place to post this article, but can someone explain
the, neutrino mass differences?

 

[wolram]

a project called "Mini boone", an underground neutrino observatory
links to first paper.
http://www.physicscentral.com/action/action-01-1c.html

Neutrinos that originate in the sun are called solar neutrinos. Since they escape the sun's core unimpeded, these solar neutrinos, when detected, can provide information about the reaction processes deep inside the sun. However, data from several neutrino detectors reveal only approximately half the number of neutrinos that are expected from prevailing theories. This is a puzzle commonly known as the Solar Neutrino Problem..
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
possibility to test QG, in the near future.

 

[Nacho]

I read this, but understood very little .. it's way over my head. But, if it can be explained by decoherance, wouldn't that be like placing our detectors at a preferred location and using that to explain results at all locations? I mean, decoherance could happen at any place between the Sun and Earth. Maybe they addressed that in the article, and I was totaly lost before that part.

 

[wolram]

I read this, but understood very little .. it's way over my head. But, if it can be explained by coherence, wouldn't that be like placing our detectors at a preferred location and using that to explain results at all locations? I mean, coherence could happen at any place between the Sun and Earth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
the paper is suggesting that neutrinos are interacting with quantum
foams, a prediction in LGQ, and that it is these interaction that
cause decoherence.
I'm no expert, maybe MARCUS or one of the LQG guys will give an
opinion.

 

[LURCH]

I thought that the Solar Neutrino Problem had already been resolved by neutrino oscillation. Am I thinking of the wrong problem?

 

[wolram]

LURCH.
this article is dated april 2004, i don't know if the "problem" has
been solved, but all the papers i can find show a short fall, maybe
some one knows better?

http://www.faqs.org/faqs/astronomy/faq/part5/section-5.html

The first, and most well-known, "solar neutrino problem" is that
every experiment has measured a shortfall of neutrinos. About one- to
two-thirds of the neutrinos expected are observed, depending on
experimental error. In the case of GALLEX, the data read 80 units
where 120 are expected, and the discrepancy is about two standard
deviations.

 

[Erich Schoedl]

At Fermilab, they are attempting to test the neutrino oscillation theory by shooting neutrinos to a detector in Minnisota which should "prove" that neutrinos have mass. I don't know why, but I think they don't. But like photons, they do carry energy so who knows.