Yes, but the question was if these weak eigenstates can be produced incoherently, i.e., from e.g. only one mass eigenstate without interference from other mass eigenstates. As Orodruin said in #2, this is certainly possible in theory, but does it have experimental support?
Sure, statistical evidence for incoherent neutrino detection would be fine. Does this exist?
But for solar neutrinos, the wave-packet separation is so small that coherence is restored in the detector during the detection process. Thus the detection of solar neutrinos is in itself not evidence...
Produced/detected incoherently: produced/detected as separate mass eigenstates with no interference from different mass eigenstates. (See arXiv:0905.1903)
Thank you. Do you have a reference to experiments where neutrinos are produced/detected incoherently?
In the wave-packet approach, different neutrino mass eigenstates have different mass and thus
propagate with different speeds. This will eventually lead to wave-packet separation and decoherence. My question is, can neutrinos be produced/detected incoherently? (In other words,
can different...
For spiral galaxies, the observations indicate a very close relationship between the dark halo and the visible matter in the disk; this is called "the disk-halo conspiracy". That is, the dark and the visible matter distributions apparently conspire such that the rotation curve turns out to...
This non-relativistic decomposition is arrived at by using a Newtonian approximation to calculate the "gravitational" contribution. But this approach is misguided, and inconsistent with a relativistic approach.
The cited statement should not be taken as a criticism of B&H, since the...
The problem is B&H's claim that it is "most natural" to interpret the cosmic redshift as a Doppler shift in FLAT space-time for sufficiently small distances. But as I have argued in this
thread this claim is false; with a few exceptions said interpretation is in general simply inconsistent with...
A Doppler shift in curved space-time only means that the special-relativistic Doppler formula can be used after the described procedure of parallel-transport. Any further interpretation is not included. In particular, a Doppler shift in curved space-time has nothing to do with any possible...
Nothing is arbitrary with the procedure described in #43. That is, the world lines of the FOs and their 4-velocities are not arbitrary and neither are the null curves.
(For sufficiently small distances the effects of geodesic deviation can be neglected, so the world lines of the FOs are still...
You misunderstand. If the redshift in a general RW-model were purely "kinematic", the procedure described in #43 would yield the same redshift for small enough distances both for the curved space-time geometry and for flat space-time. Since this does not happen in general, the nature of the...
Yes, cosmological redshifts can always be interpreted as Doppler shifts in CURVED space-time. However, they cannot in general be interpreted as Doppler shifts in FLAT space-time, and it is the latter meaning that is usually understood with "kinematic" redshift.
There is no obvious intuitive...
Sorry for the late reply (no internet connection for the last week).
The redshift depends only on the 4-velocities of the FOs and on the space-time geometry. (This is most easily seen by using said procedure of parallel-transport.) On the other hand, the INTERPRETATION of the redshift depends...
It is not a good idea to introduce coordinate-dependent quantities if they are not directly related to coordinate-free objects. That is, the proper objects to consider are the 4-velocities of the FOs and not some independently defined "recession velocities". The question of what speed to use in...
The Milne model is equivalent to an empty RW-manifold and is mathematically a subset of Minkowski space-time. The FOs are those observers moving orthogonally to the "preferred" hypersurfaces (with hyperbolic geometry) foliating this RW-manifold. There is no alternative set of observers involved...
Coordinates are irrelevant for interpretations of redshifts in the RW-models. What matters is the choice of observers emitting and receiving electromagnetic radiation being redshifted (but these observers are not chosen arbitrary since they are specific observers determined from the symmetry of...
But the fact is that the cosmological redshift in the RW-models is DEFINED in terms of a set of particular
observers (the FOs). This means that choosing some other set of observers is simply irrelevant and confuses the issue. That is, in principle the redshifts defined by these alternative...
The question of interpretations of the cosmic redshift in Robertson-Walker (RW) models is not a
question about a choice of coordinates. The reason for this is simple: in the RW-models there is a
set of "preferred" observers (the so-called "fundamental observers" (FOs)) defining the cosmic...
No mention was made of the criticism from Anderson & Morris; see
J.D. Anderson and J.R. Morris, PRD 85, 0840817 (2012). A & M plotted
the alleged "decay" of the anomaly as a function of the radius R from the sun
and found that it goes almost exactly as 1/R^2. This behaviour makes it likely...
My claim is that the data do not constrain the thermal model sufficiently to reach a conclusion of any reasonable
degree of confidence. On the contrary, the fact that the "observed" decay of the anomaly goes as
1/r² indicates that the thermal modelling is fundamentally misguided. For this...
The scientific method is about testing theories. Just to come up with a flexible mainstream model
where some choice of parameters will fit the data does not automatically shut out other models.
Rather, if more models fit the data equally well, the "best" one is the one with the least number...
In the sense that
1) The "observed" decay of the anomaly is probably not due to thermal effects but rather to
mismodelling of solar pressure force since the decay goes very closely as 1/r² when plotted
against the distance from the Sun (see http://arxiv.org/abs/1204.2778).
2) The...
I don't know any offhand (maybe the Belinfante-Swihart theory (non-viable)), but perhaps you can find something
useful on this site
http://www.phy.olemiss.edu/~luca/
But a coasting universe is consistent with observational restrictions on primordial nucleosynthesis -
that has been known for some time. See, e.g., astro-ph/9903084, or more recent papers by the same
authors.
But what does the variation of the X-field depend on? Is there a theory of the X-field in flat
space-time? It seems that all you have done, is to transfer the problems of varying alpha to the
X-field.
I am inclined to believe that the universe has some fundamental properties. The reason why...
It seems that I did not express myself clearly enough. What I had in mind, was a theory of varying
alpha in flat space-time. How do you construct such a theory compatible with SR? Even if you
could declare a preferred inertial frame in flat space-time, it would be arbitrary.
That is not a...
Sure, what I wrote does not make sense, sorry about that. But the crucial question is how to construct
a theory of time-varying alpha compatible with SR. See my previous reply to cesiumfrog.
(Sorry about the delay in responding to your post.)
But that is what local means here - in the tangent space-time where gravitational effects are of
higher order in small quantities and can be ignored to arbitrary accuracy by making the volume small
enough..
There seems to be a...