Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

BooNE talk two hour from now

  1. Apr 11, 2007 #1

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    http://dorigo.wordpress.com/2007/04/11/live-feed-of-miniboone-results-seminar-today/

    Dorigo has a good explanation of the issues.

    this is the first stage of the Booster Neutrino Experiment, so nicknamed "mini" BooNE

    today's result is critical to how they proceed---whether they build a second detector

    there will be live media coverage of the report starting at 11 AM central, which for me on westcoast is 9AM, in a little less than two hours from now
    http://vmsfmp2.fnal.gov/FMPro?-db=L...or=v2/000Return/video/NoLiveStreams.htm&-find

    16 hours GMT

    Here is a short description
    http://www-boone.fnal.gov/about_boone/BvsMB.html
    " BooNE vs MiniBooNE

    MiniBooNE is the first phase of the Booster Neutrino Experiment (BooNE); in this phase, neutrino oscillation measurements will be made with a single detector. If oscillations are observed, then MiniBooNE will be upgraded to stage two (BooNE) with a two-detector configuration.

    The BooNE experiment proposes to definitively explore the neutrino oscillation signal reported by the Los Alamos LSND experiment. MiniBooNE represents the first phase for the BooNE collaboration and consists of a 1 GeV neutrino beam and a single, 800-ton mineral oil detector (the MiniBooNE detector). The MiniBooNE detector is located 500 meters downstream of the neutrino source, and is optimized to search for the LSND signal.

    If MiniBooNE verifies the LSND signal, then BooNE will proceed to its next stage: a second detector built at the appropriate neutrino source-detector distance. This distance will be determined so that the two-detector configuration can precisely measure the oscillation parameters, and search for CP and CPT violation.
    "

    I just listened to Janet Conrad's talk and part of the question period. It looks to me like they did NOT find agreement with the LSND oscillation signal---hence if they follow plan they would NOT be building the second tank detector. This is not what Dorigo said he expected.
    Their "box opening" and data analysis was admirable as described by Janet. Unlike Dorigo, I had no expectation either way. I was impressed and given a feeling of confidence in their care and objectivity----though perhaps slightly disappointed in the way it turned out.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2007
  2. jcsd
  3. Apr 11, 2007 #2

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

  4. Apr 11, 2007 #3

    jal

    User Avatar

    Hi marcus!
    I've been reading the links and trying to make sense of what they've said.
    A bit of help would be appreciated.

    1. Models with 4 neutrinos are out.
    2. Models with neutrino mixing are out.
    3. They are going to try to polish the Standard model.

    Are we witnessing the start of "labor pains"?

    jal
     
  5. Apr 11, 2007 #4

    Kea

    User Avatar

    Since I didn't feel like getting up at 3am... does anyone know of a link to the streamed video? The livestream site doesn't seem to have a record of the seminar.
     
  6. Apr 11, 2007 #5

    jal

    User Avatar

  7. Apr 11, 2007 #6

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Last edited: Apr 11, 2007
  8. Apr 11, 2007 #7

    jal

    User Avatar

  9. Apr 11, 2007 #8

    Kea

    User Avatar

    Well, there's only really one, isn't there? CarlB's low E approximation to M theory appears to have effective sterile neutrinos. Is that right, Carl? Of course, we haven't really thought about this.
     
    Last edited: Apr 11, 2007
  10. Apr 11, 2007 #9

    CarlB

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Kea, if the LSND results had been verified, I'd have been in a little trouble. I use the mass differences as evidence for the simple form for the neutrino masses. If LSND were true, the neutrino masses would either not be what is measured in the neutrino oscillation experiments, or the masses would be more complicated than just three neutrinos could provide.
     
  11. Apr 11, 2007 #10

    Kea

    User Avatar

    Yes, well it's a good thing they weren't, isn't it? Carl, we were wondering about the low E anomalous behaviour, which is yet to be sorted out.
     
  12. Apr 11, 2007 #11

    Kea

    User Avatar

    OK, one Heinrich Paes at http://www.phys.hawaii.edu/~paes/
    from Alabama, made the following remark on Woit's blog.

    ...we proposed a spectacular solution to the LSND anomaly involving neutrino shortcuts in extra dimensions, published in Phys.Rev.D72:095017,2005 [hep-ph/0504096]. If you look at Fig. 5 in this paper, you will see that for a choice of the resonant energy in the region 200-300 MeV we not only predicted the small counting rate for electron neutrino events above 475 MeV, but also the large rates in the 300-475 MeV region! While the anomalous effect seen by miniBooNE might have a conventional explanation, it might well be the first hint for extra dimensions of spacetime!

    A link to his paper:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0504096

    Of course, in our interpretation, the extra dimensions would not be 'spacetime', but rather further levels of quantization. It will be interesting to look at this idea further.
     
  13. Apr 12, 2007 #12

    jal

    User Avatar

    I read that neutral neutrinos have been ruled out. As a result the model/paper that you mentioned to will have to be redone.
    Going with another kind of particles, anti-neutrinos, seems like "polishing" without really trying to understand what is happening.
    Just look at this page on neutrinos
    http://wwwlapp.in2p3.fr/neutrinos/anchiffres.html
    Number of neutrinos in the universe
    Big-Bang
    about 330 neutrinos per cm3
    Stars lives
    about 0.000006 neutrinos per cm3
    Explosions of supernovae
    about 0.0002 neutrinos per cm3

    So now you want to increase the neutrino population with anti-neutrinos.
    It does not make sense.

    I hope that there are a lot of "math kids" ready to help with the birth of the baby elephant.
    I think that its going to be a difficult birth.
    jal
     
  14. Apr 12, 2007 #13

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    you probably meant to say sterile. (I'm guessing.) Just as a suggestion, maybe you could tie your question to some quoted section of that Ray article I mentioned, so we all have the same page to look at and could be "on the same page". Then, e.g if I don't have the expertise to clarify something, another person could hopefully see what you are talking about and respond.
    Heather Ray seems to me a really good source, can't stress this enough. For example if you have a question about the hypothesized "sterile" neutrinos---what they were imagined to be and how they are ruled out---the Ray article would be a good thing to read. It should have something about it.
     
    Last edited: Apr 12, 2007
  15. Apr 12, 2007 #14

    jal

    User Avatar

    Hi marcus!
    Yes, sterile is it.
    I'm trying to understand John Baez explanations In sci.physics.research https://www.physicsforums.com/forumdisplay.php?f=123
    There are short versions of
    This Week's Finds in Mathematical Physics (Week 247,8,9)
    John Baez
    In which he talks about Symmetry, Groupoidification, groupoid.

    I like the idea that using Groupoidification on neutrinos might be interesting.
    I assume that there are enough neutrinos to be able to create a dynamical structure that would coincide with our observations.
    jal
     
  16. Apr 12, 2007 #15

    Kea

    User Avatar

  17. Apr 12, 2007 #16

    jal

    User Avatar

    Hi Kea!
    I asked for help and you are giving it. (all of you.) Thank you.
    Of course I did as I always do ... I dig deeper.
    "Matti Pitkanen (p-Adic)
    In TGD standard model quantum numbers are explained in terms of symmetries of imbedding space so that something totally new is in question."

    His approach will have to wait before I can understand it. ( I get help and confused by John Baez)
    As is being said in other threads, the web has reversed the situation of there being very little information available outside universities.
    Blog help to understand the profusion of information. ( I think John Baez had a blog before blogging was invented.)

    For example:
    http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week249.html
    … it's one of the big ways people use symmetry!
    Here's one kind of thing people do with this fact. The 3d rotation group G = SO(3) acts on the sphere X = S2, and the stabilizer of the north pole is the 2d rotation group H = SO(2), so the sphere is isomorphic to G/H = SO(3)/SO(2). The same sort of result holds in any dimension, and we can use it to derive facts about spheres from facts about rotation groups, and vice versa.


    I hope someone coordinate the birth of this baby elephant because S-he will be a real S-hape-S-hifter.
    jal
     
  18. Apr 12, 2007 #17

    Kea

    User Avatar

    LOL, jal! Perhaps you might volunteer yourself for the role of midwife. You are doing a superb job - I love your blog.

    :smile:
     
  19. Apr 13, 2007 #18

    CarlB

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    Hmmm. I wonder if this has something to do with Lorentz violation.
     
  20. Apr 13, 2007 #19

    marcus

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member
    2015 Award
    Dearly Missed

    Here is the MiniBoone Collaborations's paper about the results

    http://www.arxiv.org/abs/0704.1500
    A Search for Electron Neutrino Appearance at the Delta m**2 ~ 1 eV**2 Scale
    The MiniBooNE Collaboration
    (Submitted on 11 Apr 2007)

    "The MiniBooNE Collaboration reports first results of a search for $\nu_e$ appearance in a $\nu_\mu$ beam. With two largely independent analyses, we observe no significant excess of events above background for reconstructed neutrino energies above 475 MeV. The data are consistent with no oscillations within a two neutrino appearance-only oscillation model."

    J. Conrad and W.C. Louis were the co-leaders of the collaboration

    here are some pictures
    http://www.fnal.gov/pub/presspass/images/BooNE-images.html



    here is the 12 April SciAm article about it
    http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleid=E73C8DC4-E7F2-99DF-3A9288CB19A810BB&chanId=sa026
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?